PS3 Picked to Pass 360 in 2011

[Danpascooch]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

I highly doubt that MS would just up and release a new Xbox just because the PS3 passes them in sales. Especially not right after releasing Kinect. That's just illogical to even think that would happen.

That and the "PS3 is too hard to code for" was really an excuse for smaller companies to fall back on when their bad games didn't sell.

It's already been said that this console generation will be the longest ever, and everyone can see why. This gen may last 10 years due to the power of both consoles increasing so well, and the use of DLC. We're 5 years into this generation, we're only halfway through, especially if major attachments are just being released now.

First of all, I don't think Microsoft is going to make a new one solely for that, my belief is that they are already well into the development of the next xbox and will release it around the time the PS3 exceeds the 360

Also, it's not an excuse at all, it's true, it's hard to make games for due to its unnecessarily complex nature, the structure of its cells is unlike anything out there, and it deviates from established norms without a clear reason.

Microsoft is not well into developing a new console. They just released Kinect, why would they be? They also JUST started making a profit off of the 360 just over a year ago. They wouldn't be willing to make another billion dollar investment to make a console that would easily cost $600. As I said, this is going to be the longest console generation EVER. Console gens usually last 6-7 years. We're on year 5 and we JUST got major accessories for both consoles. Making a console right now would be a waste of money.

And the PS3 being hard to code for IS a sorry excuse. When smaller companies like ATLUS or the devs that made X-Blades can make multiplatform games with no bitching, the, "it's too hard" complaints are mute. Especially since there have only been a handful of companies complaining. The devs who made HAZE complained about the PS3 being hard to code for a full year after their game flopped. Valve complained because they didn't try. Now the PS3 is getting Steamworks and Portal 2. It's just a poor excuse. Borderlands can out the same day for both consoles. So did GTA IV. I didn't hear whining from Gearbox or Rockstar.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was unnecessarily difficult, I don't know where you're getting your information but I have the sneaking suspicion you are saying "it's a sorry excuse" based on no research or tangible evidence, it is in fact much more difficult to code and/or port to the PS3 over the 360 or Wii, and if you want I can post the citations that prove it.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's excessively difficult to the point that many developers consider it not worth it, the last year or two the PS3 finally started getting a steady stream of quality third party titles because developers are just getting used to the strange structure of its cells.

You're saying since Gearbox and Rockstar did it it can't be hard? That's interesting logic, You know people have climbed Mt. Everest right? It must be easy. Go try it.

I never said it wasn't hard. I know it was hard at one point, but we are 5 years into this genertation. Anyone using that as an excuse now is just whining. Chances are 5 years of it being around, means people have learned to use it. That and it's not like the same method would have worked on a Blu Ray based disk like it would on a DVD based disk. It may be hard to grasp, but look at what can be done when it's done well, regardless of whether it's 3rd party or 1st. You may call it unessecarily difficult, I'll call it new and different. People had to learn a new way of doing things sometime. If they are going to complain about it, they maybe should just stick to developing for PC.

If you think it's not unnecessarily difficult, and it's just that it's new and different, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, do some research, the entire structure of the cells is convoluted as hell.

Also, the Sony executives themselves disagree with you:

We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-playstation-ps3-developers-hirai,news-3346.html

So apparently they made it purposely hard to develop for in order to extend the life of the console, in other words, they shot themselves in the foot. The reasoning behind it is ass backwards retarded, but it's Sony's official stance.

Well if it was made hard to develop because they want the technology to last, and it's now common knowledge that this console generation is going to be the longest one we've had, then I can't see that as Sony shooting thamselves in the foot. Console generations are generally 6-7 years. This one may very well last 10 thanks to the recession and the amount of technological upgrades each console has continuously shown. I admit I'm not knowlegable and how to program for console, I know a decent amount of PC developing, but I still don't think it's difficulty is unnessecary. Things change. People have to be ready to accept that change. Because come next console generation coding being to unnecessarily hard will not be an excuse for bad games.

It's not an excuse it's TRUE, but you don't seem to understand that despite the quote I provided and the reason so whatever, I guess we stop here.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

Good. I have my personal biases of course, but I think Microsoft needs to be taken down a peg. It's my opinion that they don't treat their supporters well, and being knocked down a position might make them consider a change of techniques.

Still, when the option is there I'll be taking PC for my gaming needs.

