360 sales are still a red herring. Everytime I look at the three consoles sales figures I can't help but think how much MS lost and continue to lose to RROD compared to the other two.

Synthemesc

@senote: It just uses 2.5 laptop SATA Hard drives.

Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert

I'm surprised that he's so concerned about the Xbox 360. You'd think, seeing as he's the competition that he'd be a bit more worried about his own floundering product. Or perhaps that's why he's trying to shift the attention away from the PS3...

Leathersoup

Semantics. Gotta love it.

DARTH_TIGRIS

This is just weird, lol

djricekcn

I think that Ashcraft's been had by Sony's Kaz Hirai android.

it's obvious from hirai-bot's quote that its cell processor locked up, causing a reboot and to repeat that "Last time I checked, the Xbox went by the wayside four or five years after launch" sentence in mid-quote.

j.m.ratkos

god sony are so Bullshitty, all they do is fucking taunt and bitch ffs actually perform. You have a larger demograph but how many people are actually using it as a console not a dvd player.
At least MS can cry innocent lately because they tend not to rub salt in the wounds. MS is clearly the underdog now and personally I prefer the underdog and wow god of war 3 whopee all you do is hack and slash, I enjoyed the first one but its a series that isn't the best system seller.

SteveeVader

@Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert:

I don't actually own a PS3 so I can only guess, though I must admit I'm suprised that would be in the instructions. Most instruction manuals never deviate from the 'use our branded accessories' line.

If I had the money I would buy one but only for bluray and because home intrigues me, if it ever gets released before the PS4, and of course i'd play a few games on it.

senote

Kaz is one to talk about defining generations and lifetime. I don't recall him or anyone from Sony defining when the 10 year PS3 timeline started. Did it start years ago when it was in development? When it was launched? or What?

The PS3 probably will be around for 10 years, and the majority of that time it will be mainly a bluray movie player.

@bigdude209: Out of all 3 consoles the PS3 was the least prepared. Sony had to patch in a ton of stuff after the PS3 launched. They also cut stuff out in the numerous hardware revisions, and it has game installs because the bluray drive is too slow for games.

NullsRevenge

@teeps1981: Ahhhhh you are confusing the motion sensor technology for the wii's conectivity. Neither interfere with the other.

teeps1981

@Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.: Respectfully disagreeing on that one. The Xbox could have gone further, but with the advent of HDTVs being more affordable, it was time for consoles to make the leap. 720p on the original Xbox was pretty good, but the PS2 showed its age near the end.

Obviously, graphics aren't everything, but the gap between displays and consoles was great enough that a jump was warranted. Of course, the Wii shoots that theory to shit to the average consumer, but enough techies bought HDTV's that neither Sony nor Microsoft ended up "pulling a Dreamcast" and jumping the gun ahead of the market.

Jonaconda

You know, the only reason the PS1/One and the PS2 had a roughly "10 Year Life" was because they won! Look at Nintendo - how long was the lifetime of the NES/Famicom? 15 years I make it. It didn't mean the N64 or Gamecube had a lifetime anywhere near as long.

And trust me, if the PS3 doesn't sell enough units, Sony will drop it. Perhaps not as fast at they would drop a hot potato, but they would drop it and move on.

The main reason Microsoft dropped the Xbox [1] was for ownership issues with the hardware. Something that they have made sure will not happen with the 360.

I find the whole 10 Year lifecycle thing for the PS3 somewhat curious, because the amount of RAM the machine has is tiny. Really, if I was planning a machine to last until 2015, I'd have put twice the RAM in, at least. The lack of RAM is the biggest stumbling block for both the PS3 and the 360 - expecially the PS3 due to some "odd" design decisions. But really, if either company was serious about making not only a console, but a "media hub" to last a decade or so, they both blew it with the RAM they chose to include.

2099net

@senote: you seriously don't know by now you can upgrade the ps3's hard drive without voiding the warranty, the ps3 instruction manual tells you how to do it.

Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert

@bigdude209: wii uses blutooth? no it doesnt. It uses an infared motion sensor bar and remote

teeps1981

@SG79: Completely agree, though it'll be curious to see how that applies to Nintendo this time around. The lack of a hard drive is going to hurt further down the road, Motion Plus is already confirmed to remedy what -- two or so years later -- seem like terribly limited applications for the controller when compared to the seemingly vast possibilities suggested when we first learned Wii had motion controls.

Nintendo's the wild card in the cycle plan. I suspect the peripheral-happy bastards will develop all sorts of band-aids like Motion Plus and a legitimate storage format along the way before perhaps being the first to release a "next next gen" followup to capitalize on their newfound momentum. The knowitall industry analysts predict a short cycle for the Wii, since it's a souped-up Gamecube to begin with, but who knows, Nintendo may even delay their hand until they see what the competition is up to.

Their profit margins on hardware are sick, they can afford to be patient going forward... quite a turnaround from seemingly knockin' on death's door with the GC.

Jonaconda

@omegamalexxx:
Sooo take Killzone 2 then, being developed for PS3, following your logic it should look as better than and run better than GoW2?

As for the rest, wireless or bluetooth it all works and both have it. The hard drive thing it sounds to me like your talking about modding which a) invalidates the warranty and b) you can do on 360. Saturn online, well I'm sure the 5 people who played it loved it. Gamercard and achievements MS did them first, and MS did a decent and well constructed online service first.

My point through all this is that you seem to think the 360 is last gen but can't really back that up. 360 IS next gen, it is this gen, and if it is last gen why are Sony taking things from it, like the gamercard and the achievements?

senote

my two cents. The last generation ended too early and the hardware from that gen was not maximized. 10 year life span for a console is great as we see better titles as the years progress. Anyone that says last gen was too short, I agree wholeheartedly. The only company that should be thinking about upgrading is Nintendo. Wii is just pathetic in terms of power in comparison to the competition.

@Buttah: great point. thumbs up.

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

The PS3 is only going to have a 10-year life cycle if people keep buying it for 10 years. That's quite a bit to take for granted. It's up to the consumer.

SeedyXX

Kaz should be happy that the ps3 is still alive lol

Daxtinator

@Jonaconda:

Yeah, and GOWII was actually in year 7. Anywhere from 5-6 years is fine, with good titles (the last year for the Xbox had few good releases).

SG79

@IronsUK:

Really? Four years was enough for you? If console generations were to become that short as a standard, I'd rather spend a bit more money and get a good gaming PC. Sure, it'll be mere functional by year 4 but I can upgrade and play all my older games and customize everything I want.

If graphics are that important to you, I highly suggest PC gaming.

SG79

@omegamalexxx: I recall playing Air Warrior in 1992. Console MP is still gimped relative to PCs, and always will be.

crapsh00t

In 2014, you're going to be in a Gamestop. Just browsing around. You'll look to the right and see the PS3 for $130. Then you'll look at all the amazing games you missed out on because you invested in Xbox 360 or a Wii. So you may decide to go ahead and buy one after all this time.

