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

Forums - Sales - Five reasons why the 360 will probably have a longer lifespan than the PS3

Squilliam on 05 April 2009
forevercloud3000 said:
1. 360 being out longer more likely means it will make a sooner exit for it will become more stale then PS3 sooner. The hardware is already inferior to the PS3's and lacks the tech to stand the test of time.(SideNote: this is still not a sure thing because XBOX exited first and came out last, but Sony wont have that problem.)

2. BluRay is slowly being adopted by consumers. Every year BD sales are rising to the declining DVD sales. BD's marketshare is also rising. BD can and will be a deciding factor just as DVD was at the inception of the PS2 era. When PS2 became cheap enough many would buy multiple ones instead of an actual DVD player because they were about the same price but PS2 had more functionality. BD also insures the PS3 won't be outdated.

3. Consumers are also slow to adapting with the PS3. This is bad for PS3's immediate sales but good for it's life span. The slower the pace the longer it lasts. PS3 is nowhere near done with selling. THe price is still really high, too high for most who want one. As the price slowly trickles down over the years more people will be getting one.

4. RROD and E74 killed any inclination that the 360 can last as long as PS3 for many(definitely Me). 360 has the largest failure rate seen in years for any console (PS2's was much smaller in comparison). That has/and is turning a lot of people off to the system. Many are jumping ship(from my perspective) like my friends who in the last few months all got PS3's due to 360 failure.

5. In a few years when all 3rd party developers create nothing but Multiplat games, Sony's 1st party will tie them over. Sony has the more 1st party studios than MS and Nin combined, as well as more IPs to choose from while creating new ones everyday.

6.PS2 did/is doing it. This is not to say the PS3 is in anyway the PS2. Yet this speaks more on the fact that Sony is willing to stick to their lifeplan for the system. Sony may have many screw ups this gen, but making their system's stand the test of time is one thing we know they know how to do. They are not completly clueless about what they are doing.

1. Not really a difference the layman can readily spot, and the Wii may very well outlast them both and its far inferior to both in terms of specifications.

2. Not really, people don't buy PS2s to play DVDs when it doesn't come with a remote and standalones are less than half the price.

3. Not really, they are slow to adopt the PS3 but they are adopting the Xbox 360 and Wii at a faster rate. Theres a limited pool of readily willing consumers and its slowly dwindling.

4. Not really, once the Xbox 360 slim is released people will forget the reliability issues as they did for the PS2.

5. Not really, once Sony releases the PS4 1st party support will be pulled. Precedent? The PS2 and that had a far larger userbase.

6. Not really, its not something Sony arbitrarily decides. Its a market decision. Being 3rd/Tied for 2nd doesn't give a console a long time on the market it never has and it never will. The SNES had a long lifespan but it didn't help the N64s lifespan did it?

 

 

 



Tease.

Around the Network
EaglesEye379 on 05 April 2009
DMeisterJ said:
Staude said:
SmokedHostage said:
blackstar said:
SmokedHostage said:
blackstar said:
EaglesEye379 said:

 

Sony

 

Resistance

3.5

Motorstorm

3.5

GT5P

3

Uncharted

2.5

LBP

2

Resistance 2

1.5

R&C ToD

1.5

Heavenly Sword

1.5

KZ2

1.5

Total

20.5

 

 

MS

 

Halo 3

9.5

Gears

6

Gears 2

5

Forza 2

4

Fable 2

2.5

Mass Effect

2

PGR4

1.5

Crackdown

1.5

Viva Pinata

1.5

PGR3

1.5

Perfect Dark Zero

1.5

Total

36.5

 

nice list but u forgot MGS :)

It's first party, not third party.

ME and gears are first party?

 First party published.. yes.

More like second party.

MS doesn't own Epic, or BioWare, so we take down 13 million units, and the 360 is 3.5 ahead.  Rol is correct, they are about equal.

But down the line, this will change as Sony has tons of first-party games hitting relatively soon, while MGS is only interested in publishing third-party games.

What does owning a developer have to do with anything? In fact, you could say that MS makes more money per game for Gears/Halo than Sony does from Uncharted/Resistance because MS doesnt have to pay certain infrastructure/premise costs that Sony has to finance. Hence, if we are talking about pure 'selling power', MS publishing rights for Gears/Halo are more lucrative. Also, then do we have to remove LBP/KZ2/Heavenly Sword?

Down the line, yes things may change but its still to be proven, and so far only MS has succeeded in creating an original mainsteam IP in HD - Gears. 

 



BTFeather55 on 05 April 2009
Squilliam said:

1. Not really a difference the layman can readily spot, and the Wii may very well outlast them both and its far inferior to both in terms of specifications.

2. Not really, people don't buy PS2s to play DVDs when it doesn't come with a remote and standalones are less than half the price.