 

[AD Headshot]

Yeah there's a reason why Microsoft make a lot more software sales. There was a study a few months back that showed the average amount of games an Xbox 360 owner owned was something like 6-8. The number of games a PS3 owner had was more like 2-4.
In a way, Sony shot themselves in the foot by giving away PS3's with Sony Bravia HD Tv's. Sure it sounds like a good idea; it encourages people to buy the TV as well as increasing the install base of the PS3 console. But there are some definite negatives; Money is lost on every console sold for both Xbox 360 and PS3, all the money is made on software. Therefore Sony are losing money via this strategy. Also a lot of people that utilized this deal only use their PS3 for watching blu-ray movies. While Sony promoted the PS3 as a multimedia device, games are still where they make all their money.
It's kinda cheating that Sony add to their total tally of PS3 consoles sold, the ones they gave away with Sony BRAVIA's. Keep that in mind.

Still, I would've said this overtake of total consoles sold might be possible if not for the success of the Kinect. Microsoft are in a great position right now, Sony not so much.

 

[Autofaux]

Parallel processing is the way of the future, although Sony admitted that their system was unnecessarily hard to code because if you think about it, they had prepped the PS3 to build directly off of the foundation set by the previous consoles. But it didn't. If it had, then not only would coding the PS3 be the norm, it would probably set a precedent. As it stands now, its a minor whoopsie, and the extra processing power doesn't hurt none.

Also, with the PS3 overtaking 360 business, it was bound to happen at some point. Microsoft did make a very concerted effort to fix their PR disaster that was the RRoD. But, that word of mouth, and with far too many consumers having to replace their consoles, or many of them having issues that couldn't be fixed, makes an impact. We joke about it now, but it made a very stern impact and serves as a warning to pushing your hardware out the door before its ready.

Exclusivity is essential, but I also don't like it. With almost every single console game to be released recently being multiplatform, it means that both myself and my friends (I have a PS3, they have Xboxes) can play the same game without having to buy two consoles.

Yeah there's a reason why Microsoft make a lot more software sales. There was a study a few months back that showed the average amount of games an Xbox 360 owner owned was something like 6-8. The number of games a PS3 owner had was more like 2-4.
In a way, Sony shot themselves in the foot by giving away PS3's with Sony Bravia HD Tv's. Sure it sounds like a good idea; it encourages people to buy the TV as well as increasing the install base of the PS3 console. But there are some definite negatives; Money is lost on every console sold for both Xbox 360 and PS3, all the money is made on software. Therefore Sony are losing money via this strategy. Also a lot of people that utilized this deal only use their PS3 for watching blu-ray movies. While Sony promoted the PS3 as a multimedia device, games are still where they make all their money.
It's kinda cheating that Sony add to their total tally of PS3 consoles sold, the ones they gave away with Sony BRAVIA's. Keep that in mind.

Still, I would've said this overtake of total consoles sold might be possible if not for the success of the Kinect. Microsoft are in a great position right now, Sony not so much.

Microsoft is trying to push as many units as it can, but its fast reaching market saturation. Kinect isn't going to push hardware sales as much as Microsoft might think, however, I do think that Kinect will be readily adopted by those who already have a 360.

Also, yes, I think Sony did limit themselves by marketing the PS3 as a multimedia device. With good reason; at the time, it was the Blu-ray/HD DVD format war.

As it stands now, attach rates are picking up with those who already own PS3s, and they are steady with those who own Xbox 360s. At this point, its just a matter of at what point do BOTH these devices reach complete market saturation?

 

[Sheinen]

Good thing I've got the new versions of both then. =)

My PS3 is used for media mostly though, it's good to have for Blu-Ray's and streaming through Nullriver but the majority of games are cross-platform and for the most part play equally well on either machine.

The X-Box only trumps it because of the more reliable online service, excellent party-chat and lower priced 2nd hand games.

Kinect isn't doing well in Japan because their Living Rooms are frickin' boxes - no-one has the space to use the damn thing! And as for the move...well...If I wanted to wave around a couple of little lights all night I'd be an air traffic warden. Show me Kinect/Controller integration!

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

I highly doubt that MS would just up and release a new Xbox just because the PS3 passes them in sales. Especially not right after releasing Kinect. That's just illogical to even think that would happen.

That and the "PS3 is too hard to code for" was really an excuse for smaller companies to fall back on when their bad games didn't sell.

It's already been said that this console generation will be the longest ever, and everyone can see why. This gen may last 10 years due to the power of both consoles increasing so well, and the use of DLC. We're 5 years into this generation, we're only halfway through, especially if major attachments are just being released now.