I think that's what's Sony has been getting at with this 10 year life cycle. You hear it all the time: "Well, I might get a PS3 when it's X amount of dollars and have X amount of games." I didn't buy a PS1 until 2000 because I loved my N64 and I have just got a Dreamcast at launch. I didn't get a PS2 until 2004 because I was still pissed about my Dreamcast getting shafted. So I guess that's the point. Whether it's today, tomorrow, or 6 years from now, people are going to be interested in PS3 and Sony will still be there to support it. I don't think you can say that about Xbox 360 yet.

Buttah

Its kinda annoying how both companies do this crap, Sony saying lasting so and so years, MS saying selling this many units first. Its honesty crap, pure utter crap you can really only decide who won after its over. or at least towards the final years, you dont decide any sports game or type of game in general by the first 15 minutes of it do ya?

My personal opinion is that i wish that consle gens could last a good 8 years, cause it seems that just as developers start tapping the true power and potential of these machines, pop its time for another one, as a consumer i think most would want it to last long as you dont have drop another big chunk of money so soon, and you get the most of your system.

Neo-Senku: The World's Finest Pervert

@teeps1981: As far motion control goes, the 360 uses a standard 2.4ghz wireless signal instead of using something like bluetooth in a controller which is more steady when it comes to interference. The PS3 uses bluetooth like the wii and only needs a firmware update, therefore 360 would need a add-on to do the same thing. Like I said, the 360 would a hardware revisions or multiple add-ons to change anything for future options.

The way Sony has it at this point, the PS3 would only need to change to maybe apply any newer networking standards for a PS3 slim like they did with the PS2.

bigdude209

@senote: ok lets see here hmm first off all the multiplatforms are first developed on 360 and only then ported to the ps3 which means that the games are not going to look any better only because they didn't try to do so. second wirless bluetooth is better. third 360 does not have the largest drive since ps3 uses laptop sata drives you can have up to around 500 gigs internal. fourth ms did not have the first online service the sega saturn had online services way back when. 5 gamercard = psn portable id. 6 achievements = trophies

omegamalexxx

The only reason the PS1 and PS2 got support for so long is because they sold extremely well.
If the PS3 is not doing so hot a few years from now, then it won't get the level of support that the PS1 or PS2 got.

R0YB0T

I've got an idea Kaz: Focus on your own console instead of taking digs at others. You have a lot of work to do.

BigWeather

well if they keep pumping out games at this slow pace, then they might make it, either that or people will just get fed up and stop playing.

Foglight55

@omegamalexxx:

I'm sorry is it not a fact that all 'next gen' games run just as well on the 'last gen' 360 as they do on the 'next gen' PS3?, outputs a 1080P HD signal, has wireless accessories, the largest hard drive on the market, the first and highest regarded online service, the gamercard, achievements and lots of other things all little in their own way but all add-up.

senote

Ten years of PS2 is a nice marketing concept, but c'mon, God of War 2 was the PS2's curtain call. It was a great companion in college, a faithful -- if sometimes spotty -- DVD player and gaming rig all in one, and damn did they have all the great games.

Even now, Sony's reaping a bit of the Wiirlwind (sorry, won't happen again) by getting the "me-too" ports of big multiplatform games aimed for that casual market.

I switched to the Xbox this gen, but plan to pick up a PS3 eventually for a Bluray player... which is why I always regard most sales figures in terms of Sony's gaming market share with a grain of salt. I'm not the only one with this gameplan, and I know many folks who bought it primarily for its status as a reasonably-priced, feature-laden BD player. Will they buy a game or two? Sure. MGS4 hype was everywhere.

But the best thing for PS3 sales in recent memory was when the BD vs HD-DVD war ended, and Netflix started stocking BDs. Upconverting DVD players and concepts like "Faroudja chips" scare the unwashed masses... much easier to buy the cheapest PS3 model the sales guy assures you will put out 1080p on your DVDs, and tru HD quality from the BDs. Games are almost an incidental perk to my future PS3 purchase, obvious exceptions of MGS4 and GoW3.

Jonaconda

@bornonce: it can cure cancer, it can drive a car, it can run linux. put three/ four of them together and you can pointlessly brag about your insanity on youtube. put six of them together and you have a teraflop. get some more together and you have your own supercomputer or server

omegamalexxx

STOP PRESS!

None of this will matter...

[www.computerandvideogames.com]

teeps1981

@ToastyBuffoon:
The first smart comment I have read on here....
Aside from@mornelithe:

Xuchilbara

yea, i agree... bring my the xbox 540 now!!
standing in lines overnight and making an easy $5k is always fun....
bring it on MS!

and o yea, sell the 360 for $149 in a slimmer version

Scrapple

10 year console sounds great but the only thing most people care about is how long until the next iteration comes out. Yes, the PS3 might still be getting games at the end of ten years but by comparing it to the PSone and PS2 he's letting us know that there will be a more advanced system out well before then.

crim

omfg don't yall realize the difference in power between ps3 and 360? the reason you don't see it in games yet is that the devs are still getting the hang of the system but it is trully evident with games coming out soon like r2 and M.A.G where we have these huge maps with insane amounts of people going at it. havent any of you wondered why 360 doesnt have this kind of stuff? well as far as i can tell (im not sure though) the 360 cant handle this stuff. its the only explanation that i can think of that makes sense

omegamalexxx

Sony sure is milking this 10 year crap. I don't have a PS3 anymore, so is the 10 year life cycle really relevant in this day and age? I wanted a Wii and some PC parts because the PS3 underdeliverd to me. I'm sure I'll be sorry for that when Little Big Planet comes out, but I'm really sick of each console manufacturer comparing themselves to each other. If you really want to make an impact, release some fucking games then.

GrrSnort

Sony and Ms better start supporting their consoles with user interface peripherals, and fast. The PS2 had a world of interesting peripherals. The Wii is winning because it offers all levels of gamers a new, unique, and more intuitive experience (when done right).

I am really amazed at the incompetence of MS sometimes. They create an XBox 360, create a universally loved controller, then create a GFW division, release a wireless receiver for the PC to allow one to use the 360 controller with a PC, and then don't SUPPORT the 360 controller in their PC games! Stunningly stupid. They make better-looking games for the PC, then wonder why some people will wait up to a year for the GFW version (w M/KB support) rather than the 360 version. They see the success of the Wii, and now Wii Fit, and move like a glacier to address their disadvantages.

The PS3 can have a long lifespan if Sony can get 3rd-parties to produce a wide array of peripherals for the console. Besides, the PS3 can run Linux, so if Sony ever opens the machine up to users to create a myriad of useful programs and utilities for it it will find other uses than just a game console (it is a computer, not a game console. Right Sony?).

