Is there a chance the PS3 will get discontinued/unsupported? [Archive]

Kid Ice

01-11-2009, 09:45 AM

At the moment I have all 3 consoles. I use the PS3 every day, the Wii occasionally, and the 360 hardly ever.

When I buy or rent a new release game I get the PS3 version. My theory is that the less disc based games I put into the 360, the better because of the red ring nonsense. Also IMO the graphics in PS3 games are usually a little better and the sound is better...that could just be cables or something though. Anyway, the bottom line is I prefer the PS3 for multi-platform releases.

I've lost the love for XBLA. At some point they got away from classic arcade games and seemed to get more into "flash" type games. It doesn't seem like my friends are on as much either. And IMO the "new experience" absolutely SUCKS (yes I've given it a chance).

So considering the fact that I hardly ever play the machine and it is likely to crap out eventually, it would seem logical to trade it or sell it and feed the proceeds to stuff for the other two systems.

The problem is that the PS3 is selling so poorly, I am starting to worry about the system's future. Blu-ray doesn't seem to be doing that great either. What I'm worried will happen is what happened to the Saturn....3rd parties just stop making games for it, or the games they do make are only sold in Japan (remember the X-Men vs SF debacle?)

If I get rid of my 360 now, I get the feeling I'll be out in the cold later. I can live without the 360 exclusives because at the moment there aren't that many of them, but I see that changing drastically in the year to come.

Another possibility, although less likely, is Sony just drops the system and moves on to something else. Don't ask me *what* else, and it would be very un-Sony like to admit a mistake, but the PS3 appears to be a huge loser at this point, and this "Home" garbage isn't going to help matters.

Think at some point this year we'll see a big 3rd party release go 360 only?

walrusmonger

01-11-2009, 09:52 AM

I don't think the PS3 will go unsupported, and before it does you'll see a huge marketing push by Sony (either price cut, pack ins, etc) to prevent that. The Saturn had a price cut and game pack in before it really died (I remember this so vividly) in the US.

The PS3 is a great system- you're right about the audio, especially if you have a solid receiver. I doubt Sony will drop support for the PS3, they're still selling PSPs aren't they :)

jdc

01-11-2009, 10:08 AM

geneshifter

01-11-2009, 10:39 AM

PS3 is not going anywhere except up IMO. I personally don't care for it compared to the 360 but I think it's a solid console that has a good looking future this year.

slip81

01-11-2009, 10:40 AM

I think I'm the only (non-PS3 owning) person who still thinks the system will end up being at least 2nd this generation (no way anything will outsell the Wii). It's a great system, but the price is still killing it. I think once it gets down to $250 you'll see a big spike in sales.

Gaming wise it's basically the same as a 360, and it's a lot more reliable, and has a better storage solution and free online gaming. Blu-Ray I think is what's bringing the thing down, there's nothing wrong with the format, I love High-Def video, but it was too soon, a lot of people just switched from VHS to DVD. It worked for the PS2 because DVD was a lot cheaper then, both as a hardware and software, and you didn't need a new tv to get the benefits of it. Blu-Ray, if you're not already into the HD scene requires a lot of money to take full advantage, and the discs themselves are exspensive. Sony took a huge risk sticking a brand new high end format into their system and introducing it to a public that commonly hooks their HD DVR's up to their LCD tv's with the supplied composite cables.

jdc

01-11-2009, 10:53 AM

Absolutley true, slip81...but there's always something I've stood by. It's not up to the console makers to make their products affordable to the public. It's up to the public to be able afford the product. We sell $8,500 racing bicycles. Not everyone is expected to buy one off of us. That is why we also have bikes starting at $300. It isn't a right to be able to afford the racer. It's a luxury.

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 11:02 AM

No.

Sony, much like Microsoft, has other divisions that will keep them floating even if the PS3 bleeds them of some money (most of which is likely being recouped via PS2 and PSP sales. For every hundred PS3 loses per unit sold they're probably making that up in pure profit for every PS2 sold.)

I'm sure they can afford to trail in 3rd for a majority of this hardware generation without having to stop supporting the system or software.

In the cases of company "melt-downs" that have caused systems to be nuked in the marketplace/hit bargain bins early in their lives (3D0, Jaguar, Saturn, Dreamcast, N-Gage, NGPC, etc.) the situation was almost always much more grim from a financial standpoint than anything Sony is facing right now.

Sony is reporting increased sales and likely increased profits from the PS3 division in recent days, and they've probably nailed a decent mix of hadware parts/features to help them out with that in the inevtable case that they NEED to do a price-drop this year so they're not at total loss financially. (Blu-Ray drives were probably the last sticking point, and that technology is finally seeing rapid drops in the market).

So. No. I doubt that we'll see PS3 go away before Sony says it's time for it to go away.

Hopefully without Ken Kutaragi in charge of the Playstation division in the next gen we will see them developing a leaner, meaner, cheaper, more profit-making device in the PS4.