First of all, I don't think Microsoft is going to make a new one solely for that, my belief is that they are already well into the development of the next xbox and will release it around the time the PS3 exceeds the 360

Also, it's not an excuse at all, it's true, it's hard to make games for due to its unnecessarily complex nature, the structure of its cells is unlike anything out there, and it deviates from established norms without a clear reason.

Microsoft is not well into developing a new console. They just released Kinect, why would they be? They also JUST started making a profit off of the 360 just over a year ago. They wouldn't be willing to make another billion dollar investment to make a console that would easily cost $600. As I said, this is going to be the longest console generation EVER. Console gens usually last 6-7 years. We're on year 5 and we JUST got major accessories for both consoles. Making a console right now would be a waste of money.

And the PS3 being hard to code for IS a sorry excuse. When smaller companies like ATLUS or the devs that made X-Blades can make multiplatform games with no bitching, the, "it's too hard" complaints are mute. Especially since there have only been a handful of companies complaining. The devs who made HAZE complained about the PS3 being hard to code for a full year after their game flopped. Valve complained because they didn't try. Now the PS3 is getting Steamworks and Portal 2. It's just a poor excuse. Borderlands can out the same day for both consoles. So did GTA IV. I didn't hear whining from Gearbox or Rockstar.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was unnecessarily difficult, I don't know where you're getting your information but I have the sneaking suspicion you are saying "it's a sorry excuse" based on no research or tangible evidence, it is in fact much more difficult to code and/or port to the PS3 over the 360 or Wii, and if you want I can post the citations that prove it.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's excessively difficult to the point that many developers consider it not worth it, the last year or two the PS3 finally started getting a steady stream of quality third party titles because developers are just getting used to the strange structure of its cells.

You're saying since Gearbox and Rockstar did it it can't be hard? That's interesting logic, You know people have climbed Mt. Everest right? It must be easy. Go try it.

I never said it wasn't hard. I know it was hard at one point, but we are 5 years into this genertation. Anyone using that as an excuse now is just whining. Chances are 5 years of it being around, means people have learned to use it. That and it's not like the same method would have worked on a Blu Ray based disk like it would on a DVD based disk. It may be hard to grasp, but look at what can be done when it's done well, regardless of whether it's 3rd party or 1st. You may call it unessecarily difficult, I'll call it new and different. People had to learn a new way of doing things sometime. If they are going to complain about it, they maybe should just stick to developing for PC.

If you think it's not unnecessarily difficult, and it's just that it's new and different, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, do some research, the entire structure of the cells is convoluted as hell.

Also, the Sony executives themselves disagree with you:

We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-playstation-ps3-developers-hirai,news-3346.html

So apparently they made it purposely hard to develop for in order to extend the life of the console, in other words, they shot themselves in the foot. The reasoning behind it is ass backwards retarded, but it's Sony's official stance.

Well if it was made hard to develop because they want the technology to last, and it's now common knowledge that this console generation is going to be the longest one we've had, then I can't see that as Sony shooting thamselves in the foot. Console generations are generally 6-7 years. This one may very well last 10 thanks to the recession and the amount of technological upgrades each console has continuously shown. I admit I'm not knowlegable and how to program for console, I know a decent amount of PC developing, but I still don't think it's difficulty is unnessecary. Things change. People have to be ready to accept that change. Because come next console generation coding being to unnecessarily hard will not be an excuse for bad games.

It's not an excuse it's TRUE, but you don't seem to understand that despite the quote I provided and the reason so whatever, I guess we stop here.

Yeah, I read the quote. It shows that they did the same thing with the PS2. Look at Midnight Club I compared to Midnight Club 3. The difference is staggeringly obvious from a technical stand point. If it makes you happy I'll say that coding for the PS3 is excessivly difficult. But near the end of it's life span there will be some of the most technically powerful games we'll see being released, and that's what Sony is going for. And these games are why the PS3 is, among other factors, going to pass the 360 in sales very soon.

 

[Danpascooch]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

I highly doubt that MS would just up and release a new Xbox just because the PS3 passes them in sales. Especially not right after releasing Kinect. That's just illogical to even think that would happen.

That and the "PS3 is too hard to code for" was really an excuse for smaller companies to fall back on when their bad games didn't sell.

It's already been said that this console generation will be the longest ever, and everyone can see why. This gen may last 10 years due to the power of both consoles increasing so well, and the use of DLC. We're 5 years into this generation, we're only halfway through, especially if major attachments are just being released now.

