Sony Not Ready to Abandon PS3 Even With Next-Gen Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
" It's not going to be easy to handle two consoles at the same time, but Sony will hold on to the PS3 as a platform in the foreseeable time. "

I disagree, when there is money coming in from the PS3 sufficient to pay for supporting it and give healthy profits, it is extremely easy to support both platforms. There is no shortage of skilled people looking for work.
 

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]That's at least what they will say as long as they have consoles in stock...[/citation]
good point... that could explain it entirely
 

greghome

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2009
477
0
18,810
6
[citation][nom]thecolorblue[/nom]" It's not going to be easy to handle two consoles at the same time, but Sony will hold on to the PS3 as a platform in the foreseeable time. "I disagree, when there is money coming in from the PS3 sufficient to pay for supporting it and give healthy profits, it is extremely easy to support both platforms. There is no shortage of skilled people looking for work.[/citation]


The way I see it, support for the PS3 should be pretty easy now.
What needs to be done (servers, tech support ) has already been done, it's just a matter of maintaining it.
 

mafisometal

Honorable
Jul 2, 2012
175
0
10,710
23
Game developers are just fu**ing lazy. They are the ones trying to push Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to a next gen console. The irony is that game developers are getting really stupid with their development process. When ps3 and xbox launched the games were MUCH better quality and WAY less buggy than they are today. The fact is PS3 and XBox still have juice left in their systems, probably for another 2 years because graphics hasn't really been drastically changed. Unless you own a $1000+ PC with good cards and games that demand high performance. You won't see much of a graphical change in the consumers point of view. There is no point for Sony to go next gen when they have to worry about the vita's lifespan. Tablets and Smartphones are taking over and the handheld market is becoming pointless.
 

Menigmand

Honorable
Jul 27, 2012
128
0
10,680
0
Boule sheet. The moment they sell out the old consoles they suddenly won't remember ever saying that they would keep supporting it.
 

somebodyspecial

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
1,459
0
11,310
20
PS2 still selling 11yrs later.
http://egamer.co.za/2012/01/ps2-is-matching-ps-vita-in-sales-this-is-plain-crazy/
http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/10/sony-hit-hard-in-fy2012-financials-ps3-sales-down/
4.1mil sold ps2's Jan to may2012. Those can't be still on the shelf unless they're still making them correct? :)
 

waxdart

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
199
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]mafisometal[/nom]The fact is PS3 and XBox still have juice left in their systems, probably for another 2 years because graphics hasn't really been drastically changed. Unless you own a $1000+ PC with good cards and games that demand high performance.[/citation]

The reason you see no change in PC games are they are made for the lowest common market. Consoles! They have held up the PC in terms of development for a while now. Does it matter?? Not always. I've been playing Batman Arkham Asylum on my PS3 recently and it is still a really good game.

You’re on TH, you know you can get a crap gaming PC for $500. If you dial back settings you can almost match the $2000 games rig on some games. Consoles have held up PC games market that much. Crysis 1 would make the $2000 machine cry and keep crying for years. No $500 budget crap for that game. Cross platform games stopped all that.

PC Games posting 100-200fps is daft. Your screen can only deliver 60fps. Lots of room to do more. My graphics card is an old Nvida 460, It still gets by - that ain't right. I'm going to upgrade when there is a game that needs it. Don't see it hapaning for a while. There is only life left in consoles because people stopped raising the bar. Great for the $500 PC market ... And where is my 4k monitor? /Rant
 

kawininjazx

Distinguished
May 22, 2008
1,372
0
19,460
91
Can you swap HDDs in a PS3? I thought all the data was encrypted into the system it came with. You have to use a crossover cable between two systems or make a backup to external media to transfer data. Am I wrong here?
 

BIL_ASC

Honorable
Sep 7, 2012
34
0
10,530
0
Sony is kinda put on stress I guess
having problems with games of PSP Vita, their server got hacked and the data got stolen, issues with regain user's trust, and now this..
 

catfishtx

Honorable
May 15, 2012
145
0
10,690
1
[citation][nom]kawininjazx[/nom]Can you swap HDDs in a PS3? I thought all the data was encrypted into the system it came with. You have to use a crossover cable between two systems or make a backup to external media to transfer data. Am I wrong here?[/citation]

The hard drives in PS3s are standard 2.5" SATA laptop hard drives. I have upgraded the hard drives in both of my PS3s. The entire process (Backup old hard drive, replace old drive with new, format new drive, and restore data) took about two hours.