Nebagram

01-11-2009, 11:11 AM

PS3 won't be the out-and-out failure everyone was predicting at the start of 2007- Sony as a company are far too strong financially for that to happen- but it ain't going to overturn the 360 without one hell of a strategy change (not to mention more exclusives) and it doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of catching the Wii. It'll live and succeed alright, but not to the extent the PS2 did.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-11-2009, 11:12 AM

Well, I for one hope not because I'm really enjoying the PS3. The Wii was nice at first, but I've found its library caters to the kind of gamer I am not. Needless to say the Wii gets the least amount of playtime in our household. The 360 while having a tempting library, won't get an ounce of my money until Microsoft introduces a stable hardware revision.

I don't think that the PS3 will die any time soon, and here's my reasoning.

Sony is too big of a corporation to bow out of the console race, when up until this point they were raking in the cash. The console race is a lucrative one, but it's also one that can support 3 major competitors. While Sony may have financial troubles right now, it's a huge media conglomerate that has vast resources and a history of weathering market trouble. Not only is sony a manufacturer of a diverse amount of OEM electronics, it owns movie studios, television studios, and software production companies. Nintendo and Microsoft while quite large, don't have their fingers in as much shit as Sony does.

Although they may be getting their asses kicked by Nintendo and Microsoft right now, the fighting spirit they exhibited in the HD format war shows how competitive they are. Toshiba's HDDVD players were almost a quarter the price of a Blu-ray player but yet Sony eventually won.

Blu-ray isn't yet a massive success, but it's gaining popularity. Titles are selling more, and retail stores are devoting more and more space to Blu-ray. Blu-ray players are getting cheaper, which means it's getting more cost effective to manufacture. I foresee a significant price drop for the PS3 this year because of the wider adoption of Blu-ray and falling prices.

And as far as digtal delivery goes, much of the country doesn't have the technological infrastructure to support internet-based digital distribution as it's sole source of content delivery. Believe it or not, a large portion of the country still doesn't have access to reliable High-speed internet. And until it does most people will still buy DVD's, Blu-rays, or the eventual successor to those formats. Most televisions being sold are HD sets, so it's a natural progression (and slow one) that the things you watch on them will be in HD as well. And as this site can attest, a lot of people aren't evening embracing the HD technology yet.

But is that a set-back to Blu-ray becoming DVD's successor? Probably not, because Blu-ray players play DVDs and can even be connected to analog televisions. And while it may be a while before DVDs are ever replaced by HD media, there's nothing to stop all future players being compatible with both formats.

The only other way I could see Sony leaving the console race, is if their next generation console was a disaster. And although the PS3 isn't performing as well as the Wii or 360 it's sales are improving and it's software is getting better. It's strange that Sony's the underdog right now, but I feel it's hardly the end of their video game days.

God, this is long and I'm sure I left out a few points I wanted to make. Anyway I apologize for the rambling, but these are my thoughts on why I think the PS3 is here to stay.

swlovinist

01-11-2009, 11:17 AM

Even While right now sony is a distant third, Sony will support this system for a ways to come(years). Sony will continue to support the PS3 system and hopefully do some DRASTIC marketing changes this year(2008 was pretty awful for them). I own the system, and currently split my time playing the Wii and PS3. I dont see the PS3 being a runaway success like the PS2, but I do see it changing over time into a more competive gaming machine. What the system needs is a "DS fat to DS lite makeover". If the right makeover can be made(hardware redesign and price drop), then we could still have a contender for 2nd.

Blu Ray sales actually were a bright spot for sony this year, seeing a triple digit increase over last year. This is good news for many reasons. With Blu Ray being more successful, more Blu Ray players are coming out(18 new ones at CES this year). This will put some more pressure for Sony to reduce the price of their system(along with thier competators being cheaper).

I never count out the underdog. I never would have thought that the PS3 would have been struggling this much, but Sony is not going to let a multi billion dollar project be scrapped yet. If anything, this should be a very sold year for the PS3 if marketing has a clue.

c0ldb33r

01-11-2009, 11:54 AM

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Sony, much like Microsoft, has other divisions that will keep them floating even if the PS3 bleeds them of some money (most of which is likely being recouped via PS2 and PSP sales. For every hundred PS3 loses per unit sold they're probably making that up in pure profit for every PS2 sold.)

Sony's financial position is actually quite concerning. In an article of January 5, 2009, Reuters is expecting Sony to announce
"closures of Japanese factories and major divisions early next month, the Times of London said on Monday, but the company denied any such plan existed." [source (http://uk.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUKT36000820090105?feedType=RSS&feedName=technology-media-telco-SP)]. As far as I know, Sony doesn't have many "major divisions". Obviously they have a number of "major divisions", but if they're looking to get in the black, they're going to want to cut the fat from non-performing divisions.

That same article notes that "the maker of Bravia flat TVs and PlayStation video game consoles faces halting sales and mounting piles of inventory in the wake of the financial crisis, even as a stronger yen bites into earnings."

So, obviously things aren't great, in any of the Sony divisions. Again, the same articles notes that, "[Sony] said last month that it would cut 16,000 jobs, curb investment and pull out of businesses for savings of 100 billion yen a year, as the holidays failed to coax spending."

I don't think the PS3 will go unsupported, and before it does you'll see a huge marketing push by Sony (either price cut, pack ins, etc) to prevent that. The Saturn had a price cut and game pack in before it really died (I remember this so vividly) in the US.

