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

Forums - Sony - Why the 10-year plan is feasible...

vaio on 16 September 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

You can make all the reasons why the 10 year plan might possibly work, but the reality is that the only systems to (really) survive past the beginning of the next generation were the market leaders. The reason for this is simple, the market leader has value beyond its processing power and features because of its large library and solid support from third party publishers.

 

 So?

The ps3 isnt selling like crap like the xbox or gc were, and sony has a huge 1st party studio bigger than nintendo's as well.

The ps3 is selling very well, and jus tbecause its not selling better than paper(wii) doesnt mean its dead.

 

What?

Are you in need of medication or is this the worst attempt at trolling ever?

 



Vaio - "Bury me at Milanello"      R.I.P AC Milan

In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird  and people take Prozac  to make it normal.

If laughing is the best medicine and marijuana makes you laugh

Is marijuana the best medicine?

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

“If any creator has not played Mario, then they’re probably not a good creator. That’s something I can say with 100 percent confidence. Mario is, for game creators, the development bible.

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 16 September 2008
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:

You can make all the reasons why the 10 year plan might possibly work, but the reality is that the only systems to (really) survive past the beginning of the next generation were the market leaders. The reason for this is simple, the market leader has value beyond its processing power and features because of its large library and solid support from third party publishers.

 

 This gen is quite different from the previous gens. Upgrades have primarily been about power boosts. Thats not the priority anymore. Ps3 is said to be "over-engineered" for  this gen's standards even. Don't you think perhaps, this engineering is what was meant for next-gen...just a thought. This is why, regardless of it's position at this time the black monster would most likely be sticking around even when nintendo releases a more powerful console to catch up with current standards.

Why would Nintendo bother catching up to "Current Standards"?

Nintendo will (most likely) release their next system in 2011/2012 which means that the top of the line systems of today will be as inexpensive to manufacture as the Wii was at launch; on top of this the success of the Wii will translate into developers realizing that they don't have to push the limits of a system in order to be successful, so there will be no need to limit processing power to keep development cost in-check.

Basically, you're argument is similar to saying "If Microsoft included a 100GB hard-drive in the original Zune, it would still be a viable system in 2010 regardless of what Apple comes up with"

 



coolestguyever on 16 September 2008

all great points. I like the firmware thing too. The PS3 does a lot more today than 1 1/2 years ago



obieslut on 16 September 2008

i agree, the ps3 is the most future proof machine out of anything that has come out this gen.

the ps3 will have the longest life span out of any console ever made.



Lolcislaw on 16 September 2008

PS3 is not selling good, is doing all right i suppose, but the expectations were much higher, sony predicter higher profits.

Facts are 10 year plan wont be determined by Sony PR team, it will be other developers who today are using 360 as main developing platform. PS3 as a brand struggles to fight with the Wii in all regions, PS4 might offer something newer and fresh, because PS3 concept is not working well.

And i do agree only dominating consoles can maintain long life, the loosing companies need to change.



Around the Network
Pristine20 on 16 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

You can make all the reasons why the 10 year plan might possibly work, but the reality is that the only systems to (really) survive past the beginning of the next generation were the market leaders. The reason for this is simple, the market leader has value beyond its processing power and features because of its large library and solid support from third party publishers.

 

 So?

The ps3 isnt selling like crap like the xbox or gc were, and sony has a huge 1st party studio bigger than nintendo's as well.

The ps3 is selling very well, and jus tbecause its not selling better than paper(wii) doesnt mean its dead.

 

 

I never said that the PS3 was dead ...

What you seem to miss though is that projects on the scale of PS3 games have only (really) been justified because of the combined XBox 360, PS3 and PC market and as the minimum requirements of most PC games surpass the HD consoles abilities (within 12 to 18 months) and the XBox 360 is replaced (within 24 months) it will become very difficult to justify PS3 development; consider that Gamecube/XBox games were about 1/4 to 1/2 of PS3 development which means that the PS3 would need a userbase of 40 Million to 80 Million people before it was as good of a prospect to support as the XBox and Gamecube were.

Now, beyond that you have to consider who is currently (and fore the foreseeable future) buying the PS3 ... early adopter graphic-whore/videophiles ... these people are the most likely to buy into the "next generation" of consoles being that they will (easily) surpass the current generation of consoles in every way while still maintaining an affordable price point.

But you're missing the fact that there would be NO more uber-powerful consoles again. This gen, the wii taught everyone a lesson. Hence, those looking for power would have only the PC to look upon. 

You're also missing the fact that ps3 dev costs would have fallen greatly by then and  new consoles would spike such costs again. Most publishers aren't willing to go through that spike again.

