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

[kinggraves]

Every system has an overlap cycle of about 2 years between the old and new model, this has been true since the NES. Part of this strategy however is the accompanying price reduction to the outdated model that makes it affordable. This is especially true for Sony since they like to put out high end new models that cost a lot in comparison. I have few doubts that they will put out the PS4 with BRXL and the possibility of 4k regardless of price. Sony's business model includes pushing their own new tech products, they want people to have a reason to buy their new 4k TVs. They knew from the start they would eventually have to transition their network. If they haven't figured out how in 10 years they deserve to fail.

 

[alidan]

um... how about redirecting all effort into creating an emulator for the next console?

make it play all games, reguardless if its better or not.

current pcs can play wii games at hd resolutions almost if not flawlessly, you telling me that you cant get an emulator for the ps4 working to at least get ps3 games playing at 720p? ps2 games at 1080p (another thing pc emulators can to) or ps1 games at a 4:3 resolution equidistant of 1080p?

even with intimate details of the design pc emulator creators would have wet dreams over?

 

[waxdart]

[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]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.[/citation]
No I didn't say that at all. I said games are made for consoles, that's why PCs see no huge improvement. Are you saying people who can afford new hardware should be held back for 7-10 years so poor people who think mid range hardware is expensive can catch up?

 

[Pgooch]

[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 since Infinity Ward makes one game in 2009 and treyarch makes one 2010, and So on Doesn't the developers Still get two years to produce the game? At least this is they way I always took it That's why i thought it was made by treyarch and infinity ward. Don't get me wrong i'm not a cod fan boy They haven't made a good cod since 4. But i still buy them just to see whats changed =-( BO2 Was very disappointing to me

 

[MasterMace]

The reason PS2s are still selling 11 years later is because the PS3 is still overpriced. It started out overpriced, it continued overpriced, it still is overpriced. Right now, the PS3 should be selling for End-Of-Life prices ($50-$100).

If Sony wants to not crap the bed again, they will have to make the PS4 between $300 and $400 to start, not $600-$700.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]MasterMace[/nom]The reason PS2s are still selling 11 years later is because the PS3 is still overpriced. It started out overpriced, it continued overpriced, it still is overpriced. Right now, the PS3 should be selling for End-Of-Life prices ($50-$100).If Sony wants to not crap the bed again, they will have to make the PS4 between $300 and $400 to start, not $600-$700.[/citation]

um... when it came out it cost 900-1100 to make
even now, a bluray player, even the cheapest you can get (stand alone) is minimum 60$
add in a console to that, and you are looking at maybe 100-150$, now add that 250gb hdd (do they make bigger ones yet) and you are sitting high on an extra 30-50$ expense.

lets see here, 50+100+30=180
50+150+50=250
not adding in the controller it comes with, which is 20-40$

and than look at some of the bundles, amazon, a controller a remote, 2 games, and a 250gb ps3 for 280$

yea, over priced, hell no, value for what you get... really depends on who you ask.

the reason that the ps1 got so cheap was because the chip size shrank that much, and cd players were EVERYWHERE.

the reason the ps2 still sells is because it has 3000 some games for it that are all worth playing but the systems tend to crap out unlike old cart based consoles, and not everyone can get emulation going.

and what will 3-400 buy you? what will it buy you with normal computer parts? a system with integrated graphics at best if you go quad core?

part out a computer, and tell me how good you can make one for 3-400$
because if thats the launch price range, they may as well not even come out with a console for another 2 years

 

[Guest]

Meh to consoles, my gtx 690 and 2560 x 1600 display makes fun of them every day. No back to BF3 on a high end PC. Graphics do matter.

 

[tacoslave]

[citation][nom]soldier2013[/nom]Meh to consoles, my gtx 690 and 2560 x 1600 display makes fun of them every day. No back to BF3 on a high end PC. Graphics do matter.[/citation] All that and your still annoying