I agree wholeheartedly. Before Sony lets the PS3 die, it will try to move as much stock as possible. They wouldn't want excess inventory sitting in their warehouses and devaluating even further. So, because I haven't seen any extreme price cuts or "buy-a-console-and-get-three-free-games" like the Saturn had, I'm not expecting the PS3 to die anytime soon. That being said, Sony is going to have to be extremely careful over the next few years to ensure that their business plan pulls through.

edit: one division they should axe/severely downscale is their computers. I had a Sony laptop for awhile. It was very expensive and was fucking TERRIBLE. I was having stability issues with it and it turned out that many, many sony laptops were having the same issue (just fyi, it was faulty ram clips on the motherboard, so the ram would disconnect from the motherboard and the computer wouldn't boot - sony refused to fix the issue and categorically denied the problem).

Also, sony BMG should be shut down. Their root-kit scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal) was absolutely ridiculous and Sony lost a lot of credibility in the whole thing.

Does anyone know - how are Sony's financial arms doing? In particular I'm thinking Sony Financial, Sony Life Insurance, Sony Assurance and Sony Bank.

Tupin

01-11-2009, 01:02 PM

Sony will keep holding onto the PS3 for as long as they can and do whatever they can to sell it. The thing is, a lot of people don't have TVs that can actually get the most out of the PS3, and that, compounded with the lack of exclusives, is why I think the PS3 isn't doing so well. Plus, there's the economy and it might be too expensive compared to a Wii or 360 when you add up all the costs of getting the best model. Still, they'll be back next generation.

Microsoft is actually in more danger of not making another system, mainly due to poor sales in Japan and system failures.

ProgrammingAce

01-11-2009, 01:47 PM

There have been talks for a few years that sony may sell off the playstation brand to a korean company (LG, for example).

Remember, they took out a $700,000,000 to pay for the production run on the PS3. That loan comes due July 2009 and i don't think they're making too much of a profit right now...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=ac.REUfeFG9Q&refer=asia

Leo_A

01-11-2009, 02:00 PM

Nothing in that link makes any mention of the PS3. That loan appears to have been made by Sony for a wide variety of purposes, many not related to their console business.

Rob2600

01-11-2009, 02:02 PM

It's not up to the console makers to make their products affordable to the public. It's up to the public to be able afford the product.

What? If a company needs to sell 25 million of its product in order to be successful, then yes, it is up to the company to make the product affordable. You sound like Ken Kutaragi.

the fighting spirit they exhibited in the HD format war shows how competitive they are. Toshiba's HDDVD players were almost a quarter the price of a Blu-ray player but yet Sony eventually won.

That had less to do with fighting spirit and more to do with Sony paying movie studios more money than Toshiba was willing to.

aclbandit

01-11-2009, 02:06 PM

For your reasons exactly, I avoid using the 360 if possible simply because the more I use it, the faster it dies. Great games, don't get me wrong, but for multiplatform I pick up the PS3 version just because it's going to still run in the future. I guess that's kind of one of those "classic game collector" things-- my NES still works over 20 years later, why would my now-3-year-old 360 not last as long? I understand "more moving parts, more things to break." But it doesn't satisfy the discontent at the prevalence of RRoD.

As far as Sony dropping support, I doubt it'll matter-- sure, the good games could stop coming if it continues to do poorly, but at least it seems to be a fairly reliable console so the games I already have can still play years in the future. Or so I hope?

I've always thought the PS3 was a "sleeping dragon," that is, once most people have a 360 and start coming to terms with the fact that the hardware just doesn't function as well, and once Sony can finally drop the price some, it'll sell much better. Or, again, so I hope.

ProgrammingAce

01-11-2009, 02:10 PM

Nothing in that link makes any mention of the PS3. That loan appears to have been made by Sony for a wide variety of purposes, many not related to their console business.

First, does it really matter why they took the loan? They're laying off an unspecified number of people going into this next quarter. The Playstation brand is ripe for sale, there's a tremendous interest in selling. They can't keep firing people in other divisions to keep the Playstation afloat, at some point it has to pull it's own weight.

Second, they took the loan the month before full PS3 production ramped up (Full PS3 production started in August 2006). It was mainly to purchase the components and advertising for the consoles. I'm sure some of the money ended up in other divisions, but it was primarily for the PS3.

walrusmonger

01-11-2009, 02:17 PM

PS3 is also great to collect for because the discs are more durable than any other CD/DVD based media before it.

Zap!

01-11-2009, 02:19 PM

Remember a console called the PS2? It saw it's own share of gloom and doom press when it was getting going. Hell, they all do. After all those years, this Christmas you could still walk into a store and buy brand new releases for it. Simply amazing. The PS3 will rise to the top. It's just taking a bit longer to get the big install base going because of economics. Eight years from now you'll most likely still be buying new PS3-supported releases. It's Sony. They always do well in the end. As far as the PS3 selling poorly? Ferraris sell poorly too....compared to Fords.

It will never "rise to the top". I understand your support for the system (and hopes), but at some point you have to understand when reality kicks in. It's already 2009. It will NEVER outsell or come close to the Wii in sales, it's time to move on and hope for second place.

BHvrd

01-11-2009, 02:27 PM

ATM I just really want to try out Killzone 2, that's all I know.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-11-2009, 02:36 PM

That had less to do with fighting spirit and more to do with Sony paying movie studios more money than Toshiba was willing to.