First of all, I don't think Microsoft is going to make a new one solely for that, my belief is that they are already well into the development of the next xbox and will release it around the time the PS3 exceeds the 360

Also, it's not an excuse at all, it's true, it's hard to make games for due to its unnecessarily complex nature, the structure of its cells is unlike anything out there, and it deviates from established norms without a clear reason.

Microsoft is not well into developing a new console. They just released Kinect, why would they be? They also JUST started making a profit off of the 360 just over a year ago. They wouldn't be willing to make another billion dollar investment to make a console that would easily cost $600. As I said, this is going to be the longest console generation EVER. Console gens usually last 6-7 years. We're on year 5 and we JUST got major accessories for both consoles. Making a console right now would be a waste of money.

And the PS3 being hard to code for IS a sorry excuse. When smaller companies like ATLUS or the devs that made X-Blades can make multiplatform games with no bitching, the, "it's too hard" complaints are mute. Especially since there have only been a handful of companies complaining. The devs who made HAZE complained about the PS3 being hard to code for a full year after their game flopped. Valve complained because they didn't try. Now the PS3 is getting Steamworks and Portal 2. It's just a poor excuse. Borderlands can out the same day for both consoles. So did GTA IV. I didn't hear whining from Gearbox or Rockstar.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was unnecessarily difficult, I don't know where you're getting your information but I have the sneaking suspicion you are saying "it's a sorry excuse" based on no research or tangible evidence, it is in fact much more difficult to code and/or port to the PS3 over the 360 or Wii, and if you want I can post the citations that prove it.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's excessively difficult to the point that many developers consider it not worth it, the last year or two the PS3 finally started getting a steady stream of quality third party titles because developers are just getting used to the strange structure of its cells.

You're saying since Gearbox and Rockstar did it it can't be hard? That's interesting logic, You know people have climbed Mt. Everest right? It must be easy. Go try it.

I never said it wasn't hard. I know it was hard at one point, but we are 5 years into this genertation. Anyone using that as an excuse now is just whining. Chances are 5 years of it being around, means people have learned to use it. That and it's not like the same method would have worked on a Blu Ray based disk like it would on a DVD based disk. It may be hard to grasp, but look at what can be done when it's done well, regardless of whether it's 3rd party or 1st. You may call it unessecarily difficult, I'll call it new and different. People had to learn a new way of doing things sometime. If they are going to complain about it, they maybe should just stick to developing for PC.

If you think it's not unnecessarily difficult, and it's just that it's new and different, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, do some research, the entire structure of the cells is convoluted as hell.

Also, the Sony executives themselves disagree with you:

We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-playstation-ps3-developers-hirai,news-3346.html

So apparently they made it purposely hard to develop for in order to extend the life of the console, in other words, they shot themselves in the foot. The reasoning behind it is ass backwards retarded, but it's Sony's official stance.

Well if it was made hard to develop because they want the technology to last, and it's now common knowledge that this console generation is going to be the longest one we've had, then I can't see that as Sony shooting thamselves in the foot. Console generations are generally 6-7 years. This one may very well last 10 thanks to the recession and the amount of technological upgrades each console has continuously shown. I admit I'm not knowlegable and how to program for console, I know a decent amount of PC developing, but I still don't think it's difficulty is unnessecary. Things change. People have to be ready to accept that change. Because come next console generation coding being to unnecessarily hard will not be an excuse for bad games.

It's not an excuse it's TRUE, but you don't seem to understand that despite the quote I provided and the reason so whatever, I guess we stop here.

Yeah, I read the quote. It shows that they did the same thing with the PS2. Look at Midnight Club I compared to Midnight Club 3. The difference is staggeringly obvious from a technical stand point. If it makes you happy I'll say that coding for the PS3 is excessivly difficult. But near the end of it's life span there will be some of the most technically powerful games we'll see being released, and that's what Sony is going for. And these games are why the PS3 is, among other factors, going to pass the 360 in sales very soon.

Oh I know near the end they will be amazing, but I don't get why they couldn't make the cell design in a better configuration so that they could have amazing games for their entire life span instead of just at the end, the reasoning makes no sense to me.

