^ Someone can say that the PS3 will be on the market less time than the Xbox 360, by those standards nobody can say its true or not. However there is evidence like for example many previous generations had the lowest selling consoles on the market for the least length of time.

Theres no precedent to infer that the PS3 will be on the market for longer than the Xbox 360 but theres at least past precedent to say that it would be on the market for less time. Between those two positions the strongest position would be based around the 'less time on the market position' as there is more evidence to back it up.

Squilliam said: ^ Someone can say that the PS3 will be on the market less time than the Xbox 360, by those standards nobody can say its true or not. However there is evidence like for example many previous generations had the lowest selling consoles on the market for the least length of time. Theres no precedent to infer that the PS3 will be on the market for longer than the Xbox 360 but theres at least past precedent to say that it would be on the market for less time. Between those two positions the strongest position would be based around the 'less time on the market position' as there is more evidence to back it up.

This generation is different compared to former console generations. The PS3 is about to outsell the life-time sales of the runner up of the previous generation (it for example already outsold the Amiga 500 life-time sales multiple times over as well, despite the Amiga 500 lasted longer on the games development market than the original XBox) and the software line-up of what is known to be under development is second to none.

If historic evidence is anything to go by Sony's take is more than credible regarding their underlined anticipated lifespan for the console. Sony has proven they are able to support their platforms with great first and second party software. With the PS1 and PS2 they have a topnotch track record, IMO enough to give Sony the benefit of doubt (at least more so than its rivals).

Specs wise the PS3 was designed to last longer than the other consoles, that's a very important reason why it has Blu-Ray, the Cell, a default harddrive, etc. Sony's first parties are oozing with talent, just look at Uncharted 2, only Naughty Dog's second effort on the platform so far.

Regarding the profitability argument, we already knew before the PS3 launched Sony invested a lot of money and it would take a long time for them to become profitable. Sony was able to take the beating (other companies in the past in similar situations weren't as strong as Sony is) and it is a large part of why the PS3 is such a great deal from the technology standpoint. So of course once they turn profitable on the hardware + software sales they need to keep the platform alive and kicking for as long as possible, to earn back these investments and in the end generate a profit (of course mostly through software sales).

MikeB said: This generation is different compared to former console generations. The PS3 is about to outsell the life-time sales of the runner up of the previous generation (it for example already outsold the Amiga 500 life-time sales multiple times over as well, despite the Amiga 500 lasted longer on the games development market than the original XBox) and the software line-up of what is known to be under development is second to none. If historic evidence is anything to go by Sony's take is more than credible regarding their underlined anticipated lifespan for the console. Sony has proven they are able to support their platforms with great first and second party software. With the PS1 and PS2 they have a topnotch track record, IMO enough to give Sony the benefit of doubt (at least more so than its rivals). Specs wise the PS3 was designed to last longer than the other consoles, that's a very important reason why it has Blu-Ray, the Cell, a default harddrive, etc. Sony's first parties are oozing with talent, just look at Uncharted 2, only Naughty Dog's second effort on the platform so far. Regarding the profitability argument, we already knew before the PS3 launched Sony invested a lot of money and it would take a long time for them to become profitable. Sony was able to take the beating (other companies in the past in similar situations weren't as strong as Sony is) and it is a large part of why the PS3 is such a great deal from the technology standpoint. So of course once they turn profitable on the hardware + software sales they need to keep the platform alive and kicking for as long as possible, to earn back these investments and in the end generate a profit (of course mostly through software sales).

This generation is different to the previous two because the first place console hasn't gone for a strategy of maximising sales through the use of heavy price cuts which means that the 2nd and 3rd place consoles can gain a higher market share and be more viable. However it isn't really different to the other generations before the PS1 because in those generations more than one console could be profitably produced. The rest can be ascribed to simply the fact that the market has expanded so more consoles will be sold than the generation previous which has happened every generation since consoles began.

