Five years ago Moore's Law absolutely applied to the gaming industry and you would be silly to say otherwise. Today, things are a little more complicated. We actually had Randy Pitchford (Gearbox President) speak at our graduation and he mentioned the Moore's Law idea and how it relates to the gaming industry and how Nintendo completely shook things up by taking a step back and how people are actually supporting this.

So to your original question: is the PS3 a 10 year console? They more than likely planned to have the same thing happen with the PS3 with the PS2 but that probably isn't going to happen. If BluRay doesn't survive it will actually have a better chance of surviving longer because Sony probably won't use the format in the PS4 but otherwise when they make the PS4 they will earn from their mistakes and do better that time around.

From a technical standpoint I see very little reason why the PS3 could not be a 10 year console, after all I still think that you could make some interesting and worthwhile Dreamcast games today. The reason the PS3 will not last 10 years is that the sales of the PS3 will not justify development after the next generation begins, and the next console on the market will be able to easily outshine the PS3 in its strengths.

A lot of what you're suggesting is flawed. First, doubling the number of transistors does not equal to doubling performance. This is a fundamental problem with your statements. Secondly, Sony never suggested they wouldn't replace the PS3 after 5 years. In fact, everyone expects they will. They simply claim that it will be a 10 year product in the sense that the PSX was a 10 year product (and its support ending last year).

Secondly, in absolute terms the PS3 isn't very powerful. It is much less powerful than almost any gaming computer sold this year. It has about 1/8th as much system memory as a gaming computer would, a fraction of the fill rate, etc.

Finally, I would question whether the PS3 could possibly be a 10 year product, even if that was advantageous to gamers in North America. Primarily, this is advantageous to Sony investors, because they want to understand how the PS3 can make a profit. Sony claims they'll be making a profit in years 2-10, basically, and that's why the back end will be rewarding enough to stick with it. They're also trying to convince 3rd parties that games will be on sale for 10 years for this platform.

The PSX and PS2 were able to be long term products because of pricing and cost. They got so cheap, that they would be 1/2 or 1/3rd of the price of a new console when the new console launched and their costs were so low that Sony could make a profit per unit sold at those prices.  That's the idea, anyhow.

The PS3, on the other hand, may still be almost the same price as the PS4 when the PS4 launches because the cost of components will remain high for a long time (it has many more components, and many higher cost components than the PS2 ever did). I assume Sony doesn't want to make the mistake of launching this costly of a console again, so they'll probably launch the PS4 at $299 or $399. If it launches at one of those price points, the PS3 will have to be under $199 to continue selling well, especially if the PS4 boasts backward compatibility. I don't know if Sony can manage this price for the PS3 while generating a profit, even after significant cost reduction.

Does Sony need to still be competitive graphics-wise in 5-10 years?

Some would have you believe that Nintendo's Wii isn't competitive graphics-wise now.  Shall we look at its progress?


I think the fact that graphics will improve is a given however Nintendo has seemingly hit upon two truths that others have yet to understand:

1)  Games should drive graphics.  Graphics for the sake of graphics make game development cycles longer and more costly without yielding a worthwhile benefit.  Graphics for the sake of making the actual game better and delivering a better experience are worthwhile.

2)  Graphics will improve by the nature of technology constantly evolving.  It's almost a given.  If your end all/be all is solely graphics, you're no longer bringing something unique to the industry.


If these truths can stand the test of time, the industry may be very different 5 years from now.

@Kytiara: If everything goes as currently stated, in 10 years we will see PS4 and 'Wii 3,' in 5 years we will have 'Wii 2' and the PS3

@tweserm: Again, my point is that sony is trying to bill the PS3 as this technical powerhouse, and that's why you should buy it, but in 5 years, it will be 'old' technology. With nintendo the focus is on the gameplay, not the technology, which is why its (comparatively) underpowered graphical abilities aren't an issue.

@TheBigFatJ: Well its difficult to compare a console with a gaming PC, as a gaming PC will ingeneral cost from 4 to 10 times that of a console, plus a PC can't dedicate all resources to the execution of the game code (now I understand that is not the case with consoles any more, but the footprint of console OpSys is much smaller than what you will see on a PC.) Also, Sony has really been billing the PS3 as Sony's console for 10 years, implying no plans for another console in 5 years, at least thats the impression they give to the public. This hasn't been a "We have plans for a new console in 5 years, but ut the PS3 will be around for 10 years." kind of PR.

The problem with Sony is not the PS3 hardware, nor will that be the problem in 5 years, but their marketing of the console, and I honestly think it will not be possible for them (nor allowed by their share holders when the time comes) to skip the next generation (if we see the typical 5 year turn around on consoles)

Sony made the "10 year" system remark for many reasons.

1. They thought they would dominate the market just like or even more then the PS2 did so that when the PS4 comes out in 2012 the then cheap PS3 could still sell for two, three or even four more years.

2. They wanted to people to feel that the PS3 was a long term investment, like a expencive TV or Hi-Fi system.

3. If you are not going to have a great start it´s always good to say that you are running a marathon not a sprint.

4. Round numbers are cool, face it, how long did the Roman Empire last ??? 1000 years. How lond did Hitler say the Third Reich would last ??? 1000 year. I´m not in any way comparing Sony to Hitler, I´m just saying propaganda needs catchy phrases like that. 

A lot of people are misinterpreting the 10 year remark. Let me say this again -- Sony wants the PS3 to be a 10 year product in the same way the PSX was a 10 year product. They will obsolete it with a PS4 in ~5 years, but they plan to continue selling the PS3 for an additional 4-5 years.

@TheBigFatJ: From SCEA Predient in Aug. 2006: http://www.news.com/Let+the+PS3+games+begin/2008-1043_3-6110352.html

Key quote: "We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation," said Kaz. "Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for ten years. We're not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside. So for all those reasons, I think at $599 we're offering a very good value to the consumers."

I think the PS3 is shooting itself in the foot with this 10 year plan. Honestly is just too far ahead to predict what will happen.

Was it a plan or was it just a spin on their current position? 

.
.
.

Are you sure?