Well, if you want to believe that.

There were so many rumors, retractions, denials, and accusations regarding the tactics used by the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps that it's a little hard to find any concrete evidence one way or the other. Sure there were many published reports that claimed this, but there were many flat out denials by the studios that these transactions had ever occurred.

One of the only formally recorded cash transactions between studios and HD disc developers, was the $150 million Toshiba paid to Dreamworks for exclusive rights to their catalog of films.

And let's not forget that Sony was partly bitter about the rejection of their initial multi-media disc that ultimately lost to the DVD standard.

But there were too many facets to the format war that point to any single deciding factor.

And by "fighting chance" I meant (all inclusively) that they did what they had to do, to win. Whatever methods those were, of course.

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 03:11 PM

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Sony's financial position is actually quite concerning. In an article of January 5, 2009, Reuters is expecting Sony to announce
"closures of Japanese factories and major divisions early next month, the Times of London said on Monday, but the company denied any such plan existed." [source (http://uk.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP/idUKT36000820090105?feedType=RSS&feedName=technology-media-telco-SP)]. As far as I know, Sony doesn't have many "major divisions". Obviously they have a number of "major divisions", but if they're looking to get in the black, they're going to want to cut the fat from non-performing divisions.

That same article notes that "the maker of Bravia flat TVs and PlayStation video game consoles faces halting sales and mounting piles of inventory in the wake of the financial crisis, even as a stronger yen bites into earnings."

So, obviously things aren't great, in any of the Sony divisions. Again, the same articles notes that, "[Sony] said last month that it would cut 16,000 jobs, curb investment and pull out of businesses for savings of 100 billion yen a year, as the holidays failed to coax spending."

I agree wholeheartedly. Before Sony lets the PS3 die, it will try to move as much stock as possible. They wouldn't want excess inventory sitting in their warehouses and devaluating even further. So, because I haven't seen any extreme price cuts or "buy-a-console-and-get-three-free-games" like the Saturn had, I'm not expecting the PS3 to die anytime soon. That being said, Sony is going to have to be extremely careful over the next few years to ensure that their business plan pulls through.

edit: one division they should axe/severely downscale is their computers. I had a Sony laptop for awhile. It was very expensive and was fucking TERRIBLE. I was having stability issues with it and it turned out that many, many sony laptops were having the same issue (just fyi, it was faulty ram clips on the motherboard, so the ram would disconnect from the motherboard and the computer wouldn't boot - sony refused to fix the issue and categorically denied the problem).

Also, sony BMG should be shut down. Their root-kit scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal) was absolutely ridiculous and Sony lost a lot of credibility in the whole thing.

Does anyone know - how are Sony's financial arms doing? In particular I'm thinking Sony Financial, Sony Life Insurance, Sony Assurance and Sony Bank.

All major corporations are reporting losses, firing workers and shutting down divisions in the past few years. It's a global financial crisis. This is not directly related to the poor performance of the PS3 brand.

EVEN IF Sony were to shut down 50% of it's divisions, I can almost guarantee that the computer entertainment division would be left largely in-tact, and as per Kid Ice's initial question - the PS3 would not be discontinued.

c0ldb33r

01-11-2009, 03:16 PM

EVEN IF Sony were to shut down 50% of it's divisions, I can almost guarantee that the computer entertainment division would be left largely in-tact, and as per Kid Ice's initial question - the PS3 would not be discontinued.
Not that I particularly disagree with you, but what are you basing that on?

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 03:31 PM

Not that I particularly disagree with you, but what are you basing that on?

Because their computer electronics division makes up for close to 10% of their total global revenue.

That may not sound like a lot, but it is considering how diversified they are.

And with the monster foothold they STILL have in the global marketplace via the PS2 they really don't have a need to discontinue the PS3 even if it is a loss leader.

We're a few generations into a business model that has proven that console hardware that loses money for a company does not strictly correlate to failure or OVER-ALL losses for an entire games division. (In fact, it's exceptionally RARE for console hardware to make any money for a company.)

I don't work for Sony, and I can't be 100% sure that they won't discontinue the PS3 ... but I've followed the industry and the business long enough from both the consumer and the retail side of things to have a decent acumen for how it works.

j_factor

01-11-2009, 03:54 PM

The PS3 has sold something like 7 million units in North America. Even though that's only roughly half of the 360's base, that's still nothing to sneeze at. And PS3 is the #2 console in Japan, and possibly Europe. It's really not doing that badly. I don't see it going the way of the Saturn. I mean it's not like they have Bernie Stolar in charge. I see it maybe going the way of the Gamecube, waning when the PS4 is announced and being dead in the water as soon as it comes out.

Think at some point this year we'll see a big 3rd party release go 360 only?

Not sure what the point of this question was... it's already happened, namely with Ninja Gaiden II and Gears of War 2. But PS3 has 'em too, especially with Metal Gear Solid 4.

bangtango

01-11-2009, 04:13 PM

G-Boobie

01-11-2009, 04:29 PM

My uninformed opinion (I don't own any of the 3 next/current gen consoles):

Sony can't possibly be losing the same amount of money on the PS3 that Microsoft is, given all of the 360 hardware problems, repairs and revisions that Microsoft is paying for.