The xBox 360 is what requires the special crossover cable that they are oh so willing to sell to you.
 

mafisometal

Honorable
Jul 2, 2012
175
0
10,710
23
[citation][nom]BIL_ASC[/nom]Sony is kinda put on stress I guesshaving problems with games of PSP Vita, their server got hacked and the data got stolen, issues with regain user's trust, and now this..[/citation]

only on the original PS3, the newer models don't support HDD swapping. You'd have to take it apart to do the swap which means you void the warranty.
 

Gundam288

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2011
281
0
18,790
2
[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]The console makers have to figure out what to do with Xbox live and PSN.[/citation]
IMO, with PSN it's up in the air, they could add the PS4 to the current network or make it a different one

But with Xbox live I think they will do what they did last time when they phased out xbox1, support the older xbox on it for a bit as well as the new "Xbox" and then drop the older xbox. Keeping only the new "Xbox" on Xbox live.
 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45



You clearly have no clue (I was going to assume troll but it looks like you put effort into your opinion, scary). They are pushing hardware manufacturers because they have to develop games for 2, 3, or even 4 separate systems at the same time. This takes a huge amount of time and money that could be better spent on content. Each system has a vastly different architecture, so by having all the systems on a more even playing field they can shorten dev times and focus more on quality.

Take any decent launch game vs any game now, the games now are better. The systems still have life because it takes time to figure out how to best utilize different hardware sets, we've reached that point with current gen consoles and companies want to take the next step.
 

boiler1990

Splendid
[citation][nom]mafisometal[/nom]Game developers are just fu**ing lazy. They are the ones trying to push Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to a next gen console. The irony is that game developers are getting really stupid with their development process. When ps3 and xbox launched the games were MUCH better quality and WAY less buggy than they are today. The fact is PS3 and XBox still have juice left in their systems, probably for another 2 years because graphics hasn't really been drastically changed. Unless you own a $1000+ PC with good cards and games that demand high performance. You won't see much of a graphical change in the consumers point of view. There is no point for Sony to go next gen when they have to worry about the vita's lifespan. Tablets and Smartphones are taking over and the handheld market is becoming pointless.[/citation]

It's actually the publishers who churn out these games - if the publishers didn't care about having a new game in every series pumped out every year, the quality would be much better.

For example, Call of Duty and CoD 2 were amazing games. Why? Because Infinity Ward (the developer) spent almost 2 years on each game. When Activision (the publisher) bought out IW, they wanted a CoD game every year, so they handed the alternating years to Treyarch. That's why CoD 3, World at War, and Black Ops were so terrible - the publisher was forcing out CoD copies through an unrelated junior developer.

Similar things happened with EA and Bioware. EA rushed development to get Mass Effect 3 out on schedule. What happened? Worst video game ending in recent history. The outrage was incredible.

Battlefield 3 was a success, you say? Well, BF3 has been in development over the last several years. I'm not sure how DICE managed to work that development time into its contract, but it paid the hell off. There are talks about BF4 already, and part of me wonders if EA is going to rush development to release it next fall, or if the will let DICE properly build the game over 2 years. We'll have to see.
 

kawininjazx

Distinguished
May 22, 2008
1,372
0
19,460
91
[citation][nom]catfishtx[/nom]The hard drives in PS3s are standard 2.5" SATA laptop hard drives. I have upgraded the hard drives in both of my PS3s. The entire process (Backup old hard drive, replace old drive with new, format new drive, and restore data) took about two hours.The xBox 360 is what requires the special crossover cable that they are oh so willing to sell to you.[/citation]

I understand that part, because I have upgraded my HDD. It sounds like they were implying you can just take out your drive and put it into the new PS3 coming out, but they should specify it is not a simple process.
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
Sony has always been good at supporting the previous generation well into the newer one. The original PSX/PSOne was still on sale deep into the PS2 life cycle, and as someone else mentioned, you can still go and buy a PS2 near the end of the PS3 life cycle. But I imagine that maintaining the PS3 will be more difficult. The PSX, PS2, didn't have the kind of online presence the PS3 has. You have to imagine that the PS4 will quickly stack on that network burden. I doubt the PSN has the ability to handle so many devices. Plus, there are other ongoing costs to maintaining support and customer service for the PS3. To do all that while rolling out a new console, with a company that has been struggling to make money of late, is probably quite a tough task. But they don't really have much choice. Their fan base has become accustomed to their long support cycles, and there is a heavy install base that they can't just suddenly flip the switch on. If they DID abruptly stop support for the PS3 ti would probably kill the company by pissing off a bunch of people.
 

