Sony: PlayStation 3 Will Go 10 Years And Beyond
See Full ImageWhen Sony said the PlayStation 3 had a 10-year lifespan, they meant it.
SCEE boss Andrew House has reasserted that claim, telling CVG that the 50 million units sold thus far is "just the start" for the company's flagship console. House says he always anticipated a lifespan of 10+ years and the only question is...how long is that "plus" part? In fact, 10 years is the minimum. Said House:
"What we've said many times before and we're confident about is we launched a device that is very, very powerful, that has a whole range of possibilities and that's at the very least a ten-year life-cycle. I know I'm guilty of repeating myself but I think it's always worth pointing out we're still selling PlayStation 2 in its millions around the world, 11 years after it was launched.
That's different markets and a different profile of consumers but there's still some vibrant demand. That for me bodes extremely well for where the potential of PS3 will go."
When asked if he thought Microsoft would soon release a console, House simply said- "I think that's a question for Microsoft to address rather than us." Most gamers will probably agree that the PS3 is just fine; we don't need the fourth PlayStation just yet, and most developers agree, too. But yeah, that's an interesting question: how far beyond 10 years might it go?
Tags: sony, ps3, playstation 3, ps3 lifespan
6/15/2011 8:49:42 PM John Shepard
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (64 posts)
Highlander
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:07:44 PM
Reply
7 up, 1 down
godsman
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:34:57 PM
In the end, I think PS3 can sell 130 million, but by that time, I think gamers stopped caring that it outsold the Wii and Xbox.
Last edited by godsman on 6/15/2011 10:36:16 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:38:25 PM
4 up, 0 down
raiden213
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:10:48 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:13:18 PM
1 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:28:45 PM
But one question is if it will keep going, another question is will there be released more games for it once the ps4 is out? There are no ps2 games released nowadays?
Last edited by Beamboom on 6/15/2011 10:30:29 PM
0 up, 0 down
godsman
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:30:31 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:39:59 PM
2 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:43:00 PM
1 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:18:37 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 1 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:18:51 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:18:58 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:11 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:12 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:12 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:14 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:27 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:27 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:44 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:19:48 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:20:08 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:20:16 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:20:16 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:20:17 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 2 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 4:20:30 AM
They probably have them for more.
0 up, 3 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:32:28 AM
6 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:46:49 AM
1 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:53:59 AM
And the fact that I had bought her used at in late 09 at GameStop, & have no idea how many before me had fondled or mistreated her, that's really saying a lot about her will to live & longevity.
It's just a shame that she only needed a minor procedure, but a f*cking careless USPS Orangutang Hitman located out of their Package-Bunglers union had to go smash the last gasp of breath out of her young life, before she could reach her golden years.
And mark my words, the USPS will pay out on my $500 insurance claim!!!!(and that includes my future engagement party & all related wedding costs to another of my 60gb Phat Princesses many sensual sisters)
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 9:45:44 AM
:(
0 up, 0 down
PANICinc
Friday, June 17, 2011 @ 6:51:25 PM
Don't ring the death bell for the PS2 just yet!
New games continue to be released for the PS2! Majority are sports games like Madden. But there are also kids games that also launch for the Wii, DS, and PSP that are available for PS2.
It's not dead yet! It feels happy! Wants to go for a walk!
1 up, 0 down
Claire C
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:31:41 PM
Reply
Last edited by Claire C on 6/15/2011 10:32:27 PM
2 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 2:12:57 AM
If ps4 is only %50 more than the next xbox gamers will go for the better console.
ps3's price was steep.
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 10:46:45 PM
Reply
If MS offers a new console then maybe multiplat games can be up to PS3 snuff finally. I say Sony should take their time.
3 up, 0 down
raiden213
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 11:05:45 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 1:08:00 AM
8 up, 0 down
Eld
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 11:20:44 PM
Reply
I really can't understand these unrealistic expectations about ps3 "going strong" for a decade without ps4. Lack of interest in hardware progression is rather disappointing.
1 up, 2 down
Highlander
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 11:36:08 PM
5 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 2:15:22 AM
Reply
ps3 will definitely follow that playstation legacy of selling many years into the next generation.
4+ years and still kicking! I expect another 2 good years with ps4 coming out in 2013 or 2014.
0 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 2:31:44 AM
Reply
Peace.
4 up, 0 down
Fane1024
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:49:53 AM
1 up, 1 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 6:33:58 AM
Last edited by Lawless SXE on 6/16/2011 6:35:01 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 9:51:56 AM
How about they do wait the extra year as you suggest, but get every major first party developer to commit to a launch exclusive for the new system so that even if 3rd party is patchy on day one, the console launches with a killer line-up, unmatched by the others?
1 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 1:31:57 PM
0 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 2:36:27 AM
Reply
1 up, 4 down
Kiryu
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:28:43 AM
I want to see more games come from japan especially now with that potential.This generation is still not done sir.
