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."
I can't imagine this being a good idea, Sony would be giving Microsoft a chance to keep moving next gen units and Nintendo a chance to leapfrog them with the Revolution while they sit idle just so they can have a larger library on launch? Every moment they sit without units on the shelves gives MS the chance to release the next Halo, plus they'll have next gen titles that would've been ported to both systems. Madden '06 may not be the difference maker, but '07 just might, EA will have had time to tweak to the system more, and make the games better on the 360, but Sony fanboys will be stuck with the weaker PS2 game. My suggestion is kill this idea immediately and get that PS3 out as soon as it's ready for production. Even if the 360 doesn't have a good launch, doesn't mean it wont be successful throughout it's lifetime, something they should think about with reference to their own PSP.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
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
IF the 360 flops? Of course the 360 launch is going to flop. Let's not forget that Microsoft announced that 360s will ship with standard DVD drives and the HD-DVDs will be coming later (next year most likely). I was going to go out and get a 360 at launch, but now I'm going to wait for HD-DVD, as I suspect many other people are. A bad move on Microsoft's part is going to end up giving Sony the opportunity to delay their console without losing much market share. I do think, however, that the aging PS2 hardware is nearing the end of it's lifecycle. Consumers are ready for something new, and as far as I'm concerned, the PSP is a niche market.
Its interesting that this comes quite soon after Bill Gates himself announced that the first next-gen Xboxes would ship with non-HD DVD drives, effectively limiting the launch software to dvd media, and perhaps even limiting all games throughout the lifetime of the platform. If Sony do choose to take extra time in ensuring the launch titles make the absolute most out of the additional storage capacity and performance available on the PS3, it could be enough to provide a killer blow even to a successful xbox 360. If the PS3 manages to blow the xbox away in terms of game visuals/depth, then they'll almost have skipped a generation and taken the fight right back to microsoft.
Business Voyeur
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 don't think it's all that bad of a move. First off, both the Xbox 2 (Quick, give it a name with a 3 in it or it'll look bad compared to Sony...feh.) and the PS3 were rushed due to competition with each other. If the Xbox fails because of that, and because they rushed to undercut even Sony's timetable, then it clearly makes sense. Above and beyond that, though, Sony is really more about franchise loyalty and the flavor of games produced for it, and they have plenty of games slated all the way through next year for the PS2. They're not going to lose their core audience to Xbox. Most Playstation fans who want a game that comes out on XBox will wait and buy it for their actual computer. Meanwhile, if they did delay, the PS3 might actually manage to live up to part of it's hype, something I don't have a lot of hope for given the release-date war between Sony and Microsoft. Eventually it reached some obscure level of corporate triple-dog-dare, and Sony called them on it. If they succeed Sony will have to launch, if not they can stand their laughing and calling MS a dumbass for trying it. I can only imagine the screams of pain from engineers everytime MS and Sony's marketing teams released a revised release date.
I wouldn't mind seeing both of these consoles delayed for a year or so. It seems like both systems were hyped far too much to even begin meeting the expectations of gamers and programmers. This way the hardware might be upgraded some and developers would have more time to fiddle with it. This actually seems like a good move for overall quality.
Normality is now: overrated.
that the Phantom console has been waiting for!
We are the Microsoft. You will be assimilated. The exact date of assimilation has slipped once again, but we expect to be at your planet sometime Q1 next year. Be sure to watch for us.
We will bring your total cost of living down through universal cybernetic hardware implants. Periodic software updates may be purchased to allow you to control the new hardware that will periodically sprout from your body. Your normal motor functions will be replaced with an expensive yet inferior system that will only allow you to shuffle along like a crippled old man.
You will have access to the ultimate Peer-to-Peer network with secure music downloads direct to the brain with properly activated frontal lobes.
We will tell you where you want to go.
There's no indications anyone outside the company even has something looks like a dev kit yet, they haven't revealed what the machine even is to the public and I don't think they've revealed it to most developers. Microsoft's got, like, near-finished games. Sony's got devkits going out and they're publicly apologizing to developers for not being able to manufacture enough of them. Ask Nintendo what they're up to? They talk about the DS and its online plans.
I don't think Nintendo's anywhere near ready to ship this thing.
Also their memory supplier let slip that they believed the revolution would ship in "mid-2006". Take that however you want.
My personal suspicion would probably be that the Revolution is going to be released last. Nintendo's either got the most amazing show of secrecy ever constructed among men, or they aren't nearly as far along as Sony and Microsoft. And I doubt Sony will delay a console release just because they don't have any games. They didn't delay the PS2 launch for lack of games, they didn't delay the Japan PSP launch for lack of games, and when they delayed the American PSP launch (for lack of games at the time of Japanese launch?) it didn't really help them much.
If I'm right about this, though, Nintendo probably won't suffer much for coming out last. They seem to be going for a very different sort of strategy next generation than Sony and Microsoft.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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
Wow,once again the clueless analysts have shown us the light. Honestly, if these people were really all that good at spotting industry trends and making accurate predictions they'd be working in the industry.