madjimms

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2011
448
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]waxdart[/nom]The reason you see no change in PC games are they are made for the lowest common market. Consoles! They have held up the PC in terms of development for a while now. Does it matter?? Not always. I've been playing Batman Arkham Asylum on my PS3 recently and it is still a really good game.You’re on TH, you know you can get a crap gaming PC for $500. If you dial back settings you can almost match the $2000 games rig on some games. Consoles have held up PC games market that much. Crysis 1 would make the $2000 machine cry and keep crying for years. No $500 budget crap for that game. Cross platform games stopped all that.PC Games posting 100-200fps is daft. Your screen can only deliver 60fps. Lots of room to do more. My graphics card is an old Nvida 460, It still gets by - that ain't right. I'm going to upgrade when there is a game that needs it. Don't see it hapaning for a while. There is only life left in consoles because people stopped raising the bar. Great for the $500 PC market ... And where is my 4k monitor? /Rant[/citation]
So basically you're saying programmers need to get lazy so you can feel better about buying (once) expensive hardware? Crysis 1 had pretty crappy optimization. lack of optimization doesn't equal good.
 

edogawa

Splendid
You know, I used to be really big on playing console games, Atari, Nintendo\Snes, PS1, PS2, PS3, etc.

PS4 will be the first Playstation I will not get, unless it offers something dramatic; I've transitioned fully to PC gaming over the last 4 years where I just don't touch consoles. I used to play PC games very little compared to console, but with how PC gaming has taken off and all the hardware advancements, PC gaming is awesome(only thing I will miss out on is exclusives.) Still have emulators for older PC games and I'm glad the next Metal Gear is coming to PC! :D
 

esrever

Splendid
[citation][nom]catfishtx[/nom]The hard drives in PS3s are standard 2.5" SATA laptop hard drives. I have upgraded the hard drives in both of my PS3s. The entire process (Backup old hard drive, replace old drive with new, format new drive, and restore data) took about two hours.The xBox 360 is what requires the special crossover cable that they are oh so willing to sell to you.[/citation]
you can also just use a flash drive for the 360.
 
"Those who would want to update from an older PS3 now could opt for the 12 GB entry level model and take their HDD with game data with them."

I'm certainly not one of those people. I have a console that does hardware emulation to play PS2 games. (It's a launch system.) It has a Piano black and chrome finish which makes it LOOK better than any current PS3 consoles. I can't think of any reason to even get a new one unless yours is broken or has some kind of problems.

I got the PS3 early cause I had a bunch of PS2 games and a broken PS2. I figured ay spend money on a PS2 when the PS3 is about to come out. I've enjoyed the PS1 and PS2. The PS3 however I haven't play nearly as much. At this point I'm using it more as a blu-ray and movie player than a game console. I don't think I'll be getting a PS4, but we will see, only time will tell what the next generation of consoles brings.
 

Filiprino

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2008
160
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]boiler1990[/nom]It's actually the publishers who churn out these games - if the publishers didn't care about having a new game in every series pumped out every year, the quality would be much better.For example, Call of Duty and CoD 2 were amazing games. Why? Because Infinity Ward (the developer) spent almost 2 years on each game. When Activision (the publisher) bought out IW, they wanted a CoD game every year, so they handed the alternating years to Treyarch. That's why CoD 3, World at War, and Black Ops were so terrible - the publisher was forcing out CoD copies through an unrelated junior developer. Similar things happened with EA and Bioware. EA rushed development to get Mass Effect 3 out on schedule. What happened? Worst video game ending in recent history. The outrage was incredible. Battlefield 3 was a success, you say? Well, BF3 has been in development over the last several years. I'm not sure how DICE managed to work that development time into its contract, but it paid the hell off. There are talks about BF4 already, and part of me wonders if EA is going to rush development to release it next fall, or if the will let DICE properly build the game over 2 years. We'll have to see.[/citation]
Well, Crysis 2 developers didn't play Crysis 1... if that means anything for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY