Playstation 4 Officially Confirmed As In Development By Sony

[Tornado]

As it was with the PS2 and Xbox 'cause Nintendo had the GameCube which couldn't compete.

There is a difference between "couldn't compete" and "didn't bother." The only practical difference between the Wii and the Gamecube in regards to the other two companies is that the Wii was a success and the Gamecube was a failure, but Nintendo never tried to make either system competitive. I would even argue that Nintendo put even less effort into making the Gamecube a MS/Sony competitor than they did with the Wii.

But if they were to actually try to compete, there is little doubt in my mind that they wouldn't carve out a sizable piece away from both Sony and Microsoft in addition to the people who they would automatically have by virtue of being Nintendo.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

Not for nothing, but you can start "development" really any time you want. If we're talking merely about brainstorming, then "development" could have started a long time ago.

Everyone has been speculating about the PS4 since the PS3 was launched (talk about lack of patience). If we were really to stop and think about this rationally, there's no way on gods green earth we are going to see a new console next year, like so many have been claiming.

So with the PS4 a WAAAAAAAAAAAYS off yet, I'll just enjoy my PS3 like I have been for the past few years.

 

[Biobunny]

"GT6 now exclusive to the PS4 ."

 

[Robin]

Huh? PS1 launched 1994. PS2 launched in 2000, PS3 launched in 2006. Six years for each. PS4 announced in 2011, likely see it in 2012 at the very earliest. Also six years. It's actually could be longer than past trends. Xbox already is. No clue what you are talking about here. If Nintendo forced any hands it was just to keep the trend as is.

Nintendo has forced Sony and MS is curtail there lengthier than average life cycles, that's the hand that Nintendo has forced. Yes 6 years was the average in the past but this time MS and Sony wanted to go for at least 10 years before even thinking about a new console, Sony even gave this as a reason to soften the huge initial outlay for early buyers.

The last original member of the XBox team is leaving and they had huge debt before the 360. Think the XBox is dead next? My company is on their third CEO since I started here. I still have a job. Consoles take a loss at launch, the Wii is the only exception, and executives get jiggered around all the time, usually for non-business reasons. Office politics is a treacherous game.

Some people in companies command more than just a position, they become sort of a cult figure. CEO's may come and go but if someone like Steve Jobs goes... you get my drift. In Japan Kutaragi was a symbolic figure as the father of the Playstation, the media saw his 'restructuring' as a bad omen of a potentially sinking ship so I would say it does have an impact outside of pure business reasons. Is Playstation the same without Ken? Is Apple the same without Steve?

The overriding reason the PS2 eclipsed the Dreamcast was because it was the PS2 and the Dreamcast wasn't.

That's your reason? 'it was the PS2'

We already know they aren't, so what are you talking about?

We don't know Jack yet!, everything about Project Cafe is so far rumors so for all you know it could be crazy different, Iwata even said they want to offer something new.

No, but there is a guarantee that what happened with the Wii won't happen again.

Again, no one knows whats going to happen until E3. It could be a big sensation again. Do you have an issue with Nintendo?

The thing is that they weren't established successful brands. Atari hadn't been an established successful brand in the console market for ten years

You just said they weren't established brands then said one had been an established brand.

You seem to think that the benefits Sony will continue to get for years now that Blu-Ray has become the standard are less than the benefits that the PS3 could have ever made in profits. Long-term profit for the company as a whole is far more important than the short-term profits of one of the divisions.
Sony was selling millions of PS3s for an MSRP that was several hundred dollars lower than the mere parts cost. Why would they do that if they didn't have a plan that benefited Sony as a whole?

Every division has to make a profit, even if Blu Ray success is a by product of the PS3 it still, as a games console, needs to make business sense. Your making it sound like a sacrificial lamb which is certainly was not.

Robin.

 

[LaBounti]

NGP's for controllers please j/k.....

We should be thinking Dual shock 4 too ...

Same controller with a rear touch panel on the back and better sensors. It can work if you put your imagination to use and it would be cool. $60. Inverted triggers, 3.5mm jack, built in blue tooth audio. Thicker handles, higher resistant analogue sticks.

 

[Moot]

The controllers should have brain wave sensors like you see in the force power games, using thought focus to create a function within the game, which for a console game could be anything. For GT6/7 it could mean a slight increase in draw distance ahead to or focus changes to simulate the effect of driver concentration. Poor performance would start blurring the field of vision or something like that.

 

[Mike0105]

360 controllers would do for me. Proper triggers is what would be needed for the DS4.

PS4 being released just means that I'll have to start saving up now!

I'm still curious about the rumours surrounding SEGA's return. Can't see it myself but would be interesting.

 

[Tornado]

Nintendo has forced Sony and MS is curtail there lengthier than average life cycles, that's the hand that Nintendo has forced.

They have? Because I certainly haven't heard the announcement that the PS4 will be out by the end of next year.

