Sony: Microsoft or Nintendo Will Go Next-Gen Before Us

[GloatingSwine]

Still dropped on the main model, the new 360 Slim or whateverthehell you call it didn't change price yet the older model(s) did. That's a price drop in my book.

It wasn't the "main model" though, they dropped the price on the discontinued model, as soon as they introduced the non-backwards compatible 80GB model they stopped making the 60GB model, so the "price drop" only applied to the remaining stock of the 60GB.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Perhaps, but the fact still remains that all consoles are pitiful in comparison to even two year old PCs. You have the technology, but no applications (on any platform), which is incredibly disappointing.

So... what's your point?

The PC's power isn't a threat to either the PS3 or the 360. Why create a new console just to keep up with what PC graphics would be if everyone wasn't already designing their games to run on your current one first and porting them later?

My point is that it is bullshit to proudly declare one's pathetically weak console to be able to withstand the test of time, only to be improved until a competitor releases a new one. Here's the thing, if innovation isn't pushed, nothing will come from it. What pray tell has been accomplished in the current console generation (ie that hasn't been done earlier on the PC) that is of any value to the future?

 

[GloatingSwine]

My point is that it is bullshit to proudly declare one's pathetically weak console to be able to withstand the test of time, only to be improved until a competitor releases a new one. Here's the thing, if innovation isn't pushed, nothing will come from it. What pray tell has been accomplished in the current console generation (ie that hasn't been done earlier on the PC) that is of any value to the future?

Commercial success?

 

[coldshadow]

nintendo will hopefully make a nextgen console with gamers in mind, while microsoft dosnt make a new one, just remakes the 360 over and over again and as for sony, they seems to actually be able to stride forward with this, since they are running on pretty much open source software.

I dont think either microsoft nor sony want to change their current game tracking system, mainly because people wont want to loose all of their acheavments/trophies and all the dlc and whatnot that they have bought

 

[BloodSquirrel]

My point is that it is bullshit to proudly declare one's pathetically weak console to be able to withstand the test of time, only to be improved until a competitor releases a new one.

If the competition stays where it is, the PS3 will withstand the test of time. This is, remember, a buisness. "Withstand the test of time" to them means that it still sells units and makes money, not that it remains actual cutting edge technology (which it wasn't, even when it was released). You would have a better point if you were saying that it's ridiculous for Sony to pretend that the PS3 is powerful enough to hold up against a next-gen Xbox.

As has been noted above, Sony isn't really in the financial position right now to launch a new console and the economy isn't in the best position to receive one. All three companies are taking the "Next gen? What next gen?" line right now.

 

[robinkom]

Then may my PS3 Slim investment not go to waste. I think Sony should work on some better developer software (SDK's) to futher help ease the struggle of developing exclusive games for the PS3's bloated processor. Make it's full capabilities easier to utilize and developers will express more interest in dedicating their resources only to you.

The PS3 echos the past endeavor of the Sega Saturn.
There are many similarities between the two:
- Both have a complicated system architecture.
- Both launched with excessively high price tags.
- Both have generally well-received exclusive titles.
- Both had arrogant blowhards overseeing their development. (Then-CEO Hayao Nakayama for Saturn, Ken Kutaragi for PS3)

I like to think that the PS3 is evidence that the reputation of the "PlayStation" name is not bulletproof. It's the kind of hardware design that brings to mind machines like the Panasonic 3DO, Atari Jaguar, and Neo-Geo; consoles accompanied with confrontational advertisements full of attitude and 90s street talk that occasionally used humble & quiet Nintendo as a wimpy comparison to their own hardware.

The PSX and PS2 had a literal stranglehold on the market for their respective generations, it just goes to show that all the hype and bleeding-edge hardware can't make up for mismanagement and belittlement of your consumer base.

 

[Wolf Devastator]

Even though I'm not a Playstation fan, I think they should market this. I'm sure people wouldn't mind hearing that if they buy a Playstation, you'll get a longer lifespan, without having to worry about buying a new console within a couple years. They should take their time with this next console to ensure that it will last many many years, considering we're getting to a point where graphics can't get much better. People just don't want to buy a new console every 5 years anymore.

 

[Croaker42]

In a way it's a smart move. They can steal ideas from the other consoles, after seeing what was successful with them, and make sure NOT to make the same mistakes as they did.
They can also be sure to study their opponent's specs for a while, and make sure to make a more powerful console, and give flaming fanboys some fuel.

Although a lot of people may grow tired of waiting, so timing is a necessity.

I think you nailed it.

Though I never understand why, in a console, you would want to put top of the line/most expensive components.
Console up untill this most recent gen has always been about value gaming. You can pick up a fun little machine and a bunch of fun games for less than what the other guys did and certainly less than the PC gamers. The console hangs around for a few years and then you do it again.
In my personal experience, my last gaming PC cost me less than the release price of the PS3.

 

[FloodOne]

Translation: We can't afford a new Playstation console right now.

