By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Why this gen will last 7+ years

Squilliam said:
Seriously... This thread fails. Its an Opinion piece and a bad one at that.

Hmmm. Maybe that's because your still posting in it

Opinion peice does not mean it fails, and it being a "bad one" is also an opinion and is slightly hypocritical.

 



Around the Network

Cmon Squilliam, follow the first line of your sig!

I think this is an interesting topic which I agree with. I do not think that there is much more room for improvement in graphics for the HD consoles, which could be a reason why they aren't in a rush to make a successor.



# of games above 75 on Metacritic (including downloadable):

360: 241     DS: 144

PS3: 152     PSP: 126

Wii: 85

The 360 gots another year at the most lol...



yeah i think the next console will be released in holiday 2012 which is exaclty 7 years after the release of 360



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

The arguments really are quite flawed!

Sony - "However, I don't think that Sony could have ever forseen the position they are in right now financially. I think its fair to say that Sony was not expecting MS to launch the 360 in 2005. Sony probably expected the price of their components (especially blueray lasers) to come down in time for a late 2007 launch, but were forced to luanch when they did because they knew a two year lead for Xbox would be nearly insurmountable. So by launching a year earlier than they planned, Sony took on huge, huge losses."

They forsaw precisely the financial position they are in now. They knew exactly how much money they were losing per console, they had reasonable forcasts of the number of sales they would get and they would have accounted for possible scenarios such as being forced to drop the price early. Furthermore the PS3 was launched late, not early. They couldn't get enough of the blu ray diodes to release it any sooner. The hardware was all finalized, they just couldn't produce enough of it.



Tease.

Around the Network
astrosmash said:

I've been lurking for a while, but decided to register because of a number of related discussions where I thought some relevent points are being missed. Rather than track down each discussion and explain the part of my thesis that is associated to the topic, I thoguht I'd put it all together in a new thread.

As the title implies, I think that this gen is going to last longer than other recent ones; in fact I think that seven years is a low estimate. The one caveat I make in this prediction is that no new players enter the console market in that time; if a new company comes storming in a couple years from now, everything I have to say might be invalidated.

If you look back at the history of generation changes starting in the mid-80s you will see that one company usually pushed ahead, forcing all the others to either update or be made irrellevent. First Nintendo with the NES, then Sega with Genesis, then Sony with Playstation, then Sega with Dreamcast, and most recently Microsoft with with the 360.  With that in mind here is a look at the three current players.

 

Nintendo

There seem to be a lot of people, especially hardcore gamers,  who seem to think that the Wii2 is just around the corner; this view shows an ignorance both of console history and of Nintendo.  First of all if you look at the list above of the companys that forced generation changes, you will see that the company in first place never forced the change.

Faulty assumption. There was no "forced" change. As one generation ends, each company begins R&D on their next console. They already have an idea as to when to bring it out, give or take a year depending on how they perform. The PS2 was coming out in 2000 regardless of the DreamCast, which was not taken as seriously as many of us would have liked.

The reason for this is simple - the company in first place is making tons of money and has no incentive to upset the current system. For that reason alone Nintendo would be unlikely to push a new gen unless they fall into a distant second. But even in second Nintendo won't force the generation change because Nintendo hates generation changes.  Nintendo had more incentive than any console maker in the past two decades to want the last generation to end - they were in third place, moving practically nothing, and knew they had a huge ace up their sleeve for this gen - yet Nintendo was the last to lauch this gen; in fact Nintendo has never been the first to launch except with the NES, which was their entry into the market.

You miss the concept of the Red Queen's Race - in business, a company that is ahead must innovate in order to stay ahead. Nintendo knows that it cannot be caught with its pants down next gen. The other companies have seen their success and are keen on duplicating it. One huge advantage Nintendo has this generation is that it is making a profit on the current hardware. While MS and Sony will need to stay in longer, at higher prices, just to offset their  console losses, while Nintendo has the luxury of being able to announce a new console whenever it wants. At some point the Wii demand will level off, and there will be price cuts, but the problem with starting with a low price is that there isn't very far to go. Moreover, as the other "Next Gen" consoles become more common place, and more HD tvs are sold, the more the market will become aware of Nintendo's technical shortcomings. Nintendo will end up being able to release a Wii2, likely with abilities superior to the PS3 and 360, at a low price, within a few years.