Isn't the Xbox division of Microsoft profitable? Hasn't it been profitable for a couple of quarters now?

The Playstation division is not profitable. I know that much.

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft doesn't have new sales of the original Xbox to fall back on like Sony does with the PS2. Nor does Microsoft have a portable system to bring in a little revenue (this assuming Sony makes money on each PSP sold).

So my uninformed self says the PS3 will be around for a good long time.

Sony is bleeding out. I personally love my PS3, but it seems to be in all kinds of trouble. Home is a joke. Their video store is a pale shadow of the Netflix/360 giant. Their BC situation is confusing. PSN is a buggy mess: performance from game to game fluctuates wildly.

Are publishers making money on PS3 versions of their games? If so, does the extra cost of porting or developing for the PS3 make sense when it's so much cheaper and easier to develop for the 360 or Wii? The install base sucks on PS3, at least in the US, and it seems to me that it's very rare for a PS3 game to show up in the top ten sellers list on any given month. And even when it does, the 360 version(assuming there is one) outsells it by a pretty big margin.

I too am uninformed, but we're in an extremely shaky global situation. Studios that have been around forever are closing, companies are selling and going out of business... I'm not ruling out the possibility that PS3 will go the way of the Saturn.

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 04:44 PM

The Playstation division is not profitable. I know that much.

That's simply not true. (Based on what we are privy to in public financial reports.)

Sony reported profits in 2008 from their games division, up from their numbers in 2007.

j_factor

01-11-2009, 04:55 PM

The PS3 has already more than tripled the Saturn's total North American sales. Granted, the market overall is a lot bigger now, so it's not totally comparable, but still. Saturn actually sold well for a little while (late '96), but it was severely hampered by a blabbermouth exec who basically publicly proclaimed the death of the system when it was only a year and a half old, and the many cancellations that either resulted from that or incidentally occurred around the same time (not to mention key games lacking localization, especially X-Men vs. SF and Grandia). So while it had a bright outlook as of Dec '96 / Jan '97, less than a year later it was very obviously on its way out the door. I can't imagine anything that dramatic happening to the PS3, especially since it's already been out for over two years and we haven't seen any sign of its demise yet. I remember when Saturn was two years old, looking at the release list and wondering what happened.

It also kind of benefits the PS3 that with the budgets that modern games have, it simply makes far more sense to make them multi-platform, and Wii isn't really an option for many of them. Even with the PS3's smaller base, it's still better sense generally to make a game for 360 and PS3 than just 360.

I dunno. I said in the other thread that I thought PS3 would always remain #3. But I think it'll be a "Gamecube #3" (if not better) rather than a "Saturn #3".

G-Boobie

01-11-2009, 06:12 PM

That's simply not true. (Based on what we are privy to in public financial reports.)

Sony reported profits in 2008 from their games division, up from their numbers in 2007.

I dunno, Frankie. Here's a link that says otherwise. (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081030/160444/)

The most important excerpt:

"The Game segment posted sales of ¥268.5 billion (a 10.3% YoY rise) and an operating loss of ¥39.5 billion (¥96.7 billion loss in the Q2 last year). The segment's loss shrank by about 59% YoY, thanks to increased sales of the "PlayStation 3 (PS3)" and "PlayStation Portable (PSP)," as well as improved earnings from the PS3 business resulting from the improved cost ratio of the PS3 console and increased software sales."

So yeah. That's Q2 2008, reported a couple months ago. It's possible that Q3 will look better, but considering the economy and less than stellar holiday performance, I'm not willing to bet on it. I guess we'll know in a couple months.

Kid Ice

01-11-2009, 06:45 PM

My uninformed opinion (I don't own any of the 3 next/current gen consoles):

Sony can't possibly be losing the same amount of money on the PS3 that Microsoft is, given all of the 360 hardware problems, repairs and revisions that Microsoft is paying for.

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft doesn't have new sales of the original Xbox to fall back on like Sony does with the PS2. Nor does Microsoft have a portable system to bring in a little revenue (this assuming Sony makes money on each PSP sold).

So my uninformed self says the PS3 will be around for a good long time.

But looking at it from a 3rd party perspective, does that stuff matter?

btw I don't truly expect either MS or Sony to discontinue their systems.

Let's say I'm in charge of Rockstar. We're doing GTA5. GTA 4 sold ten times better on the 360 (just an estimate). By the time the release window for 5 comes around, I expect the 360 to have an even greater user base than the PS3 than it already does.

Logical conclusion: we're not doing GTA5 for the PS3. It would make more sense to devote those resources to more DLC for the 360.

Next day it's all over the internets "GTA5 is a 360 exclusive!!!" Now the PS3 gets into a bigger hole, more 3rd parties drop support, etc. I'm not saying it kills the system, but it would certainly be reason enough to keep a 360 around.

gepeto

01-11-2009, 06:58 PM

I am still shocked over the fact that the dreamcast was dead at launch. WHen it had the biggest launch in gaming history at the time. If I recall.

