Slashdot Mirror
More PlayStation 3 Predictions
GreyGusMan writes "On the heels of last week's report that the PlayStation 3 would be released by the end of the year, CNN/Money is now reporting that Sony will not release its next console until 2006 - a year later than most of the industry has been predicting up until now. The column points out that PlayStation 2 sales have remained stong for much longer than the PlayStation and the technology Sony has planned will take a long time to create. Meanwhile, the same column mentions that the expected May price cut may be less than expected. Most people were expecting the PS2 to drop to $149, but $179 is now also a possibility."
Hell, why not milk the PS2 for as long as they can? I've got to imagine that as the technology in the PS2 gets cheaper, they'll actually start making money per unit instead of losing it, and as long as people are buying, then more profit for Sony.
Apparantly it's a winning strategy since people are still buying PSOnes...
As always, I think articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
:)
I think the PS3 is likely anywhere from Christmas 2004 to Christmas 2005. The standard for a LONG TIME has been a 5 year system cycle, and there's nothing to suggest that the next generation will be any different. Whatever Sony is planning is likely not past the drawing board stage, and there's certainly a lot of life left in their Playstation 2 system.
Don't worry people... you can all enjoy your PS2s for a couple of years to come, at least.
Didn't "they" say, like 2 weeks ago, that the playstation 3 will be coming out next year?
No, it was just some rumour circling the net as usual. Sony will not under any circumstances release a new console while their existing box (PS2) is selling well.
As for not releasing a new console until it's good and finished, hmm, I'm not sure. Sony's only real motivation to release a new console sooner rather than later is competition (XBox, gamecube etc). If one of these catches them off guard then you'll be sure to see a new PS... whether it's good and finished or not. Sony can't afford to lost market share.
Sony has won the console war and it's now time to ride the gravy train for the next few years
off the software. The xbox was out late was never got traction, and the gamecube is still
mainly targetted at kiddies..
MS is now in the awkward situation of either being content at number 2 or risk further
alienating its base by releasing the next console too early. Nintendo being in that same leaky
boat. So whether we like it or not, Sony's domination over this current generation of
consoles will push out innovation for the next generation at least by an extra year or two.
It'll be good for sony's bottomline but gamers will have to be happy with what they got for a
little while...
Is it just me, or there seems to be a slowdown in major AAA titles in the last year or so for the
consoles? I would generally buy at least 3 to 4 AAA titles a year, but this year and last year,
Vice City is the only title I've picked up.. Either I'm getting pickier.. or the picking's
gotten a lot thinner..
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
There's already an offical PS2 linux distro CD you idiot - no need for modding.
Prehaps Sony realises that ATM in terms of installed based and quality of the game library there isn't anything that can touch the PS2. In europe both the X-Box and Gamecube aren't anywhere near as popular. Why should Sony push new hardware onto the market to extend their lead now when there is no need to.
As other people have said the PS2 unit itself might start making money for sony as production costs fall. Sure I would love to have the PS3 but Sony know the market will wait. Also with any luck the extra time will mean that the new technology will be even more advanced.
I look forward to the day I can play a photorealistic games rendered in real time.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
It might just be me, but I'm completely satisfied with my XBox and PS2. Hell, I still love the Dreamcast. You know why? The games are good and fun. Is releasing a new console going to make the games better? I really can't see the correlation between having a new console out and having better games (except that a new system usually launches with a couple A+ games). I'd be more interested in MS and Sony throwing more money into quality game development instead of working on making a new console that will make the already-pretty-enough graphics a little bit prettier. Graphics and processing power do not make games--innovation does.
Give it a look
I guess what I'm saying is, Cell had better be absolutely revolutionary-stunning-fantastic to actually make people care after that long.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
This five year gap between consoles may be just what nintendo needs to jump in and take over the next generation console market. Previously Sony has had the edge by coming out a year earlier than the others.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
The X-box vs. PS2 battle will indeed be a tough one, but I don't think that the X-box will knock the Gamecube off the market. They are targetted at completely different audiences. The Gamecube targets the younger children, with games and characters such as Zelda, Super Mario, ... Pretty friendly games, rather non-violent with more or less cartoon-like characters. OK, they have always had other games as well (Metal Gear springs to mind), but Super Mario and Zelda were and are their flagships.
While both the X-box ans the Playstation (1 or 2) can compete with the gamecube on the second type of games (for the young adults or the older children) and even might dominate the market in that category, they don't seem to have that impact on the youngest amongst the gamers and they don't seem really willing to put enough effort in it.
So, I think that there is more than enough room for at least 2 consoles, and I favor Nintendo for being one of them. They have the know-how regarding children, they work with some experienced companies on those games, ... What will happen to the other consoles... Only time will tell.
A computer lasts about 2 years... Why would a console last 6?
Because the hardware is more focused on a single purpose and because that is a benefit of consoles. Joe Average likes consoles as opposed to computer gaming because it is a single purchase that lasts a much longer time. He is not forced into a constant upgrade cycle to stay current. If Sony, MS, and Nintendo start making new consoles every two years they will alienate a lot of people. Look at what all those "upgrades" did to Sega during the Saturn days.
"When was the last time you were using a controller for xbox online and were accused of using an aimbot? Never? Hmmm.... wonder why that is."
err, because the lack of aimbots has meant that you can concentrate on playing games rather than worrying that every person achieving a kill might be cheating? I know I stopped playing CS when it became impossible to have any fun due to all the cheating people; consoles have got me gaming again.
While I understand your desire to stick with K+M configs for playing first-person games, I also found that I'm got pretty sick of just these, and nothing beats a stick for fighting games, shooting games, platformers, analogue control for driving games etc. Its the right tool for the right job that counts.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
1. Please don't call it the PS/2, that's a device interface
2. Joe Six-pack doesn't care whether or not you can install Linux, or overclock the processor. That is not the way you are going to sell a games machine.