I just think that around the time Sony pulls ahead of the 360 (my guess is that's at least a year away) the next xbox is probably going to be around the corner (about a year or a bit less away is my guess, so by my guess the new xbox is 2 years away), and then despite how amazing they might be, people are going to say "that new xbox is next generation and that PS3 is not" and the 360 will rocket back ahead, that's how the masses work, people will just look at the newer generation 360 and assume it's better in every way from a last generation PS3, even if it's not.

 

[floppylobster]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

Basically they made the PlaySaturn 3.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Even the beloved PS2 didn't hit its stride until two years after launch (the first great game I remembered was Twisted Metal: Black, and we all know how popular Twisted Metal is today...)

I don't see it being all doom and gloom for Sony just as long as they can get their shit together with some great 3rd party support.

On the other hand, they are selling each PS3 at a loss, so unless they get that 3rd party support for GAMES, all they're doing is pissing money away.

"Console Wars" indeed.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

I highly doubt that MS would just up and release a new Xbox just because the PS3 passes them in sales. Especially not right after releasing Kinect. That's just illogical to even think that would happen.

That and the "PS3 is too hard to code for" was really an excuse for smaller companies to fall back on when their bad games didn't sell.

It's already been said that this console generation will be the longest ever, and everyone can see why. This gen may last 10 years due to the power of both consoles increasing so well, and the use of DLC. We're 5 years into this generation, we're only halfway through, especially if major attachments are just being released now.

First of all, I don't think Microsoft is going to make a new one solely for that, my belief is that they are already well into the development of the next xbox and will release it around the time the PS3 exceeds the 360

Also, it's not an excuse at all, it's true, it's hard to make games for due to its unnecessarily complex nature, the structure of its cells is unlike anything out there, and it deviates from established norms without a clear reason.

Microsoft is not well into developing a new console. They just released Kinect, why would they be? They also JUST started making a profit off of the 360 just over a year ago. They wouldn't be willing to make another billion dollar investment to make a console that would easily cost $600. As I said, this is going to be the longest console generation EVER. Console gens usually last 6-7 years. We're on year 5 and we JUST got major accessories for both consoles. Making a console right now would be a waste of money.

And the PS3 being hard to code for IS a sorry excuse. When smaller companies like ATLUS or the devs that made X-Blades can make multiplatform games with no bitching, the, "it's too hard" complaints are mute. Especially since there have only been a handful of companies complaining. The devs who made HAZE complained about the PS3 being hard to code for a full year after their game flopped. Valve complained because they didn't try. Now the PS3 is getting Steamworks and Portal 2. It's just a poor excuse. Borderlands can out the same day for both consoles. So did GTA IV. I didn't hear whining from Gearbox or Rockstar.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was unnecessarily difficult, I don't know where you're getting your information but I have the sneaking suspicion you are saying "it's a sorry excuse" based on no research or tangible evidence, it is in fact much more difficult to code and/or port to the PS3 over the 360 or Wii, and if you want I can post the citations that prove it.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's excessively difficult to the point that many developers consider it not worth it, the last year or two the PS3 finally started getting a steady stream of quality third party titles because developers are just getting used to the strange structure of its cells.

You're saying since Gearbox and Rockstar did it it can't be hard? That's interesting logic, You know people have climbed Mt. Everest right? It must be easy. Go try it.

I never said it wasn't hard. I know it was hard at one point, but we are 5 years into this genertation. Anyone using that as an excuse now is just whining. Chances are 5 years of it being around, means people have learned to use it. That and it's not like the same method would have worked on a Blu Ray based disk like it would on a DVD based disk. It may be hard to grasp, but look at what can be done when it's done well, regardless of whether it's 3rd party or 1st. You may call it unessecarily difficult, I'll call it new and different. People had to learn a new way of doing things sometime. If they are going to complain about it, they maybe should just stick to developing for PC.

If you think it's not unnecessarily difficult, and it's just that it's new and different, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, do some research, the entire structure of the cells is convoluted as hell.

Also, the Sony executives themselves disagree with you:

We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-playstation-ps3-developers-hirai,news-3346.html

So apparently they made it purposely hard to develop for in order to extend the life of the console, in other words, they shot themselves in the foot. The reasoning behind it is ass backwards retarded, but it's Sony's official stance.

Well if it was made hard to develop because they want the technology to last, and it's now common knowledge that this console generation is going to be the longest one we've had, then I can't see that as Sony shooting thamselves in the foot. Console generations are generally 6-7 years. This one may very well last 10 thanks to the recession and the amount of technological upgrades each console has continuously shown. I admit I'm not knowlegable and how to program for console, I know a decent amount of PC developing, but I still don't think it's difficulty is unnessecary. Things change. People have to be ready to accept that change. Because come next console generation coding being to unnecessarily hard will not be an excuse for bad games.