Both the PS3 and the 360 have designed-in longevity. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Wii.

bornonce

@UFO: but people are still playing c64 didn't you hear about the guy that ghetto rigged guitar hero for c64? totally hilarious and impressive

omegamalexxx

@floppylobster: im in college right now to get in to this industry kinda funny huh but it would a little hard for me to have gotten an sg1000 i was looking at my genesis and noticed something funny

if you look at the top of the system it says high definition graphics ill let yall just laugh that one out for a bit

omegamalexxx

I disagree, I would indeed say the PS2 is pretty much gone. My evidence is quite simple. Lets look at the genres of the biggest games of recent times. First person shooters mostly, with the odd racing or sports game chucked in for good measure (with a few exceptions along the way)

Barring the constant output from EA Sports, when was the last time a great first person shooter was released on the PS2? Black maybe? Quite a ways ago now.

Indeed, I'd argue that although not strictly 'dead', the PS2 has become a budget/niche gaming machine catering to Persona fans and people who can't justify spending out on new technology.

Maybe. Either way, I can see the PS3 being much the same by 2012.

GViper

The thing that mattrs most about a games cnosole to the majority of the world is games. Your console will keep selling as long as people keep buying games for it.

One of the main reasons PS2 is still going is nothing to do with sony. The past 3 years the main new PS2 owners have been children and teenage girls. The reason they sell is because they have a huge back catalog of games available to buy preowned from shops.

If PS3 wants to last 10 years it needs to start realling out the titles. E3 showed us a few titles that COULD be released this year and a lot that could be released next year as well as some PSN titles (which are wayyyyyyy over hyped n my opinion. Eden...yeah..looks good, Fat Princess. Cartoon top down capture the flag...err...great!? Ill stick with MeatFlag on GOW2 ta very much)It REALLY needs to start pumping them out...nt just for the hardcore to get excited about but everyone who wants to game.

Hell....releasesome decent details about Vs XIII already

teeps1981

GameCube and Xbox one disappeared from the shelves, yes. No use giving those systems any more life support if it isn't economically viable, is there? Everybody knows their lifespan was on the short side, but just as well most people realize the reasons for that.

Kaz keeps talking about PS2's nine long years, but frankly all the system gets nowadays is crappy shovelware. No Xbox or GameCube owner would be any happier with such filth today. You don't want numbers, you want quality, no matter the generation of your console.

He also keeps talking about PS3's 10-year projected lifespan. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what kind of groundbreaking stuff will get released on the system in 2016...?

kryo

@macr0planet: good point
I haven't bought a ps2 game since GHII
but, I still play it. It's a solid console, and considering the age, the games look alright.

dArk_stAr

Honestly I'm not into the whole "next-gen" thing yet. Sure I have the consoles, but I'm still trying to finish all the games on the PS2. And they keep coming out with more... it's never ending! So when they say PS3 could last a while, I could believe it. Not too sure about the 360 though, as mine lasted like a week before it conked out...

Shadowmist

@Candlejack: Dont think it`s just about graphics.What about AI,physics,animation and massive open worlds with on the fly loading.pc graphics are reaching a level where it`s not the most important thing any more.
If none of these things were important to us,including graphics then we would still be playing our c64,nes,etc etc today.
I think 5 or 6 years for a console is quite enough really seeing as they are kind of limited when they first appear, never mind 10 years later

UFO

@omegamalexxx: Well while you were in elementary school I was losing my job at Sega because I had watched marketing and sales people (i.e. non-gamers), come in, take over and sink the good ship Sega. And they did it by taking all the good will they had built up with retailers (with the Master System and Genesis), and they used it to push truckloads of Sega-Cds and 32Xs onto them. Big surprise that when Sony came along with a new buying model for the PlayStation they all moved away from Sega. I managed to hang on until the end of Dreamcast but now I'm happier to have games as my hobby and not my job.

floppylobster

@omegamalexxx: Well I may beat you there because I started on an SG-1000 (a pre Master System Sega computer). But I've learned to love all consoles since then.

5 years is okay for a life cycle in terms of saving up enough to buy a new console, but we should remember it takes about 5 years for the really impressive games to come out. But after 7 years all the really good programmers ditch your console for the next great challenge.

floppylobster

@bigdude209: Aside from Blu-Ray the 360 is more than capable about being updated via firmware to do things like motion etc

Hell...id be suprised if a firmware update wasnt actually able to make the 360 play wii games if ninty would let them.

The whole motion sensor with the wii consits of software that gains information from the position of the wiimote in conjnction with the sensor bar. The bar and the wiimote could probably be used on any system providing the software was installed in the system to tell it wha to do.

teeps1981

Kaz' statements come off as just more propaganda. It's a shame that people in positions like his are spewing fanboy type BS. He's in a position in the business to know that Microsoft dropped the original Xbox because no matter how long it was in the market, it would lose money because Nvidia and Intel refused to give them better pricing on old parts. Only a fool would have kept making those consoles. Looks like Nvidia could have used that Xenos money right now. It time the executives on both sides start being a little more honest and stop trying to be a part of the fanboy clicks. Microsoft has stated that they will support the 360 at least 7 years. And remember that they are rumored to be allowing third party hardware. Which would mean there will be 360s as long as they are profitable. That should be at least ten years. Kaz' statement does show that Sony doesn't believe the PS3 can catch the 360 in sells until 2010. At that point this generation is lost because most people will be ready to move on. Technology is changing too fast to think any console will matter to hardcore gamers for more than 5 years.

Dcbronco

@senote: and well you can think whatever you want im just putting in my thoughts for people to think about its not like i want to shove my beliefs down your throat because this is only what i think

now if you start getting facts wrong thats when i start to have a problem
@floppylobster: on that note thank you for that bit of info i had forgotten about the sega cd fiasco besides i was in elementary school at the time and those things got to me way late

omegamalexxx

@senote: i said that 360 had the graphical power yes but you have to remember a 16 year old may have some adult qualities, want to be treated like an adult, and in some cases may be tried as an adult but in the end a 16 year old is still a child

omegamalexxx

I'm not hating on the 360, but I see Sony being more prepared for the PS3 than MS is with its console. I don't want to buy a 360 later on just have to need a add-on that will cost me extra money, and if they continue their life cyle, hardware revisions for anything else new will have to be made(which would still cost extra money). I'd rather have PS3 off the bat if that is the case.

It would be probably 9 or 10 years before we see a PS4. I mean you hear about stuff like motion controllers becoming the new way to play games or a new possible holographic/3D-like visual look in games, it seems the PS3 would easily adjust to those proposed future things with a few firmware updates. The 360 future-wise would have to change up the hardware for anything new in those upcoming years.