HD is what ruined this generation's developers creativeness.
Last edited by Kiryu on 6/16/2011 5:29:16 AM
2 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 6:31:45 AM
how much more are developers going to be able to squeeze out of a system with only 512 mb of ram? only 256mb of vram is a problem. 10 yrs is really pushing it.
i imagine the ps3's got maybe a couple of years left in it. they might still make them after that, but it will be sold alongside the ps4. very few games, if any will be made for it.
i think sony should be ready to luanch the ps4 as soon as ms next system is ready. they can't afford to let ms get out in front again. sony already has uphill fight on their hands becuase of way things have turned out in na.
1 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 6:43:02 AM
Even if there is a two year overlap, that gives the PS4 eight years from the launch of the PS3, which is still three years away. That'll likely be two years out from the launch of both of their competitors systems, which according to Hobson's(?) Law, dictates that it should be twice as powerful at a similar launch price point. Admittedly, the others will be much cheaper by then, but do you not think that a lot of developers would migrate over to the more powerful hardware to test their mettle and creativity?
Taking this route could go either way, but it's up to Sony to either muscle their opposition that way, or beat MS to the punch with an earlier, cheaper and more powerful device, as I mentioned above.
Peace.
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 10:06:36 AM
If the PS3 closes 2012 as the main Sony video game console, and if they drop the price again this year to $249.99 - which i honestly expect in the autumn - then they'll sell past 65 million units by the end of FY12, and possibly 80+ million by the end of FY13. If they announce a new console during FY13, and drop the PS3 to $200 (which I doubt, $249.99 seems to me to be about the low point, but you never know), then we could see 100 million PS3 units by the time the PS4 launched in FY14. By the time they stop making the PS3, I expect it will sell past 120 million - perhaps more.
If the PS4 is an evolution of the PS3, I could see the following happen.
1st party games get released in three versions. 1080p running on the PS4, 720p running on PS3 and the Vita version, on the Vita of course. The dev environment on the Vita is said to facilitate easy movement of assets and high level code from the PS3 dev environment. Home and PSN in general will remain as a consistent part of the Playstation Brand and environment. If the PS4 is a development of the PS3 technology, Sony might be able to set up their development environment to allow games to easily scale down from PS4 to the PS3 and Vita. That would let them pitch things in such a way that the PS3 represents the base level of PlayStation, PS Vita is the mobile element and PS4 is the premium gaming platform, all combined across PSN an Home both of which are platforms in their own right.
If such a scaleable development environment worked well enough, you might never see a new Playstation - as such, but rather you would simply have three PlayStation SKUS that could all play the same games, but scaled to their respective market segment. PS3 would represent the 720p and sub HD 'cost sensitive' market. PS3 would represent the full 1080p HD 'premium' market and the Vita of course has the handheld market - though the PSP might continue in more cost sensitive markets in the developing world as well.
In a sense you have this now with the PS2 representing the lower resolution cost sensitive market, the PS3 has the HD premium market, and PSP is PSP. If Sony managed to pull that trick off, you could see the PS3 eventually sell more than even the PS2 has.
Incidentally Microsoft is rumored to be bringing a new Xbox360 based on a System on a chip design, where the Xenon and Xenos CPU/GPU heart of the 360 are on a single piece of silicon along with their RAM. It would produce a very inexpensive 360 motherboard and increase reliability considerably. It may be that the big announcement from MS next year could be the introduction of that system.
Sony could pull a similar trick with the PS3, but with the memory probably kept off the same chip. Both would be much less expensive to make then the existing chipsets and would be easier to cool and more reliable. Such a system on a chip design might also pave the way for the system on a chip to become a service processor in a new console...
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 11:16:35 AM
The number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years.
The amount of computing power a given processor has depends on many factors, such as the efficiency of the design, the number of execution units, the number of cores and the clock speed (to name a few). If you double the number of transistors available each two years, a CPU can double the number of cores every two years, Just with design improvements and doubling the cores, you see more than a twofold increase in performance every two years. With shrinking transistor size and improved design/power efficiency, chips get faster and cooler as well. So that a mature processor design in it's third iteration might have two or four times as many cores, 50% better clock rate and use a fraction of the power of the original.
If you look at processor generations, the rate of acceleration of performance has increased at an even faster rate, perhaps doubling every 18 months. A lot of that has had to do with clock speeds. But clock speeds have hit an upper bound in the 3-4GHz range. You can go faster, but it produces a lot of heat, and requires very well made, components using extremely small geometry - such as 32nm or less manufacturing. So the practical limit is the 3-4GHz range. Now that the clock speed has effectively maxed out, we are left with improving designs, adding cores and processing elements and multi-processing. As we get closer to the physical limits of silicon, we are also having to recognize that we can't simply keep throwing more components at a single chip - they become very difficult to make with a good success rate, and very expensive.
