Sony: PS3 Will Have Lengthier Life Cycle Than Its Predecessor
See Full ImageThe PS2 is the most popular video game system in history, and with well over 140 million units sold worldwide now, it's kinda difficult to see the PlayStation 3 ever reaching that number. But in terms of a life cycle, Sony thinks the PS3 can live even longer than the PS2.
The PS3 currently sits at about 24 million sold and we're nearly 3 years into the console's lifespan. But even so, analysts expect big sales spikes thanks to the recent price drop and introduction of the new PS3 Slim, and more importantly, those experts are predicting a sustained increase in sales. Plus, you've got the ever-rising popularity of Blu-Ray and the Network, and of course, the games. So perhaps it's not so far-fetched to believe the PS3 will "significantly outpace" the PS2 in the future, but even if it doesn't in terms of sales, it will in terms of years; so said SCE Europe head man Andrew House during a recent Edge interview:
"If you look at the PS2, still in some markets going very strong, especially in North America in its tenth year on the market, we still can't predict where that lifecycle will end. I have a theory that with successive generations, and with more value added and built into the console in terms of experience - and let's not forget that the PS2 really didn't offer a tremendously robust network experience - that what you effectively do is potentially lengthen that lifecycle more and more as you get to the next iteration."
For our part, there certainly is a long way to go; the PS2 launched a decade ago and who knows where we'll be in 2016? Maybe the PS3 will be in 200 million homes by then...or maybe it'll never break 100 million. But the point House wants to make is that they'll still be selling the PS3 in 2016 and beyond, which would favorably compete with the PS2's long-running lifespan.
9/4/2009 10:28:36 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (58 posts)
kreate
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 1:13:42 PM
why make a new tech when the current tech hasnt reached its max level?
wonder how much the next gens cost when they are released... 600? *sigh*
0 up, 1 down
CH1N00K
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 2:23:04 PM
And with Sony the only system right now able to put so much information on 1 disc, I think they can just focus on selling the PS3 and wait to see what the others are going to do. The questions is though, does anyone think that the PS3 will be able to outsell the PS2?
Or, even though it's sales numbers are dropping, will the Wii be able to knock the PS2 out of it's spot?
Last edited by CH1N00K on 9/4/2009 2:24:10 PM
0 up, 0 down
bridgera
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 3:55:24 PM
Do what I do, make a list of the games that look good, buy a couple, then as you start beating them move to the next on your list.
If you can't keep up, that's good, because maybe a year later, the game will have fallen to $20, and it'll have saved you cash.
2 up, 0 down
xnonsuchx
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 4:08:23 PM
0 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 4:18:09 PM
That's what I'm afraid is going to happen. Games are already being downloaded onto the PS3 that are PS1 and PS2 classics, by the time PS4 comes out, they might say "we could do B/C but what you would have to pay for it, we'll leave it out, and you can rebuy all your old favourites again and download them."
And you know we will.
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 6:01:26 PM
2 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 7:24:09 PM
I expect PS4 to use some form of the Cell chip (or some combination of Cell chips), so it wouldn't be as expensive to include BC as it was on PS3. Whether there will be an easy solution for the RSX remains to be seen, however.
@ CH1N00K
Downloadable PS1 (and PS2) games REQUIRE software emulation to be working on the PS3; they aren't an alternative to BC, they are an offshoot of it. Why don't people understand this?
Though they could do like they are doing with GOW1&2, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/4/2009 7:29:29 PM
0 up, 0 down
xnonsuchx
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 8:41:48 PM
0 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 9:30:04 PM
Fane,
I wasn't necessarily talking about the techniques of how BC is made, I was talking about the sales side of it. If Sony could make a few more bucks off of a game that's already been made, they'll do it. PS1 games are now on the PSN, I'm sure PS2 games will be coming...and they can be played on PS3's that don't have B/C, if you download them.
But if the price of putting B/C into the PS4 will be cheaper then this time around, maybe we will see some B/C. How cool would it be to have a system that plays all the games from PS1-PS4?
0 up, 1 down
Fane1024
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 5:01:46 PM
Yes, Sony would love to sell those games again.
No, PS2 games can't play on PS3s without some form of BC, not now, not ever. It's not freaking magic; the system can either run a game coded to run on the PS2 or it can't. It doesn't matter HOW you get the game (on-disc or DLC).
The PS3 and the PSP both have emulators to run PS1 games, which is why they can run the PS1 classics (and the PS3 can run PS1 discs). For either system to run a PS2 download, it would need to have a hardware or software solution to emulating the PS2.
Yes, it would be totally cool (might as well throw in PSP games as well).
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/5/2009 5:10:08 PM
1 up, 0 down
bridgera
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 10:46:22 AM
Reply
To me it seems lately a lot of games have been coming out that can be beaten in 5-6 hours (such as Heavenly Sword). Rather than see the next gen console with even better graphics, I'd rather see longer games. I have no problem still playing my PS3 in 2016.
4 up, 0 down
ceedot
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:04:36 AM
1 up, 0 down
vicious54
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:15:27 AM
1 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 10:55:19 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Deadman
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:04:20 AM
Reply
I'm always happy of Sony's commitment to previous generations I be playing the PS3 for as long as it's supported with or without a PS4.
2 up, 0 down
Imagi
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:09:14 AM
Reply
IBM are moving forward well with the cell so another 8 years or whenever they lock down the spec it will be very meaty.
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:10:50 AM
Reply
NPD thinks the Slim model and price cut lift PS3 sales by 40-60%. If we go with a 50% jump we could see the following (Excel is a great tool)... PS3 sales in year 4 up by 50% over year 3 (10 million units), in year 5 the sales rise another 10%. Year 6, sales are steady, and then in years 7, 8 and 9 sales start declining 20% year on year before dropping by 50% in year 10. That scenario has Sony selling 111 million units by the end of year 10. Making the sales spike sharper, and decline a little faster still gives around 110 million units over 10 years.
To me, if the PS3 even hit's 100 million units, then no matter what anyone says, it's a win for Sony.
It could be better than that though. The market for video games and game consoles is bigger than ever. Far bigger than when the PS2 was on it's way to 140 million units. That market continues to grow as consumers in many developing nations become affluent enough to join in. The transition to HD is another factor. The PS3 is in a perfect place to be the HD entertainment player of choice since it does literally everything needed. It plays games, it plays HD movies on disc (BD) and can streem/download movies online, it browses the net, it plays CDs, it plays DVDs, it plays downloaded music, it does photos, and so on, and so forth. I know we all know this stuff. I listed it to justify saying that the PS3 could be the HD entertainment player of choice. If the PS3 becomes a default choice for HD in the home, then sales way past 100 million units are well within reach.
Whatever way you cut it, the PS3 is here to stay and will sell at very least a significant fraction of 100 million units during it's life - worst case.
Last edited by Highlander on 9/4/2009 11:13:15 AM
10 up, 0 down
vicious54
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:18:46 AM
0 up, 0 down
HANZ64
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:30:49 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:37:08 AM
5 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:56:16 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 12:02:04 PM
1 up, 0 down
mexgeo86
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 12:14:42 PM
0 up, 0 down
godsman
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 12:50:39 PM
1 up, 0 down
taus90
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:22:22 AM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:35:31 AM
So, Microsoft is basically abandoning the HD arena? Their so called HD movie streaming isn't HD, there's no BluRay drive, and now their games don't even have to try to hit 720p? Oh yeah, and they stopped shipping the 360 Elite with an HDMI cable, opting for composite video instead.
I guess that leaves Sony as the only HD game in town now.
4 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 3:18:52 PM
Only MS would take the HDMI cable out of a package to save a buck. Jeez.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 9/4/2009 3:19:26 PM
0 up, 0 down
dlte
Sunday, September 06, 2009 @ 9:40:25 PM
0 up, 0 down
NiteKrawler
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 11:28:26 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 12:23:38 PM
Reply
Microsoft claims that Sony counts shipments not sales, and they count consoles in consumer hands. They also say that Sony also counts more countries as 'Europe'.