In anyway you look at it though, both Sony and MS are big corporations that aren't going go quietly. Anybody that sees Sony losing are idiots, and anybody who sees Microsoft losing are just as nuts since they are just as competitive in the gaming industry now.

bigdude209

@floppylobster: yeah i know i was origionally a sega fanboy since the ripe old age of 3 i had a genesis (still working) a nomad (still working) i hated nintendo even back then (except kirby, hes like my best bud)

omegamalexxx

@floppylobster: Dreamcast gets mad respect even when big devs stopped working on it. That console ruled. such a great library of game created on that system over 2-3 year time span. RECOGNIZE! :)

SAKY

Honestly, what will be the big change in gaming next generation? Graphics were quite good back in PS2/SDTV days. Most of the push on the graphics department is a combination of SD to HD transition, as well as additional computing power which to me doesn't necessarily mean a lot. I would also rather stick with my Dual Shock 3 then PS4 and Xbox 1080 wiimotes. Finally, RRODs and multiple SKUs/price drops taught me to be patient next time around and don't be an early adopter. The only next gen console I might get when the time comes is Nintendo's, the moment that a Zelda HD or Metroid HD comes out.

gencid

Lifecycle is dictated by software support via 1st, 2nd, and 3rd parties. I don't see much PS2 software being developed next year but it has still been a great 8-9 year run.

Microsoft may exit from the 360 platform after 5-6 years and that's been the average cycle for hardware. It's ok. However, it would be best for the XBOX brand and MS's bottom line for the platform to remain viable enough for software developers to support the system once the next hardware generation is ushered in. The original XBOX didn't accomplish this but the PS2 has done fine over the past 2-3 years. Bottom line if you want to extend the lifecycle you need a large userbase. Only then will developers continue to work on your console. It worked for the NES, PS2, and maybe PS1 (not sure on PS1).

This kind of extended support makes for a happy and loyal consumer who will forget things like RROD and DRE and buy that next gen hardware when it fits into their budgets.

@KaneRobot: I don't think any hardware manufacturers FIRST console had band name recognition. :)

SAKY

@omegamalexxx:

Hmmm not so sure I agree, at the very least its in a grey area in terms of this gen or next gen, but I doubt that.

Saying its last gen is kinda like saying a 16yr old is still a child, they cant be an adult because they're not 18, you ask a 16yo if they are a child see what they say ;)

In reality take a look at any of the games released, Mass Effect, Halo 3, GoW, GoW2, CoD4, Oblivion, GTA IV, Bioshock, compare any of them to their PS3 counterpart if they have one and tell me the PS3 is really a generation apart. MS started the 'next generation' with the 360 I think most people would agree on that.

senote

@floppylobster: wow i think that the first time i have heard anyone say that and you are correct sir at least in my case i bought my 60 gig early may of 07 during the time before i bought it i was saving up for it and researching everything about it what really got my about the ps3 was the things its used for.
(im one of those people that actually took the time to install YDL on my ps3 and of course i fold@home)

omegamalexxx

@omegamalexxx: Actually when your as financially strapped as Sega were after the failure of the Sega-CD, 32X (and Saturn) you require people to buy the consoles before you can generate the money to spend on advertising. The downfall of Sega was the Sega-CD/Mega-CD and 32X, and possibly opening of all those theme parks.

floppylobster

@homernoy: Good point, they need to improve on their reliability image before they launch or else they could be stuck with the bad stigma.

I think they will concentrate on quality this time around. 1bn in repair costs hurt them big time, probably more than the potential loss in sales imo.

TheHun

@omegamalexxx:

All those in favour of providing a limited edition Troll Label raise your hand.

teeps1981

@aphex242: I agree. My experience of hardcore Sony fans are that they are early adopters who are really into technology. Do they really want to see the same machine on the market in ten years time if there's better technology available? It doesn't seem to make sense for them. For Sony, profit-wise, it makes perfect sense; for the mass market and the possible spread of Blu-Ray, it would be a good thing; but for the early adopters who bought their machine in the first six months - not so much.

floppylobster

Don Mattrick Time should be universal!!! FTW...

Daisuash

@floppylobster: because everyone forgot about them. or rather sega forgot to ever say anything about them. in the end the downfall of sega was the fact that they forgot to advertise. like ever.

omegamalexxx

I have just returned from the future and I can tell you that in 10 years time...... Sony and Microsoft will still be talking the same old shit about each other... oh and we still don't have hover cars or jetpacks :( Screw you George Jetson.

senote

@ali_g_84uk: i totally agree with you but for a different reason

the wii may not be graphically awesome but in terms of new technology the wii is definatly a system of this generation
the ps3 is of this gen because everything about it is new technology it has the power and the fancy crap like motion sensing and what not

but the 360 is not
in my mind the 360 was the last of the last gen consoles and this gen didn't start until that insane weekend when wii and ps3 launched
yes the 360 has good graphics and whatnot but thats it nothing about the 360 makes it worthy of being one of this gen

omegamalexxx

Actually last time I checked they were still releasing games for Dreamcast too, (althought last time I checked was about a year ago).

floppylobster

"Too many downfalls to PC gaming: glitches, updates, drivers, specs, etc. CHU BOI is exactly right."

@kadaj24: Because we have seen some of this this generation of consoles? And let's not forget the PS2 Star Ocean debacle, last gen, in Japan where the game was incompatible with all the SCPH-10000 model PS2s because Sony decided to change their libraries up with newer models.

Not going to argue that consoles are better, I prefer sitting in front of my Wii, 360, PS2... way more than my PC for a lot of games, but console gaming seems to be seeing quite a few of the pit falls of the PC world.

MantisDragon

Last time I checked the shops were still selling Xboxs and Xbox games.

So the 360 has become so big that Sony feel the need to talk down about it using the name of the console. Microsoft should be honored. I don't remember the Dreamcast or the Saturn getting this much respect.

floppylobster

@TheHun: Microsoft also needs a brand new high quality product to replace it's current shoddy hardware. The public perception is very poor regarding 360's quality, and for good reason. Obviously, they shouldn't launch new hardware now, but definitely sooner than 10 years.

homernoy

I think this is a conversation for investors. The "ten year lifecycle" is working, because I still see people buying games for the PS2 because they can't afford a current-gen system yet. Granted, the crap U.S. economy might be a factor, but look around GameStop... the PS2 wall is still pretty big. Hell, I'm considering giving my sister her first PS2 (she has nothing but a GameCube, she's not financially well off). There are still new games trickling out, even; especially if you're an RPG fan, but how about Mercenaries 2?

That does not mean that Microsoft and Nintendo aren't eating their lunch; it just means that it is reasonable to expect the PS3 to have ten years to attempt profitability.

beeporama (brian.j.parker)

At launch Playstations are expensive hi-end machines for enthusiasts, then they turns to serious gamers machines for most of their lives and spend their final years as affordable mass market machine. The ten year cycle seems to work well for Sony. Microsoft made aggressive moves to gain their current position, we'll see how they plan to play this game now that they don't have to jump off a sinking ship middle of the generation to gain advantage. Executing the original Xbox was really a necessity for them.

ara

I think this generation will probably be one of the longer ones. Who would bring out their next system early?