Sony proved with the PS1/2 that they can follow the precedent of any top selling console in a generation and sell it well into the next generation. This doesn't prove that they can do the same with say for arguments sake a 3rd place console. Aside from the two GT games per generation they haven't really produced top flight software of the likes Nintendo has in abundance to hold a console on their own. Microsoft doesn't really have that either but the difference is that they aren't in the spotlight here.

Theres no doubt that Sony developers are oozing with talent and that the PS3 is a powerful machine, however there are three things I caution about this. Firstly, the PS3 isn't significantly more powerful than the Xbox 360, not enough to matter longer term. Secondly the point of diminishing returns has been reached with console performance so the only way to really WOW consumers now is with a new generation of consoles and thirdly the HDD which is default for the console will continue to cost them $35 or so per PS3 and the price they pay gets higher as the generation progresses as the rest of the machine gets cheaper. This is why I doubt that they will be able to sell the machine for less than $150 when the time comes.

Sony knew the PS3 was likely to be unprofitable initially, however slow early sales and a quick platform saving price cut were required to stem the bleeding. They lost more money than they expected to and revenue from software sales ramped up slower than they expected as well. Their best bet at this point with limited resources is to continue to sell the PS3 as long as possible and a longer generation is likely in their best interests now that they don't have the whole of the industry following their every move anymore so a reboot is out of the question which leaves recooping their investment over the next 6 years of so.

 

Squilliam said: ^ Someone can say that the PS3 will be on the market less time than the Xbox 360, by those standards nobody can say its true or not. However there is evidence like for example many previous generations had the lowest selling consoles on the market for the least length of time. Theres no precedent to infer that the PS3 will be on the market for longer than the Xbox 360 but theres at least past precedent to say that it would be on the market for less time. Between those two positions the strongest position would be based around the 'less time on the market position' as there is more evidence to back it up.

Precedent: Neo Geo

alephnull said: Squilliam said: ^ Someone can say that the PS3 will be on the market less time than the Xbox 360, by those standards nobody can say its true or not. However there is evidence like for example many previous generations had the lowest selling consoles on the market for the least length of time. Theres no precedent to infer that the PS3 will be on the market for longer than the Xbox 360 but theres at least past precedent to say that it would be on the market for less time. Between those two positions the strongest position would be based around the 'less time on the market position' as there is more evidence to back it up. Precedent: Neo Geo

You could also mention the Master System in Brazil, but could you really say the PS3 could survive on a niche part of the market?

Ya bloody Oracle!

_{Note: Even if you work for Oracle your current employer is at present teaming up with Microsoft and others to sue the good IBM for abuse of monopolistic power in the server market. *From what I hear*}

You can't say that because PS3 sold better in the same timeframe, it is ahead of the 360, since what matters to developers/publishers is how many consoles are in the market right now.

I am one of the pepole who think that a turnaround between the PS3 and the 360 is possible, since I think that there are still a lot of fans of the Sony brand, fans who don't have enough money to buy a 600$/400$ console out there, so I think a price cut will have a large scale effect.

Console sales don't drop off when a company releases the successor to their console, they drop off when someone releases a new console which cannibalizes the sales of their console.

Now just because Nintendo or Microsoft release a new console doesn't mean that their current consoles will see sales fall to 0 quickly, and it's likely that the PS3 would see its sales hit because newer/cooler systems with more processing power and fancy features had been released; and if these new consoles are released at a reasonable price ($300 to $400) and the PS3 is still fairly expensive ($250+) their release could have a very negative impact on the sales of the PS3.

In this environment where the wind is taken out of the sales off all current generation consoles due to the release of next generation consoles, it will be difficult for the PS3 to outsell the XBox 360 by 8 Million units unless Microsoft mishandles the release of their next system.

@ Squilliam

I think it is and it does for the long run.

If a rival releases a console with better graphics capabilities, IMO better AA, higher max FPS and higher max resolution than the PS3 is capable of isn't that big of a deal. As long as the PS3 can deliver high quality graphics and audio (Blu-Ray storage streaming, harddrive caching), solid 30 FPS (more frames than movies) high definition graphics with few aliasing issues, etc. I actually prefer BioShock on the PS3 (suboptimal PC/360 orientated UT game engine) over playing a higher res/fps PC version for many different for me far more obvious reasons.

