First I am sorry for replying so late but putting some thought in it takes time and I was working 12 hours shifts this weekend but here goes:

[Edit: put the ten points in bold to break the wall of text a bit. It is hard not to make a wall of text when you are replying to a whole article, sorry]  

Is it really an article? It looks to me like the best written fanboy post I have ever seen.

Why are his points bullshit?

1. Developers are Still Learning the System:
summary: PS3 is hard to program for like PS2 therefore it won't be maxed for many years and in 2014 developers will still unleash more power from it.

Rebuttal:
a. N64 was hard to program for and more powerful than the PS which is why it outlasted it when developers stopped using the PS1 but continued to unleash N64 power. Oh wait! N64 was a failure and developers didn't give a crap that there was more power to unleash on it.
b. Gamecube and Xbox were easy to program for and more powerful than the PS2 which is why they outlasted it as it was easier to unleash their more powerful potential. Oh wait! both Gamecube and Xbox were failures and developers didn't care that it was easier to coax power out of it than out of the PS2 and didn't max them out (except maybe RE4?), so if they won't be bothered to make full use of easy to develop, powerful hardware when it is a failure why would they make full use of hard to develop, powerful hardware when it is a failure.

Conclusion: The only way that developers will make full use of the PS3's power is if it is successful in the first place. Success is a prerequisite to having hardware routinely maxed out, not the other way around so the power of ANY console has nothing to do with how long they last.

It also means that as long as the PS3 is not successful and its superior hardware not put to good use all that money Sony is losing because that expensive superior hardware is going down the drain as it is spent on an unused feature.

2. The Blu-ray Life Cycle:
Summary: Every 10 years there is a new format so Blu-ray should make the PS3 last until about 2014.

Rebuttal: CD's were introduced in the early 80's and were used in consoles after they were mainstream in the 90's. DVD's were introduced around 1997 I believe and were used in consoles as they were on the cusp of being mainstream. Blu-Ray was recently introduced and is already being used in a console, before it being mainstream (hoping that using it in a console will make it mainstream) which shows that the use of Blu-Ray is premature (mainly due to its non-mainstream price).

The point is also rebutting itself by saying formats last around 10 years late 70's-late-80's; late 80's-late 90's; late90's-late 00's... oops late 2006. According to his own argument DVD's should last until the end of the decade so Blu-Ray is 3 years early. 3 years is 60% of a typical console lifecycle which means that it really should have been a next-gen feature, not a this gen feature.

3. The PS3 is Highly Adaptable:
Summary: PS3 is highly adaptable due to its use of Bluetooth and standard hard-drives.

Rebuttal: My PC doesn't have bluetooth; yet i a writing this on a bluetooth keyboard on my PC. How? With a small dongle connected to a USB port. I seriously doubt that MS would refuse to release such a dongle for the 360 if it proves as useful as the article writer seems it will prove to be and people for whom it would be useful can buy it for their 360 and those for whom it would be a waste of money can ignore it so I do not see the PS3 as having a bigger advantage that the 360 cannot match. Oh and the Wii has bluetooth too; does that mean that he think the Wii is highly adaptable?

As for the Hard Drive, both 360 and PS3 use standard hard drive so both can keep up with their evolution over time. PS3 does have an advantage as they chose not to wrap them in a proprietary layer, which makes it less expensive to upgrade your HDD on PS3. As for the data being moved from one HDD to another on the 360 it is not a technical limitation of the 360's HDD technology it is a political decision by MS to avoid people upgrading their HDD then giving the old HDD full of already bought stuff to somebody that didn't pay for them. It is merely a DRM scheme like what you can find on every game disc.

So while I would say that the PS3 does have an advantage in both of these areas I see them as minor advantages that will have little or no influence on the PS3 outlasting other consoles.

4. The PlayStation Network Can be Fixed:
Summary: PSN is one of the weakest point of the PS3 but it can be fixed and even leapfrog Xbox Live.

Rebuttal: It is totally irrelevant to the PS3's life length as that length is determined by mainstream success, not by online features (otherwise the original Xbox's superior online would mean it would have lasted longer than PS2's crappy online). Online is a great feature for the hardcore minority of the gaming population, but you do not extend a console's life cycle by pleasing the hardcore (unless you mean that PS3 will be alive in 2014 in the same way Dreamcast is alive today).

5. The PS3 is Prepared for HD Revolution:
Summary: The HD revolution is coming and PS3 is ready for it. Oh and Play TV shows just how cheap PS3 is compared to HD set-top-boxes.