3. Not really, they are slow to adopt the PS3 but they are adopting the Xbox 360 and Wii at a faster rate. Theres a limited pool of readily willing consumers and its slowly dwindling.

4. Not really, once the Xbox 360 slim is released people will forget the reliability issues as they did for the PS2.

5. Not really, once Sony releases the PS4 1st party support will be pulled. Precedent? The PS2 and that had a far larger userbase.

6. Not really, its not something Sony arbitrarily decides. Its a market decision. Being 3rd/Tied for 2nd doesn't give a console a long time on the market it never has and it never will. The SNES had a long lifespan but it didn't help the N64s lifespan did it?

 

 

 

 

      Well, as long as I continue to get the same amount of T and M games from Japan under Nintendo that I have the last two gens under Sony, then I don't guess there's a problem anywhere. 

 Hey, wait, did you hear that Reggie isn't even bringing Fatal Frame IV to the US despite the fact it is the best-selling Fatal Frame game ever?

 



Heavens to Murgatoids.

forevercloud3000 on 05 April 2009
Squilliam said:
forevercloud3000 said:
1. 360 being out longer more likely means it will make a sooner exit for it will become more stale then PS3 sooner. The hardware is already inferior to the PS3's and lacks the tech to stand the test of time.(SideNote: this is still not a sure thing because XBOX exited first and came out last, but Sony wont have that problem.)

2. BluRay is slowly being adopted by consumers. Every year BD sales are rising to the declining DVD sales. BD's marketshare is also rising. BD can and will be a deciding factor just as DVD was at the inception of the PS2 era. When PS2 became cheap enough many would buy multiple ones instead of an actual DVD player because they were about the same price but PS2 had more functionality. BD also insures the PS3 won't be outdated.

3. Consumers are also slow to adapting with the PS3. This is bad for PS3's immediate sales but good for it's life span. The slower the pace the longer it lasts. PS3 is nowhere near done with selling. THe price is still really high, too high for most who want one. As the price slowly trickles down over the years more people will be getting one.

4. RROD and E74 killed any inclination that the 360 can last as long as PS3 for many(definitely Me). 360 has the largest failure rate seen in years for any console (PS2's was much smaller in comparison). That has/and is turning a lot of people off to the system. Many are jumping ship(from my perspective) like my friends who in the last few months all got PS3's due to 360 failure.

5. In a few years when all 3rd party developers create nothing but Multiplat games, Sony's 1st party will tie them over. Sony has the more 1st party studios than MS and Nin combined, as well as more IPs to choose from while creating new ones everyday.

6.PS2 did/is doing it. This is not to say the PS3 is in anyway the PS2. Yet this speaks more on the fact that Sony is willing to stick to their lifeplan for the system. Sony may have many screw ups this gen, but making their system's stand the test of time is one thing we know they know how to do. They are not completly clueless about what they are doing.

1. Not really a difference the layman can readily spot, and the Wii may very well outlast them both and its far inferior to both in terms of specifications.

I dont count on the Wii lasting longer then the PS3 OR 360. This is still speculated opinion on both our parts.

2. Not really, people don't buy PS2s to play DVDs when it doesn't come with a remote and standalones are less than half the price.

They actually do, Ive watched as countless people come in to gamestop looking for a PS2 as a DVD/Gaming system. I am not saying it is as big a selling point as Price and Games, but one nevertheless. THe remote doesn't matter, you can use the controller. The PS3 is even better at this because Sony actually advertised it as a BluRay player.

3. Not really, they are slow to adopt the PS3 but they are adopting the Xbox 360 and Wii at a faster rate. Theres a limited pool of readily willing consumers and its slowly dwindling.

Like I said, the slower, the longer. Everyone knows sales greatly increase after a price cut. PS3 has MANY price cuts ahead of them before it even gets close to mainstream. The fact that the PS3 is at such a high price point and still selling relatively close to it's HD counterpart shows true staying power.

4. Not really, once the Xbox 360 slim is released people will forget the reliability issues as they did for the PS2.

No proof of a Slim even in the work and is complete Speculation. PS3 is more likely to get a slim seeing as everysingle one of their systems has got one. That would still extend the PS3's lifespan longer then 360's.

5. Not really, once Sony releases the PS4 1st party support will be pulled. Precedent? The PS2 and that had a far larger userbase.

Not if the whole Idea is to extend the lifespan of the PS3 to as long as possible. If Sony wants that to happen(and 3rd party wont) then they would have to support it. I highly doubt we will get the overlapping of console generations next gen because of the uprise of MP games this gen, so this wont even be a problem. Sony wont release the PS4 until the very last legs of the PS3's life.

6. Not really, its not something Sony arbitrarily decides. Its a market decision. Being 3rd/Tied for 2nd doesn't give a console a long time on the market it never has and it never will. The SNES had a long lifespan but it didn't help the N64s lifespan did it?

