Sony: PS3 "Inherently Future-Proof"

[Emabulator]

Computer and Video Games has word that Sony has reiterated (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=207656) their commitment to a ten year life-span for the PlayStation 3.

Speaking in a statement given to T3 magazine, the company said: "PS3 won't celebrate its second birthday in the UK until March of this year, and we've said all along that the life-cycle for this generation of hardware will be longer than previous models.

"PS2 was still going strong after eight years, and with the power the Cell processor provides, not to mention the fact that PS3 is inherently future-proof, we see the PS3 sales curve far outlasting that of PS2."

[Meusli]

They hope...

[oldjadedgamer]

The market will dictate how long your product lasts... not the company making it.

[lost]

Although I think the Wii was perhaps a little to quick to take this route after playing games like Gears 2, the demo for Killzone 2 and other lookers I wonder how much more power we need. Maybe Sony is right not to be rushing.

If the next upgrade merely allows most developers to match Epic and Guerilla with ease I reckon I'll be happy.

[Zander]

PS3 is inherently future-proof

I'm not sure how he thinks this could be true. Yes, the HDD can be upgraded but beyond that what make the unit future-proof?

[RMan]

If the next upgrade merely allows most developers to match Epic and Guerilla with ease I reckon I'll be happy.
Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the magical content creating console.

[oldjadedgamer]

I'm not sure how he thinks this could be true. Yes, the HDD can be upgraded but beyond that what make the unit future-proof?

Or things like the HDMI spec. What happens when HDMI 1.4 is released? Or 802.11n? Or gigabit ethernet ports, Those things cannot be upgraded.

[lost]

I'm just saying I believe technical difficulties hold back some developers from going all out graphics-wise.

A console that had the power to make the current gen's best easier and less time consuming to match would be cool.

[Flatpicker]

Or things like the HDMI spec. What happens when HDMI 1.4 is released? Or 802.11n? Or gigabit ethernet ports, Those things cannot be upgraded.

These things will only matter to the hardcore technophiles.

Sony is wrong in saying that this generation is future proof, but, once they are able to render photo-realistic images in realtime you will see the life cycle for these systems stretch out to the 10/15 year mark.
In essence, they will become like televisions. You only replace your set once the old one breaks.

[RMan]

I'm just saying I believe technical difficulties hold back some developers from going all out graphics-wise.
That's not actually true, top end graphics technology has been developed by many developers and the technology is easily licensed. Very few, however, can afford to pay/cultivate the massive stable of artists required to make that art. Great looking graphics are about great looking art, great audio is about having great sound/music, and so on.

There are certainly hardware improvements that could help make games look better, but not by much, not enough to make a new console look that great. Of course, if more money is put into the 1st/2nd party games, it can be made to look more impressive, but that means the next console would have to triple budgets again to make a smaller impact, and I don't think any of the console makers can pull that off enough to make it worthwhile. Budgets have been pushed as far as they can go for the vast majority of developers.

Sony's definitely right about current technology longevity, not sure about the outselling the PS2 though.

[kwolf]

The market will dictate how long your product lasts... not the company making it.
Stop thinking logically! It's sony. :)

[grognard66]

I guess they subscribe to the theory that if you repeat something often enough it "inherently" becomes true. Technology doesn't conveniently stop advancing because it's in Sony's best interest for it to do so.

[ElektroDragon]

I just hope my 60GB PS3 (well, 360GB now) lasts this long, because my warranty has been voided and the warranty sticker is completely missing. I had to open it, you see, for cleaning and to fix the twistable logo which had fallen out. Hopefully only the BD-ROM will eventually fail, and I'll be able to fix that with a replacement on my own. Hopefully.

[ElektroDragon]

These things will only matter to the hardcore technophiles.

Sony is wrong in saying that this generation is future proof, but, once they are able to render photo-realistic images in realtime you will see the life cycle for these systems stretch out to the 10/15 year mark.
In essence, they will become like televisions. You only replace your set once the old one breaks.