That's your reason? 'it was the PS2'

I'm getting rather annoyed at your tendency to act as if facts that you didn't bother to research before you started this argument don't exist. You've already done it several times since you started this topic, and it makes trying to discuss anything with you far more tedious than it should be.

That isn't "my" reason. That was the reason. The PS2 came out in March of 2000 (again, only in Japan), and nearly all of the momentum the Dreamcast had after its launch disappeared. Just like that, gone. A few months later at E3 Sony announced the release date for North America, and overnight the Dreamcast was dead to third parties. Publishers and developers started bailing on the system before the PS2 even came out in North America that October, and by Christmas anything that wasn't already on its way out the door was quickly cancelled (except for Half-Life, which was one its way out the door and cancelled anyways).

You can whine on and on about "well, that's your opinion, man," but it only makes you look foolish. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.

We don't know Jack yet!, everything about Project Cafe is so far rumors so for all you know it could be crazy different, Iwata even said they want to offer something new.

Semantic arguments now? No, we don't know exactly what Nintendo will unveil at E3. But it isn't that hard to make an educated guess on the focus of the system.

Again, no one knows whats going to happen until E3. It could be a big sensation again. Do you have an issue with Nintendo?

No, but I do have an issue with people who think they know more than they actually do.

Nintendo won't have a repeat of what they did with the Wii. They will not. The marketplace will not support it anymore. There is far more competition that does things far better than Nintendo can in the segment the Wii occupied. The tepid response to the 3DS since launch compared to the DSi just a couple of years ago proves this.

This is the exact reason that all of the technology and gaming sites are predicting that Nintendo will move back towards the hardcore market, and they don't have any more information than we do.

You just said they weren't established brands then said one had been an established brand.

Seriously? Seriously?

There is no way that you can be that obstinate on accident, because there is no way you can make "people stopped caring about them 10 years before they went out of business" into "people loved them right up until the end" without doing it on purpose.

Atari was not an established successful brand when they went out of business after the Jaguar bombed. They were a brand who had been big at the start of the 80s, then spent the next 10 years screwing things up and basically being a joke (something that the Jaguar didn't help with). Any goodwill that the Lynx had brought them was eliminated within seconds of the Jaguar hitting the market, and they ultimately died off with few people actually caring in the midst of the PSX and Saturn launch.


tl;dr, Atari's situation and the stupid things that they did that ultimately forced them out of business was absolutely nothing like anything Sony has ever faced or will face in the near future. Sega's situation and the stupid things that they did that nearly forced them out of business was absolutely nothing like anything Sony has ever faced or will face in the near future.
Bringing them up in the first place therefore proves absolutely nothing.

Every division has to make a profit, even if Blu Ray success is a by product of the PS3 it still, as a games console, needs to make business sense. Your making it sound like a sacrificial lamb which is certainly was not.

Then what I want from you, right now, is an explanation for why Sony, hot off their success of the PS2, intentionally threw everything away to make the PS3 the way they initially did. That includes an explanation why they not only sold it for so much money, but also why they sold it for a price that was 30% lower than what the parts in it alone cost to make, and why they designed it with those parts in the first place.
Because, amazingly enough, using the PS3 as a gambling tool to launch Blu-Ray as a format has always been the default explanation for their actions since the system came out, and you are literally the first person I've seen who has had so much trouble grasping the concept.

And don't even bother responding to this post if you can't answer that question.



And suffice to say, statements like this:

Every division has to make a profit

You know how much money Microsoft has lost on their Entertainment and Devices division since the XBox came out? Billions. With a "B." And yet there is little chance that they are going to get rid of it, because it is benefiting Microsoft as a whole to have it around, and has recently finally been turning small profits.

 

[Mike0105]

You know how much money Microsoft has lost on their Entertainment and Devices division since the XBox came out? Billions. With a "B." And yet there is little chance that they are going to get rid of it, because it is benefiting Microsoft as a whole to have it around, and has recently finally been turning small profits.

i may just be completely wrong, forgive me it's early and I have just woken up, but if it is now turning a profit, does that not nothing was actually lost in the long run? The Billions were spent and then recouped and now they are making money?

 

[Tornado]

i may just be completely wrong, forgive me it's early and I have just woken up, but if it is now turning a profit, does that not nothing was actually lost in the long run? The Billions were spent and then recouped and now they are making money?

By making profits, I mean that the division is no longer currently losing money. But they haven't come anywhere near recouping the losses sustained to this point.

 

[Mike0105]

By making profits, I mean that the division is no longer currently losing money. But they haven't come anywhere near recouping the losses sustained to this point.

I see, thanks. So the XBOX and PS3 remain loss-leaders, or brand promotors if you will.

I thought that Microsoft's XBOX devision had started making money overall though. Wasn't there a report on this last year or so?

Seems strange to me that they would have 2 generations without making any money overall, but that might just be me.

 

[Tornado]

I see, thanks. So the XBOX and PS3 remain loss-leaders, or brand promotors if you will.

I thought that Microsoft's XBOX devision had started making money overall though. Wasn't there a report on this last year or so?