I am saying they are skilled in the art of making their system appealing for prolong amounts of time.

 

 

 

 

 



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Squilliam on 05 April 2009
BTFeather55 said:

 

      Well, as long as I continue to get the same amount of T and M games from Japan under Nintendo that I have the last two gens under Sony, then I don't guess there's a problem anywhere. 

 Hey, wait, did you hear that Reggie isn't even bringing Fatal Frame IV to the US despite the fact it is the best-selling Fatal Frame game ever?

 

I heard, and then i cried. But so long as PAL gets a release im happy.

Anyway, Japan isn't what it used to be in terms of M/T games. Its not such a happy place to look for gaming Nirvana compared to the past. Those $99 PS2's and my BC PS3 are a godsend for me wanting to play anything from that island which is decent.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
BTFeather55 on 05 April 2009
Squilliam said:
BTFeather55 said:

 

      Well, as long as I continue to get the same amount of T and M games from Japan under Nintendo that I have the last two gens under Sony, then I don't guess there's a problem anywhere. 

 Hey, wait, did you hear that Reggie isn't even bringing Fatal Frame IV to the US despite the fact it is the best-selling Fatal Frame game ever?

 

I heard, and then i cried. But so long as PAL gets a release im happy.

Anyway, Japan isn't what it used to be in terms of M/T games. Its not such a happy place to look for gaming Nirvana compared to the past. Those $99 PS2's and my BC PS3 are a godsend for me wanting to play anything from that island which is decent.

 

 

 I don't see too many games like Idolmaster or Arcana Heart being developed in the West.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

.jayderyu on 05 April 2009

As usual eating PR baby food is easier than bothering to listen to historical facts.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

Legend11 on 05 April 2009
RolStoppable said:
kennyrester said:
RolStoppable said:

Finally someone tries.

1. Microsoft will keep producing 360s until they stop selling. The first Xbox could have been continued all throughout 2006 on customer demand, but Microsoft chose not to, because they were losing so much money on it. The same won't be true for the 360 and that's why they will be producing it as long as people buy it.

2. The reason why Microsoft stopped making the Xbox was already explained. The PS2 still continues to sell, because customers are still interested in it. The PS2 also is a winning console, that's why it has such a long lifespan (just like the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PS1, Game Boy and GBA). Systems that don't win their generation are usually discontinued quicker, because third party support dries up faster and customers lose interest and favor the winning system. Neither the 360 nor the PS3 are winners, so they won't enjoy an extended lifespan like the PS2.

3. and 4. With both of those things being about equal, as well as point 2 bringing another tie, everything leads to point 5.

5. Since both the 360 and PS3 aren't winning systems and their software support is so closely tied together, they will likely stop selling during the same year. Let's assume that's going to be the case by the end of 2013, for example. That gives the 360 an eight year lifespan and the PS3 a seven year lifespan, because the 360 was launched a year earlier.

 I think I might have found a (relatively small) flaw

 

This statement seems to jar a bit as, if your assumption about the ps3 and 360 being so closely tied together is true, then they have a 51.1% market share for third parties to sell to. This, coupled with relatively poor third party sales on wii, would mean that from the point of view of third party developers the ps3 and 360 are, together, this generations "winning system".

 

So, third party support will continue for both consoles and it'll come down to which company decides to take the initiative and release their next machine first, which, judging by the success they found releasing first this gen could very well be microsoft. This would presumably gradually switch the attention of both MS and xbox fans to the new console and lead to a decline in sales and eventual stop of support, which would hand the (frankly meaningless) prize of longest 7th gen HD lifespan to the ps3

First post so please be gentle when telling me how wrong I am

Third party sales on the Wii are healthy and numerous publishers have already stated that they are going to increase their support from this year onwards, because it's hard to turn profits off of HD games which are very costly to develop. On the Japanese side of things, the success of both handhelds is also taking away a lot of resources from the HD consoles. Depending on if you look at Japan or the whole world, there are three or two systems that are better options to make games for than the HD consoles.

Big franchises will remain on the HD consoles because they are making money, but over time more and more of the new IPs and smaller games will move either to the Wii or the handhelds (this is already happening), because the risk of losing money is much lower on those platforms. It's doubtful that third parties see the HD consoles as winning systems when it is so hard to make money on them (as can be seen in their financial reports).

 

I think the cost of HD game development is probably the most important factor for some companies, at least the ones known more for hardcore games, giving more support for the Wii.  For example if HD game development did not cost more than Wii game development it's likely that many of the companies having financial problems wouldn't be having them.  In fact they would likely be just as successful as last generation since many are making record revenue this generation.  DLC which is also more established on HD consoles would also make HD game development even more lucartive in that case.

