What? Kart > GT, Pokemon > Final fantasy. God of war and shadow of the colossus, could not care less about such mediocre games.

So the losses made from the PS3 are going to drive Sony out of the industry?

It's just not going to happen. The losses aren't extreme enough. Sony is a massive multimedia giant who can afford to take a hit like that and keep rolling. They even turned a profit last quarter, so things aren't all gloom and doom.

As much as you might not like it, Sony are here to stay.

I think it's fair to say we have now established:

1. 35 million is a large sum of gamers, and labelling them "a few hardcorez" is a massive understatement.

2. Sony "owned" the last two generations.

3. Saying a X console has the better games than Y console is a subjective opinion.

4. Sony is not going to leave the gaming industry anytime soon.

All in all, quite a productive few posts.

No, those losses propably are not enough to get rid of sony. But the next playstations losses will. Dreamcast, anyone?

1) There are a lot more of real gamers than those harcorez.

2/3) Sony owned the sles, not the games. It is the same crap over and over again.

4) You wish.

@Yoshi!

Stop being a fanboy and stop trolling the thread. Sony dominated the industry for two generations. Whether you cared for their games or not that is fact. You shifted your argument midstream to profitability to try and change the subject. The profitability of Sony and Nintendo is a completely separate argument from market share and game preference is subjective.

@The Topic

As for the tread topic, it would make sense for Sony to keep a similar architecture financially. It would certainly keep costs down. However it would more than likely put them at a technological disadvantage if they go with the minor upgrade the article suggests. I would think Sony would at least feature a full G5 PPE with out of order execution to replace the current stripped down PPE in Cell. I would also expect Sony to get a more well thought out GPU setup. The RSX was a late addition to the PS3 architecture and it shows.

Let's also remember, if Sony are planning to use Cell-based tech for PS4 and PSP2, that makes their sinking of $3b into its R&D much easier to justify. They may eventually make those costs back after all.

A smaller and slightly more powerfull version of the cell sounds like a good idea in terms of cost and HW needs for game development. We already know the Cell can do alot, but console games today are limited by RAM. Get the ram right and some GPU upgrades and I don't see a need to remove the cell for a different CPU. This way the dev's won't have to complain about development being "too hard" or "too complex" since they are already getting good practice this gen, and alot of them seem to have things going well right now.

So now there will be another playstation?

...

That's a good summary of your replies.

Wow... I thought he was just a fanboy, but this is trolling to the max. It's like the N64/PS1 and the GC/PS2 era never existed..... Ninty took risks and made moves this gen. This is why they are currently on top. And the fact that SCE's first MAJOR handheld currently has 30%+ market share on nintendo's current handheld after more than 3 years is a major success against Nintendo for SONY.

@topic
They just need a better graphic chip and more RAM, it would be a hardware monster again