@ Wierdkitten: Couldn't PS2 and Wii development be considered to be a better analogy? Its essentially a current generation and former generation console which are similar in performance like how many people expect the next generation to be relative to the current and yet PS2/Wii development was strong initially, but its fallen away markedly inspite of the ability to port between the two platforms.

You think the market is going to support six consoles?  I don't.

I've had this same argument with him myself.  I don't see how anyone can possibly think otherwise.  The only console that stands a chance of lasting after the next generation starts is the market leader (Wii).

He also seems to think that all the retailers will hold on to older systems for their software selling potential, even though a retailer will move on to the next console simply for future sales.  It is like any technology industry.  You don't keep selling mass amounts of early iPods or TV's or audio equipment.  When new stuff comes out, the old stuff is phased out rather quickly except for the "best" of the old stuff.  Even that see's a short extended life in most cases.

The only way a PS3 could catch up in sales before the next 3 consoles are released is if Sony does not release a next gen console and "skips" a generation or something like that.

You have no imagination then. It's supporting four right now - the bottleneck being in the content development more than the buyers - and the market being expanded with each "generation".

Development for PC/PS4/NextBox/PS3/360/Wii2 could be simpler than today's PC/PS3/360 + PS2 + Wii.

Plus, diminishing returns are starting to show on the hardware front.

@Squilliam

And still, even with the Wii being the only co-developed platform, the PS2 sells a good amount of software and a respectable quantity of hardware. Next time PS3+360 could take its place, with maybe a smaller install base but a more "standard" development toolchain.

@Nightsurge

I've explained my reasons yet in my previous posts. You're welcome to come up with a rebuttal to those, a similitude with TVs and iPods is quite poor because in this case what kills or makes a console is its content ie its library.

Each time a new console is not perfectly backward compatible, it's more akin to a format change, not just upgrading your old TV to a new model. And adoption of DVD/HD TVs/BluRay have shown that there's a growing resistance  to adoption of new technologies as the benefits of the investment look smaller and smaller.

Hello new guy. I was like you actually. The first thing I did in this forum was jump into arguments. Let's begin.

Who are you exactly? What degree to you hold  to make assertions about things you know to be true? You must be some first or second year college student studying statistics and market trends, but I think your classes have failed you bud.

First, welcome to the internet. For all you know, I could be a dog. But you are not saying this becuase my facts are wrong, or my argument is poor. You are saying it becuase you disagree with it. But, this is really irrelivent. Attacking the messanger is a common theme. Avoid it, as it means you are not up to snuff and have to resort to try and topple me in order to look reasonable.

This generation of consoles very closely resembles the 16-bit era. Looking at trends (examining only the two HD consoles against the SNES and the Gensis) the Genesis had the most steam and was steadily gaining in hardware sales due to popularity and their excellent software library at the time. The SNES was very far behind at this point and it wasn't until the halfway point of that generation that SNES really gained headway. If I remember correctly Donkey Kong Country was proclaimed as the systems savior and turning point. The point is the SNES was steadily making headway as the Gensis declined and eventually edged out the Genesis in sales. Need I mention there was a recession during the early period of this generation as well?

16 bit? Not at all. Let us look at this. The 16 bit wars was the first battle of symetric values since the D-pad became the current norm in the indurstry. Nintendo had abandoned their expanded audience to focus on their core (kids). Sega would come in as a new challanger. While Sega existed before, they never had the software to compete with Nintendo. Until Sonic came along. With software, Sega was a contender. The battle became one of pixles and what not. There was a big emphasis on sound, something we haven't seen for a while.

But this generation is nothing like the 16-bit era. A comparison to the Wii did not exist during the 16 bit wars. So, there is no disruptor. This prevents it from, being looked at though that lens. Also, Sega was a huge nobady the generation previously. In this one, the Xbox was still known. In the NES generation, the system dominated and had a monopoly on the market save for straglers. Also, this race is not about specs. Notice how no one talks much about which one is more power, but the features of the system. It is a war over features. Additionally, there was very little porting in the 16-bit era. Now, most of the software is shared by both systems.