Good points. What happens when the the technology hits a ceiling so that another maxed out 1080p realtime Shrek-graphics console wants to replace your current maxed out 1080p realtime Shrek-graphics console? It must become like a TV.

[Roc Ingersol]

Sony knows there's no technical merit to the 'future-proof' claim.
They're just saying the usual bullshit to try and counter the sticker-shock.

It's more of an emotional argument to make PS2 owners reflect on how long they had their PS2 and hopefully decide that an extra couple hundred dollars for something that gives so many years of fun wouldn't be so bad.

Logically speaking, it's pure bullshit. But what else are they going to say? It's not like they can afford to cut the price, or even hint that they might, in the near future.

[lost]

Ach let's not start the conspiracy theories. This comment wasn't made on a big enough stage to be any legitimate attempt at hype.

I think he's basically said something pretty stupid under a bit of pressure. The PS3 is good for another 6 or 7 years but here's hoping the future lasts longer than that.

[Franjo]

Or things like the HDMI spec. What happens when HDMI 1.4 is released? Or 802.11n? Or gigabit ethernet ports, Those things cannot be upgraded.

It does have gigabit ethernet already

[XenonCJ]

I expect the next generation of consoles to be "Super-Wiis" with ultra-realistic motion capture controllers. Where will the Futureproof-PS3 be then?

Answer: My future-proof garbage can.

[RMan]

I expect the next generation of consoles to be "Super-Wiis" with ultra-realistic motion capture controllers. Where will the Futureproof-PS3 be then?
Actually, it'd be fine, since if the controllers were standard, then it'd easily be a peripheral.

[rpgedgar]

You people need to learn to read between the lines. Obviously what they're saying is that the PS3 can stop the space-time continuum.

[lockwoodx]

Who else but sony? giggity giggity

http://blog.evil-monkey.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/neverobsolete.jpg

[lost]

Latest model for $99? Wonder if they're still honoring that.

[kwolf]

This news (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/intel-is-shooting-for-playstation-4-but-has-it-scored.ars) may have had something to do with it.

[lockwoodx]

Latest model for $99? Wonder if they're still honoring that.

That would be insane.

[Virtuoso]

I expect the next generation of consoles to be "Super-Wiis" with ultra-realistic motion capture controllers. Where will the Futureproof-PS3 be then?

Answer: My future-proof garbage can.

I really dont think that the majority of gamers want that. I mean hell, I know it sounds lazy, but I dont want to have to be flailing my arms about when gaming; its a hobby, something that lets me unwind. If I wanted exercise I would go to a gym.

[SpectralWolf]

I think both consoles (Xbox & PS3) are inherently future-proof at least for the next few years. In addition to playing games, they both have movie playback, media server, & device connectivity functionality. You guys shouldn't project so far out into the future. The PS3 will see more adoption in the future when people buy more Blu-rays or want some Wifi connectivity. It's not like everyone will quickly adopt the latest and greatest technologies. Wifi will continue to support b/g for a while. DVDs will still sell for a while, HDMI will see more widespread adoption. Hell, people are still havin' trouble making that DTV transition. Technology may evolve quickly but it's the people that present annoying bottlenecks.

[dirtbag]

If this generation lasts long enough, even relatively casual gamers may get together the cash to grab a PS3 to play some of the exclusive games. Of course, if MS and Nintendo put out a next-gen console in a few years, that will put more pressure on Sony to maybe act a little sooner.

[lost]

If MS puts out a new console before the end of 2011 they'd kill off Sony. I obviously have nothing to back that statement up, it's just a feeling. However, I don't think either company has the money to get out of the gate that quickly in the current economic climate.

Nintendo? Maybe but I think people might feel a little taken advantage of given the shit-state of the Wii software catalog.

[ldi222]

Honestly I think that what Sony is saying is kind of true. We are already discussing here the TV Set analogy for consoles being photo realistic and the success of the Wii also indicates that graphical barriers are not necessarily applicable to traditional console lifecycles or gamer expectations.