Nintendo is making insane profits and is still having slight supply issues. Why would they want to cut this generation short? It's been their best EVER.

Microsoft just started to turn a profit recently, I would wager that they would prefer to finally recoup some of the losses they suffered when initiating the Xbox brand. Unless their sales take a nosedive they won't be eager to release a new console either. Though they would probably still want to be first into the next gen, while milking the current one as much as possible.

Sony has over invested itself this gen. It definitely needs to at least break even. They can't afford to kill the PS3 early because they're in a 1-2 billion hole right now. They need the long cycle or else they take a huge loss.

Because of the more balanced nature of the current console wars, there is no clear loser who would need to bring out a new console soon.

TheHun

@lionkitten: someone tried that once it was called the "phantom" look it up on wikipedia
you will find out that it lived up to its name

omegamalexxx

Due to the speed of technology, I think it makes more sense to have a product with a shorter lifespan, but the new gen product should have 100% backword compatibility. 10 years is a long time.

homernoy

@mrantimatter: how on earth are sony supporting the console? If you mean by still making PS2's then I suppose I'll agree but thats all they've been doing

excel_excel

the Xbox 180 was only around for 4-5 years because it was late joining the last generation.

you must be some kind of idiot/fanboy/both to assume all Microsoft console lifecycles will be the same.

Spacebaboon

@kadaj24: So, can you tell me what Sony is doing for the PS2?

Third party developers still develop for it because (1)Sony still makes it and (2)It makes sense to make multiplatform games with Wii for it.

Sony brags about PS2's life, but they aren't doing anything for it. I find that funny. Everyone else does the work, you know, supplying a few games for the game console, and you sit back and brag about it every chance you get. If I see them talk about cycles one more time I'll loose my mind. We get it, you still make PS2s. We get it. What do you want us to say? WE GET IT.

karasu is my homeboy

@Grive:

Because besides Sony, Ninetndo and MS tend to kill off the old system when the new comes out.

Next to nothing came out for the GCN or Xbox when the wii and 360 hit. It's like all development stoped. They were yank from stores soon after.

Sony however, doesn't seem to do that. The ps1 was getting sales and games long after the ps2 hit, and ditto with the ps2 after the ps3 hit.

Most developers hav moved on, but sony's till actively supporting the console, and thats to be respected.

mrantimatter

@ibunkun: dude 2 gigs of ram? are you insane? do your research man and maybe you would realize that 2 gig instead of 256 would raise the cost of a ps3 by several hundred dollars. xdr rambus modules are extremely powerful and expensive. not to mention the largest xdr module in production is a 512 stick and you dont want to pay the extra costs for that upgrade. in case you didnt notice the crap that powers a ps3 aint normal equipment. go learn something before you talk about it.

omegamalexxx

10 year life cycle may not be possible only because of large technilogical leaps that have been happening. None of the companies may want to stick with the hardware they have now, if better faster memory and processors are avalible quick enough, especially the 360 with a DVD drive.

But then again like we have all said, the next consoles may have no disk drives at all.

Hand_O_Death

I would rather have a new system every 5 years.

mahi

I imagine somewhere, Nintendo is wringing its fingers, saying "THAT'S IT. DANCE, MY PRETTIES, DANCE!"

As for this whole life cycle business, I would favor longer lifespans but I understand how impractical that would be nowadays. With ever-evolving technology making present consoles obsolete quicker, 10 years is like an eternity. That said, they need to be careful. Consoles shouldn't have to appear as cutting edge (that's for the PC), and I think that it takes developers a while before they know a system well enough to use it to their fullest capabilities. And don't forget a lot of consumers don't buy a console the day it comes out. I still haven't bought any of the next-gen consoles myself. My Dreamcast, Gamecube, and PS2 all still work great (except when I try to play Odin Sphere. Friggin' pain in the ass.)

Jason144

@genbeef: "pretty arrogant for sony to proclaim when the conosle war starts and ends. you know you're that desperate when you want to draw the lines and make the rules."

Kaz is definitely smack talkin it up. there's something about having 2 successful consoles in a row. so he is sounding like a dick. but a dick who has seen Sony replicate sucess 2 times in a row. 360 is no freaking slouch, the system will not go the way of their first console.... but i think the message from Kaz is clear. "the war has just begun"

zanzibarlegend

SHIIIIIET, the whole sony team is on a Microsoft bashing tour after E3! thats kinda stupid.

airdom

Yeah this whole 10 year cycle thing is stupid. Sony may be able to squeeze money out of a console for that long, and bravo to them, but I think VERY FEW people who read here want the same console and would play it just as hard year 10 as they did year 1.

Yuck. So for a financial standpoint for Sony, sure, it's fine, and more power to 'em. But they're not going to win any hardcore gamers with that methodology.

aphex242

@IronsUK: Totally Agree.

I think 5yrs life cycle is about right, technology has moved on enough for a reasonable advance in graphics and power etc.

unleashbass

@pulyx: I don't think that ten year life cycle is in exclusivity though. We could very well see the PS4 five years from now (7 years into the PS3's life cycle) while the PS3 remains for an additional three years.

Ps2 lessons learned.

M.A.S.

what is everyones problem to understand that PS3 will last 10 years. Sony has proven it two times already, so what is so hard to understand?

xiked

I don't know....with a blu-ray drive in the 360 the differences between the PS3 and 360 become miniscule, I mean ten years sounds great and all but the blu-ray player in the PS3 is already being trumped by the cheaper and faster blu-ray drives available on the market.

excel_excel

"You can't put a time-frame on DMT, you just can't."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I wonder if that awesome double-entendre was intentional :)

NimbusTLD

@Servant_of_Jashin: because it is a mid range computer =D

omegamalexxx

10 years is fine. But the PS2 is only on it's 9th year, and look how bad the graphics are, and the physics etc... In 10 years, I will hope there will be a new generation of systems that will compete with technology.

macr0planet

@0bsessions: How's the rest of the year looking for Nintendo fans? Ready to really go at it in Wii Sports 2 and Wii Music? If they hadn't just gone on the record as saying they have no more titles to announce, I would have guessed maybe they would have even come out with Wii Play 2, with powerups in the tank game.

Microsoft has slowed its momentum... they should probably pick it back up.

crapsh00t

This Generation is as long as they say it is, because they're in control of when the next Xbox is released and I'll put money on it being before! Sony.

unleashbass

Why does everyone assume that Sony won't release a new console until the PS3 is 10 years old? The PS3 might have a 10 year life cycle, but the PS4 may be released by year 6 or 7 of the PS3's life cycle.