The 16 bit wars just don't fit. Only the Arari generation and the NES generation can work as they both have a disruptor. Also, during the 16 bit wars, neither system was greatly overshooting the market. While there were a lot of lapse gamers, the systems never overshot what the market could absorb. While it got close, it never actually happed. There is nothing in common with the 16 bit wars and today. It just seems to fit your argument better.

The PS3 is showing the same trend and there are many similarities. In the begining of the 16-bit war, the power of the SNES wasn't really necessary as in this era the PS3 is in the same boat. The Genesis was selling at a lower price point and had the edge in the games people wanted to play. As the SNES's power was exploited it became necessary, because possibilities opened up that were simply not available on the Genesis. The same is happening with the PS3...primarily with games that are showing off incredible physics...GOW III is a great example. Opportunities for new game idea's and grander schemes are a going to take over this market which is flooded with casual games and hardcore FPS'. The same paralell could be drawn between the flood of side scroller action games on the Gensis and SNES which gave way to the RPG toward the end of the SNES' life and continued to saturate the market on the PS1.

Wrong, as neither the Genesis or the SNES overshot the market. The 360 and the PS3 did. The PS3 did in it's price alone. Also, neither the Genesis or the SNES was unafordable. While the value of money does change, the systems were still able to be bought by consumers. These systems are extradinarily expesnive. The PS3 was doing horrible thanks to it's price.

But technology did not win the "war." Software did. Go look at the software sales for SNES games and Genesis games, and you'll see the Genesis just can not compete. Consumers are no longer sold on more powerful machines becuase these machines overshooting what consumers can absorb. This is why the Wii is coming so easily.

Again, this is nothing like that generation.

The prediction to follow is that the PS3 will not sell anywhere near as much as the PS1 or PS2, will probably sell around 70 million units and edge out the 360 ever so slightly. If you look at trends between the consoles week over week for the last several months, the gap between the two consoles are steadily closing. Here recently that gap has only been a little over 10k units.

You can speculate all you want about prices and what can and can't happen, but this chart paints a pretty clear picture.  In order to overtake 360 worldwide sales in three years, the PS3 would have to outsell it by 51k per week every week for the next three years.  That just isn't going to happen.

The only reasonable figure on there is the 5 figure (260 weeks) and that's 31k per week every week for fives years.  By the time five years is over the "winner" of this generation will have already been long decided and it just won't matter.

So yeah, just accept there's absolutely zero chance of the PS3 overtaking the 360 in worldwide sales or in the Americas.  It's possible it may happen in Others, but even that can't happen for several years.

I'm not saying the PS3 is a failure by any means, I'm just say it can't "win" and it can't overtake the 360 in a reasonable amount of time.

-twesterm

As he says, it is near impossible. Now, you've mentioned a lot of software in the earlier paragraph, but let us look at what has been going down over the system's life. Fanboys have been crying forever that X will save the PS3 and it doesn't happen. At this time, only Metal gear Solid 4 has pushed PS3 hardware. GoW has been on decline for a while and probably wont meet expectations. Final fantasy 13 will onyl move consoles in Japan (just like 7 and 10 before it). There just isn't any movement in the PS3.

Sony will not be able to take over the Nintendo's right to throne this generation, that much is known and there is few that will dispute that claim with the way the numbers looks right now. Nintendo will get third party support and has, the problem are most of those exclusives were total garbage. I don't expect a great deal of those exclusives to be too great in the future either, save for 1st party Nintendo games which have been their bread and butter since the N64.

What you desribed is more like the NES. Third parties were almost non-existant on the system. Nintendo's software dominated it.

