More PlayStation 3 Predictions

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More PlayStation 3 Predictions

Posted by michael on Thursday March 20, 2003 @01:30AM from the tea-leaves dept.

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."

10 of 194 comments (clear)

Ingest with a single crystal of Sodium Chloride... by Ab0rtRetryFail · 2003-03-20 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. :)
Re:Why would they want to? by larien · 2003-03-20 01:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

If they try to milk it too long, they'll fall behind the technology ladder. Fall too far, you risk losing market share and people will just buy Xbox(2) instead. Game makers will follow and soon PS3 is a dead duck before it's launched.
As it is, they're already behind Xbox technologically and the only thing keeping PS2 winning is the game selection. If MS buys up enough games companies for Xbox only titles, PS2 will start losing market share heavily.
*shrug* time will tell, as ever; 3 years is a long time for MS to make Sony an also ran.
In topics about the PS3, some things are certain.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-20 01:43 · Score: 5, Funny

1. The Release date will change.

2. People will complain about said release date change and blame it on either Sony, Microsoft or CowboyNeal.

3. SOMEONE will post a link to that 'Ghost of Christmas Future' PS5 story on TheOnion.
to the victors goes the spoils.. by merc_sa · 2003-03-20 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Why do we need it? by x311 · 2003-03-20 01:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Re:Competiton by binaryDigit · 2003-03-20 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

As other people have said the PS2 unit itself might start making money for sony as production costs fall

Repeat after me, Sony sells PS2 hardware for a profit already. Have for a while now.

I look forward to the day I can play a photorealistic games rendered in real time.

As long as the games don't suck. I look forward to the day when focus comes back to gameplay and not pretty pictures.
Recap by YE · 2003-03-20 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
Now, if you haven't been following the entire brouhaha, here's a brief recap:
1. Somebody overhears something about chips sampling and makes the utterly ridiculous assumption that PS3 will launch this year.
2. Gutter media (like The Inquirer) are all over the story.
3. Gamer sites don't want to be left behind ("Hey, it may be bullshit, but our readers better read bullshit on our pages than on The Inquirer") and quote each other as authorities.
4. Everyone with a little insight in the console business and general common sense dismisses the story as crap. General consensus is reached.
5. Mainstream media picks up the story a week after it's all calmed down, e.g. CNN posts an article of three screenfulls of text which says absolutely nothing.
6. Slashdot editors decide that any mention of the word "Playstation" on CNN is techno-culture, cyberpunkish, and, most of all, worth posting as news.
7. Slashdot readers ("commenters") wage a bloody flamefest over "my console is 1337er than yours", mentioning "attention to gameplay", "Microsoft world domination" and "games in ye good olden days" many times without giving a clock cycle to think about what they actually mean. But, hey, that's okay, that's Slashdot!
Re:Who cares? by mezelf · 2003-03-20 02:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Why would they want to? by renenoel · 2003-03-20 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Technical Superiority never had anything to do with the Console Wars.

At almost every stage, Nintendo had the better platform, but because of bonehead licensing, they never really got developers behind them. Also, they always came out with gimpy media: cartridges, mini-DVDs, instead of CDs and regular DVDs.

X-Box has also struggled with developers, but they clearly had (and still has) the best engine behind the games: it's twice as fast as the PS2. As Nintendo (and briefly, Sega) have shown us is that it's not the faster box that wins.

Sony wins with letting anyone and their brother develop games (they even sold ones that let you develop games on your own!), and they won by making it easily hackable. When people realized that after dropping a few dollars to (illegally) modify their PS1 or PS2, they could download all of games off the net or copy their friends' games, it took off and never looked back. At any point, if Sony wanted to close up the ability to modchip their machines, I'm sure they could have, but why would they?

If Microsoft or Nintendo really want to compete, they should worry less about processing power and more about getting people behind them.
Re:Ingest with a single crystal of Sodium Chloride by ApharmdB · 2003-03-20 02:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.