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

Forums - Sony - Why PS3 should probably have a longer Life span than PS2. (Just an Opinion)

Noobie on 12 May 2009
arsenicazure said:
Noobie said:
arsenicazure said:
Noobie said:
...

you have to OPTIMISE games for motion tech, you cant just release a controller and go.. here you go.. play all the games that were unoptimised for this technology with this whole new controller! so that makes all the previous software library on the console INCOMPATIBLE with the new controllers.

2. You know what, fuck digital downloads... The way memory is getting cheaper i wont be surprised if console makers move back to carts, hell you can find 8GB chips for under $10. Heck thats AS cheap as a blu ray disc.And most(99%) games would FIT on a 8GB flash chip. Now factor in that 32nm tech is gonna hit memory- so its going to get even more cheaper and roomier.

3. I never said SONY launching a new console would be cheaper- I said the current console is so expensive to make and so complicated by the time they get the price down to mass market levels($200), M$ would be ready to launch the 720 or nearing it, and if m$ are smart as they have proven they are- they would price their BASIC SKU at the 259-299 price range. Now what would consumers buy- a 5 yrs old PS3 or a shiny new xbox720

4.The ps3 sells certain titles better than the xbox yes but on the whole xbox still has the edge.. and its common sense why.. coz they spend LESSER on their console, ergo they have more money to spend on software.

The ps3 is too darn complicated, the yen is too darn strong and the economy is too darn shit. Too darn bad. The ps3 will NOT outlive the PS2. better luck next time.

 

1. Yes even if they launch new console they will have to all these steps plus if we apply your logic all PS1, PS2 and PS3 games will be INCOMPATIBLE..?

so isn't it going to be a better solution to keep this controller and make the motion tech controller optional or add motion tech controller with the games requiring motion tech controller. just like Guitar hero games come bundled.

2. First decide wot u want, digital download or games on memory stick. Just remember Blu-Ray the cost difference of Blu-Ray or Memory Stick are going to be negligible.. so why even talk abt.. i m sure single disc of Blu-Ray will cost less than a dollar within couple of yrs.. 

3. launching a new console is not going to solve the problem for anyone. If PS3 can run games available of XBOX 720 in the high Def with 30fps than it will be a better option for many ppl. When anyone is buying a console, its all about games.. isn;t it.? so point is either they do radically something different like virtual reality games for which they require lot of processing power or i don't see a need for new console too soon.

4. Does it make a sense.? the answer is PS3 still have to go a long way in American market and it can't reach that market until or unless its price is not reduced.. As you can see from many threads here that Sony is producing more games for PS3 with every passing yr and also third parties are putting equal title on PS3. so i don't see Sony at a disadvantage.

 

1.OK the PS3 has officially dropped off BC, so the whole chapter of BC with older games is a moot point..secondly no one really wants to play Gran turismo 1 with a "waggle".. like i said motion tech is probably going to be a standard alongside the dualshock.. like how the wii currently has the classic controller for some games and the wiimote for others.

2. DO you remember the wonderful days of SNES, genesis,N64.. you could purchase cart games from stores! n you didnt need to download them! same theory applies here.. digital downloads would just be icing on the cake.

3. again..i dont even know if you READ anything i said.. so here ill make it simple.. PS3 current price $500, price in two years.. around $200+, NEW XBOX 720 with "waggle" from scratch.. probably $299.. with better graphics.. which one would ppl buy?

4. yea.. its the damn price.. which is killing them.. when your competition is half your price, you can only sell SO much. the PS2 was a worldwide success and sold millions in the "other" regions. The ps3 at this price point isnt making anyone in "BRIC" or other countries, drool.

The ps3 has too many bottlenecks, unlike the PS2, and is very very unlikely to last as long as 10 yrs on the market.

1. So u agree we need games which can take advantage of motion controller.. so if PS3 adds motion controller and make games which take advantage of the controller , wots wrong with it.? wot advantage a new console will have over making motion controller and motion controller games for PS3.? I still don't get it why we need a new console. i think even you accept Wii has more than one controller. So if PS3 make few games which need motion controller than they can bundle a motion controller with it.? can't they? 

After all why we need a new console, which will require new OS, new compilers, new game engines and only then we will be able to make new games on it. PS3 has much more processing power than wii, it has option to attach external controller and one can attach different controller with it.. so why not just give this option to PS3 instead of taking the expensive route.?

2. SO wots the point here??? PS3 already have full length games like Burnout to be purchased directly from PSN and u can buy it on the disk too. so is it any different.? Tomorrow they can add more full length games over PSN.. so why we need a new console for it.

3. In 2006 the XBOX360 was on the market for whole yr. Still PS2 sold around 12 million and XBOX sold less than 7 million. In 2007, the XBOX sold around 8 - 9 million, PS2 sold 10 million and PS3 sold 8 - 9 million. So the simple conclusion i see is that ppl buy the console which has the  quality games and which is cheap too. only in 2008 PS2 sold less than the HD consoles cuz many games either looked too outdated and many companies dropped the support for PS2 so many of the new games were not available on PS2. 

Each new console needs around 2 yrs after launch to get the tech ready and in the case of PS3 it took over 2 yrs to get support, game engines and infrastructure ready for it. So until or unless PS3 is not seriously lacking in game output (like XBOX displayed at 4k resolution and PS3 is displaying at 1k resolution and reasonable number of ppl have TV or screend taking advantage of 4k resolution of XBOX) only then they will require to replace it..