Apparently VG Charts shows that both are just under 10 million units in Europe, with the PS3 a mere 250k units behind. That of course ignores the impact of RROD related deaths among 360s and the fact that in Europe, the PS3 has been on sale for a whole 15 months less time.
Personally I think it is fair to say that in terms of world wide sales excluding North America, the PS3 has sold more than the Xbox 360. Funny though that the gaming media still portray things a little differently, almost as if the US market was the world....
Of course The Wii is still comfortably ahead of both, and the PS2 makes all of them look poor.
9 up, 0 down
www
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 1:58:56 PM
Exactly, and that's just the problem.
1 up, 0 down
godsman
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 2:52:38 PM
0 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 7:35:42 PM
Wow. Pot...kettle. That's FoxNews-worthy spin.
1 up, 0 down
BTNwarrior
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 1:50:45 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
iGraves1
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 2:14:31 PM
Reply
The PS3 will still be going strong through the PS4 life cycle, because a lot of people prefer physical media. Not to mention the rest of the consoles will still be playing catch up to the PS3 graphical capability.
Last edited by iGraves1 on 9/4/2009 2:15:13 PM
0 up, 0 down
HANZ64
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 2:49:42 PM
However I do think that they will keep the Blu-ray drive because the size limit on blu-ray disks have already gone beyond 50GB. I'm not completetly sure about this but I heard that (multi-layered) Blu-ray disks can store up to 500GB or more! (maybe even 1T!) Obviously these are not normal Blu-ray disks and I'm guessing the Blu-ray player will have to be modified. So perhaps the PS4 will be made to support these disks.
So basically I don't think physical media will go away completely for a long time, and i really mean a long time such as 40 years? (just a guess)
3 up, 0 down
iGraves1
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 3:31:52 PM
0 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 9:32:25 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 12:26:23 AM
That said, the BluRay specifications layout the format in a way that is expandable. This means that many existing BluRay devices may be able to go to 4 or more layers with a simple firmware update. That would open up capacities of 100+GB even if the more exotic Pioneer system isn't immediately compatible.
Last edited by Highlander on 9/5/2009 12:29:06 AM
1 up, 0 down
Robochic
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 3:13:11 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 3:23:38 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
BigBoss4ever
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 4:31:59 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
jdt1981
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 5:20:15 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 12:46:33 AM
I think that this generation will be a little different because this time the PS4 is likely to be a more evolutionary design building on the PS3 instead of entirely replacing it. IMHO of course. A totally new architecture again would be very costly, and I think Sony may have learned something from the Pain of the PS3. There is a Cell BE processor Roadmap that clearly lays out the future of the cell that includes a version of the cell with 4 PPUs and 32 SPUs. I'd be surprised if it didn't have a compatibility mode for the original Cell BE to ensure software compatibility.
We could see a new PlayStation by 2012. I don't think we will wait until 2016 for a new PlayStation, IMHO the PS4 is most likely to arrive between 2012 and 2014. I think that Sony will have room for maneuver this time because the PS4 will evolve the PS3 design. That process is much faster than starting over from scratch, and will allow Sony to be more responsive to the market, and their competitors.
Last edited by Highlander on 9/5/2009 12:51:21 AM
3 up, 0 down
jdt1981
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 1:58:05 AM
You may be right. Let's say Sony does release a PS3.5 around 2012 when games still look pretty good on the PS3 wont Sony have a hard time convincing people to upgrade? Especially when you consider there are allot of PS2 owners who still have yet to upgrade to this generation.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 4:08:33 AM
If you had the choice between a console that did it's graphics with real time ray tracing at 1080p resolution or the PS3, which would you pick? The next generation Cell CPU is very likely to be powerful enough to manage real time ray tracing at a reasonable resolution.
1 up, 0 down
HANZ64
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 9:00:37 AM
0 up, 0 down
jdt1981
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 4:09:44 PM
0 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 5:15:50 PM
Add a 4+ layer 4x-8x Blu-ray drive and a moderately sized, but upgradable, (solid-state?) HDD and you have a deal.
