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."

7 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Not the Smartest Idea I've heard by Adrilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:Not the Smartest Idea I've heard by MeanE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might not sound the smartest idea, but Sony has done it before ...see Dreamcast.

  2. ...according to an analyst. by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Larger library does not mean better library by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Personally by LowbrowDeluxe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. It's still too expensive for launch. by Dubpal · · Score: 5, Interesting
    After reading this Inquirer column it could be that Sony are waiting it out until they can make the console cheaper.

    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
  6. ...larger launch library... by Gogo0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?