Just like the PS2 is right now, considering its a last gen system its been selling a ton and its the ONLY last gen system still selling right now. Sony is saying the PS3 will be in that same situation 5 or 6 years from now when the PS4 is probably released.

cduran

Erm... the guy needs to think through what he says. He contradicted himself and said nothing at the same time. That's quite the skill one has. Oh, and bonus points for "never seeing" after just one attempt.

Basically:
1.- "Generation" and "lifetime" are not the same thing. They're shooting for a 10-year lifetime. They've been shooting for a 5-6 year generation themselves (PS1-1995, PS2-2000, PS3-2006)
2.- Microsoft is shooting for a 5-year generation (they said they're not, but whatever). And this means the lifetime must be the same.

Really, I thought Sony PR shenanigans were over by mid-2007.

Grive

@ƒox: Still it's no where near as supported as a new console. The problem is that in the later years there is a drastic lack of support which the leads the longer life span to be half pointless as it fails to act as much of an incentive to keep the console. Honsetly I'd rather they just release a new console and have last gen graphics games tossed on it as BC titles. Making it for PS3 but allowing you to buy it for PS4 anyway since they then appeal to two consoles.

Llost

@lionkitten: /agree
And I can't wait until the next generation, when Sony won't be able to gloat so much over the previous generation.

The ps2 sold, and continues to sell, very well. Great job. Now let's think about the current gen. Maybe it would sell better if you kept making backwards compatible units....Ohhhhh I get it you're selling more ps2s because of that.

Corporate gloating is fun from time to time, but I'd rather hear plans for the future! And then I'd like to see them happen (*looks at Home*).

Crawl to China

@ali_g_84uk: Um, I'm sorry but that's not true at all. Off the top of my head I can mention two games that I'm going to pick up which are Persona 4 and Yakuza 2.

ƒox

@kadaj24: I guess you've managed to catch them out in more of there lies. So it looks like they managed one console with a 10 year life span only and even that one is just ports and no original titles for it. Seems like the last years of the PS3 will probably be the same if the PS2 is anything to go by. If we don't use the PS2 as evidence the PS3 will fail in the last years then I don't see why we should see the Xbox as an indicator that MS will not deliver a long life cycle (since it's using past consoles as the subject of examination). Either way Sony wants 10 years, MS wants 7 years. I don't really care to hang around for 3 years of ports so I'm happy buying the next MS console after 7 years (which is longer than normal console life spans anyway so I can't see why people care).

Llost

I find it hard not to believe him when I look at look at the fact that I still play more hours on PS2 games than my PS3 or 360 games.

tsukasa1288

It depends on your definition of a platforms life cycle too. Honestly after ff12, okami and god of war 2 all your going to get on PS2 is easy to port sports titles, wii games etc...so i'd hardly say its a viable platform for developers, its just shifting units to cater to the more casual punter. Plus it came out at the end of 2000, the ps2 isnt 8 years old yet. Having said that the xbox came out in 2001 in the UK from memory and pretty much died by 2004...i expect to hear about the xbox 3 in 2009.

ali_g_84uk

So if PS1 had a 10-year cycle like they say, they stopped supporting it in 2005? I don't think so. What titles came out for PS1 after like 2003? Support for PS1 stopped much earlier than 2005, with maybe the exception of VERY few games.

kadaj24

Ahh, Giant Kaz Face, how I have missed ye...

Zsinj

@lionkitten: It's not really a fair criticism at all. Every console (apart from playstation ones) have had a five year life cycle. MS is going for a 7 year life cycle this time so where are they faulting? Okay Sony wants a 10 year cycle but if you haven't noticed they only managed that on PS1 and PS2 because it won the console war. Xbox was essentially ruined from the beginning since it came to the console war late when the tide had already turned in the PS2's favour so it was impossible to sustain a 10 year life cycle.

It's more for people that don't want to upgrade, the longer life cycle benefits those guys. The games will probably be crap by that point just like how the PS2 gets down graded ports only now.

Llost

@karasu is my homeboy: They still come out with big multiplatform titles that the PS3/360 get, but obviously most people prefer the 'next-gen' versions. Plus, PS2 still comes out with great new casual games and more hardcore JRPG games like Buzz and Persona series. Not to mention compilation games and revived classic titles. PS2 is not dead. Just because it's not getting Bioshocks, MGSs, or GTAs doesn't mean it's dead. Slowly drifting away yes, but still far from dead.

kadaj24

@Zombie999: You forgot about the PC, much shorter about 3 months perhaps. Oh, I've just upgraded my graphic card to ATI 4850 recently but I know I won't be getting my FF XIII on pc anytime soon.

ahmeng

@karasu is my homeboy: I find it odd that as soon as they said they're going to stop attacking MS they have 2 attacks on them in one day. Sony fags just can't stop the bitching and spinning I guess. I'm not saying MS is different but they're not as bad atleast. I did notice one MS guy claiming MS had done better at E3 while Sony and Nintendo flopped but that's not as bad as this kind of drivel.

Sony has a good point about console life cycles (as it's important) the problem is that MS is having a 7 year life cycle and that's simply better than normal consoles. It's only because PS3 lost so much money (and PS2 gained so much money) that they are going to survive so long. PS2 isn't even properly supported, it's all just ports so companies can get money from the kids that still have one.

Llost

people who debate the superiority of PC's to consoles have too much time/money on their hands

d-guy

Well it's kind of a legit criticism of the first Xbox, isn't it? But it's presented in such a disingenuous way. Kaz says "I've never seen them manage it befoore." As if this is their third or fifth or eighth generation of hardware and they have repeatedly bailed on it.

I'm not sure you can make assumptions based on someone's first generation of hardware and first time through the cycle and just automatically apply the timelines and strategies to a different generation and different decade.

Sony keeps referring to this, from E3 on - this 10=-year lifespan thing - and it gives me the sense of them just brushing off the first couple years of the PS3 as irrelevant. And it rubs me the wrong way as an early adopter of the PS3. It's like "Hey, we don't really care that we didn't serve you up front. Just wait until 2014 and it'll all be worthwhile when you don't have to upgrade."

Well I'm an early adopting fool. If Sony or MS jumps to the next gen in 2011, I'll buy in happily. Do we really care if the PS3 or 360 is still going strong in 2016? I can't imagine I'll still be playing either one. I'd imagine someone will have figured out how to make PC's become your new console - the ease of a console with the power of PC gaming.

lionkitten

@pulyx: Are you kidding me? Console gaming is still WAY more popular than PC gaming, and console gaming is only getting more popular. Just because PC can put out 1600p resolution doesn't mean it's better. Too many downfalls to PC gaming: glitches, updates, drivers, specs, etc. CHU BOI is exactly right.

kadaj24

@IronsUK: Well it's my opinion that I don't need the technology to be cutting edge, consoles have never been able to keep being cutting edge anyway and while it would be cool to have a console like that the longer the life cycle the less likely it is. What I was trying to say is that while there is benefits for customers who purchase a console with a long life span there are also drawbacks. It's mostly beneficial though in my opinion, if you can enjoy a console without it having to be cutting edge then that's good. The real problem is when they slowly end support of that console and your last years are a wasted session of stripped down ports from the next gen consoles. I agree that 10 years is a long time though, I believe 7 or 8 is a better period in which microsoft would be better looking at the life cycle period.