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 07:10 PM

I dunno, Frankie. Here's a link that says otherwise. (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081030/160444/)

The most important excerpt:

"The Game segment posted sales of ¥268.5 billion (a 10.3% YoY rise) and an operating loss of ¥39.5 billion (¥96.7 billion loss in the Q2 last year). The segment's loss shrank by about 59% YoY, thanks to increased sales of the "PlayStation 3 (PS3)" and "PlayStation Portable (PSP)," as well as improved earnings from the PS3 business resulting from the improved cost ratio of the PS3 console and increased software sales."

So yeah. That's Q2 2008, reported a couple months ago. It's possible that Q3 will look better, but considering the economy and less than stellar holiday performance, I'm not willing to bet on it. I guess we'll know in a couple months.

Well, that's dissapointing news considering that Reuters (via the NY Times) reported that Sony's profits were up in Q1.

However, it's not quite as cut-and-dry as "The Playstation division isn't profitable." as you say..

The gist of the entire article is that Sony's losses have a lot (entirely in fact) to do with the Yen's depressed value in the global economy and the low exchange rates of global currencies like the Euro.

In the portion that you're quoting above it states that the segments loss shrank about 59% thanks to increased sales of the PS3 and PSP.

So, DESPITE the awful global economy and depressed currency rates, the recently increased profitablity of the PS3 and PSP are helping to decrease Sony's losses, and if the global economy were better - the Playstation division's income would be turning profits.

"The Game business is significantly affected by exchange rates, as many business transactions are done on a euro basis in this segment," Oneda said. "If the impact from the exchange rates had been excluded, the segment would have posted even better results than our projections."

Everybody is suffering in this economy. I'm sure that Microsoft and Nintendo aren't profiting AS MUCH as they'd like to (or in some cases at all) due to similar circumstances.

... but as far as the entirety of this thread goes, I can quickly feel peoples personal feelings towards Sony and the PS3 beginning to take hold in their responses, and before this entire things transforms from a speculative "what-if" type discussion to an "I know more than you" type of pissing contest I'm going to respectfully bow-out of any further discussion on the matter.

Zap!

01-11-2009, 07:32 PM

I am still shocked over the fact that the dreamcast was dead at launch. WHen it had the biggest launch in gaming history at the time. If I recall.

It wasn't dead at launch, it had a good first year (9-9/99 to 12-31-99).

G-Boobie

01-11-2009, 07:47 PM

Everybody is suffering in this economy. I'm sure that Microsoft and Nintendo aren't profiting AS MUCH as they'd like to (or in some cases at all) due to similar circumstances.

... but as far as the entirety of this thread goes, I can quickly feel peoples personal feelings towards Sony and the PS3 beginning to take hold in their responses, and before this entire things transforms from a speculative "what-if" type discussion to an "I know more than you" type of pissing contest I'm going to respectfully bow-out of any further discussion on the matter.

No no no, Frankie... I'm actually pretty keen on the PS3. I think they have the best exclusives, the best original DLC content, and I love the Blu-ray player. If a game is multi-platform, I play it on the PS3; it's a far better piece of equipment than the 360 in my estimation. I'd be totally bummed if Sony bowed out of the industry... But I see that there's a possibility that it might occur.

Everyone is hurting, true, but some companies are hurting worse than others. Sony appears to be one of those companies. The PS3 has been a nightmare for them since launch, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them sell the division off. That's all I'm saying.

c0ldb33r

01-11-2009, 07:57 PM

The PS3 has been a nightmare for them since launch, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them sell the division off. That's all I'm saying.
Who'd buy it?

I'm not being an arse. It's a legitimate question. I wouldn't want to buy something if it was being a nightmare for someone else.

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 08:05 PM

No no no, Frankie... I'm actually pretty keen on the PS3. I think they have the best exclusives, the best original DLC content, and I love the Blu-ray player. If a game is multi-platform, I play it on the PS3; it's a far better piece of equipment than the 360 in my estimation. I'd be totally bummed if Sony bowed out of the industry... But I see that there's a possibility that it might occur.

Everyone is hurting, true, but some companies are hurting worse than others. Sony appears to be one of those companies. The PS3 has been a nightmare for them since launch, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them sell the division off. That's all I'm saying.

It's not you.

As I expanded on privately, I simply don't enjoy "debating" in theads where the future is purely speculative.

When there's a question like "Will the PS3 last?" it's cool to have a thought on the future and share that thought, I just don't really have fun going beyond that.

We're all REALLY smart (DP is the best collection of gaming enthusiast minds I've ever been privelaged to know) but none of us can truly predict the future.

Sudo

01-11-2009, 08:10 PM

Blu-ray is doing very well, and the PS3 is getting nearly every third party game that the 360 does. There's no way this will happen.

The 1 2 P

01-11-2009, 08:12 PM

All consoles eventually get discontinued. The PS3 is not performing the way Sony expected it to. The Wii is performing the way Sony expected the PS3 to perform. Although the PS3 is still selling(I'm still mystified people were buying it at launch for $500+600) it remains in third place. As the Gamecube proved last gen, you can be in third place and still stick around. The big difference is that the Gamecube was eventually profitable while the PS3 probably won't be profitable for atleast another year.