Translation: Status Quo. They did originally give the PS3 a 10 year lifespan. The 360 and Wii are already showing their age... the PS3 is just hitting its stride.

Except it really isn't. The PS3 is still getting demonstrably inferior versions of even big name multiplatform releases like Red Dead Redemption. It's supposed killer app technical titles like Killzone and even God of War 3 come and go with little fanfare over their technical accomplishment, and the best technical offering in the future release schedule is that Gran Turismo 5 might come out one day.

I call BS. Final Fantasy XIII was the superior version, and yet Metacritic didn't give the 360 its own FF XIII review like it does with other games (Bayonetta springs to mind). Dragon Age Origins looked better on the ps3, and overall just ran better too. I haven't heard anything about RDR being better on the 360. As far as the technical aspects of God of War 3, it's already sold nearly 3 million copies. Just because internet forums aren't awash in praise for the game, doesn't mean it didn't sell, nor does it mean it didn't review well.

 

[robinkom]

In a way it's a smart move. They can steal ideas from the other consoles, after seeing what was successful with them, and make sure NOT to make the same mistakes as they did.
They can also be sure to study their opponent's specs for a while, and make sure to make a more powerful console, and give flaming fanboys some fuel.

Although a lot of people may grow tired of waiting, so timing is a necessity.

I think you nailed it.

Though I never understand why, in a console, you would want to put top of the line/most expensive components.
Console up untill this most recent gen has always been about value gaming. You can pick up a fun little machine and a bunch of fun games for less than what the other guys did and certainly less than the PC gamers. The console hangs around for a few years and then you do it again.
In my personal experience, my last gaming PC cost me less than the release price of the PS3.

It's definitely a blurred line at this point. Even though a lot of the PS3 hardware is vastly inferior to the latest PC hardware, for a console they can get a lot mileage out of it. I think that initial $600 price tag at launch is really what threw a lot of people off. For that much, like you said, one could have a gaming PC and do more with it.

Since around the launch of the Dreamcast, console specs have become a non-factor for me. Even with that console, it was an amazing design with some great rendering abilities and I think it was around this time when consoles started to fall pray to the PC comparison the most.

Granted, that comparison was present in the late-70s/early-80s but really... you look at an Atari 2600 on the shelf and a more-expensive Commodore VIC-20 computer. The graphics are just about the same with the VIC-20 needing to be programmed and costing more... which one are you going to buy? Even in our globally computerized world of today, there's still that margin of people that want their instant entertainment. They'll be keeping an eye out for the latest consoles.

I think I had a point in there but I can't remember it so, instead, I take a small bow.

*bows*

 

[Sougo]

I don't care when you release the next console. Just make sure it has backward compatibility.

 

[robinkom]

Translation: We can't afford a new Playstation console right now.

Translation: Status Quo. They did originally give the PS3 a 10 year lifespan. The 360 and Wii are already showing their age... the PS3 is just hitting its stride.

Except it really isn't. The PS3 is still getting demonstrably inferior versions of even big name multiplatform releases like Red Dead Redemption. It's supposed killer app technical titles like Killzone and even God of War 3 come and go with little fanfare over their technical accomplishment, and the best technical offering in the future release schedule is that Gran Turismo 5 might come out one day.

I call BS. Final Fantasy XIII was the superior version, and yet Metacritic didn't give the 360 its own FF XIII review like it does with other games (Bayonetta springs to mind). Dragon Age Origins looked better on the ps3, and overall just ran better too. I haven't heard anything about RDR being better on the 360. As far as the technical aspects of God of War 3, it's already sold nearly 3 million copies. Just because internet forums aren't awash in praise for the game, doesn't mean it didn't sell, nor does it mean it didn't review well.

This all goes back to the issue of the PS3 being difficult to develop for.

Moreover, it's a hit or miss process of porting Xbox 360 games over to it. ALL multi-platform big-name titles are developed first for the Xbox 360 and are refined to that hardware architecture, it's easy because it's so similar to a standard Windows-based PC. Since the PS3 has a completely incompatible operating system and a more complicated Central Processor, a lot has to be done to translate that game to the new hardware.

The end result most noticeable to the end-user is that of unforeseen glitches, slowdown, spotty textures, a lack of anti-aliasing, random crashing, longer load times, etc. This is why a lot of games that receive great praise on the 360 tend to get lower marks on the PS3. It's not done intentionally, it's just the nature of the beast.

Tech-wise, any exclusive PS3 title made to utilized the hardware's full capabilities would never be able to be accurately ported to the Xbox 360 because it is too underpowered by comparison. Everyone else, please withhold fanboy comments, this is simple fact. Also, no saying that I'm wrong by pointing out that Virtua Fighter 5 was on PS3 first then 360. SEGA's AM2 developed it for their own "Lindbergh" arcade board first and translated it separately to each home platform, hence the gap between releases.