It's not an excuse it's TRUE, but you don't seem to understand that despite the quote I provided and the reason so whatever, I guess we stop here.

Yeah, I read the quote. It shows that they did the same thing with the PS2. Look at Midnight Club I compared to Midnight Club 3. The difference is staggeringly obvious from a technical stand point. If it makes you happy I'll say that coding for the PS3 is excessivly difficult. But near the end of it's life span there will be some of the most technically powerful games we'll see being released, and that's what Sony is going for. And these games are why the PS3 is, among other factors, going to pass the 360 in sales very soon.

Oh I know near the end they will be amazing, but I don't get why they couldn't make the cell design in a better configuration so that they could have amazing games for their entire life span instead of just at the end, the reasoning makes no sense to me.

I just think that around the time Sony pulls ahead of the 360 (my guess is that's at least a year away) the next xbox is probably going to be around the corner (about a year or a bit less away is my guess, so by my guess the new xbox is 2 years away), and then despite how amazing they might be, people are going to say "that new xbox is next generation and that PS3 is not" and the 360 will rocket back ahead, that's how the masses work, people will just look at the newer generation 360 and assume it's better in every way from a last generation PS3, even if it's not.

A new Xbox being released 2 years from now is very unlikely. If they release a console with them being in 3rd place in sales, it won't look good to investors seeing as how the original Xbox struggled to stay ahead of the GameCube last generation. Also releasing the Kinect and having the majority of the better games coming out in late 2011 really shows that a new Xbow isn't coming in 2012. Many analysts, CEOs, and developers have said that this will be the longest console generation ever, lasting at least 10 years as opposed to the usual 6-7. This is due to the recession, and among other things the fact that the technology hasn't peaked with the current console, and everyone knows that. And being at year 5 of the console gen, we would've heard rumblings of new consoles rather than seeing a slimline just released as well as major accessories. Also I think MS learned not to rush out a new console thanks to the RROD fiasco.

 

[Danpascooch]

If it ever overtakes the 360, Microsoft will just release the next Xbox a year later and get all of the sales back, face it Sony, you made a damn good machine, but you made it too hard to code for and just when it's starting to hit its stride it's going to be left behind.

I highly doubt that MS would just up and release a new Xbox just because the PS3 passes them in sales. Especially not right after releasing Kinect. That's just illogical to even think that would happen.

That and the "PS3 is too hard to code for" was really an excuse for smaller companies to fall back on when their bad games didn't sell.

It's already been said that this console generation will be the longest ever, and everyone can see why. This gen may last 10 years due to the power of both consoles increasing so well, and the use of DLC. We're 5 years into this generation, we're only halfway through, especially if major attachments are just being released now.

First of all, I don't think Microsoft is going to make a new one solely for that, my belief is that they are already well into the development of the next xbox and will release it around the time the PS3 exceeds the 360

Also, it's not an excuse at all, it's true, it's hard to make games for due to its unnecessarily complex nature, the structure of its cells is unlike anything out there, and it deviates from established norms without a clear reason.

Microsoft is not well into developing a new console. They just released Kinect, why would they be? They also JUST started making a profit off of the 360 just over a year ago. They wouldn't be willing to make another billion dollar investment to make a console that would easily cost $600. As I said, this is going to be the longest console generation EVER. Console gens usually last 6-7 years. We're on year 5 and we JUST got major accessories for both consoles. Making a console right now would be a waste of money.

And the PS3 being hard to code for IS a sorry excuse. When smaller companies like ATLUS or the devs that made X-Blades can make multiplatform games with no bitching, the, "it's too hard" complaints are mute. Especially since there have only been a handful of companies complaining. The devs who made HAZE complained about the PS3 being hard to code for a full year after their game flopped. Valve complained because they didn't try. Now the PS3 is getting Steamworks and Portal 2. It's just a poor excuse. Borderlands can out the same day for both consoles. So did GTA IV. I didn't hear whining from Gearbox or Rockstar.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was unnecessarily difficult, I don't know where you're getting your information but I have the sneaking suspicion you are saying "it's a sorry excuse" based on no research or tangible evidence, it is in fact much more difficult to code and/or port to the PS3 over the 360 or Wii, and if you want I can post the citations that prove it.