Mid-2008 was when Microsoft announced that the division was finally reporting profits, but in comparison the division lost nearly 2 billion dollars in 2007 alone (mostly, but nowhere near entirely, because of the RRoD scandal).

Seems strange to me that they would have 2 generations without making any money overall, but that might just be me.

Microsoft got shafted bad in their production contracts for the original XBox, most notably the one they had with nVidia. As a result, the production costs for the system never dropped as much as they did for Sony and Nintendo, but Microsoft still had to slash prices on the system anyways to remain competitive. Not helping was that the original XBox was the most expensive of the three to produce in the first place.

That was one of the reasons that Microsoft immediately dropped production on everything related to the original XBox when the 360 came out, even though the system was still selling fairly well at the time.

 

[Robin]

They have? Because I certainly haven't heard the announcement that the PS4 will be out by the end of next year.

No one is talking about release!, I'm talking about Nintendo forcing Sony to start development a few years early which is true.

I'm getting rather annoyed at your tendency to act as if facts that you didn't bother to research before you started this argument don't exist. You've already done it several times since you started this topic, and it makes trying to discuss anything with you far more tedious than it should be.

Believe me the feelings mutual I'm equally annoyed that you think you can be the judge of what I know and don't know. I'm not saying that everything you have said didn't happen, its the way your saying it with massive exaggeration and 'drama' that I have an issue with.

Most of your comments so far come accompanied with slandering companies and overstating history, if they are / were so damn useless (stupid, a joke, whatever you like) why at some or any point in history were they selling something well then? And why are you bent on Nintendo being a failure, according to you Nintendo have been pretty much a two bit chancer company who got lucky for most of their history yet its been praise for Sony's brilliant decisions all the way.

As for the Dreamcast I am never going to agree with what your saying so I'm going to let you have your opinion and I'l have mine which I already stated.

Semantic arguments now? No, we don't know exactly what Nintendo will unveil at E3. But it isn't that hard to make an educated guess on the focus of the system.

You don't know the focus (apart from its a hardcore system), there no such thing as an educated guess, no one saw the Wii coming.

Nintendo won't have a repeat of what they did with the Wii. They will not. The marketplace will not support it anymore. There is far more competition that does things far better than Nintendo can in the segment the Wii occupied. The tepid response to the 3DS since launch compared to the DSi just a couple of years ago proves this.

Again with the beating down of Nintendo. Oh they WONT have a repeat success like with the Wii, you don't know that at all!

Then what I want from you, right now, is an explanation for why Sony, hot off their success of the PS2, intentionally threw everything away to make the PS3 the way they initially did. That includes an explanation why they not only sold it for so much money, but also why they sold it for a price that was 30% lower than what the parts in it alone cost to make, and why they designed it with those parts in the first place.
Because, amazingly enough, using the PS3 as a gambling tool to launch Blu-Ray as a format has always been the default explanation for their actions since the system came out, and you are literally the first person I've seen who has had so much trouble grasping the concept.

And don't even bother responding to this post if you can't answer that question.

I can answer that question easily, because Sony never intended to 'throw everything away' to make the PS3, nothing they did with that system was any different to what they did with the PS2 and its development and what most other companies also do with their respective systems. The PS3 was sold for less than it costs to make because that's true of all console systems (bar the Wii because it was more last gen), you seem to think it was some special event which is laughable because the PS2 was also initially sold for way less than the unit cost. All console development creates billions dollar black holes at the start, Sony just spent slightly more this time because they wanted the console to go for a longer life cycle hence the higher retail cost.

The poor response at launch and also the recession which hit afterward is to blame for potentially making the PS3 never go into profit, not Sony because nothing was done differently.

All consoles are temporary loss leaders like razors and printers (you seem to think they are permanent loss leaders which shows your ignorance to this type of business practice). They have an initial investment which is large and then sell at a loss until either the console becomes cheap enough to manufacture to make a profit or the high priced software cancels out those costs. No console has ever been sold without the aim to eventually make a profit, some have not achieved that goal but that is the basis of how the console market works.

The PS3's main aim was not to secure to format war at any cost like you seem to believe, is was a side aim but not the main aim. Its main purpose was to eventually become highly profitable years down the line as a games console, just like the PS2 which as of yet has not happened.

I see, thanks. So the XBOX and PS3 remain loss-leaders, or brand promotors if you will.

Seems strange to me that they would have 2 generations without making any money overall, but that might just be me.

Consoles are temporary loss leaders and are supposed to go into profit around mid to late lifecycle, a Bugatti Veyron is a permanent loss leader and a brand promoter so totally different.

Its seems strange because they are making money, MS want to make a massive profit (like every other console company) on the 360 and are on target to do so because they have enjoyed much more success than the PS3 did in the early years.

Robin.

 

[Tornado]

No one is talking about release!, I'm talking about Nintendo forcing Sony to start development a few years early which is true.

Which would be fantastic if you actually knew this was the case.

Believe me the feelings mutual I'm equally annoyed that you think you can be the judge of what I know and don't know.