Sony

Its no secret that when Sony said that the PS3 would last 10 years, they meant that in 5 years the PS4 would come out and be their primary system (in the same manner that PS and PS2 have had production long after they left the spotlight).

However, I don't think that Sony could have ever forseen the position they are in right now financially. I think its fair to say that Sony was not expecting MS to launch the 360 in 2005. Sony probably expected the price of their components (especially blueray lasers) to come down in time for a late 2007 launch, but were forced to luanch when they did because they knew a two year lead for Xbox would be nearly insurmountable. So by launching a year earlier than they planned, Sony took on huge, huge losses.

Normally huge losses would be incentive for a company to end a generation, but I think in Sony's case it will be incentive to drag out the gen as long as possible. If the PS3 base continues to grow steadily, its conceivable that Sony will break even for the generation inspite of its start. And if the the generation goes on long enough after that PS3 could become quite profitable.

On the other hand, if the generation is forced to end prematurely, Sony will be in a huge pickle. Sony fans won't want to upgrade to PS4 if its just a baby step ahead of the PS3; Sony will be forced to create another loss leader just to compete with their own unit. But at some point the mother company or investors will say enough is enough. If the games division after a huge money losing PS3 says they are going to make a loss leading PS4, they will likely get the rug pulled out from under them.

So I think Sony will not end the generation till the PS3 has shown a good profit for the generation. PS4 development won't be a huge project for them till the PS3 is making enough to cover the R&D.

The problem with Sony waiting 7 years or more to launch the PS4 is that it is almost impossible to reverse fortunes after a generation is underway. While they have improved due to radical measures last year, they will still, essentially, be running a tight race with Microsoft for several years.  They cannot become number one this generation. In short, they have a losing hand, and their fortunes won't improve until a new hand is dealt. 

Microsoft

After everything I've just said, you might expect me to say that Microsoft is going to pull the trigger; after all they did last generation. Many people think that if the Xbox360 falls behind the PS3 that MS will just release the 720 in the same fashion they did the 360 - way, way, way before anyone would have guessed. Unless the XBox reverses current trends and not only wins the generation, but makes a good profit, I predict that MS will get out of the console business.

One of the biggest things that people seem to forget when talking about the future of the XBox is why it even exists in the first place. In the late 90s Sony was so dominant in the console business that Sony execs were talking often about how their real competition wasn't the N64 or the Saturn, but Windows. Sony was talking about how they intended the Playstation line to eventually include all the basic functionality of a pc and that they intended for Playstations to be in homes instead of PCs.

It all might seem a little silly now, but at the time it had MS really scared. At the time low end PCs were still going for more than $500, and there were still a lot of homes that didn't have computers or internet (and as such were seen as the best place for growth).

MS created the XBox to take the fight to Sony. Rather then let Sony leverage its lead in consoles to get it into the home computer industry, MS  decided to shake up the industry as best it could. Many an analyst has raised an eyebrow as MS has just thrown billions away in its XBox division. But in MS's mind the success of Windows XP can in part be attributed to Sony being kept out of the computer industry.

In the last ten years things have changed enough that Sony is no longer a threat to Windows ;PCs now sell for less than Playstations; Sony is no longer dominating the living room (and Nintendo seems to be quite clear that they don't want to do anything other than games); and Sony can't afford to engage in experiments till they have paid off the PS3 debts. In short, MS has no reason to be in gaming, unless they can make it profitable.