4. Thats wot i m saying that the time when the PS3 will become affordable is a little far.. so thats why its going to stay a little longer.. i mean it seems totally stupid that when PS3 hit $200 spot and is profitable and is ideal for customer u replace it with a new console with a $400 price tag and which maynot be profitable for Sony.. i don't see any sense in it.. or u r trying to say that when PS3 will be profitable at $200 price spot, the PS4 will be at $150 and profitable.????

I think we r going in cyclic argumentation.. so i won't bother to reply again.. My point is only that if with PS3 they r in red for 2 - 3 yrs and when PS3 will start giving them profit they r not going to dump it. Nintendo can dump their console anytime cuz they never loose money on the hardware.

where, as as far as i understood, u r trying to say that when PS3 will become profitable hardware wise they r going to dump it and launch a new console which will push the Sony Computer Entertainment division again in red and thats the right strategy..

Honestly speaking i can't find sense in it. but i do respect ur opinion.



http://techorate.blogspot.com/

http://caylu.wordpress.com/

Around the Network
Killergran on 12 May 2009
Noobie said:

1. So u agree we need games which can take advantage of motion controller.. so if PS3 adds motion controller and make games which take advantage of the controller , wots wrong with it.? wot advantage a new console will have over making motion controller and motion controller games for PS3.? I still don't get it why we need a new console. i think even you accept Wii has more than one controller. So if PS3 make few games which need motion controller than they can bundle a motion controller with it.? can't they? 

After all why we need a new console, which will require new OS, new compilers, new game engines and only then we will be able to make new games on it. PS3 has much more processing power than wii, it has option to attach external controller and one can attach different controller with it.. so why not just give this option to PS3 instead of taking the expensive route.?

2. SO wots the point here??? PS3 already have full length games like Burnout to be purchased directly from PSN and u can buy it on the disk too. so is it any different.? Tomorrow they can add more full length games over PSN.. so why we need a new console for it.

3. In 2006 the XBOX360 was on the market for whole yr. Still PS2 sold around 12 million and XBOX sold less than 7 million. In 2007, the XBOX sold around 8 - 9 million, PS2 sold 10 million and PS3 sold 8 - 9 million. So the simple conclusion i see is that ppl buy the console which has the  quality games and which is cheap too. only in 2008 PS2 sold less than the HD consoles cuz many games either looked too outdated and many companies dropped the support for PS2 so many of the new games were not available on PS2. 

Each new console needs around 2 yrs after launch to get the tech ready and in the case of PS3 it took over 2 yrs to get support, game engines and infrastructure ready for it. So until or unless PS3 is not seriously lacking in game output (like XBOX displayed at 4k resolution and PS3 is displaying at 1k resolution and reasonable number of ppl have TV or screend taking advantage of 4k resolution of XBOX) only then they will require to replace it..

4. Thats wot i m saying that the time when the PS3 will become affordable is a little far.. so thats why its going to stay a little longer.. i mean it seems totally stupid that when PS3 hit $200 spot and is profitable and is ideal for customer u replace it with a new console with a $400 price tag and which maynot be profitable for Sony.. i don't see any sense in it.. or u r trying to say that when PS3 will be profitable at $200 price spot, the PS4 will be at $150 and profitable.????

I think we r going in cyclic argumentation.. so i won't bother to reply again.. My point is only that if with PS3 they r in red for 2 - 3 yrs and when PS3 will start giving them profit they r not going to dump it. Nintendo can dump their console anytime cuz they never loose money on the hardware.

where, as as far as i understood, u r trying to say that when PS3 will become profitable hardware wise they r going to dump it and launch a new console which will push the Sony Computer Entertainment division again in red and thats the right strategy..

Honestly speaking i can't find sense in it. but i do respect ur opinion.

You're still looking at it fromt he wrong perspective. Try to think more about the consumer perspective, and you'll see what wrong with your arguments.

It's all about how the consumer views and uses the product, not about what it can do or what it is made for. Sometimes you can rebrand your product. It's very expensive and difficult, and you can never be sure of success. To rebrand the PS3 to a motionsensing console would be extremely difficult, and quite possibly detrimental to sales.

In 2006, the xbox and the next generation was a vague promise and the PS2 was still the coolest thing around. Even though it had dropped to about half its best year sales (21 million). It was clear that the PS2 was going out of style, however, and it had even started to hit the population roof in some countries (Japan), but it was still the only viable option. Today, it is not, and sales reflect that. And exactly where do you think the PS3 will be when faced with the same situation? When new consoles emerge, stronger and better than the PS3, more modern, recieving spanking new games.

And I don't understand how you can spin the PS3's high price as a positive factor. Yes, it is possible today to create a console more powerful and less expensive to manufacture than the PS3. So the PS4 might launch at the same price, or just above, the PS3.

 

What's important is that people want your product, and that they want it bad enough to pay what you're asking for it. PS3 has problems on this point. It's actually losing to everything except the PS2. Quite clearly, the way Sony is doing business right now is not what consumers in general want. So the question is, if Sony keeps on doing what it's doing, how is that going to change the public opinion?

Also, a tip would be to, when you're finished writing, replace all the wot with what. It makes your arguments look stupid, regardless of their validity. Correct spelling and use of language can be a useful tool in any argument.



This is invisible text!