I call it like I see it. You make comparisons and bring up situations that are completely unrelated and mostly contradictory to your point and you want me to pretend that I think you know what you are talking about?

I'm not saying that everything you have said didn't happen

Actually, you've said exactly that. Several times.

its the way your saying it with massive exaggeration and 'drama' that I have an issue with.

Then I'm sure you won't have any problem finding an example.

Most of your comments so far come accompanied with slandering companies

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

and overstating history, if they are / were so damn useless (stupid, a joke, whatever you like) why at some or any point in history were they selling something well then?

You can't seriously think this is a valid rebuttal.

In the 1970s GM was one of the most powerful corporations in the entire world. So why is it that when they went bankrupt in 2009, no one was particularly surprised? Why is it that you seem to think "company was successful at one point" means "company was always successful" even though they went out of business?

And why are you bent on Nintendo being a failure,

Yes. That is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. Way to get the point.

according to you Nintendo have been pretty much a two bit chancer company who got lucky for most of their history yet its been praise for Sony's brilliant decisions all the way.

Has it occurred to you that the reason I'm saying these things has nothing to do with personal preference for any of the companies? I also find it funny that you think I've passed judgment on the quality in a "Sony Good Nintendo Bad" way, because that tells me that you haven't actually bothered paying attention to anything I've said outside of what you can pretend to act outraged in response to.

As for the Dreamcast I am never going to agree with what your saying so I'm going to let you have your opinion and I'l have mine which I already stated.

I love it when people hide behind "its my opinion" when it is as clear as day that they are factually incorrect.

I owned a Dreamcast when everything hit the fan. I saw firsthand the things that I explained above, and there are countless magazine articles and editorials from the time period as well as after the fact that noted the same things I explained. I don't care what your opinion is, because I know what actually happened. Deal with it.

You don't know the focus (apart from its a hardcore system), there no such thing as an educated guess, no one saw the Wii coming.

Good thing we aren't talking about the Wii then, isn't it? And that we are talking about the market as it is after the Wii, eh?

Again with the beating down of Nintendo. Oh they WONT have a repeat success like with the Wii, you don't know that at all!

I do know that. I knew that a couple of years ago when Apple entered the same market Nintendo was dominating at the time. I've attempted to explain why what I'm saying will be the case, and it isn't my problem that you don't care enough to listen.

I can answer that question easily, because Sony never intended to 'throw everything away' to make the PS3, nothing they did with that system was any different to what they did with the PS2 and its development and what most other companies also do with their respective systems.

This is bull. For starters, Sony didn't contribute the lion's share of $400 million to partner up with a chip manufacturer to purpose-build the CPU for the PS2.

The PS3 was sold for less than it costs to make because that's true of all console systems

Yes it did. Mostly because Sony initially built it up to be a cost-is-no-object Blu-Ray player/multimedia center rather than the reasons that typically cause such problems.

you seem to think it was some special event which is laughable because the PS2 was also initially sold for way less than the unit cost.

Those words your putting in my mouth are so delicious.

The poor response at launch and also the recession which hit afterward is to blame for potentially making the PS3 never go into profit, not Sony because nothing was done differently.

Except for all of those thing they did differently, of course. Purpose-built CPU, exotic system memory, top of the line connectivity options, etc.

All consoles are temporary loss leaders like razors and printers (you seem to think they are permanent loss leaders which shows your ignorance to this type of business practice).

No, I think that a multinational corporation with corporate fingers in pies that are far bigger than anything SCE has ever done would happily temporarily sacrifice profits of one of their divisions if it meant major benefits of the company as a whole.

And since I know for a fact that larger and more diverse corporations do this all the time, including the example of a large multinational company doing exactly that you yourself brought up later in this diatribe, I have to assume that I'm not the ignorant one in this conversation.

No console has ever been sold without the aim to eventually make a profit, some have not achieved that goal but that is the basis of how the console market works.

This is fantastic when you are talking about companies like Nintendo, SNK or Sega. Too bad we are talking about companies like Microsoft and Sony.

The PS3's main aim was not to secure to format war at any cost like you seem to believe, is was a side aim but not the main aim.

So you think that Sony being one of the two companies who developed Blu-Ray, Sony being a founding member of the Blu-Ray Disc Association board and Sony's electronics arm banking heavily on the success of the format was not the main reason that Sony shoved a Blu-Ray drive into the system which added $150 to the manufacturing costs alone?

Consoles are temporary loss leaders and are supposed to go into profit around mid to late lifecycle, a Bugatti Veyron is a permanent loss leader and a brand promoter so totally different.

Look, you undermined your entire argument again.

 

[SuperShouden]

I see, thanks. So the XBOX and PS3 remain loss-leaders, or brand promotors if you will.

I thought that Microsoft's XBOX devision had started making money overall though. Wasn't there a report on this last year or so?

Seems strange to me that they would have 2 generations without making any money overall, but that might just be me.

