I dont see why it cant be a ten year life. The PSX had a ten year life and that was the weakest console of the generation. I think in 5 years time when Nintendo and microsoft release their new consoles at $250 and $399 respectively the PS3 will be $200 and have a massive library of games compared to the new Nin and MS consoles.

The PS3 probably wont win this generation, but it should win the next! ;P

tombi123 said: I dont see why it cant be a ten year life. The PSX had a ten year life and that was the weakest console of the generation. I think in 5 years time when Nintendo and microsoft release their new consoles at $250 and $399 respectively the PS3 will be $200 and have a massive library of games compared to the new Nin and MS consoles. The PS3 probably wont win this generation, but it should win the next! ;P

This is about the system still being a major player ten years from now, not a cheapo console for smaller gaming markets.

 

KoopaKidBilly said: Moore's Law only works if the market is willing to pay for the increase. Silicon has almost been pushed to it's limits. Many of the future tech that would be used to increase the number of transistors cost to much. I read some interesting articles on this recently. http://www.slate.com/id/2132826/ or http://home.earthlink.net/~moores-law/ I think this quote sums up the idea of Moore's Law best: Moore's Law END Lies in Economics, not Physics: <6.25 Bn. Has it stalled already? (The maximum transistor count has been stuck at 1.7 billion for over a year.) The next generation of consoles will surely show improvements, maybe they will borrow an idea from PC gaming and use multiple graphics cards, a specialized Physics card, ect.

 Honestly I am not seeing where the market is going to stop supporting this continuation of minituarization all the way until they actually reach the physical limits of reality.  Which isn't that far off in the grand scheme of things.  The economic side of things is that there are several businesses that have huge needs for faster computers and they will drive the initial research from there its a matter of refining the process same as always.  There have been doom and gloom naysayers about Moore's law for a long time and the entire time the industry has always looked ahead to the physical boundry and pretty much said "We'll meet you there...", its been going on for a while now and I haven't really seen anything that makes me think its not going to continue doing what its always done.

I don't think you understand the "10 year" strategy to which they refer. They do not mean that the ps3 will be the main Sony console for ten years, with the ps4 hitting shelves in 2016. They mean that the ps3 will be SUPPORTED until 2016. The were still manufacturing psOnes until 2005, with companies like EA still producing the usual Maddens, etc. for the system. That was ten years from the launch of the PlayStation in Japan. Similarly, the ps2 is still being heavily supported 7 years after it launched.

It's not that the the ps3 will be their primary console for 10 years, it's taht they will not abandon it once the ps4 is out. They will still keep it alive, for all those who do not feel the need to upgrade, for at least 10 years. How many Xbox-owners were burned when the 360 came out? Ps2 owners still got games like FFXII and GoW2 after the ps3 launched, and games like Manhunt 2 are still on the way.

makingmusic476 said: I don't think you understand the "10 year" strategy to which they refer. They do not mean that the ps3 will be the main Sony console for ten years, with the ps4 hitting shelves in 2016. They mean that the ps3 will be SUPPORTED until 2016. The were still manufacturing psOnes until 2005, with companies like EA still producing the usual Maddens, etc. for the system. That was ten years from the launch of the PlayStation in Japan. Similarly, the ps2 is still being heavily supported 7 years after it launched. It's not that the the ps3 will be their primary console for 10 years, it's taht they will not abandon it once the ps4 is out. They will still keep it alive, for all those who do not feel the need to upgrade, for at least 10 years. How many Xbox-owners were burned when the 360 came out? Ps2 owners still got games like FFXII and GoW2 after the ps3 launched, and games like Manhunt 2 are still on the way.

Really???

 

http://www.news.com/Let+the+PS3+games+begin/2008-1043_3-6110352.html

"We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation,"

"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."

PS - This was posted in this thread already, but I think you missed it.....

edit: made it a bit easier on the eyes. 

^
And 2 weeks ago:

"The power that we've packed into PS3 will really manifest itself in software titles that come up four, five or six years down the line."

(probably marketing spin at this point, but the quote above came prior to the PS3 launch)

That was obviously a knock at the 360, which came out 5 years after the Xbox. And since the Xbox was essentially abandoned, Xbox-only gamers were left in the dust as far as game selection goes.

The ps3, however, came out ~7 years after the ps2, and despite the ps3's launch, the ps2 is still being heavily supported by Sony, thus not "go[ing] by the wayside".

CrashMan said: ^ And 2 weeks ago: "The power that we've packed into PS3 will really manifest itself in software titles that come up four, five or six years down the line." (probably marketing spin at this point, but the quote above came prior to the PS3 launch)

And God of War 2, easily the best looking ps2 game to date, came out in 2007, ~7 years after the ps2 launched.

You guys are reading into this PR way to literally in an attempt to make Sony look bad. Just let it go, people.

 

 

in ten years a successor to playstation 3 will arrive that is 32 times as powerful as the current playstation.  This much is clear.  However, will a challenger arrive to the market place at a point in time between now and that time?  Microsoft has not provided any hints to this, and we could only speculate when and how this may occure.

Makingmusic476, X360 came out just 4 years after Xbox.

Average new console cycle is 5-6 years.

It would be silly to say "We won't push a new console on consumers in 5 years time" When just a year later they drop the new console so they truly meant 10 years.

Besides, if they plan to hold off a new console for 7 or so years, they'll get so lopsided with the generations and be a year or 2 behind Nintendo and MS with a new console and we know who being behind worked for Sony this time....not so well.

makingmusic476 said: CrashMan said: ^ And 2 weeks ago: "The power that we've packed into PS3 will really manifest itself in software titles that come up four, five or six years down the line." (probably marketing spin at this point, but the quote above came prior to the PS3 launch) And God of War 2, easily the best looking ps2 game to date, came out in 2007, ~7 years after the ps2 launched. You guys are reading into this PR way to literally in an attempt to make Sony look bad. Just let it go, people.

The fact that it took 7 years to make a game on the PS2 that looks like GoW2 shouldn't be a good sign.  Reportedly Nintendo is pushing for more "ease of development" with the Wii and that could have a major industry impact.

We shouldn't have to wait 7 years to get games which use the system's full potential.  If Nintendo can cut that time down to 2-3 years, then they can easily blow away competition with inferior hardware simply by virtue that superior games will be coming far sooner in the hardware's life cycle.  By the time competition gets its own games together (5-7 years) a new hardware cycle will be beginning.  At the same time, if Nintendo can keep the cost of each hardware cycle change to a minimum (and maintain backwards compatibility) they can retain their market between cycles.

Granted, you could replace Nintendo above with your favorite console manufacturer and the end result is the same however for now it seems Sony is going with the exact opposite strategy (more tech each life cycle + difficult development).