So my prediction for MS is that either they will be in a weak position, and just get out of the console market, or they will be in a strong position, and have no interest in ending this generation. (my money is on the former)

 

 

So, in summary, Nintendo won't end this gen in 5 years or so because Nintendo has repeated through its history shown an aversion to the five year cycle; if the other companys leave the power in Nintendo's hands, expect a 7 year cycle. Sony won't end this generation in 5 years or so because Sony can't afford to; Sony needs to get the PS3 in the black then bank the money to R&D the PS4. MS won't end this generation ever because the only way they are making another XBox is if they starting turning a big profit, and no company making a big profit ever ends a generation.

 

 I've seen no sign that MS or Sony has given up on the idea of a unified home entertainment system. If anything, MS must see that the market for downloadable entertainment is growing quickly,and that's a market they can bite into while eroding the BR market at the same time. And MS is in a position similar to Sony - they saw themselves knocked down from 1st to 2nd in just one year, and the longer this generation continues, the more likely they are to slip to third. Moreover, they more than Sony seem intent on stealing some of Nintendo's thunder, but they can't do that easily with the 360. They will need a new console, with a new "casual friendly" controller and price available at the start. While I doubt that they will cut and run in 4 years as per the XBox, they are unlikely to go more than 6.



interesting threat. Of course many doesn't agree but I do think too that this generation will last longer and it will change the way of making videogames, just like the 8-bit and 32-bit generations did.

I personally see this generation and how slow it has begun, Xbox360's first year was pretty unoticed and it wasn't until the end of it's 2d year that ist started to have more value. also, they just recently started to have some profit and they will keep supporting a little more.

PS3's failure wasn't expected by ANYBODY and therefore, sony would do whatever it takes to not end like Sega (something that is not hard for them at all).

Of course the "blame" ;P is to Nintendo 's Wii. It showed that there is a bigger market and its spec techs confused many developers who were used to cool graphx and sounds and 2 sticks and 8 buttons. Wii tries to go back to the core of videogames (fun above all) and many developers are reorginizng their priorities. If it keeps moving this way, Wii will be the winner of this generation and 3d parties will start to supporting it yet a bit late. With Wii, graphics are a comodty now so is just a matter of making good games from now on.

So,that's like 2/3 years more or else of reevaluation..plus 5 years of normal life...yeah I do think that it will last 7/8 years. That would be cool. I hate that consoles only last 5 miserable years.

But of course, nothing is written in stone in this industry ^^



astrosmash, I agree with your Ninty and Sony arguments.

I very much disagree about Microsoft, they will most likely come in at 3rd place this generation with 30-45 million consoles sold, they will be making a profit on the 360 by this time, but not a huge one. Thy will repeat their tactic of releasing early, in order to increase market share for next gen and twist the knife they have sticking in Sony



[edited out]  Sorry for the empty post



Nickelbackro said:
I really thing Sony Can skip a gen, what improvements can be made?

Fast Multicore Processors: Check

Physical Memory: Needs improvement

Disc space: Blu-Ray and Upgradable HDD so Check

Graphics Card: Since it handles 720p great i say check cuz i don't thing people will trade up just to get a console that plays 1080p for all the games.

I think at current we are getting to a point of diminishing returns, lets say in the past doubling processor speeds made graphics 2x as good, but now with systems already in the HD realm i don't see how creating a 16 core processor with 8 gigs of RAM is going to help to improve graphics dramatically.

I mean think about it, how much more detail will be apparent to the human eye. Lots of people have trouble determining 30FPS to 60FPS. And a good deal of the population doesn't have eyesight good enough to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Plus you can only have as much graphic detail as the programmers put into a game. And Devs are already moaning about how much they have to put in. Plus who wants sequels to release 10 years after the original?

 

 Some excellent points in this post.  The horsepower in future consoles will be used more and more for physics and AI.  The graphics are getting to a point where people will have a hard time judging the improvement.  With the time and budgets required to make a decent piece of software (hence the reason for less exclusive 3rd party titles), developers are likely pressuring the hardware manufacturers to stay the course.  However, they probably won't listen.  That will mean more and more shovelware/sloppy games/unfinished games.



Keep this in mind when reading what I type...

I've been gaming longer than many of you have been alive.