What's interesting about Sony is they use some pretty good but hard to program for hardware which lends to 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation games. I would also say Sony's track record is much better than MS when it comes to supporting their consoles for years where Microsoft really left one of a few bitter tastes by the way they dropped the first Xbox. Yes I understand why but it was still pretty lame, that Xbox1 generation could still have legs even today, like the PS2 refresh did for Sony for so long.

I think MS's best option especially understanding Sony's strategy is to wait and keep refreshing and making the 360 interesting and successful. They got their year head start, it paid off with the install base, their exclusives have really gained momentum and there is no reason to rush. Meanwhile, PC's will just keep getting more and more powerful :)

[ResistanceAddict]

I just hope my 60GB PS3 (well, 360GB now) lasts this long, because my warranty has been voided and the warranty sticker is completely missing. I had to open it, you see, for cleaning and to fix the twistable logo which had fallen out. Hopefully only the BD-ROM will eventually fail, and I'll be able to fix that with a replacement on my own. Hopefully.

Hey, it's not a 360; don't worry so much.

[ResistanceAddict]

I really dont think that the majority of gamers want that. I mean hell, I know it sounds lazy, but I dont want to have to be flailing my arms about when gaming; its a hobby, something that lets me unwind. If I wanted exercise I would go to a gym.

This. THIS.

[DarkDaY]

Why is anyone surpised by this statement. Its PF crap, Its Sony, and it makes no difference to us gamers, yet people still get offended. O well, another day with fanboys.

[DarkDaY]

Why is anyone surpised by this statement. Its PF crap, Its Sony, and it makes no difference to us gamers, yet people still get offended. O well, another day with fanboys.

No edit..grr. I meant PR of course.

[ldi222]

Why is anyone surpised by this statement. Its PF crap, Its Sony, and it makes no difference to us gamers, yet people still get offended. O well, another day with fanboys.

Its not PR Crap, its true the PS3 will have a 10 year lifecycle just like the PS2 did and that is a valid selling point.

[ResistanceAddict]

Its not PR Crap, its true the PS3 will have a 10 year lifecycle just like the PS2 did and that is a valid selling point.

I agree. But it doesn't matter in either case. I guess a person who believes the truth is a fanboy, just as a person who denies it is a fanboy as well. I honestly wish that stupid word could be banned from these forums. It's ultimately just a bullshit word. Simply disagreeing with certain people makes you a fanboy now, from what I see. No matter what type of view or bias you have, to someone on this site you are a fanboy.

[TeeCakes]

Its not PR Crap, its true the PS3 will have a 10 year lifecycle just like the PS2 did and that is a valid selling point.

If watching The Wire has taught me anything, it's that people from Baltimore, MA don't bullshit around. Preach on, Idi222!

PS3 and Blu-ray aren't going away anytime soon, and if MS or Nintendo want to throw away billions/their market share they'll come out with a new cutting-edge tech console too soon (before 2012) when mainstream shoppers are barely beginning to sink their teeth into today's HD-console market.

Sure, hardcore gamers in North America will buy the next XBL RROD Box without fail, but considering the no-end-in-sight recession and the lack of worldwide confidence in the MS brand it the alternative of Sony's 10-year plan is infinitely more attractive.

[TeeCakes]

Just double-posting to say I agree 110% with ResAddict, and that MA=MD. :D

[ldi222]

Fanboy is someone who is invested in their platform or game who will make an argument to that cause because it makes them feel more relevant as a gamer.

Example: HALO. The Haters arent a part of it so they will say it sucks, the fanboys know its the future of Bungies world domination and thus their gaming values are more important.

Wait, does PS3 have Halo?

No.. But it has God of War and that's a Killer App.

That's just flame bait material, the "truth" is that every platform has its merit and its about what games you like, but given your platform, a 10 year lifecycle is a pretty good deal and Sony already proven in this case that's what you get when you buy their hardware. Hard to argue with that standard really.

[Sensei-X]

Its not PR Crap, its true the PS3 will have a 10 year lifecycle just like the PS2 did and that is a valid selling point.