The argument that FF should be used as a bench mark for Sony consoles sales has some validity to it. That game will sell millions and will drive up sales of the PS3 in Japan at least. It will probably generate a good deal in America while doing little for MS becuase trends are starting to show the market is pretty well saturated by the 360. Also consider, by and large, that most JRPG players are Sony loyal and are eagerly awaiting to see this game. If you want to place money on a Sony system savior, then I would say that GOW III is most likely to be the system Donkey Kong Country.

As he says, it is near impossible. Now, you've mentioned a lot of software in the earlier paragraph, but let us look at what has been going down over the system's life. Fanboys have been crying forever that X will save the PS3 and it doesn't happen. At this time, only Metal Gear Solid 4 has pushed PS3 hardware. GoW has been on decline for a while and probably wont meet expectations. Final fantasy 13 will onyl move consoles in Japan (just like 7 and 10 before it). There just isn't any movement in the PS3.

I won't sit here and arrogantly assert that I am right about all of this, there are many holes in my arguments and while there are a lot of similarties (as I have drawn) there are also many differences. SNES games always looked consistently better than there Genesis counterparts, this time around many PS3 ports of 360 games look terrible in comparison up until the last year or so. That is one of many.

Let me teach you about argueing or debating. Your goal varies, but you are suppot to prove why your side is right, or more plosible. Me being arrogant is good becuase it means I'm standing my ground on the subject. You are acting timid. You say there are holes in your own argument.

Also, on the 16 bit wars, your argument fails in that you failed to identify that this generation is even like that one. You just said it was, and went along with it.

I do however completely disagree with your analysis that Sony will abruptly die and I think you need to look at your numbers again. Sony might not be number one, but it isn't going anywhere either.

I never understand this. "Sony isn't going anywhere." Everyone thought this about Nintendo, but Nintendo was doing far better than Sony is now. You only disagree becuase it is not a conventional wisdom.

The facts are clear as day. The company is losing the company millions (the gamecube was profitable), Sony is not in the game industry (the whole goal of the Playstation line was to disrupt computers so they are not tied to the industry in any other way), the company itself is in bad time (Nintendo never was), and the the mind behind it (Ken Kutaragi) is now gone. Investors will probabyl demand to end the Play Station experiment if it doesn't show profitability soon. The system wont have a long life since the Wii will gain more attention overtime and as owners become increasingly bored with the HD twins. The end of Sony sounds more plausible.

Regardless of all that, do you want to see Sony and MS out of the videogame industry?

So let me understand something. They spent billions in R&D. The hardware is right now crossing the hilltop of profitability, and the software is making them money.

You say that "Sony is not in the game industry" - weird, it certainly looks so - but now that they can make money out of the trojan horse they put in the living rooms, out of digital content and BluRay royalties and services, the investors will "demand to end the PlayStation experiment"? And what, close the PS3 fab sites, fire the first party developers and 1) renounce to the revenue and 2) renounce to the living room? What is the business sense of that?

It mainly depends on where Kingdom Hearts 3 winds up.

If by crossing the hilltop of profitiability you mean still losing $50 per machine then you're right.

Also, Sony is still predicting another 1 Billion loss for next year, so losses involved with currency, the PS brand, and other areas of their business are still very much a big issue.

Oh and isn't Sony cutting their suppliers in half?  Won't that cause a lot of strain on the others and possibly have quite a negative affect?

And Kingdom Hearts 3 won't matter.  It is one game.  One game doesn't change the game just like 100 games haven't changed the situation this generation.

Losing about $40 per console on the $399 models, and thus profiting a few tens dollars per console on the $499 models. Overall they are crossing into profitability, considering that launch PS3 did lose them more than $200 each. The software and accessories bring it all definitely in the black.

And again, how would cutting the PS3 life short help them financially? What has been spent in R&D in the past is not going to come back. They would be only losing revenue at this point.

Now if you said that they might want to not take as bold a step with the PS4, that might make more sense. But it's the lifespan of the PS3 we're talking of, and it's in the interest of Sony and its investors if it's as long as possible.