What's IMO more important at this point is really flexible processing power and the Cell may well top even a new XBox in this regard. The PS3 can probably keep up technically with regard to potential on screen activity and game complexity for many years to come.

I think once the PS3 hits the right pricing geared towards teens and later maybe even preteens I don't think the powerful PS3 specs matters as much, IMO the Nintendo Wii's success underlines this. I think it will rather be sequals to games like Jak & Daxter, Ape Escape, Sly Cooper, etc combined with the right pricing which will attract a younger audience.

Squilliam said: alephnull said: Squilliam said: ^ Someone can say that the PS3 will be on the market less time than the Xbox 360, by those standards nobody can say its true or not. However there is evidence like for example many previous generations had the lowest selling consoles on the market for the least length of time. Theres no precedent to infer that the PS3 will be on the market for longer than the Xbox 360 but theres at least past precedent to say that it would be on the market for less time. Between those two positions the strongest position would be based around the 'less time on the market position' as there is more evidence to back it up. Precedent: Neo Geo You could also mention the Master System in Brazil, but could you really say the PS3 could survive on a niche part of the market? Ya bloody Oracle! Note: Even if you work for Oracle your current employer is at present teaming up with Microsoft and others to sue the good IBM for abuse of monopolistic power in the server market. *From what I hear*

> You could also mention the Master System in Brazil, but could you really say the PS3 could survive on a niche > part of the market?

Define "survive". :P

I was just giving a precedent. Although I do think all of the current generation consoles will be around for a very long time for both economic and fundamental tech reasons. Plus, from a competative game theory point of view, unlike every previous generations all three firms seem to have nothing to gain by "defecting" and putting out a new system early.

> Ya bloody Oracle!

_{> Note: Even if you work for Oracle your current employer is at present teaming up with Microsoft and others to sue the good IBM for abuse of monopolistic power in the server market. *From what I hear*}

Well, I should point out that right now intel pays my bills (compiler research grant) these days. I do still work on some side projects with the linux on cell group though and most of my non-matlab code runs on the POWER or the PS3 cluster. However, I do keep up with all the gossip via IM and facebook (and occasionally lotus, arg) with my contacts at IBM. Will post about the iBM intrigues on your profile as this is pretty OT.

MikeB said: @ Squilliam Theres no doubt that Sony developers are oozing with talent and that the PS3 is a powerful machine, however there are three things I caution about this. Firstly, the PS3 isn't significantly more powerful than the Xbox 360, not enough to matter longer term. I think it is and it does for the long run. 1, If a rival releases a console with better graphics capabilities, IMO better AA, higher max FPS and higher max resolution than the PS3 is capable of isn't that big of a deal.  2, As long as the PS3 can deliver high quality graphics and audio (Blu-Ray storage streaming, harddrive caching), solid 30 FPS (more frames than movies) high definition graphics with few aliasing issues, etc. I actually prefer BioShock on the PS3 (suboptimal PC/360 orientated UT game engine) over playing a higher res/fps PC version for many different for me far more obvious reasons. What's IMO more important at this point is really flexible processing power and the Cell may well top even a new XBox in this regard. The PS3 can probably keep up technically with regard to potential on screen activity and game complexity for many years to come. I think once the PS3 hits the right pricing geared towards teens and later maybe even preteens I don't think the powerful PS3 specs matters as much, IMO the Nintendo Wii's success underlines this. I think it will rather be sequals to games like Jak & Daxter, Ape Escape, Sly Cooper, etc combined with the right pricing which will attract a younger audience.

1, the 360 is doing that right now on a lot of games so what makes you think a machine that can do that all the time isn't a big deal?

2, Solid 30fps? neither console is doing that across all games but the ps3 suffers far more than the 360 and as for few AA issues. The PS3 has nothing but AA issues. the method it uses leaves a lot of games blurry and needs added effects to cover it up. As for High Def, a lot of ps3 games are sub HD.

If the PS3 struggles against the xurrent xbox then how will it cope against a new xbox or even WiiHD?