Actually, the PS3 has been making money for Sony for a while now. Sony was in the black back in 2008 I think. They were the first and the profit gain allowed them to do some other things. And, if the PS4 IS coming out next year, I'd expect Sony to announce a price drop on the PS3 @ E3. And, now with MS in the black, Nintendo's the only one NOT making money off their system. (They were for a while, but now, their sales have fallen and now they're losing money)

Also, PS1 has sold over 100 million units (putting it as the second best selling console excluding handhelds) and the PS2 has sold 150 million units, making it STILL the best selling console ever. (although Nintendo DS is less than 4 million units away from passing it. But, that's including every variation of the DS (DS, DSi, DS lite, 3DS etc...), so it really isn't as close to the PS2 has it seems.)

So, in terms of console sales, Sony has been makin' money. MS lost a bunch of money of the original Xbox 'cause it didn't sell as well as the PS2 'cause it was a brand new system and usually, a new company's first system doesn't sell well. (Sony's PS1 started off slow, but you have to remember that the PS1 was essentially the N64 with a CD-Rom player instead of cartridges...which is why PS1 sales took off.)

Also, the Wii has reached it's peak, the Xbox 360 has reached it's peak, but the PS3...has yet to reach it's peak in sales. It's closing the gap between it and the 360 pretty rapidly. (down to only a 3.6 million unit gap...from about 4.1 million units last year) And, while sales of the other two have actually declined, PS3 sales have been increasing.

And, if Sony's smart, they might wait a year or two before releasing the PS4. 'Cause what'll happen is you'll have the $500 Xbox 3, the $400 Wii 2 or the $200-$300 PS3. Yeah, I'm gonna save me some money and buy the PS3 and spend the extra money on gas. This will be especially true if MS pulls the "stop all production on the previous system and games for it" like they did with the original Xbox which still had plenty of life left in it. Nintendo also kinda abandoned the GameCube, but not as badly.

Sony's approach on new console releases has always been, "yeah, we would like you to buy the new system, but if you can't afford it at the moment, there's still plenty of content on the previous system. And we know it takes a little bit for a new system to get rolling, so feel free to keep your old system until we can get the good games out there." Which is a smart way to do things instead of Nintendo and MS's "Buy the new console NOW or DIE!" approach.

Also, the Wii is Nintendo's best selling system since the original Nintendo. In fact, Nintendo's gaming system were seeing at least a 10 million unit decline in systems sold with each system, which, by the way, would have put the Wii just above the Dreamcast if that pattern had continued. So, Nintendo's ecstatic to have a system that's actually selling again.

MS has actually doubled it's sales over the Xbox's 24million units. I would wager they're hoping to do the same thing with the 3rd gen system. Sony's always had extremely high sales. If the PS3 can break 100 million units by the end of it's life, then Sony will be the ONLY console maker to consistently sell over 100 million units with every system. (So, in terms of sales, Sony's #1 with over 300 million systems sold across all three systems. For the record, Nintendo's systems have sold 219 million and MS has sold 77 million. So, congrats to Sony for being the first console maker to break the 300 million unit mark.)

 

[LaBounti]

Summer/ Early Fall 2013 I like. I never liked fall/ winter launches. It always makes it tougher for gamers when stay at home moms are in line buying systems for there kids for X-mas.

The 3DS would have been selling out everywhere had it launched in Nov. Instead its just selling well but not out... For this I hope it launches at a ridiculous price again the first 6 months. It will also push more cheaper Ps3's.. Its a long shot but would Sony release a Ps2/PS3 combo system for $199.99 in 2013? While the $599.99 PS4 and its 9 core sli GPU system is released.

PS2 games still my personal que. FF12, Silent Hill 2 @ 3. Front Mission 4.... collecting dust like all 6 of my 360 games

 

[Tornado]

Actually, the PS3 has been making money for Sony for a while now. Sony was in the black back in 2008 I think. They were the first and the profit gain allowed them to do some other things.

And then they lost money throughout 2009.

And, now with MS in the black, Nintendo's the only one NOT making money off their system. (They were for a while, but now, their sales have fallen and now they're losing money)

$946 million in profits doesn't sound like "losing money" to me.

(Sony's PS1 started off slow, but you have to remember that the PS1 was essentially the N64 with a CD-Rom player instead of cartridges...which is why PS1 sales took off.)

Flat what.

Also, the Wii has reached it's peak, the Xbox 360 has reached it's peak, but the PS3...has yet to reach it's peak in sales. It's closing the gap between it and the 360 pretty rapidly. (down to only a 3.6 million unit gap...from about 4.1 million units last year) And, while sales of the other two have actually declined, PS3 sales have been increasing.

I'm not sure how accurate this is. In America, at least, the 360 has been outselling the PS3 consistently since Kinect came out.

 

[Spagetti69]

How can the Wii and Xbox have reached there peaks.

Surely you reach your peak when you sell the last unit ever. Unless I'm missing something here.

Also Shouden, you posted the Xbox is doomed thread.
Is that still applicable?