It is also possible for the ps3 to be between 40-80 million by then because it could have reached the $200 sweet spot where most sales are generated at that time. Also M$ themselves may not be too much in a hurry to release a new system.

Only ninty needs a new system due to hardware specs but they are the market leader and would love to sit on their laurels for as long as possible so me just may not be seeing new hardware in a while. In the previous episode, Pachter even suggests that the ps3 and 360 may be the norm for a LONG time like the SDTV because people seem to be satisfied with wii graphics even so whats the rush?

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 on 16 September 2008
RolStoppable said:
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:

You can make all the reasons why the 10 year plan might possibly work, but the reality is that the only systems to (really) survive past the beginning of the next generation were the market leaders. The reason for this is simple, the market leader has value beyond its processing power and features because of its large library and solid support from third party publishers.

 This gen is quite different from the previous gens. Upgrades have primarily been about power boosts. Thats not the priority anymore. Ps3 is said to be "over-engineered" for  this gen's standards even. Don't you think perhaps, this engineering is what was meant for next-gen...just a thought. This is why, regardless of it's position at this time the black monster would most likely be sticking around even when nintendo releases a more powerful console to catch up with current standards.

First, I agree with HS. Only the winning systems have long lifespans.

Second, you have it backwards. It's not Nintendo who has to catch up to current standards with their console, it's Sony.

I'm talking hardware specs...the wii is more powerful than the "over-engineered" machine now? You lost me...

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 on 16 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:
Pristine20 said:
HappySqurriel said:

You can make all the reasons why the 10 year plan might possibly work, but the reality is that the only systems to (really) survive past the beginning of the next generation were the market leaders. The reason for this is simple, the market leader has value beyond its processing power and features because of its large library and solid support from third party publishers.

 

 This gen is quite different from the previous gens. Upgrades have primarily been about power boosts. Thats not the priority anymore. Ps3 is said to be "over-engineered" for  this gen's standards even. Don't you think perhaps, this engineering is what was meant for next-gen...just a thought. This is why, regardless of it's position at this time the black monster would most likely be sticking around even when nintendo releases a more powerful console to catch up with current standards.

Why would Nintendo bother catching up to "Current Standards"?

Nintendo will (most likely) release their next system in 2011/2012 which means that the top of the line systems of today will be as inexpensive to manufacture as the Wii was at launch; on top of this the success of the Wii will translate into developers realizing that they don't have to push the limits of a system in order to be successful, so there will be no need to limit processing power to keep development cost in-check.

Basically, you're argument is similar to saying "If Microsoft included a 100GB hard-drive in the original Zune, it would still be a viable system in 2010 regardless of what Apple comes up with"

 

This is what sony is/should be devs don't need the extra processing power, why have it? I don't get it. You seem to be agreeing with me yet arguing at the same time. Sony was smart in the hard drive case. Space wise, word is that the ps3 can actually go up to 1.5 tera bytes so it'll be around. Heard of the 160gb ps3? Thats a sign of future SKU's to come.

 

 



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Pristine20 on 16 September 2008
Lolcislaw said:
PS3 is not selling good, is doing all right i suppose, but the expectations were much higher, sony predicter higher profits.

Facts are 10 year plan wont be determined by Sony PR team, it will be other developers who today are using 360 as main developing platform. PS3 as a brand struggles to fight with the Wii in all regions, PS4 might offer something newer and fresh, because PS3 concept is not working well.

And i do agree only dominating consoles can maintain long life, the loosing companies need to change.

 

 Yeah but you're not getting it. Change has always been about processing power. Wii changed all that. If the ps3 is "over-engineered" (as Pachter puts it) for this gen, exactly what are they changing to? The idea I got is that, its all about functionality now which is where firmware and accesories com into play. These sorts of things can be changed over and over again without upgrading the hardware. Trust me, for devs themselves, with the difficulty they had learning the ps3 architecture, I doubt they are in a hurry to see a new machine themselves.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

HappySqurriel on 16 September 2008
Pristine20 said:

This is what sony is/should be devs don't need the extra processing power, why have it? I don't get it. You seem to be greeing with me yet arguing at the same time. Sony was smart in the hard drive case. Space wise, word is that the ps3 can actually go up to 1.5 tera bytes so it'll be around. Heard of the 160gb ps3? Thats a sign of future SKU's to come.

 

 

 

No, I'm not saying developers don't need the extra processing power, I'm saying they will be far more responsible about producing games at a development cost that the sales of the game will justify.

The question is "Do you think if Microsoft had 'overbuilt' the Zune in 2005 that it would be able to compete with the iPod Touch today?"