There's an old marketing adage...
Be first, or
be second and be happy with that, or
go play elsewhere.
You cannot underestimate the value of being first into the market with a new gadget. The '360 and PS3 are 'new generation', and therefore I'll define them as new gadgets.
Few will care if MS titles aren't *that* strong at the get go - the graphics will apparently be awesome. And, for a while anyway, that will be important.
Sony: you have *got* to release the PS3.
From the column:
Merrill Lynch estimated that the cost to produce a single PS3 would be a shade under $500. Considering that the Xbox 360 is expected will be priced at around $299, it was felt that even a $399 price tag on the PS3 meant Sony taking a $1bn hit on hardware costs alone in the first year.
When you consider that they've packed Bluetooth, HDTV (a feature Nintendo ended up dropping because of cost) and the first Commercial release of Blu-Ray in there, it's not too surprising that the earlier they launch the console, the harder Sony's going to get hit in the pocket.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
- George Orwell
Sony risks shipping hardware that is outdated at the day of launch. If it takes years for launch software to be written for a new platform then how can the hardware be bleeding edge?? The hardware spec gets finalized the day your developers start working. From that point onward you are obsolete.
What I think Sony or others should do, if they are moving in a parallel direction, is try to anticipate this gap between initial hardware finalization and the launch of the console, and have developers write to a more stripped down version of the hardware while you anticipate the final version having more cores or an additional CPU by the time you launch. That way the initial games might not take full advantage of the hardware but the second you start making consoles you'll know you are at as close to the bleeding edge as possible. When the 2nd wave of software gets finished it will be able to take advantage of the "last minute" extra hardware.
You either do that or you write the software to automatically elegantly upscale to theoretical extra parallelism.
Come on, whats the point of even debating this. Microsoft is not going to be weak at release anyway. Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
Like they did with the Dreamcast... or the CDi, or the Turbo-Graphix 16...
why does everyone seem to think "first to market" is a silver bullet that trumps all other issues?
They are playing US.
They are telling the public (a la press release) that the M$ console is not really that big of a threat and is willing to wait while the paint dries on their product.
Apply this to the mentality of little johnny Uber-1337, 'whoa I better make mommy and daddy wait until the sony comes out before I throw my tantrum because they already know they are better then M$!!!"
This is all chess, its all about the moves... When some company tells the public something they are just that, telling you something. It has no warrenty, guarentee or even the assumption that they are telling you this in an unbiased whole hearted manner.
They like M$ and pretty much evrey other high roller company is just trying to fuck with as many heads as they can and hope for the best.
Take this with a pound of salt....
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Alright, let's assume for a moment that the Xbox 360 launch is a total flop. People just can't seem to justify the price tag for the one or two games they want to play at launch. Sony then delays the PS3 for a year so they can bolster their game library. Seems reasonable, except for the fact that the Xbox 360 will ALSO be bolstering it's game library continuously from the day of it's launch. Is the analyst just assuming no more games will be released after the launch titles? That's simply ludicrous. Hell, if Sony delays the PS3 for a year to improve it's game library then Microsoft will have a chance to lower it's console's price during the PS3's launch a year later. Then you have an interesting scenario where the Xbox 360 is cheaper and has more games that people know are good while the PS3 is more expensive with a ton of games that nobody has played yet.
Second, I don't think the new PS2 price cut is going to take away the Xbox 360's thunder. That's just on opinion of course and I have no idea how it will pan out. But considering the PS3 launch is (supposedly) fairly soon after the 360's launch I would rather save my money and buy that than an aging PS2.
Third, I've seen a lot of mention about the whole HD-DVD thing in this thread. Now console players are usually not as tech savvy as say a PC gamer. They don't have to be. Out of idle curiosity I asked my friend who is a major console gamer what he thought of Microsoft decision to not include an HD-DVD drive with the 360. He just sort of looked at me blankly, he had no fucking clue what it was. So will this hurt Microsoft in the slightest? Possibly if the media screams about them not having HD-DVD, but more than likely, no. I personally feel that an HD-DVD isn't even needed for the next-gen consoles, but hey, everyone can have an opinion eh?
Now assuming Microsoft doesn't completely fuck up the launch (i.e. - letting a major bug that renders the console useless slip by them, such as exploding power supplies) then I can't even see the console flopping. But even if it does Sony would be making a huge mistake by delaying the PS3 another year.
Besides, the Xbox has Halo and a few other decent games. The main one is Halo though. Halo 3 will sell the Xbox 360, there's no question about it. This is a moot speculation by an analyst who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
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?
...I heard they were waiting to launch it with Duke Nukem Forever.
Sony reduced the "Profits" forecast by more than 88%, not the "Revenue" forecast. "Revenue" acutally declined by 1%. Reducing a "Revenue" forecast by 80% would be like an earthquake with magnitude 8.5 in the center of Tokyo.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.