 

[SuperShouden]

I think world wide, PS3 is actually outselling the Xbox 360. And, overall, Wii sales are dropping. They've made a lot of money off the Wii, but when your sales start declining you start to lose money off what you gained with every system that sits on the shelves. I'm thinkin' now, that Nintendo might actually release a Wii 2 simply because Wii was actually making them a lot of money...and is the first of their system to outsell their first console. So...But, I also see history repeating itself, and the Wii 2 not quite selling as much as the Wii.

And, yes, MS sales have picked up. Normally, last year, I did the math and Sony was averaging about 800,000 units more annually than the 360 (PS3 has been around for 5 years and 360 has been around for 6.) Now, the new figures...Sony actually has increased the gap to 1,000,000 units more than MS annually. And they decreased the gap from last year by about 500,000 units, which is a substantial dent, considering that Sony's only 3.6 million units behind MS in total sales....so....But, to get the 100,000,000 unit mark and make history, Sony needs to sell 50,000,000 more PS3's. Something, which, I think is possible. On the other hand, I don't see Wii reaching the PS1's 102 million units before it's sales fall away completely. Nintendo needs to sell 16 million more units to become the second best selling system, and if they're releasing a new system next year, that would mean they need to sell 16 million units before that, and I don't see it happening 'cause, now, there will be people opting out of buying a Wii just to wait for the new system. Now, Nintendo has averaged 17.2 million units a year, so, it IS plausible for them to beat the PS1, but I don't think it's likely with their declining sales and a new system on the way.

And with a new Xbox coming (since developers already have kits. Which implies the system's inner workings are finalized and it's all down to design. So, we COULD see a new Xbox for Christmas, but it'll probably be Christmas 2012 'cause Turn10 has their new Forza coming out this year.), 360 sales should start dropping off as everyone prepares for that system. But we'll see. It'll certainly be interesting to see who's ahead by 2013, though.


EDIT: Spagetti - we'll see. If their next system doesn't have a Blu-ray player, then, most likely, yes, they're dead. You have to remember that the PS3 is FAR from reaching it's full potential. GT5 pushed the limits, but it still didn't use up all the PS3 had to offer. GT6 might. And if MS is wanting to compete with the PS3's capabilities, then they will have to release a system that at the very least, has an HD-DVD player, if not a full Blu-ray player. The 360 can't run True-HD 'cause it's using DVDs and DVDs run in SD. The graphics card and processors boost the graphics to 720+. When making Halo 3, Bungie actually mentioned this. They said it would support HD, but it would be simulated HD. And, in fact, Downloading games to the Harddrive of the 360 is better 'cause those games are actually in true-HD.

But, yeah, if a blu-ray player is needed for the next system. (Bungie, btw, also actually yearned for the space of the PS3 while making Halo 3. Just because of the full HD and 50GB of space to play around with.) And really, I would LOVE to see a Halo game on blu-ray. I would love to see what Turn10 can do with it. And Gears of War 4 would be insane with Blu-ray. And I think those franchises won't reach their full potential on DVD-ROM.

And that is why we're starting to see a lot of multi-platform games being built for the PS3 first. Simply because of the space available. It's easier to take away things from a game than it is to add to it. But, I think the major console war will be between MS and Sony's third gen systems until the PS4 comes out. 'cause you KNOW Sony's probably gonna release a system with twin 16 core Cell processors, and updated graphics card (one that will support 3D gaming better) and a new Blu-ray player than can read the maximum amount of layers on the blu-ray discs.

 

[Robin]

Yes. That is exactly what I've been saying in this thread. Way to get the point.

So you finally admit you hate on Nintendo, just don't try to base your hate on facts because the fact is many don't share your dislike of that company or any other gaming company for that matter.

This is bull. For starters, Sony didn't contribute the lion's share of $400 million to partner up with a chip manufacturer to purpose-build the CPU for the PS2.

No, they contributed the lion's share of $84 million ($112 million in today's money) to partner up with Toshiba to purpose-build the CPU for the PS2 which at the time was a huge amount so same difference.

Those words your putting in my mouth are so delicious.

Firstly talking like that shows immaturity and secondly you said,

why they not only sold it for so much money, but also why they sold it for a price that was 30% lower than what the parts in it alone cost to make, and why they designed it with those parts in the first place.

And you thought that pratice was something out of the ordinary, hilarious.

So you think that Sony being one of the two companies who developed Blu-Ray, Sony being a founding member of the Blu-Ray Disc Association board and Sony's electronics arm banking heavily on the success of the format was not the main reason that Sony shoved a Blu-Ray drive into the system which added $150 to the manufacturing costs alone?

So Sony built a new gaming system with a state of the art processor for the sole purpose of peddling a disc format.... No. It was time for a new Playstation whether Blu Ray had been around or not and Sony felt some good could be done by putting it in.

Look, you undermined your entire argument again.

You love to say that comment don't you but then don't expand on it, which shows theres nothing wrong with what I've said in that sentence. I know exactly what I'm talking about and your taking people as fools.