Sony's double edge sword is that it needs to drop the price of the PS3 in order to sell more. But it won't drop the price until the cost of it's component parts come down. That way they can make a profit even when dropping the price. But while waiting for that moment to come they will only lag further and further behind in last place. Speaking of which, the PS3 is in last place everywhere except Japan. Thats because the Japanese still refuse to buy US-made consoles(for any number of excuses from it's too big, theres not another rpg's, it doesn't have any tenicle porn games). So the fact that the 360 is in second place while only selling in two-thirds(US+Europe) of the video game populace is very impressive considering the other two systems sell world wide(by sell I mean people in each country actually buy them).

That said, the PS3 does have a chance of cetching up to second place in Europe as well. The 360 only leads them there by 1-3 million so it's definitely a possibility. But the US? The PS3 will NEVER gain second place from the 360 in the US. The lead is to big and theres three things to consider. First, the PS3 would have to start outselling the 360 2 to 1 and 3 to 1, not just by a few thousand consoles each month. Second, Microsoft would have to just stop selling the 360 all together. Finally, console generations usually last 4-6 years. This will be the 360's fourth year. So in no more than two years we will start to here news of the next gen systems. That includes Sony, who at that point will have to cut their loses because I can't imagine them supporting the Psp, PS2, PS3 and PS4 simultaneously, especially if only one of them is profitable.

In summary, the PS3 will be supported for atleast another two years. At that point, if they are still in last place and haven't turned a profit, then the end will be near. But on the plus side the PS2 may still be selling.

c0ldb33r

01-11-2009, 08:15 PM

We're all REALLY smart (DP is the best collection of gaming enthusiast minds I've ever been privelaged to know) but none of us can truly predict the future.
uh oh ... it never lies (http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi)

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s182/c0ldb33r/8ball.gif

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-11-2009, 08:30 PM

uh oh ... it never lies (http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi)

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s182/c0ldb33r/8ball.gif

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b328/FrankieViturello/8balllies.jpg

Like House says - Everybody lies.

Apparently even Magic 8 balls.

c0ldb33r

01-11-2009, 08:40 PM

ha, I literally lol'd at that LOL

bangtango

01-11-2009, 08:41 PM

But looking at it from a 3rd party perspective, does that stuff matter?

btw I don't truly expect either MS or Sony to discontinue their systems.

Let's say I'm in charge of Rockstar. We're doing GTA5. GTA 4 sold ten times better on the 360 (just an estimate). By the time the release window for 5 comes around, I expect the 360 to have an even greater user base than the PS3 than it already does.

Logical conclusion: we're not doing GTA5 for the PS3. It would make more sense to devote those resources to more DLC for the 360.

Next day it's all over the internets "GTA5 is a 360 exclusive!!!" Now the PS3 gets into a bigger hole, more 3rd parties drop support, etc. I'm not saying it kills the system, but it would certainly be reason enough to keep a 360 around.

Using the scenario you presented.....

If Rockstar can make money (i.e. profit) on a GTA5 port to PS3, by all rights that should be all that matters to them. At least if they are in business to make money.

Hypothetically, if that 360 version of GTA5 sells 6 million copies (in 2010) and the PS3 version moves 800,000 to 1.2 million copies during that same time period, then I would think Rockstar can still make money off of both ports.

There may be less profit in a PS3 version of a game that moves a million copies or so while the 360 version of the same game outsells it 3 to 1 (or greater) but that PS3 port can still be profitable enough to make it worthwhile.

Once again, all of this comes from my uninformed musings. I don't own the PS3 or 360 and I don't follow the "business" side of things (such as sales figures, etc.).

On a lighter note, I can tell you one third party who won't be abandoning the PS3 and that is EA Sports. A company brazen enough to port Madden 09 to the long dead Xbox 1 just a few months ago isn't going to abandon whatever user base there is on the PS3 right now or 3-4 years from now.

gepeto

01-11-2009, 09:07 PM

It wasn't dead at launch, it had a good first year (9-9/99 to 12-31-99).

What I mean is after reading the behind the scenes on the story of the dreamcast If I recall it was really dead and nver had a chance. The company had major issues. Bernie stolar was fired right before the dreamcast launch. Even with the killer sales at launch I believe from what I read they had tossed the towel in and were just recouping what they could. To me the system was one of the best and underated systems out there. When it came out I was so focused on the system I totally missed the behind the scenes fiasco.

Until the so called hardware was dropped to focus on software.

Press_Start

01-11-2009, 10:53 PM

Sony's double edge sword is that it needs to drop the price of the PS3 in order to sell more. But it won't drop the price until the cost of it's component parts come down. That way they can make a profit even when dropping the price. But while waiting for that moment to come they will only lag further and further behind in last place.

Couldn't agree more. The big shiny price tag is the PS3's "Achille's heel" in sales (both hardware and software-wise) and the financial crisis makes it more apparent. Sony must realize now is the moment for action. It's about time it swallows its pride and start cutting the "fat".

A good place to start is the Blu-Ray Player. I'm sorry, but who cares about Blu-Ray? I don't, more importantly, neither does the average consumer. Why spend hundreds more when you can get the same entertainment value and functionality for a fraction of the price? People who buy Blu-Ray are usually the same ones who buy big-screen HDTVs cause they have plenty to spend and given the economic situation, that's a SMALL percentage.

Sony should be opting for non-Blu-Ray PS3s (replaced with DVD players instead) within the price range between 200-250. That way, the system is affordable, appeals to those who're too "mature" for the Wii, and reliable (if the 360 hardware issues keep persistently popping up).