Llost

This "generation" of will be the product cycle of these consoles. Microsoft has already shown that as a company they define the product cycle. The business plans that Microsoft laid out when the 360 came out was a 5 year product cycle thus cutting sony's product's life cycle.

If Microsoft dictates the tempo of this "generation" it will keep Sony in a state of constant catching up.

Zombie999

@stargateheaven: How? He just stated that the 360 wont last this generation...kinda, does he really know it won't?

I own all 3 systems and i still think that 360s on the top, and when the new one arrives, be that in the next 3-4 years I'll still be playing HaLo3....and waiting for home to be released

invictus2006

Sony: We're not going to attack 360. We're all here for the same reason, and that's not our style

karasu is my homeboy

@rage142

No stop focusing your frustration on nintendo they a huge corp who dont understand english.instead focus your hate on cammie and her smile.

chaseus

The only thing keeping the PS2 alive right now is Atlus and the lack of backwards compatability on Playstation 3. Guess they have to cling to their PR bull as long as possible.

formina

@OrionnoirO: force feeding old stuff? like nintendo regurgitating IPs that are 25 years old? i own both a 360 and a PS3 but personally i would want the best VALUE. the less often i have to buy a console, the better.

sony lost hundreds on my 60 gig, and who benefits from that extra value? me. it's expensive tech that's sure to age better than my tri-core 360. i thought we had all agreed that sony's is the better hardware.

ten years is a long "lifecycle." it's far too early for either machine to project how accurate these estimates are, but i think sony believes their spin, so take that for what it's worth.

mister_shhh

but we can all agree that nintendo sucks right? especilay after this E3 right?

Rage142

@Llost: That's very true. However, it's the nature of technology that cutting edge stuff is only cutting edge for a short time. 10 years is a huge amount of time in the world of processors, graphics technology, networking etc.

Personally, the timing between the Xbox (which I bought at launch) and the Xbox 360 (again, launch) was perfect. My Xbox was looking pretty tired compared to the stuff available on the PC by the time the 360 was released. I hate having to keep a PC up-to-date but I'm happy to get a new console every 5 years.

I know gameplay is king. Everyone knows it. But who is not a sucker for pretty graphics as well?

IronsUK

it depends on how you see it ...... there were several PS3 iteration which didnt even last 6 months

US6o gig 12 months
EU6o gig 6 months
4o gig 9-1o months
and so on and on.

next year, they maybe show us an updated version with 4xBDdrive and 2 gigs of RAM. well ones with old system will be screwed (games programmed differently and presented differently, see the PSP2000 with shorter loading times and no compatibility of skype withe PSP1000)

ibunkun

*sets watch to DMT*

I was wondering what was wrong in my life. Now I know.

Heliophage

people are forgetting that xbox360 was first one out of the gate so developers had extra time to work with it plus it was less complicated to develop on.if you look@ the ps2,the ps2 really didn't get going until after mgs2 and still at the time developers where complaining bout how difficult it was to develop on it.couple years later you got god of war 2@480p widescreen with optical surround(and tons of shovelware).Also for all you guys the ps2 was ur first dvd player.

I'm not defending Im just saying let some steam build before start judging.

chaseus

how many years has the 360 been out already? It must be getting for a few? By kaz's reckoning that means the 360 is almost at the end of its life, but IMO its just getting in its stride...

I think the main arguement for consoles Vs longevity is the price point they are introduced at. Consoles are becoming more and more expensive and if people get pursuaded to buy one, they aren't as quick to replace them.

Zuluhero

Sony: "Microsoft sucks"

Microsoft: "Sony sucks"

Sony: "Nuh uh, you guys suck"

Nintendo: "$"

All this posturing and mudslinging doesn't really amount to much when they're both getting their asses handed to them. All this talk of global branding and ten year life cycles and who "won" E3 looks pretty worthless when stacked up to the idea that Nintendo's on pace to be outselling the two of them combined by the end of the fiscal year.

0bsessions

This whole "Lifecycle" thing out of Sony is just getting riddiculous. Okami...God of War...Persona? It's not like the PS2 is exactly swimming in awesome releases.

It's that whole concept of "I'd love to live to 100, provided it's a healthy 100 and not just me in a bed for that last decade..."

TRT-X

@CHU BOI: They'll always look better, but just won't sell better.

CHU BOI

With the economy like it is in the tank right now, I can see longer console cycle this time as a good possibility. Especially with the higher dev costs and consumer costs. People will not want to upgrade anytime soon.

Woe to whoever is first out with a new system. (Specifically looking at Nintendo)

I also expect each company except Nintendo on its next console to learn from its previous mistakes- the PS4 will be easier to port to, the X720 will be reliable. Nintendo will just do more of the same, knowing they can sell no matter what.

No company had a longer-run with a console then the Neo-Geo though, I think that had a thirteen year run or so.

arstal

PS4 = emotion engine chip + cell processor + software emulation of PS1. Introduction game of Ridgeeee RACERRrrrrr & 4 years wait for MGS6. (yes MGS5 will be release for this gen). Ending with return of Big Boss(thru gene revival), Old Snake (on a wheel chair) & Old Raiden lamenting of "war has change"....

ahmeng

@pulyx: It's not that PC gaming is ahead, it's just not as significant as console gaming is. WoW/Diablo 3/Starcraft 2/Sims 3 are/will be great games with huge followings but are a select few. But games like COD4 and Bioshock can't reach mass market as their console equals. Are you going to tell me that COD4 PC sold more than COD4 on 360 alone? You'd be lying to yourself. Consoles just appeal more than PC's do. Like what kagai said, consoles are just more convenient. I was a PC gamer up until '03 when I decided that I wasn't gonna spend over $300 on another graphics card. I haven't gotten into a PC game since then because the 360 filled my shooter void. Plus I had alot more friends with 360's than high-end PC's.

Besides, alot of those Wow players probably have some kind of console on the side.

You can say all you want, but PC gaming isn't going to catch up.

CHU BOI

@pulyx: Wrong, it's far from all that we care about. Besides, HD graphics aren't new. I've been playing in 1280x1024 since CS 1.3 times. What consoles can do with their fake 1080p has been eclipsed by PCs long ago. Didn't change a thing.

Candlejack

Heheh, he makes it sound like Sony's been in the console business with the Playstation brand for 20+ years now. Consoles have a life span of about 5 years, based on previous mainstays. That doesn't mean the creating company sends teams into the field to destroy all "old" consoles, but after four to five years, they release something new or get out of the game (even Sony).

rezlow

Please please please make that pic smaller, it scares me for some reason. Also up for debate, what is better. Crecente Time or DMT?