No it isn't a valid popint and no it probably won't have the lifecycle of the PS2. Just looking at the games alone pretty much says it all. The sheer volume of AAA games and exclusives PS2 had this far along in its lifecycle are vastly greater than the PS3s, for Sony to try and use that lame reasoning as to why PS3 will last as long as PS2 is asinine.

[ldi222]

If watching The Wire has taught me anything, it's that people from Baltimore, MA don't bullshit around. Preach on, Idi222!.

Baltimore is an interesting city and that's true no doubt. Whenever I travel I always walk away with this feeling that people are just nicer there. Its like they are looking at me just to say "hi" and Im looking back thinking wtf are you looking @?

[ldi222]

No it isn't a valid popint and no it probably won't have the lifecycle of the PS2. Just looking at the games alone pretty much says it all. The sheer volume of AAA games and exclusives PS2 had this far along in its lifecycle are vastly greater than the PS3s, for Sony to try and use that lame reasoning as to why PS3 will last as long as PS2 is asinine.

Except to an extent, the console manufacturer does have a say in when it releases its next product thus cutting off its invested base from the previous. Microsoft deserves some push back for killing xbox1 after 4 years, exploiting the shit out of micropayments and $60 games and treating PC as a red headed stepchild. Long live Sony!

[oldjadedgamer]

Its not PR Crap, its true the PS3 will have a 10 year lifecycle just like the PS2 did and that is a valid selling point.

But the PS3 isn't selling like the PS2. Here is an example... the PS2 sold 980,000 units in the first 48 hours it was on sale in Japan. That's right, 48 hours from the second it was available. The PS3 sold this many units in 8 full months in the same region. That's right, more then half a year to match the numbers the PS2 did in only 2 days.

Except to an extent, the console manufacturer does have a say in when it releases its next product thus cutting off its invested base from the previous. Microsoft deserves some push back for killing xbox1 after 4 years, exploiting the shit out of micropayments and $60 games and treating PC as a red headed stepchild. Long live Sony!

PS3 doesn't have micropayments? Guess you didn't see the LittleBigPlanet T-shirt for the sackboy that Sony was selling people for $8. PS3 doesn't have $60 dollar games? Guess you didn't see that the super crappy first party title, Untold Legends at launch retailed for $60. Oh, and as for PC gaming... as a Macintosh user I say good, lock that redheaded step child in the closet and put more money into console gaming.

[ldi222]

But the PS3 isn't selling like the PS2. Here is an example... the PS2 sold 980,000 units in the first 48 hours it was on sale in Japan. That's right, 48 hours from the second it was available. The PS3 sold this many units in 8 full months in the same region. That's right, more then half a year to match the numbers the PS2 did in only 2 days.

Blah blah and it still dominates in Japan but this time its owned in NA and Europe is the battleground. Give me a break as an American gamer Im glad the paradigm has shifted to our turf but there are still AAA Japanese games that launch months earlier there thanks to developer loyalty. 48 hour launch stats really dont tell the tale of console lifecycle.

[QUOTE=oldjadedgamer;1712078]PS3 doesn't have micropayments? Guess you didn't see the LittleBigPlanet T-shirt for the sackboy that Sony was selling people for $8. PS3 doesn't have $60 dollar games? Guess you didn't see that the super crappy first party title, Untold Legends at launch retailed for $60. Oh, and as for PC gaming... as a Macintosh user I say good, lock that redheaded step child in the closet and put more money into console gaming.

Yeah so Sony jumped on the micropayment bandwagon too, of course they did but MS charted the course, they set the precident for $60 games and the scary thing is that now that hardware is less relevant as with the greater trend of the Internet platform were all moving closer to the cloud where MS is better suited to live with GUI's, OS updates and that Xbox Live fee just to play online.

As far as your Macintosh use, I guess youre already pretty comfortable with paying a premium for hardware to a company that has proven it will drop you in a heartbeat because you want the new hotness. As for your PC comment that's just stupid. Have you seen Fallout 3 on max? As someone who is on OSX's jock you should appreciate a better experience.