In the last 10 years, performance of systems has doubled every 1-1.5 years. If you compare the benchmarks for a 1GHz Pentium III (2000) to a 6 core i7-990X running at more or less 3.5GHz today, just multiplying the number of cores and clock speeds you net a 21 fold increase in power. But the i7 cores are far, far more capable than the PIII ever was. Based on the available benchmarks, the i7990X of today (Intel's best) is 58 times faster in terms of integer operations, and a whopping 83 times faster for floating point operations. that's comparing the best i7 of today against the best PIII of 2000. If you normalize the clocks, that means that a 6 core i7 is clock for clock between 17 and 23 times faster than a PIII due to it's additional cores, execution units and design improvements. Doubling every 1.5 years you'd get about a 49 fold increase in power. So Intel, for example, is well ahead of that curve in both Integer and floating point.
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that a 10 year gap between systems has historically been a really, really long time.
All of that said, because we are hitting certain fundamental limits with the technology, that acceleration is starting to slow down. The industry is having to look to multi-processing, multiple cores, multiple execution units and parallelism to find performance improvements. The next generation processor used by Sony might - for instance, have two PowerPC cores and 16SPU cores. With performance gains due to design improvements, the number of cores doubling and perhaps a modest clock bump to 3.5GHz, you might see upwards of 4 times the overall performance, with better gains in the floating point math than in the general PowerPC performance. If the number of PowerPC cores went from 1 to 4 with 16 or more SPUs we'd see a 4-6 times increase in system performance - or rather computing power.
There are other factors in system performance and this doesn't even begin to touch on the work being done with GPU designs. But you can see that there are a lot of things to consider when thinking about the potential performance difference between a modern CPU and a Cell (or even Xenon) of 5-6 years ago.
I actually wrote a ton more, but realized this was becoming not just an essay, but a thesis. So I cut it shrt. I'm happy to continue the discussion on the forums though.
2 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 1:41:40 PM
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 3:02:05 PM
I have to confess, this is the first day in about three weeks when I've had the correct ADD med again, and it's taking a little time to get used to it...>hyperfocus<
1 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 5:06:20 AM
Reply
been out for 5 now, and we should be seeing it in 2 years time max so thats 7 years.
developers are going to keep releasing games for it 3 years after the successor comes out?
i honestly cant see that happening!
most publishers stop developing on a system once its successor is released.
id say 8 years and it would be lucky, especially considering the shaky grounds it started on!
constantly delayed.
shrouded in secrecy.
no good exclusives for YEARS!
ridiculously overpriced!
inferior versions.
more expensive versions.
not to mention allot of 3rd party games released months later on the ps3 then they did on other systems, rainbow six and the darkness for example were out if i remember right 10 weeks earlier on the 360!
they have done pretty well turning a disaster into a profitable and reputable system.
2 up, 3 down
Excelsior1
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 6:48:16 AM
also, sony did do a good job in turning a disaster into a success. no easy task, but i wish they wouldn't have made it so hard on themselves by giving ms the oppurtunity to pick up the marketshare it has this gen. that's going to have consequences going into next gen for sony.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 10:15:46 AM
That said. Let's imagine a situation where MS launches a new console in a year's time and Sony does not. If the PS3 continues to sell solidly and game sales continue to be bouyant, would they *have* to announce a sucessor in 2013? Seriously, the way the PS2 continued to sell provides a clue that the long term market for a budget priced, and excellent console is rich. What if the PS3 did sell alone for 10 years without a successor. There could be a temptation to stretch another year or two if PS3 continues to see good sales through 2012 and beyond. You could make an argument for actually stretching to 10 years - if the sale in year 8 are strong enough. Such a timescale might allow Sony to mature the design and manufacture to an extent that was not possible with the PS3, producing a fast system with very good reliability, and a cost effective design.
If Sony were able to wait that long, might they even make a console that is consumer upgradeable (plug in processor and memory units to supplement the system) so that no new generation is required for as long as we stick to 1080p HDTV? Might they make their development environment in such a way that games can automatically scale themselves to whatever the hardware is capable of. So that a fully upgraded future console can run everything, but a base model can run the same game, but with less fancy graphics?
If Sony does somehow wait 10 full years, a lot of things we might discount now could be possible.