Rebuttal: How long will it be until HD is prevalent enough in homes for it to be the dominant format? I seriously doubt that it will happen before 2009 and more likely 2010-2011 and by then it will be too late for it to change the outcome of this generation. HD is the future, there is no doubt about it, but it is not the present yet, and it is another PS3 feature that has come one generation too early. By the time the HD revolution is here the PS3 will be old news and people will be looking forward to the coming generation, unless PS3 replicates PS2's success that is.

6. Expect a Slim-line SKU:
Summary: PS2 had stable hardware [yeah, right, ever heard of disc read error and 13-14 versions of PS2], PS3 is huge but the lack of HW problems like 360 let Sony focus on making a slimline that can compete with Xbox 720.

Rebuttal: WT... Yes the PS3 is huge, but trying to make it seem like a good thing is rather amusing. Yes PS3 doesn't have HW problems like 360 and Sony engineers don't have to try to re-engineer it to solve them so they can do a slim-line but MS will probably engineer their problem out BY doing a slim-line 360 when Jasper is around as the advantages conferred to the PS3 by 65nm chips will also be conferred to the 360 by their 65nm chips.
And yes, it will make the PS3 cheaper but being cheap and more powerful is not enough to make you win, like the N64 and Gamecube taught us. This is especially true when you are 15-20 millions consoles behind the generational leader as PS3 is wont to be by then. All the use of 65nm chips can do for Sony is stop the huge losses they are taking on the PS3 by helping Sony selling them at a profit.

7. Sony is Popular in All Territories:
Summary: Sony doesn’t have to push forward the launch of their next console to make it a success in specific territories; MS might do something rash to break in Japan.

Rebuttal: The PS2 was popular in all 3 major territories. The PS3 is not. It is popular in Europe but it is about as popular in the US and Japan as the Gamecube. However Sony does have a better brand than MS so if they play their card right the brand name will not hinder sales like it does for Xbox in Japan but once again for it to happen they need to find another way to be successful first as success will not flow from the brand name (unlike what Sony thought when they believed they could sell 5 millions at $600 with no games available).

8. Sony Rules the Mainstream:
Summary: The PS2 beat the Wii to the punch with casuals with SingStar, Buzz, EyeToy, The Sims and Guitar Hero.

Rebuttal: Let's forget that The Sims is a PC game to start with, as all these casual titles were released way after Mario Party anyway which means that Casual gaming is nothing new for neither company. Both Sony and Nintendo expanded the audience toward casuals; Sony with the PS1 (the reason why it sold over 100 millions) and Nintendo with the NES (the reason why it sold 60 millions) and Gameboy (or rather I should say Tetris on Gameboy).
But casuals are a shifting goalpost as what attracted new casual gamers yesterday becomes part of mainstream gaming today and while PS2 did expand the casual demographic some it expanded it only half as much as the PS1 (or it would have sold 140 millions by now).
For this generation, Nintendo is leading the casual charge, starting with the DS (which is why it is the fastest selling console ever so far) and continuing with the Wii and Wii Sports in particular. MS and Sony can try to profit from it by making titles that suit to their taste but making titles that suit last generations' casual will not win them over, it will only win over last generations' casual.
This is why all 3 companies need to make games to cater to as many types of casual as they can just like they try to make games to cater to as many types of hardcore gamers as they can: RPGs, Shooters, Platformers... Casual is not a game genre like the others it is an umbrella covering many game genres, like hardcore is (with some genres or games under both umbrellas), and pleasing some casuals does not mean pleasing others and so far Nintendo's casuals seem to be potentially more numerous than Sony's (according to the Wii's current sales rate).

So does Sony rule the mainstream? No, it did but right now Nintendo does. So once again Sony's past domination of the mainstream will not help it give the PS3 have a long life, but if Sony manage to dominate this generation's mainstream then it will give the PS3 a long life. Sony shouldhurry up though because the Wii is closing their window of opportunity for this to happen.

9. The PS3 is Future-proof:
Summary: Because of points 1-8 we think PS3 is a full generation leap and the 360 is a half generation leap. Plus emerging markets should start buying consoles when the PS3 is in its prime.