I'm thinkin' now, that Nintendo might actually release a Wii 2 simply because Wii was actually making them a lot of money...and is the first of their system to outsell their first console. So...But, I also see history repeating itself, and the Wii 2 not quite selling as much as the Wii.

If Nintendo took the same forumla as the Wii and made a Wii 2 it would probably do terribily because that fad ia pretty much over and the casual market has moved on. However if Nintendo chooses to do something clever again but in a totally different way then it could be an instant hit. Also by them going back to creating a more traditional 'hardcore' console there is even more chance that they will do something radical because that market is much harder to please than the casual one.

 

[Luminis]

If Nintendo took the same forumla as the Wii and made a Wii 2 it would probably do terribily because that fad ia pretty much over and the casual market has moved on. However if Nintendo chooses to do something clever again but in a totally different way then it could be an instant hit. Also by them going back to creating a more traditional 'hardcore' console there is even more chance that they will do something radical because that market is much harder to please than the casual one.

Thing is this: The one clever thing they did with the Wii was the following:
Nintendo was having a battle with Sony and Microsoft and they were sorely loosing with their console, so they packed their stuff up and just went home. When they released the Wii, they did one thing and one thing only: They cracked a new market open. That's it, really. They got people to start playing games that wouldn't ever have thought of owning a home console prior to the Wii.

It's like entering a boxing ring with no opponent: You can't loose if there's nobody competing with you, but that won't happen again. For one simple reason:
Everybody and their mother is playing video games now. Nintendo got the soccer momes to play games and by now, they're probably sitting in front of their iPhone or whatever.
Aside from amybe soome octogenarians, there is just no new market you could crack open, not in the gaming industry. The 'innovative' thing about the Wii, and the reason it's such a succes isn't the 'revolutionary' way to control stuff. it's that the console is primarily designed to appeal to a market that was largely ignored by the console and PC industry.

And, by now, Sony and MS have started to compete with Nintendo again, even in that segment, with Move and Kinect.

If they want to compete, they'll have to be battling it out with MS and Sony again, as there's no market to run away too. And, by now, that meanss having a console that appeals to both the casual and the hardcore market.
I'm not saying that Nintendo couldn't pull it off. They've got some very good franchises that'll act as system sellers, but they'll have to get some decent third party support, or they'll be looking at a second GameCube.

 

[Terronium-12]

I think world wide, PS3 is actually outselling the Xbox 360.

No.

And with a new Xbox coming (since developers already have kits. Which implies the system's inner workings are finalized and it's all down to design. So, we COULD see a new Xbox for Christmas, but it'll probably be Christmas 2012 'cause Turn10 has their new Forza coming out this year.), 360 sales should start dropping off as everyone prepares for that system. But we'll see. It'll certainly be interesting to see who's ahead by 2013, though.

Where are you getting this from?

EDIT: Spagetti - we'll see. If their next system doesn't have a Blu-ray player, then, most likely, yes, they're dead.

Again, no. It would be an unwise decision at best but considering DVD isn't going anywhere any time soon...that's all it'll be in the long run: an unwise (arguably stupid) decision. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You have to remember that the PS3 is FAR from reaching it's full potential. GT5 pushed the limits, but it still didn't use up all the PS3 had to offer.

And no game ever will saturate the theoretical power of the PS3, do you realize how huge of a bottleneck CBE actually is?

GT6 might.

No. Don't expect GT6 to look much better (if at all) than GT5. That 256MB (480MB when borrowing from XDR) of available memory won't do anyone any favors.

And if MS is wanting to compete with the PS3's capabilities, then they will have to release a system that at the very least, has an HD-DVD player, if not a full Blu-ray player.

What? What capabilities are you talking about? The only real thing the PS3 has over the 360 is CBE and that's only in theoretics. One could also argue semantics and throw in XDR, but I...I wouldn't.

But, I think the major console war will be between MS and Sony's third gen systems until the PS4 comes out. 'cause you KNOW Sony's probably gonna release a system with twin 16 core Cell processors,

32 cores, really? That would do absolutely nothing for them except in absolute FPU benchmarks and server applications where that bandwidth can actually be put to use. Only thing that would for the PS4 is widen the bottleneck further. Not to mention the TDP (power consumption), heat, how expensive it's going to be to fabricate such a micro-architecture that actually works at whatever frequency it's clocked at. I'd love to see the die map on that though.

 

[Spagetti69]

Wow lots of techno stuff here.

I suppose if Xbox wanted to put Blu ray in the next console they will.
Probably be a lot cheaper than when Sony did it.

 

[SuperShouden]

32 cores, really? That would do absolutely nothing for them except in absolute FPU benchmarks and server applications where that bandwidth can actually be put to use. Only thing that would for the PS4 is widen the bottleneck further. Not to mention the TDP (power consumption), heat, how expensive it's going to be to fabricate such a micro-architecture that actually works at whatever frequency it's clocked at. I'd love to see the die map on that though.