That machine's gonna put out a ton of heat, though. I guess we'll have to start buying cartidges of liquid nitrogen.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/5/2009 5:19:55 PM
0 up, 0 down
jdt1981
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 6:31:58 PM
The only reason I say the PS4 will have 8Gb of RAM is because the PS had 2Mb of RAM, the PS2 had 32Mb of RAM and now the PS3 has 512Mb of RAM. Notice a trend there? Each PS successor has 16x the RAM of it's predecessor. If that trend continues the PS4 will have 8Gb of RAM, so that's how I came up with that.
0 up, 0 down
___________
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 2:53:46 AM
Reply
and once it does i wouldent be suprised if it has no disk drive, either using streaming like onlive does or downloading content.
obviously that will depend on internet how much it improves by then, will a 100GB limit per month be standard? will i be able to download a full game in less than a hour?
if yes than its plausible and much better and more convenient than disks.
remember the main problem with the PS3 is the bluray laser carks it, PS1 had massive problems with the laser so did ps2 and ps3 has followed suit.
either that or depending on how onlive goes and again internet standards streaming may be the way to go.
and by then HDDs would be replaced with SSD solid state drives which are much much faster but are bloody expensive now, and have a low storage size. i want to get one for my laptop and PC just for booting, booting up off a solid state drive is much faster than a HDD.
0 up, 1 down
Highlander
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 4:11:08 AM
Not only that, but considering the financial hit the PS3 can caused to Sony, the PS4 had better be able to run PS3 software so that they don't run into the same developer reluctance and buyer reluctance to move to the new console.
OnLive will not work in the mass market, a few evangelists will claim it's better than sex, but for most people it won't even be better than Phantom.
As for the laser in the BluRay drive, the laser is a LED diode laser. Generally speaking they have lives in the 10s of thousands of hours. I think you're too easily dismissing optical formats with derisive phrases like "the main problem with the PS3 is the bluray laser carks it". Solid state drives suffer wear issues because the FLASH memory only works for a certain number of write operations before failing. The SSDs also do not use less power than HDDs. They have their advantages, but they also have their disadvantages.
Last edited by Highlander on 9/5/2009 4:18:33 AM
2 up, 0 down
___________
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 10:03:25 AM
i had 6 ps2s break on me and all were the laser, removing the optical drive would solve that problem.
as for solid state drives, i dont think theres a reliability issue as far as i know there like RAM, at tafe we have RAM thats bloody old really old and still works perfectly.
they wouldn't release solid state drives if they dident last a long time because people would be loosing their data, and i dont know about you but id me mighty pissed off if my drive carked itself.
especially my HDD for work.
SSDs are brand new, they still have a long way to go till they replace HDDs and by then hopefully they will be as reliable as HDDs.
and one would think more reliable because theres no moving parts,2 laptops at my work fell a verry short distance while on and because of the shock the data was wiped off the drive, months of work gone.
if we were using SSDs that wouldent of happened, i was not there so i dont know what happened but i had to redo all the work on there.
same thing happened to my old laptop for some reason the pin was skipping tracks and took no joke 15 minutes to boot up every time.
because on boot up it was skipping tracks with data needed for boot up so it was searching for extended periods of time, as soon as i changed the HDD it was back to its normal self.
thats what i hate about HDDs their so dam delicate, 1 slight nudge and their stuffed.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Saturday, September 05, 2009 @ 7:36:02 PM
The problems you're describing are usually caused by the read/write head drifting out of alignment. This isn't something that should happen on a modern drive and usually indicates a mechanical flaw in the drive. You can overcome it by performing a low level format on the drive.
HDDs have their issues, but they are still cheaper by a large margin compared to solid state. the memory used for SSDs is still under active development. I keep hoping that Intel or another FLASH maker, will find a way to make FLASH that is less power hungry and doesn't suffer from the limited write-cycle issues. When they do, the way will be clear for SSDs to replace HDDs.
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Saturday, September 12, 2009 @ 7:51:06 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Imagi
Reply
Friday, September 04, 2009 @ 10:44:47 AM