As for more new IPs appearing on Wii, I agree if you're talking about casual games made for the expanded audiences or niche Japanese games.  If you mean hardcore games then I think you're mistaken because the 360, PS3, and PC captured that audience (just look at sales of games like MadWorld, CoD:WaW, etc) to see that.  I should correct that last statement, the Wii does have a hardcore segment but for the most part they buy Nintendo first-party games.



The on 06 April 2009

let's not get over our heads now talking about the future.



Rpruett on 06 April 2009
Legend11 said:
RolStoppable said:
kennyrester said:
RolStoppable said:

Finally someone tries.

1. Microsoft will keep producing 360s until they stop selling. The first Xbox could have been continued all throughout 2006 on customer demand, but Microsoft chose not to, because they were losing so much money on it. The same won't be true for the 360 and that's why they will be producing it as long as people buy it.

2. The reason why Microsoft stopped making the Xbox was already explained. The PS2 still continues to sell, because customers are still interested in it. The PS2 also is a winning console, that's why it has such a long lifespan (just like the Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PS1, Game Boy and GBA). Systems that don't win their generation are usually discontinued quicker, because third party support dries up faster and customers lose interest and favor the winning system. Neither the 360 nor the PS3 are winners, so they won't enjoy an extended lifespan like the PS2.

3. and 4. With both of those things being about equal, as well as point 2 bringing another tie, everything leads to point 5.

5. Since both the 360 and PS3 aren't winning systems and their software support is so closely tied together, they will likely stop selling during the same year. Let's assume that's going to be the case by the end of 2013, for example. That gives the 360 an eight year lifespan and the PS3 a seven year lifespan, because the 360 was launched a year earlier.

 I think I might have found a (relatively small) flaw

 

This statement seems to jar a bit as, if your assumption about the ps3 and 360 being so closely tied together is true, then they have a 51.1% market share for third parties to sell to. This, coupled with relatively poor third party sales on wii, would mean that from the point of view of third party developers the ps3 and 360 are, together, this generations "winning system".

 

So, third party support will continue for both consoles and it'll come down to which company decides to take the initiative and release their next machine first, which, judging by the success they found releasing first this gen could very well be microsoft. This would presumably gradually switch the attention of both MS and xbox fans to the new console and lead to a decline in sales and eventual stop of support, which would hand the (frankly meaningless) prize of longest 7th gen HD lifespan to the ps3

First post so please be gentle when telling me how wrong I am

Third party sales on the Wii are healthy and numerous publishers have already stated that they are going to increase their support from this year onwards, because it's hard to turn profits off of HD games which are very costly to develop. On the Japanese side of things, the success of both handhelds is also taking away a lot of resources from the HD consoles. Depending on if you look at Japan or the whole world, there are three or two systems that are better options to make games for than the HD consoles.

Big franchises will remain on the HD consoles because they are making money, but over time more and more of the new IPs and smaller games will move either to the Wii or the handhelds (this is already happening), because the risk of losing money is much lower on those platforms. It's doubtful that third parties see the HD consoles as winning systems when it is so hard to make money on them (as can be seen in their financial reports).

 

I think the cost of HD game development is probably the most important factor for some companies, at least the ones known more for hardcore games, giving more support for the Wii.  For example if HD game development did not cost more than Wii game development it's likely that many of the companies having financial problems wouldn't be having them.  In fact they would likely be just as successful as last generation since many are making record revenue this generation.  DLC which is also more established on HD consoles would also make HD game development even more lucartive in that case.

As for more new IPs appearing on Wii, I agree if you're talking about casual games made for the expanded audiences or niche Japanese games.  If you mean hardcore games then I think you're mistaken because the 360, PS3, and PC captured that audience (just look at sales of games like MadWorld, CoD:WaW, etc) to see that.  I should correct that last statement, the Wii does have a hardcore segment but for the most part they buy Nintendo first-party games.

 

And just to add onto that.....Why is there this assumption that HD development costs are always going to remain 'too' costly for the publisher?  Many of the losses incurred by developers have gone into Research and Development,  Designing 'Next Gen' engines, etc.  One of the costliest parts for many or most of these developers is over.   The HD consoles have over 50% of the market share and maintain far more similarities than the Wii.   When you factor in the ability for games to hit all three platforms (PC, 360, PS3)  it becomes even more lucrative.   Also,  when you factor in the better networking across all three platforms it's easy to see why developers will continue to support the HD consoles first and foremost.

Addtionally (Sony atleast and possibly MS) are going to be matching smaller market PSN games and their budget.  So these publishers won't be flocking to the Wii as implied.  They could make a loss free quality title on the PSN and XBL and probably make nothing but profit for doing so.   While also gaining familiarity with the HD consoles in the process. 

 

Wii will get more support because it's shown it has staying power.  The Wii however will be very lucky to get much beyond 50 - 55% of the marketshare though.