Rebuttal: Because of points 1-8 I think that both PS3 and 360 leapt 1.5-2 generations power and feature wise*, meaning they are truly next generation (power wise*) with the Wii being the only current generation and DC/PS2/GC/XBox being last generation. MS and Sony had an arms race that made them sprint ahead and make us pay the price (hence why their console price is so much higher). In that sense they are future proof, but power does not help sales if you are not successful in the first place and when a new generation of consoles comes PS3 will be seen as old and busted even if it is only marginally less powerful than, say, the Wii 2. As for emerging markets, they will buy the winner of whichever generation they start to buy consoles in droves in, as long as it is easy to pirate games on it (like the PS2) and so far it seems that only the Wii fulfills both criteria.

10. The Ten-Year Plan:
Summary: Sony has a ten year plan so like the PS2 launched about 7 years into the PS1's lifetime and the PS3 launched about 7 years into the PS2's lifetime so will the PS4.

Rebuttal: Sony's ten years plan is the Emperor's new clothes and just like the Emperor Sony is naked and exposed to the elements. They are a business and they supported the PS1 and PS2 as long as it made financial sense, and they will support the PS3 as long as it makes financial sense or at least as long as there is hope for them make it a success. The PS3 will only last 10 years if it is successful, but success will not be a consequence of it lasting 10 years.


So the reason why the PS4 will not debut in 2014 but more likely around Christmas 2011 is because unless Sony manages to make the PS3 successful in the first place, by 2014 the PS3 will be long dead.

None of those 10 points will make the PS3 successful either by themselves or all together, however if Sony can find another way to make the PS3 successful they all can help make it more successful and live longer.

I personally have thought since E3 2006 that the PS3's success hinges on Sony's ability to drop the price fast and I thought at first that the $400 model was an excellent step in that direction; however due to the lack of BC (which is a deal breaker for me) I am not so sure anymore and think it will depend on whether the general public cares about it or not. If they do then the PS3 is f****d and it will be a failure, if they don't then it should get along fine (though the Wii is barring it from being this generation's leader).

It is a shame that instead of introducing the 40GB at $400 they didn't reintroduce the 20GB at $400 with GS for software/hardware emulation.


*generations are not defined by power but by release date so all 3 are actually current generation, but two of them have powers close to the next generation.

Only time will tell...

It all depends on how the PS3 performs over the coming 2-3 years and how the Wii and 360 perform as well.

IMO, Nintendo have anticipated the next arrival of a Microsoft console around 2010/11 and I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Nintendo system on the shelves around this time as well.

Sony on the other hand have put too much in the PS3 for them to introduce a new system in such a short timespan.  Also they will not want to be 2nd or 3rd to release a new system as well, so they will potentially be caught in the middle again.

There is no doubts that Sony are preparing a PS4 at this moment, but I reckon they will rethink their strategy to introduce a better price to the market.  But what will Sony do?  And when will the PS4 arrive?

Well 2014 is a bit far off.  It's 7 years this year to be precise.  Which would mean the PS3 would have effectively been on the market for 7-8 years.  This is a similar timescale to the PS1-PS2 and PS2-PS3, but I just don't know.

One thing is for certain.  The PS3 needs to grab 2nd spot and quickly.  If it can get 2nd spot off the 360 by the end of 2009 and grow considerably from there, then I can see Sony sticking with the PS3 for a long time.  But if it is still playing catch come the end of 2009 and is a lot behind the Wii and a bit behind the 360, then very possibly, Sony may introduce their new system early. 

I the article up to the point where he tries to convince you that the Wii plays only a minor role in expanding the market and that really it was the PS2 that "really" has been doing all the expansion. But he tops it off by not even mentioning the DS.

There was a lot of trolling in the fact that people were posting without substantiating their posts in the beginning. However, with that said, everyone who said it was BS was dead on correct.

There are so many portions of the article where I felt lulled into listening to something that nobody debates only to have him use that to conclude something completely unrelated. Basically this article is the fanboy equivalent of a good ole fashion "Song and Dance" routine.

Their extreme Bias is confirmed in their linked article about the 360, where they are pretty brutal I felt.

edit: @W29, if you wanted just  Sony user input why didn't you specify that in the title and/or the OP?  In any case the question is one in which you don't need to own the console to have perspective on the issues. 

Nintendo fans are mean!!

quite the necro bump

didn't read it, but saw the date it was posted. Pretty good guess by this person.

nice job reviving a old thread.....somehow I doubt the OP is gonna care lol.

Funny thing is that this could end up being true as Europe could get it in 2014.

how the fuck did you even find this thread?

Google searched vgchartz ps4, just so i can laugh at there faces!

Holy necro, batman.

Some people are eating crow on this. I thought it would be 2014 as well. But I think the industry crashed too soon so here we are.