NightMystic

@IronsUK: On the one hand it's bad for those who like getting new consoles and new technology since then that is being put on hold so Sony can try and get more money out of it's old consoles. On the other hand though you get a console that is truly worth the money you pay for it, longer life cycles means it won't become obselete as fast, there will be more games coming to the console, you'll get to keep playing your PS3 while new consoles are coming out (if your one of those people that doesn't buy consoles at launch it's best that yours isn't dying out so your forced to buy new ones).

So there's some good reasons for longer life cycles and I believe Sony has the right mind set with this, they simply go about it wrongly. They don't inform us when they plan on making a new console (presumably PS3 will coexist with the PS4 as PS2 and PS3 did) they don't tell us if they'll keep making new games for it when PS4 is out. THey don't seem to have suggested they'll be getting more support during the later years too since it's pointless having the PS3 do a PS2 and just have the last few years be a downgraded port-fest of the new consoles titles.

Llost

"I guess Don is saying they're also going to be embarking on a ten-year lifecycle, then? If they are then that's terrific, but I've never seen them manage it before."

So, all other variables aside, he's saying that he didn't see them do it the one chance they've had so far? So that's a sample set of, what? One??

On top of that, Sony has only had two consoles itself, which while a 200% increase, is still waaaay two small to have any statistical reliability.

The fact is, two console generations is simply not enough to determine the probability of a new console's lifespan. Too many factors are involved in terms of competition, strength of the industry, and size of the market. Sure, Sony might be 2 for 2, and MS 0 for 1, but when we're dealing with numbers that small, across 15 or so years of industry growth and change, there's just not enough meaningful data to make worthwhile predections on history alone.

Smokeblue

Dynawatches! Check!

Who cares how many consoles are sold in the total lifespan? There is some concern about publishers needing a console to have a good installed base before they waste time and money developing games for it, but both consoles are pretty well established. Is it even, no. Does it have to be, no. Microsoft and Sony will both make new consoles. 360 and PS3 are not the last of their lineage. I think we've finally come to the point where definite timelines are gone. Generations are no longer specific time periods. Generations are manufacturer specific. So what if Sony is on a ten year and Microsoft is on a 6 year. Each company will make a quality product, each company will have good games available, each company will leapfrog the other when their respective "next generation" comes out. I'm sure the next XBox will have more features and more power than the current PS3. When Sony comes out with another console, it will be better than the Microsoft product that is out at the time.

Nintendo will always do their own thing and not give a rats ass.

Eltigro

I wondered how long it would take for Sony's talking heads to start making with the smack-talk in the aftermath of Microsoft's FF13 announcement.

It's disheartening to see grown men carry on like the insufferable fanboy pukes that frequent video game blogs. And today's an embarrassment of riches at Kotaku in that department! Mattrick, Dille, and Hirai FTMFW!

Day Man

@pulyx: i'm in this so-called Hardcore and sure i like graphics to not look like Wii games but it isn't all about the graphics if the gameplay is good enough i don't even notice the graphics til the 2nd go around or someone's watching me play and mentions it a la Uncharted

FP Bleentastic has cake

Considering the PS2 is still being sold, and games are still being developed for it, seems like a pretty valid statement imo. In 5 years the PS3 will be cheap as dirt.

Morne

mornelithe

@endaround: You sound like you are making excuses for MS's ineptness to close the deal on this generation of consoles.

There is nothing Machiavellian about how MS managed to make this generation console race close with Sony worldwide. MS is in a close race because of inept engineering, nickle-and-dimed accessories that are priced way too high, subpar premium online service, and bad customer support.

dtm3

@endaround:

Sony couldn't release a PS4 next year 1) I'd bet they don't have one even on the drawing board and 2) they couldn't afford to release another loss making console when they have one on Shelves and they have just said it'll be there 10 years. I see what your saying but right now and for the next 3-4 years Sony can't do it.

senote

I guess E3 was so boring that both Sony and Microsoft decided to increase saber-rattling after the fact just to keep their customers awake. That's basically all I get out of the most recent Sony and Microsoft news articles!

NateN

I'm quite certain that when Sony says "10 year life cycle" they mean that they will actively support the PS3 hardware for that long. It doesn't mean you won't see the next Playstation hardware sooner than that.

ToastyBuffoon

@endaround:
the only reason they are a major player is because they released their console one year ahead of the other major players. And also it didnt hurt that sony was being control by an egotist. finally, by the fact that the ps3 cost as much as a mid-range computer.

Servant_of_Jashin

Kaz is putting the scare tactic...and shifting the goal post for Xbox. Everybody knows Wii Won while the hardcore playing for scraps this gen. *grooving body to the tune of Wii music*....oh yeah..oh yeah....

ahmeng

This ten year lifecycle thing has me confused. Is Wikipedia incorrect when it says the PS1 was late 1994, PS2 early 2000, and PS3 2006? That's not ten years, it's SIX.

They may well continue to produce units and some games, but it's not their lead platform. The PS3 might still be around in another 8 years, but if Sony maintain there scehdule, there'll be a PS4 on the market well before that.

stoneagedan

I don't see why these companies boast about 10-year cycles as if consumers care. Sure it's great business to milk as much out of your product as possible, but in another few years we'll all be talking about the next round of technology and the current bunch will then stop dominating gaming news.

The people that buy consoles that late into their "lifecycle" are buying them because they are cheap as chips for their kids. They don't care right now, and aren't listening!

IronsUK

pretty arrogant for sony to proclaim when the conosle war starts and ends. you know you're that desperate when you want to draw the lines and make the rules.

genbeef

KaneRobot's right.

MS didn't own the technology in the xbox, Intel and NVidia did. They couldn't reduce the technology into a smaller chip or form factor, and lost a lot of money on every system sold.

That would be like Sony selling old HDTVs at a loss to compete with Samsung because they leased the technology. Samsung, on the other hand, owns their technology and can make the TVs cheaper with the same features.

Compare that to the Wii, where Nintendo makes money on everything they sell, including the system day one.

peacefuloutrage

I'd like to brush this off as retarded criticism (which to a point it is) due to the fact that the things he says are pointless. Firstly the Xbox was Microsofts first attempt at a console so it was never going to produce sales viably to carry on the large life cycle, secondly if you look at who has had these large life cycles (only sony) it's obvious the reason is because the winner of the console war is the only console that the 10 year life cycles is sustainable for. Thirdly Sony itself uses this life cycle as a trick to convince people that the console will be around and producing great titles for 10 years when if you look at PS2 titles there is nothing good coming out for it that isn't a port. Basically the whole insult relies solely on the fact they can keep this going where others can't but if the PS3 doesn't sell well then this is just there hopes. As they always say they are 'hoping' for a 10 year life cycle.

MS has already stated they will be having a 7 year life cycle a