Slashdot Mirror
Sony May Delay PS3 Until 2007
GodFather writes "ArsTechnica posted an article that claims the PS3 may be pushed back as far as 2007 if the Xbox 360 launch flops. The reasoning behind it? If Microsoft comes out with a weak set of titles at launch Sony could delay and build a larger launch library to lay the smack down on Microsoft."
The source for this is "an analyst".
In other words, some random guy who doesn't work for Sony is predicting that Sony may delay the PS3, based basically on having read the same news reports you and I do.
This should be taken with exactly as much credence as if you'd heard "well this guy on the internet thinks that Sony is going to..."
Which is to say.
None.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It might not sound the smartest idea, but Sony has done it before ...see Dreamcast.
Disclaimer: I do not own the Playstation 2.
I used to own a Playstation years ago, and one of my favorite things about it was that the library of games for the system was incredibly vast. However, scratching the surface revealed that many of the games were cheap ripoffs of each other and that truly original games were few and far between.
Nintendo has always seemed to have a talent for coming up with a decent library of original games that keeps the devoted coming back. Sony, on the other hand, seems to push quantity over quality when it comes to their library. If they are going to take 2 years to fill out their launch library, I wonder how much of that will be really good games and how much of it will be cutscene movies (Final Fantasy), sequels (anything by Rockstar), and played out genres (the FPS comes to mind).
I really like Sony. I owned many of their walkmans years ago, and I enjoyed the gaming I did on the original Playstation. But both they and the audience must learn that just because you have many times the number of games as your competitor, it is not a very good metric because the number of good, original games in that library may be only a fraction of that amount.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
I applaud your restraint, and if enough consumers had it we would get better products all around. However Microsoft's model is predicated on reoccurring revenue streams. Office does not change to drastically version from version yet enough people buy it to make MS tons o' cash. I bet enough people are going to buy the XBOX 360 and then turn around and buy the XBOX 360.5 to make them more than enough money to justify the launch of the 360 with out the HD-DVD. As long as MS has something out there can can create FUD with this is a lose for Sony.
Can't be a good idea. All the 3rd party publishers are waiting on the PS3 launch to start getting their investment back. An extra year before you can sell your game ? They'd scream bloody murder.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Sony risks shipping hardware that is outdated at the day of launch. If it takes years for launch software to be written for a new platform then how can the hardware be bleeding edge?? The hardware spec gets finalized the day your developers start working. From that point onward you are obsolete.
What I think Sony or others should do, if they are moving in a parallel direction, is try to anticipate this gap between initial hardware finalization and the launch of the console, and have developers write to a more stripped down version of the hardware while you anticipate the final version having more cores or an additional CPU by the time you launch. That way the initial games might not take full advantage of the hardware but the second you start making consoles you'll know you are at as close to the bleeding edge as possible. When the 2nd wave of software gets finished it will be able to take advantage of the "last minute" extra hardware.
You either do that or you write the software to automatically elegantly upscale to theoretical extra parallelism.
Come on, whats the point of even debating this. Microsoft is not going to be weak at release anyway. Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
Like they did with the Dreamcast... or the CDi, or the Turbo-Graphix 16...
why does everyone seem to think "first to market" is a silver bullet that trumps all other issues?
Nintendo has a lot of first party games, remember. They could be easily getting those ready to go. If memory serves, the Gamecube launched on mainly first-party titles, and it did pretty well.
And the one thing that we don't know anything about for the Revolution is the controller. Which, again if memory serves, Nintendo said they wanted to keep very, very secret. Xbox360 controller? Slightly-less-massive than Xbox controller. PS3 controller? Looks like it'd make a good sex toy and/or boomerang. Revolution controller? Don't know yet...
The other thing is, Nintendo is not overhyping the Revolution, which could be a great benefit. If it launches with features no one heard any rumours about, people could easily be quite stunned and surprised, and that surprise could turn into purchases. Compared to an overhyped product, which doesn't have rumoured features - PS3/Xbox360 could easily loose sales because of overhyping...
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Yes, because the launch library matters.
Wait, no it doesnt.
The PS2 had a bunch of crap right out of the gate. The leader of the pack was a mediocre snowboarding game that was propelled to stardom by the fact that it was one of the very few games worth owning at the time.
Yeah, the xbox had Halo at launch, but that didnt matter either. They could have released it at any time and still garnered the same results (a lot of sold hardware).
The Gamecube had one outstanding game (Rogue Leader) at launch, and then THREE MONTHS OF NOTHING until Super Smash Bros Melee, and the console continues to be #2 worldwide.
Two crappy launches (in regards to titles) and those are beating out a wildly successful launch in the long run.
Now, if the consoles launch at the same time it matters... Or at least one would think so. The cube's poor launch was within days of the xbox's great one (again, in regards to games only), and they are in a dead heat now.
So I guess my point is: "Analyst" speculation is less than worthless, and history reveals that supposedly obvious things make no sense at all.
Quit posting what amounts to random guessing about the ps3 and 360. We dont see a story every time a new fake Revolution controller pic hits the net, so why do we still get this crap?