[DarkDaY]

Except to an extent, the console manufacturer does have a say in when it releases its next product thus cutting off its invested base from the previous. Microsoft deserves some push back for killing xbox1 after 4 years, exploiting the shit out of micropayments and $60 games and treating PC as a red headed stepchild. Long live Sony!

wow, who the hell cares this much, the ps3 is here and now, it has killer games already and more in the pipes. who really cares about a company like this, MS or Sony, they can both bite it.

Between you, treecakes and ResistanceAddict we have the start of a brand new SDF.

Awaits the comedy of the long winded post from ResistanceAddict about how ignorant bla bla bla.

[oldjadedgamer]

Blah blah and it still dominates in Japan

Last time I checked, the Wii dominated Japan, not the PS3 and on top of that the PS3 has been selling at Sega Saturn levels for some parts of the this last year dipping down to 7,000 units a week.

Yeah so Sony jumped on the micropayment bandwagon too, of course they did but MS charted the course, they set the precident for $60 games.

Who is the bigger fool... the guy who leads or the one that follows him?

As far as your Macintosh use, I guess youre already pretty comfortable with paying a premium for hardware to a company that has proven it will drop you in a heartbeat because you want the new hotness. As for your PC comment that's just stupid. Have you seen Fallout 3 on max? As someone who is on OSX's jock you should appreciate a better experience.

I haven't seen Fallout on max because I don't care and got the console version. No drivers, no minimum requirements. PC gaming should be put out to pasture, developers already have shown that there is 20x more profit to be made in the console realm.

As a Mac user it's so tiring to hear folks like you complain so much about Microsoft yet you then type those same silly comments on your Windows OS. I'll never understand why the biggest complainers are the biggest users. I think Windows is shit so I don't use it but I don't act like MS stabs puppies and kicks little old ladies just because their OS is shit.

[DarkDaY]

Last time I checked, the Wii dominated Japan, not the PS3 and on top of that the PS3 has been selling at Sega Saturn levels for some parts of the this last year dipping down to 7,000 units a week.



Who is the bigger fool... the guy who leads or the one that follows him?



I haven't seen Fallout on max because I don't care and got the console version. No drivers, no minimum requirements. PC gaming should be put out to pasture, developers already have shown that there is 20x more profit to be made in the console realm.

As a Mac user it's so tiring to hear folks like you complain so much about Microsoft yet you then type those same silly comments on your Windows OS. I'll never understand why the biggest complainers are the biggest users. I think Windows is shit so I don't use it but I don't act like MS stabs puppies and kicks little old ladies just because their OS is shit.

Hey now, go easy on windows! I scaled back to xp while MS does their best to copy MAC.

Xp works perfect for me, I like mac too, but I also like my games and community. Now that there is duel boot I think my next comp will surely be a mac, that is unless MS gets the mac os right and releases it.:p

[oldjadedgamer]

Hey now, go easy on windows! I scaled back to xp while MS does their best to copy MAC.

Xp works perfect for me, I like mac too, but I also like my games and community. Now that there is duel boot I think my next comp will surely be a mac, that is unless MS gets the mac os right and releases it.:p

No offense. I'm not bitching in general about Windows users because quite frankly, I don't care what people use. I just think it's annoying when these little kids complain so much about MS then type their complaints on their products.

MS can't be that evil if you are using their products every day.

[DarkDaY]

No offense. I'm not bitching in general about Windows users because quite frankly, I don't care what people use. I just think it's annoying when these little kids complain so much about MS then type their complaints on their products.

MS can't be that evil if you are using their products every day.

lol, no no, I was kidding also, I wish I had macs os, I got what you originally trying to say, I was just making fun of MS's os and that they couldn't even successfully steal a superior one.

[lost]

Untold Legends was a pretty enjoyable dungeon crawler once you took it online.

Just to pull this back on track (we were doing so well) I'll re-iterate that in the current economic climate the only company raking in the cash necessary to launch a new console is Nintendo and why would they want to? The shit-state of the economy is going nowhere fast, it's going to be all about grabbing up those gamers who are still to take the plunge on a new console.

Sony's comments will probably prove true by default. It'll be a similar situation for Microsoft.

[DarkDaY]

Untold Legends was a pretty enjoyable dungeon crawler once you took it online.

Just to pull this back on track (we were doing so well) I'll re-iterate that in the current economic climate the only company raking in the cash necessary to launch a new console is Nintendo and why would they want to? The shit-state of the economy is going nowhere fast, it's going to be all about grabbing up those gamers who are still to take the plunge on a new console.

Sony's comments will probably prove true by default. It'll be a similar situation for Microsoft.

I think the ps3 has much longer legs then the 360 if for no other reason then they will support it much longer than the 360, when the 720 drops Im betten the 360 will be a yearish then trickle to nothing.

[oldjadedgamer]

Untold Legends was a pretty enjoyable dungeon crawler once you took it online.

This is besides the point. The reason I brought up the game was because he was complaining about MS charging for $60 games yet this average first party game is selling for $60 when it came out... the same price as Killzone 2 and MGS4.

It's just an example of people throwing rocks when they live in glass houses.

[ldi222]

360 came out what a year before PS3? You dont seem to remember $60 was initiated by Microsoft. Put the blinders on if you want I dont care, I thought competition was good for the consumer.

[oldjadedgamer]

360 came out what a year before PS3? You dont seem to remember $60 was initiated by Microsoft. Put the blinders on if you want I dont care, I thought competition was good for the consumer.

Again, who is the bigger fool... the guy who leads or the one that follows him? No one is twisting Sony's arm to charge for $60 games, they are doing that all by themselves. Wouldn't it be advantageous for Sony to charge $10 less for their games just like they did with the PS2 over the Xbox and Gamecube?

What you are saying now is that two wrongs make a right.

[lost]

Perhaps that is ldi's point. Perhaps he's saying Microsoft changed the market.

Honestly? I think $60 was coming. Game prices haven't changed over here for a while. At the very beginning the new stuff was £50 but that quickly dropped to the more standard £40. I'm surprised the US hasn't followed suit.

[oldjadedgamer]

Perhaps that is ldi's point. Perhaps he's saying Microsoft changed the market.

While this may only make sense for MS and third party games, but there is one single company who dictates how much games are for the PS3 and that is Sony. For the PSP and the PS2 Sony charged $10 less for a lot of their titles then third parties did.

By Sony following suit, it shows that MS was smart to make the first move on increasing profits from HD games because if it wasn't smart then Sony wouldn't have followed right after them like a lost puppy. Nintendo didn't follow. Their games are still only $50 bucks.

Or, you know... it could be that HD games are more expensive to make now so EVERYONE needed to charge a little more for the games and it just so happened that the 360 was the first HD system that launched so it's the first system that had a $60 dollar price tag on games. Nah... that makes too much sense. It MUST be the evil and horrible MS that ruined it for everyone!!!!!

I'm sure that when Sony decided to launch a system at $599 (double the launch price of their two previous home systems) that they decided to keep the game prices the same if not lower and they are just an innocent victim in this whole conspiracy.

[SpectralWolf]

No one is twisting Sony's arm to charge for $60 games, they are doing that all by themselves. Wouldn't it be advantageous for Sony to charge $10 less for their games just like they did with the PS2 over the Xbox and Gamecube?

So....you're saying Microsoft and/or Nintendo wouldn't turn around and just drop prices too? What difference would it make for Sony? If anything, the publishers would give them a bloody good hiding.

[lost]

If I price my apple at 10p whilst you price yours at 15p and you still sell a shit tonne of apples I'll probably change my price to 15p as well.

Big companies follow market trends. They are not autonomous entities separate from the changing tides of commerce.

[oldjadedgamer]

So....you're saying Microsoft and/or Nintendo wouldn't turn around and just drop prices too? What difference would it make for Sony? If anything, the publishers would give them a bloody good hiding.

Sony already sold top tiered titles at launch like Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 for $10 below retail and the Sony seemed to be just fine. They also priced all their PSP games at $40 when third parties were selling PSP games for $50. The kid was complaining about that MS raised the price to $60 and Sony was powerless to stop them. As Sony has proven with the PSP and PS2, they dictate the pricing for their games... not their competition.

If I price my apple at 10p whilst you price yours at 15p and you still sell a shit tonne of apples I'll probably change my price to 15p as well.

Big companies follow market trends. They are not autonomous entities separate from the changing tides of commerce.

Why are your customers crying about it and blaming the other apple seller about you raising your prices? You can still sell your apples to your customers for 10p to keep them happy right? You decide to raise your prices of apples, not your competition. Since you are a smart business, you know you need to do this to stay healthy. You realize that your customers who want to buy apples at 10p really aren't going to keep you in business so they will just have to deal with it or stop buying apples. I guess you are lucky that you have such immature customers that don't blame you for raising your prices but instead shift the blame to your competition.

[lost]

Why are your customers crying about it and blaming the other apple seller about you raising your prices? You can still sell your apples to your customers for 10p to keep them happy right? You decide to raise your prices of apples, not your competition. Since you are a smart business, you know you need to do this to stay healthy. You realize that your customers who want to buy apples at 10p really aren't going to keep you in business so they will just have to deal with it or stop buying apples. I guess you are lucky that you have such immature customers that don't blame you for raising your prices but instead shift the blame to your competition.

Hey, I'm not ragging on Microsoft for the price rise. Games continue to be a growth market even with the extra cash required to buy games. This can only be a good thing. Perhaps they deserve some specific credit if they really made the market changing decision?

I just don't think that Sony really had that much choice were they ever intending to avoid the $60 price tag. Shareholders and retailers come first for any company.

[oldjadedgamer]

Hey, I'm not ragging on Microsoft for the price rise.

But the person I was replying to originally was.

[Johan]

MS dragged Sony into the online space in consoles, and for that EVERY gamer should be thankful. Sony and Nintendo are both doing things, albeit very slowly and quite reluctantly initially, that are good for gamers (PSN...VC...etc.) and MS made that possible by pushing their first.

As for the "future-proof" nature of the PS3, I suppose when you intentionally make your architecture difficult to program for, you lengthen its lifespan.

[ldi222]

The kid was complaining about that MS raised the price to $60 and Sony was powerless to stop them.

Who the fuck are you calling Kid? Have you attempted to make your same point now how many times? You can disagree without being condescending.

[ldi222]

Ok after a little research I see that that kid "oldjadedgamer" is a blatant MS fanboy with threads here and on other forum of diatribe and repetitions to protect his precious MS.

If you cant agree that MS set the precedent a year early and took the lead in making games more expensive which has led to a gluttony of used sales and rumored market trends reconsidering that $60 price point I cant help you. So agree to disagree and go complain some more about killzone 2.

[lost]

I think that's a little unfair. oldjadedgamer certainly has his opinions but they do sometimes show support for Sony.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

If you cant agree that MS set the precedent a year early and took the lead in making games more expensive which has led to a gluttony of used sales and rumored market trends reconsidering that $60 price point I cant help you.I doubt he asked for your "help".

Anyway, MS had a one year lead as you said. During that year, they had no competition and so might have decided to try a higher game price while there was no competition. When Sony entered the market, they could have come in at a more competitive game price, given that their system was more expensive but they did not.

Sony decided the gaming software could also compete at the higher price. Microsoft didn't have a reason to drop their price, since they still had good software sales.

If you want a retail price drop, stop buying them at the higher price. Buy up some of that used "gluttony" that is out there and feel good about recycling used products.

The problem is that either you buy the games at $60 or you don't. If you do, then you are complaining while voting with your dollar for the opposing team. If you don't then why the hell do you care?

[Justin_Bailey]

If you cant agree that MS set the precedent a year early and took the lead in making games more expensive which has led to a gluttony of used sales and rumored market trends reconsidering that $60 price point I cant help you. So agree to disagree and go complain some more about killzone 2.