It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's excessively difficult to the point that many developers consider it not worth it, the last year or two the PS3 finally started getting a steady stream of quality third party titles because developers are just getting used to the strange structure of its cells.

You're saying since Gearbox and Rockstar did it it can't be hard? That's interesting logic, You know people have climbed Mt. Everest right? It must be easy. Go try it.

I never said it wasn't hard. I know it was hard at one point, but we are 5 years into this genertation. Anyone using that as an excuse now is just whining. Chances are 5 years of it being around, means people have learned to use it. That and it's not like the same method would have worked on a Blu Ray based disk like it would on a DVD based disk. It may be hard to grasp, but look at what can be done when it's done well, regardless of whether it's 3rd party or 1st. You may call it unessecarily difficult, I'll call it new and different. People had to learn a new way of doing things sometime. If they are going to complain about it, they maybe should just stick to developing for PC.

If you think it's not unnecessarily difficult, and it's just that it's new and different, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, do some research, the entire structure of the cells is convoluted as hell.

Also, the Sony executives themselves disagree with you:

We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" explained Hirai.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/sony-playstation-ps3-developers-hirai,news-3346.html

So apparently they made it purposely hard to develop for in order to extend the life of the console, in other words, they shot themselves in the foot. The reasoning behind it is ass backwards retarded, but it's Sony's official stance.

Well if it was made hard to develop because they want the technology to last, and it's now common knowledge that this console generation is going to be the longest one we've had, then I can't see that as Sony shooting thamselves in the foot. Console generations are generally 6-7 years. This one may very well last 10 thanks to the recession and the amount of technological upgrades each console has continuously shown. I admit I'm not knowlegable and how to program for console, I know a decent amount of PC developing, but I still don't think it's difficulty is unnessecary. Things change. People have to be ready to accept that change. Because come next console generation coding being to unnecessarily hard will not be an excuse for bad games.

It's not an excuse it's TRUE, but you don't seem to understand that despite the quote I provided and the reason so whatever, I guess we stop here.

Yeah, I read the quote. It shows that they did the same thing with the PS2. Look at Midnight Club I compared to Midnight Club 3. The difference is staggeringly obvious from a technical stand point. If it makes you happy I'll say that coding for the PS3 is excessivly difficult. But near the end of it's life span there will be some of the most technically powerful games we'll see being released, and that's what Sony is going for. And these games are why the PS3 is, among other factors, going to pass the 360 in sales very soon.

Oh I know near the end they will be amazing, but I don't get why they couldn't make the cell design in a better configuration so that they could have amazing games for their entire life span instead of just at the end, the reasoning makes no sense to me.

I just think that around the time Sony pulls ahead of the 360 (my guess is that's at least a year away) the next xbox is probably going to be around the corner (about a year or a bit less away is my guess, so by my guess the new xbox is 2 years away), and then despite how amazing they might be, people are going to say "that new xbox is next generation and that PS3 is not" and the 360 will rocket back ahead, that's how the masses work, people will just look at the newer generation 360 and assume it's better in every way from a last generation PS3, even if it's not.

A new Xbox being released 2 years from now is very unlikely. If they release a console with them being in 3rd place in sales, it won't look good to investors seeing as how the original Xbox struggled to stay ahead of the GameCube last generation. Also releasing the Kinect and having the majority of the better games coming out in late 2011 really shows that a new Xbow isn't coming in 2012. Many analysts, CEOs, and developers have said that this will be the longest console generation ever, lasting at least 10 years as opposed to the usual 6-7. This is due to the recession, and among other things the fact that the technology hasn't peaked with the current console, and everyone knows that. And being at year 5 of the console gen, we would've heard rumblings of new consoles rather than seeing a slimline just released as well as major accessories. Also I think MS learned not to rush out a new console thanks to the RROD fiasco.

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Wait, people consider the Wii as a games console?

I've always referred to mine as "Dusty McNovelty"

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Biggest seller this Christmas? I suspect Gran Turismo 5, hands down, which might push PS3 sales. Check the sales of the other Gran Turismo's (full games, no prologues leading up to the next game), they're off the chart.

As for next year, with all the software PS3 now has out, and has coming out, I think that's a plausible scenario. It's also half the price that it launched out, I'm thinking 2011 will be the year PS3 takes the lead.