1 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 11:40:51 AM
the xbox really did not ever have a chance of competing, and the gamecube was miles behind!
the ps2 was so popular, the wii of its time.
i honestly cant see a system ever seeing that success ever again, let alone the ps3!
i honestly cant see publishers sticking around, especially how the industry has changed.
back in the ps2 days budgets were so small so you could afford to make a game for a older system.
now though it would not be feasible due to the much higher budgets and by the time the ps4 is out budgets will probably be even higher!
also games in general.
going from ps2 to ps3 was a massive jump, but now games look so freaking amazing i wont be surprised if next consoles get adopted much slower then previous generations.
were reaching a point where not limited by what we can do, but what we really need to do.
that totally depends on what next gen brings us.
if its just graphics enhancements and enhancements on what we have, then no i dont believe sony would have to.
but i dont think they could hold out several years.
though if new consoles brang new features, something new people feel they must have, then yes sony will either have to rush a system and get it out, or risk turning up to the war once its finished.
if M$ does not release a new system and the wiiU does not sell well then yea sony could wait easily another 4 or so years, but thats not going to happen, im positive M$ will be showing there new console next year and sony either sits back and lets M$ show off there cards and risk turning up to the war late like they did ps3.
or join the me too club and rush a system and risk it be like the 360.
in a ideal world id be best if they could sit back and perfect it, but no one wants to be the last horse to a race.
consoles will never take the upgradable route.
1 too expensive, might aswell get a PC.
2 developers will end up developing for the LCD all the time, thus never bringing the best out of the system.
sure they could scale it, but it will never be as good as the real deal.
as herman lust from GG said in a interview just after KZ2s release he was asked the same question and he said no, developers love working on consoles because they have 1 bit of metal and they can really work to bring the best out of that.
instead of starting at the bottom and trying to work your way up hoping every GPU, CPU, MB, RAM capable type and combination is catered for.
creating so much more work for yourself!
also allot of developers HATE working with APIs, one thing i keep hearing from devs is they wish we could get rid of APIs and just code on the metal like consoles.
john carmack did a detailed interview on this just a few days ago.
3 as you said the days of spending thousands on gaming PCs are almost over.
onlive and streaming services are starting to creep in, yes there not ready yet, theres a lot of work still to be done but thats where the future is.
definitely not next gen, but i wont be surprised if a onlive feature ends up being introduced to next gen consoles half way through there life cycle and helping extend there life as move and kinect have done this gen.
as allot of developers have said i doubt next gen will be all about enhanced graphics, about whats under the hood.
obviously thats going to be a part of the evolution, but the driver of it is going to be social networking and taking your game, your profile, your gaming life and make it accessible 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year.
were starting to see that with wiiU and psv, but next gen will take it that extra step.
to be honest i can see the next generation of consoles not actually being consoles, being consoles and handhelds built into one.
have a console for home, with all the features and multimedia features todays consoles offer, but with a fully integrated handheld.
say ps3 but replace the DS3 with say the psv, and when you go out you simply transfer your ps3 game across to the controller of said system and away you go.
then once your home you transfer it back and again away you go.
but what i see as next gen is a onlive styled feature.
depending how fast ISPs evolve over the next few years i dont think a onlive styled feature is that far out of reach.
i mean i was watching a few hours of foxtel today online and i could of swore i was running it off my box!
yea movies and games are 2 massively different kettle of fish, and i have not been able to try onlive, but its something thats really interested me.
i mean it brings the best of everything!
especially now that they brought it over to the ipad!
it brings DD, so no more leaving the house putting up with the traffic.
no more spending thousands on PCs, or hundreds on consoles.
no more worrying about consoles or PCs overheating and having to get them repaired.
just your micro console which is just a few circuit boards very little can go wrong with it!
just the micro console, your controller, and your internet.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 11:58:06 AM
Your next generation console will not emulate the Motorola Atrix - nor will the WiiU.
0 up, 0 down
___________
Friday, June 17, 2011 @ 10:37:52 AM
i mean yea theres so much further we can go but so what?
GT5, uncharted 3, RAGE are more then good enough for me!
id much rather developers spend there time and money investing in other areas.
exactly what david said in a interview with xplay, id rather see games get a 20% graphical reduction if that meant we could see new gameplay styles, or lower budgets so instead of a company only being able to afford 1 a year they can split the budget in half and do 2.
weve reached a point where graphics are so good i just dont see the point in more powerful hardware.
i dunno, maybe im getting old but i no longer am obsessed with getting the fastest hardware to get the best graphics possible.
0 up, 0 down
Gone
Thursday, June 16, 2011 @ 10:22:27 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
asanaya
Monday, June 20, 2011 @ 11:14:05 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Eliskor
Monday, June 20, 2011 @ 12:53:22 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Ather
Monday, June 20, 2011 @ 4:01:47 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
SS4
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 @ 9:53:36 AM
Reply
Am I the only one that wants to see new gaming console soon so we can get better graphics in games instead of staying almost in the same place like weve been doing for year?
Hardware becomes obsolete after just a few year. Keeping a system for more than 5 year you can feel how obsolete it is. 10 year....thats just plain ridiculous and just stops the improvement of lots of game aspects, especially graphics.
0 up, 0 down
beebs83
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 @ 7:49:52 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
gangan19
Reply
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 @ 9:53:28 PM