Microsoft-published Xbox 360 games released at launch like Perfect Dark and Kameo retailed for $50. It was third parties like EA, Activision and Ubisoft that pushed games like Madden, Gun and Far Cry up to $60 because they wanted gamers to think those were premium versions above and beyond the PS2/Xbox versions that were retailing for $50.

Not to mention the fact that this $60 leap was predicted by game analysts like Pachter well before the Xbox 360 launch.

[everybset]

When Sony entered the market, they could have come in at a more competitive game price, given that their system was more expensive but they did not.
From any third party point of view, you can publish a game through familiar methods for the xbox for $60 or you can do the same for the unfamiliar cell technology for $10 less. Once MS upped their prices, I don't think Sony had a choice.

[oldjadedgamer]

Ok after a little research I see that that kid "oldjadedgamer" is a blatant MS fanboy with threads here and on other forum of diatribe and repetitions to protect his precious MS.

Right, I'm such a MS fanboy that the last time I owned a PC Windows 95 was the current operating system on sale.

I'm a fanboy of games, not systems.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

From any third party point of view, you can publish a game through familiar methods for the xbox for $60 or you can do the same for the unfamiliar cell technology for $10 less. Once MS upped their prices, I don't think Sony had a choice.That's absurd. If it's unfamiliar technology (or if you are a year late to the market) that's a reason to be $10 less. It's called competition. There is no reason Sony couldn't sell games for $50, or $70 for that matter.

It's not like Sony was thinking "Damn, if only there was some way we could sell games for $50, but Microsoft says we gotta sell for $60". They wanted the extra $10 as much as Microsoft.

It comes down to "they didn't want to", and nothing more.

[Johan]

The problem is that either you buy the games at $60 or you don't. If you do, then you are complaining while voting with your dollar for the opposing team. If you don't then why the hell do you care?

Don't be logical when someone is throwing a hissy! ;)

[everybset]

It's not like Sony was thinking "Damn, if only there was some way we could sell games for $50, but Microsoft says we gotta sell for $60". They wanted the extra $10 as much as Microsoft.

I was under the impression the big 3 set the retail game values and the software companies follow it through. You've missed my point completely though. If Activision, were to make an exclusive game, they'd be deciding between coding for the xbox for $60 a game or for the PS3 for $50 a game. Unless of course Sony wanted to pay $10 for each game sold.

[TeeCakes]

As for the "future-proof" nature of the PS3, I suppose when you intentionally make your architecture difficult to program for, you lengthen its lifespan.

I suppose you could say the exact opposite for the shoddy hardware engineering of the 360. Nothing like the promise of a newer, more reliable console to get people to dump the previous generation of MS consoles!

But pushing a new console on the market will be a much harder sell if they try to jump the gun with an early lead again. The Wii has the biggest market share, and its low-tech approach to gaming is undeniably more popular than any HD-console. Putting out a more advanced PS3/360 anytime soon would probably go down in flames like the Sega 32X did.

I had always thought Sony charged $60 per game due to them using Blu-ray discs. Don't really know what MS's excuse would be, of course.:confused:

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

I was under the impression the big 3 set the retail game values and the software companies follow it through. You've missed my point completely though. If Activision, were to make an exclusive game, they'd be deciding between coding for the xbox for $60 a game or for the PS3 for $50 a game. Unless of course Sony wanted to pay $10 for each game sold.They are Sony. They could have sold people on the idea that they would rule the world, and that taking a bit less money in exchange for a lot more sales would be a good bet.

Hell, if Sony had done that they would have the most expensive hardware (with extra features) but more reasonably priced software. That might have sold more hardware, I certainly could see that it might. Pay a bit more up front but save less per game. Not a bad plan.

By your method Sony could have one-upped Microsoft by making games $70 each, and generating more money per sale. But that's the problem, it's too simplistic a formula since profit per sale is meaningless since selling a lot more units at a lower price can generate more loot.

Sony is big enough as a corporation, and it was the absolute leader of the console market for years now. They had the clout to make the rules. Instead, they simply matched pricing and were probably happy to make more money per game (thinking they would have PS2-like sales).

And that was Sony's mistake. They thought things would continue just like before, but for more money.