 

[Danpascooch]

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

 

[Danpascooch]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

When I said computers I actually meant Operating Systems and assumed that's what you meant too, my fault for the improper use of the word, but what I meant was that Windows has never been surpassed in sales by any Apple OS (not counting a mobile operating system) and that Apple overtook Microsoft as a whole through their other incredibly successful ventures (such as the Ipod)

As to the other stuff......well shit, you shut me down, the first link lead to a 404 Page Not Found error, but given the rest of the stuff you posted I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it said what you posted it as. My apologies, I thought I knew more than I actually did it seems.

 

[Double A]

Never expect for a product you buy once to keep selling infinitely in Japan. Most of the populace is old, and most who are already going to get a PS3 have one.

 

[laststandman]

They have been saying this ever since the XBox 360 and PS3 came out. And guess what, its hasnt happened!

Damn! Ninja'd!
But yeah every single year it's "this is the year of the PS3! No seriously, the software has improved along with the library and now it'll happen!" This is like saying that THIS is the year the Capitals will win the cup (but that might actually happen this year)

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The

If anything they learned that they SHOULD rush out a new console, their early lead was one of the biggest factors in them staying in front of the PS3 for so long.

But rushing the release of the 360 before it was ready financially hurt them the most, a la RROD. And you really have to think, before the warranty existed, how many people had bought new 360s. Rushing out a system is not going to be the tactic that MS uses next gen. It cost them billions of dollars and didn't allow them to make a profit off of the 360 until 3 years in. They're going to be more careful. And in all reality losing to Apple in the computers front is probably going to have MS really thinking about it's next moves as the lead over the PS3 is the last thing MS can say it truly has over anyone in any field, and it's not even the leading position.

You do realize no company really makes any money off of the systems right? (they make the money off of the GAMES) Also losing "billions" is a gross overestimation. And Microsoft is totally destroying Apple in the computers front, Apple is dominating in the Phones and other mobile devices sector so much that it has overtaken Microsoft's company value anyway. Have you actually looked anything up?

Microsoft took an early lead because tons of people bought 360s, so they were less likely to buy a PS3 because of the expense of two consoles, they then proceeded to rake in millions from first party game sales, that's how the industry works.

The "losing billions" is not an overestimation. RROD lost Microsoft nearly $2 billion. (http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+360+Defect+Coverage+Drives+189+Billion+Loss+for+Division/article8118.html).

Apple has surpassed MS as an entire company.
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/apple-passes-microsoft/)
And how can MS be destroying Apple in the computer front when MS doesn't make computers?
The only thing that MS has over Apple is OS sales, and really not by much.

And yes I did look up my info, you clearly did not because you saying that MS raking in millions off of first party games is false. They didn't make any money off of the 360 until 2008, three years into this generation.

And if you actually looked up any info you'd know that 2008 was when MS made a $77 profit off of each console sold.
(http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/xbox-360-costs-over-500-less-to-make-than-ps3-says-isuppli/70376/?biz=1)
So yes, consoles do eventually post a profit.

MS had an early lead because of a year jump on the competition. If you actually look at the sales performances of both the 360 and PS3, if that year jump didn't happen, the PS3 would have outsold the 360 long ago. The other factor to why the 360 is ahead of the PS3 now is because of the 360 Arcade which has cost $199 US since it appeared, as well as paying 3rd party companies for exclusivity (a practice that really isn't worth the amount that MS pays off as shown by the many JRPGs they tried to pull that stunt with). I'm in school for marketing and accounting, I know what I'm talking about. I also can tell you that MS will not release a console in 2 years as you keep saying. It's not logical to do so. They lost $4 billion on the Original XBox alone, and just started making money off of the 360 two years ago. They just released a major peripheral which will have most of it's major games released late next year, and to be quite honest ending this generation in 3rd place for the second time in a row does not look good to investors, or 3rd party developers at all. If MS is going to make new consoles just to gain an early lead, then they really wouldn't have learned anything from the mistakes that caused them a large amount of loss this generation.

When I said computers I actually meant Operating Systems and assumed that's what you meant too, my fault for the improper use of the word, but what I meant was that Windows has never been surpassed in sales by any Apple OS (not counting a mobile operating system) and that Apple overtook Microsoft as a whole through their other incredibly successful ventures (such as the Ipod)

As to the other stuff......well shit, you shut me down, the first link lead to a 404 Page Not Found error, but given the rest of the stuff you posted I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it said what you posted it as. My apologies, I thought I knew more than I actually did it seems.

Hey, it's a healthy debate you learned new things through it, as did I. I see it as knowledge being exchanged through communication. In my opinion it's the best way to learn really.