Back to the PS3 though, I think leading up to the eventual release of the next Xbox and Nintendo console, we'll be seeing a few developers hop over to the PS3 exclusively based on the simple fact of already having the SDK's and development knowledge for the system. Resources will be saved by not having to learn the other manufacturers' new hardware and a user-base will have already been in place.

 

[esperandote]

PS3 has more potential for a longer life span but they wont escape the pressure of the competition console release sales.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Is it just me, or has Sony and its developers been coming out a lot lately to say "The PS3 is blahblahblah 3D blahblahblah"? Its getting pretty petty, I think.

Honestly, the PS3 will probably last the longest because of BluRay. The next generation wont come out until advances are made: Either BluRay is phased out, or someone can make the technology to make it work. I'm sticking by my roots and saying BluRay is junk-tech; it holds a lot of data, but its SLOW (and the picture difference doesnt warrant it, in my opinion). Until one of those advances are made, we wont see a new generation. And I doubt Sony will dump BluRay immedietly.

 

[lostzombies.com]

translation: we're following the dreamcast business strategy

 

[robinkom]

Is it just me, or has Sony and its developers been coming out a lot lately to say "The PS3 is blahblahblah 3D blahblahblah"? Its getting pretty petty, I think.

Honestly, the PS3 will probably last the longest because of BluRay. The next generation wont come out until advances are made: Either BluRay is phased out, or someone can make the technology to make it work. I'm sticking by my roots and saying BluRay is junk-tech; it holds a lot of data, but its SLOW (and the picture difference doesnt warrant it, in my opinion). Until one of those advances are made, we wont see a new generation. And I doubt Sony will dump BluRay immedietly.

The only other fault I've found in Blu-Ray is old movies from the pre-digital era.

Original source tape to DVD, fine. Like having it on a non-degrading VHS tape that never needs tracking.
Original Source tape/DVD Digital transfer to Blu-Ray, sometimes not so fine.

I recently bought for half-price on Blu-Ray, Robocop. No special features other than... well... Let's just say I've never seen film grain in such clarity before in my life. The only consolation was that it's the unrated original cut of the film.

Newer films though like Watchmen or Avatar... stunning on Blu-Ray.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Honestly, the PS3 will probably last the longest because of BluRay.

The trouble is that the difference made to actual gameplay by blu-ray is not all that significant. Quite simply because in this console generation most games are going to be rendered at 720p, so using the blu-ray for higher detail textures has distinctly diminishing returns (a problem compounded by the architecture of the PS3's graphics chip). So really all blu-ray gives you for games is the capacity for lots of high definition cutscenes. So if you're making Final Fantasy, hooray, otherwise, meh. Most games still come on one DVD, and wouldn't expand much beyond that size even if every console used blu-ray because there's no point this generation, the graphics hardware isn't there in consoles to display the extra graphical detail you could squeeze onto a larger disc (let alone the cost of creating the content).

The PS3 and Xbox 360 will pretty much be around for the same amount of time, the next generation releases will be at about the same time, probably in two or three years minimum unless the economy crashes even harder, in which case we'll be playing these for a good while yet.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

My point is that it is bullshit to proudly declare one's pathetically weak console to be able to withstand the test of time, only to be improved until a competitor releases a new one.

If the competition stays where it is, the PS3 will withstand the test of time. This is, remember, a buisness. "Withstand the test of time" to them means that it still sells units and makes money, not that it remains actual cutting edge technology (which it wasn't, even when it was released). You would have a better point if you were saying that it's ridiculous for Sony to pretend that the PS3 is powerful enough to hold up against a next-gen Xbox.

As has been noted above, Sony isn't really in the financial position right now to launch a new console and the economy isn't in the best position to receive one. All three companies are taking the "Next gen? What next gen?" line right now.

But the competition will not stay where it is, which is a problem. And even if MS doesn't release a new console, Nintendo might, or hell even Apple could. Taking the position that something will stay good if it is good now is just stupid. Besides, there is a difference between releasing a console and announcing the development of a new one, which is something all of the major companies ought to be doing soon.
As for the economy, yes it's crap right now, but it won't be forever. And giving indication of new products might actually help.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

But the competition will not stay where it is, which is a problem. And even if MS doesn't release a new console, Nintendo might, or hell even Apple could.

Both MS and Nintendo are saying that they won't. Nintendo is sitting on top right now, and doesn't see any reason to rock the boat. MS is pushing Kinect as it's next big thing.

Taking the position that something will stay good if it is good now is just stupid.

How will things not stay good if the competition doesn't raise the bar on them? Look at how long the PS2 sold more units than the PS3. There are only two reasons to put out a new console: You've reached market saturation, and need something new to sell people (They're nowhere even close to this yet) or your competition has something new and improved that's taking all of your sales away.

As for the economy, yes it's crap right now, but it won't be forever. And giving indication of new products might actually help.

Well, Sony isn't saying they'll never release a new console. Just not in the next few years. Also, new consoles being announced isn't going to fix the problem that world governments are creating by spending their countries into unmanagable debt.