Yeah. I actually read somewhere, that if they add anything to the cell, they would just double the cores from 8 to 16 'cause they can do that now and stay within their heat threshold thanks to the decreasing size of the cell. (which, I believe, has to be liquid cooled anyway). But, nVidia released a graphics card that should be able to handle the 3D games very well, so...if Sony puts that one in the PS4, as well as an updated Cell, I think it'll be good until 2020 when they're looking at releasing the HVD...but we'll see. Sony still had quad layer 100GB discs and 6-layer 200GB discs waiting in the wings. I assume the PS4 will be able to play those...not that it needs it. 50GB seems like it's hard to use up. But, you can image the size of the words with 200GB of space. Maybe THQ would be able to release an 18 Wheels of Steel MMO with actual roads and cities across the US, Canada and Mexico.

 

[Robin]

@ Luminis

Sure it will be hard for Nintendo it bring a kind of suprise like the Wii was, and it would have to be a totally different surprise because all those casual players are now onto the next fad which is app games, but I really think if they once again think a bit wacky they can still find a gimmick within the new hardcore target market that offers something unique that draws people it will be a success. There is still many more things that could be exploited or improved in that segment... things like Virtual and Augmented reality are hot technologies at the moment and as they improve its something Nintendo might want to look at for their next 'hook'. If third party dev's are impressed then the whole thing could roll into a success once again.

As for motion I feel that Sony and MS should have not jumped on that bandwagon because it was a rash decision made on the back of the Wii's stellar performance and they needed a slice of the causal pie and quick. Now that they have actually gone and done it most don't really care anymore which is why I think Kinect and particularly Move will not becoming back for the next gen, it was too little too late in my opinion. I think they should be thinking about the next hot thing, probably like what Nintendo is thinking about right now.

I suppose if Xbox wanted to put Blu ray in the next console they will.

Its unlikely because they would have to pay heavy royalties to Sony which would in essence mean they wold get a cut out of every next gen Xbox sold! This is also the reason why they didn't do an add on to the 360 when HDDVD went kaput.

What is more likely to happen (as happened with the Gamecube) is that to avoid paying royalties they can develop a proprietary disk format which has the characteristics of Blu Ray but its not actually that format. It is rumoured MS will basically resurrect HDDVD as an 'Xbox disk' format and that will give them comparable capacity.

 

[Terronium-12]

Yeah. I actually read somewhere, that if they add anything to the cell, they would just double the cores from 8 to 16 'cause they can do that now and stay within their heat threshold thanks to the decreasing size of the cell. (which, I believe, has to be liquid cooled anyway). But, nVidia released a graphics card that should be able to handle the 3D games very well, so...if Sony puts that one in the PS4, as well as an updated Cell, I think it'll be good until 2020 when they're looking at releasing the HVD...but we'll see. Sony still had quad layer 100GB discs and 6-layer 200GB discs waiting in the wings. I assume the PS4 will be able to play those...not that it needs it. 50GB seems like it's hard to use up. But, you can image the size of the words with 200GB of space. Maybe THQ would be able to release an 18 Wheels of Steel MMO with actual roads and cities across the US, Canada and Mexico.

You sure you're not confusing logical cores with threads?

 

[SuperShouden]

You sure you're not confusing logical cores with threads?

what's illogical about a 16 core Cell?

But, in truth, who knows what Sony has planned for the PS4. We can guess that they're gonna want 3D support right off the bat, so, they'll at least have to change the graphics card.

 

[Terronium-12]

what's illogical about a 16 core Cell?

But, in truth, who knows what Sony has planned for the PS4. We can guess that they're gonna want 3D support right off the bat, so, they'll at least have to change the graphics card.

Nothing. I am, however, assured you're misunderstanding what 'logical' means in this context; it has nothing to do with validity or reasoning. Logical, in this context, means a virtual core, or better still, a thread. Look up Hyperthreading and that's basically the gist of what a logical core is.

 

[Damicd__]

I still believe it is too early to be working on a new console.

PSMove came out not too long ago(Which i Enjoy).They still only have a handful of games out and i could see the PSMove getting better once they tap into it more.

I've noticed some of the newer games look better and play better so they are still doing pretty well on the PS3.

I think everything is fine on the PS3.I enjoy it how it is.

One thing to add.If they are really thinking about making a new PS4 or whatever it may be called the PS3 games better be backwards compatible with the new console.

Hopefully all the ps3 games and move will be compatible with thr new console

 

[CaptainHarlock]

The thing is saying that development is "underway" could really mean they're just brainstorming. It's going to be a while before we see anything. I doubt we're going to hear anything at this years E3.

You know, since the PS3 debuted it seems that everyone and their uncle has been asking "When is the PS4 coming?". It's as if nobody ALLOWED themselves to enjoy it, and they were waiting with bated breath for the news to come down, all so they can say "aw man, I just bought a PS3". Nobody was saying "when is the PS3 coming?" when the PS2 debuted. Same thing with the original Playstation. It really shows you how much the audience has changed in that short period of time, and how there's a lack of patiences and minuscule attention spans these days.