Ze_ro

01-11-2009, 11:16 PM

You do realize that PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs, right?

--Zero

Giant

01-11-2009, 11:23 PM

you're obviously forgetting that ps3 games are printed on...blu-ray discs

Edit-guess I was a little late there

scooterb23

01-11-2009, 11:54 PM

I don't know why, but if Sony announced tomorrow they are discontinuing the PS3...the unbridled shitstorm of both furious and joyous comments would be a blast to read.

Certainly would brighten up what is setting up to be a very boring Monday.

Press_Start

01-12-2009, 07:37 AM

You do realize that PS3 games are on Blu-Ray discs, right?

--Zero

Yes, but where else can Sony significantly cut costs? I know very few programmers made full utilization of its Cell architecture, so opting for a smaller core could help lower costs but not too much. While they're waiting for Blu-Ray cost to drop, the 360 and Wii affordable prices are getting everyone's cash leaving the PS3 anchored by its heavy price tag and sinking fast.

joedick

01-12-2009, 08:23 AM

The PS3 isn't going anywhere. The longer it's out there, the cheaper the parts get, the more money sony recoups from the system. This is why they want a 10-year lifecycle.

This reminds me of when people were saying nintendo needed to get out of hardware due to the failures of the gamecube. A system that was profitable for them. From day 1. People seem to think the last place console needs to die. Right now, the market can support three consoles. Forever? maybe not, but for now, yes.

The interesting thing to see will be the next-gen. I can't wait to see everyone's strategy. Lower tech, cheaper systems for Sony? Family friendly controls for Microsoft?

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 08:46 AM

Yes, but where else can Sony significantly cut costs? I know very few programmers made full utilization of its Cell architecture, so opting for a smaller core could help lower costs but not too much. While they're waiting for Blu-Ray cost to drop, the 360 and Wii affordable prices are getting everyone's cash leaving the PS3 anchored by its heavy price tag and sinking fast.

And you also realize that Blu-Rays are also high-capacity discs that are designed to hold large amounts of data? DVDs then become more of a hinderance than an advantage, because of their smaller capacity. There are practical reasons why Sony uses a Blu-Ray disc, other than awesome high-definition video. And you also realize that there will come a point in this generation or next where standard DVD's will not cut it for some games? I mean you could just spread it across 5 discs, but where's the practicality in that? That and all the games made up until this point would no longer work on "your" new PS3.

Hmm... that sounds really reasonable.

And just because you don't think "high definition" is worth it, doesn't mean that a lot of people out there don't love it. If all new TVs being manufactured are high definition, don't you think that it makes sense that game systems are too? I don't care what anyone says, high definition is not going anywhere. There are too many companies with a vested interest in seeing high definition the new television standard.

There is no way that removing the Blu-ray drive from the PS3 is even feasible from a logical standpoint.

XYXZYZ

01-12-2009, 09:34 AM

For the year to March 2009, Sony is now forecasting a net profit of 240 billion yen ($2.23 billion), an operating profit of 470 billion yen and revenue of 9.20 trillion yen. The earlier projections were for a net profit of 290 billion yen, an operating profit of 520 billion yen and revenue of 9.00 trillion yen. Based on this data, and Bloomberg's recent projections regarding the US and Japanese economies for the first quarter of 2009, I have calculated a realistic figure that we, the video game consumers and Sony's shareholders can both rely on.

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/XYXZYZ/Temp/sonymony.gif
I believe the naysayers can stop worrying.

Press_Start

01-12-2009, 09:54 AM

And just because you don't think "high definition" is worth it, doesn't mean that a lot of people out there don't love it.

People would love to have a mansion, yacht, and a fancy car, too, yet you don't see them dishing out wads of cash for it. Why? People, the average consumer, lack the means or methods to afford such luxuries at this time.

There is no way that removing the Blu-ray drive from the PS3 is even feasible from a logical standpoint.

Neither does keeping your best product at a non-competitive price. Who can afford to spend $400 on a game system AND spend extra hundreds of dollars on games? Little Big Planet was intended to pull the PS3 out of the gutter instead the below expected number show that kids can't convince their parents to pony up the cash while staying on a tight budget. The Blu-ray has acted as both sinker and savior from Day 1 but relatively sinker as the way things stand now. If they don't change, the days ahead for the PS3 will get darker before it gets better.

scooterb23

01-12-2009, 11:38 AM

Neither does keeping your best product at a non-competitive price. Who can afford to spend $400 on a game system AND spend extra hundreds of dollars on games?

Well, depending on the site you look at...anywhere from 7.5-12 million people can in the US alone. And when you consider that the other systems, while they don't cost as much...still cost a couple hundred bucks, and a decent selection of games will cost a few hundred more. This can be one factor, but not as big of one as one may think.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 01:26 PM

People would love to have a mansion, yacht, and a fancy car, too, yet you don't see them dishing out wads of cash for it. Why? People, the average consumer, lack the means or methods to afford such luxuries at this time.

You compare items that range anywhere from $50,000-$10,000,000 to a high definition television and PS3? Two items when purchased together, can both be had for under $1000 total? I don't see that a fair comparison.

Since when is collecting anything a financially prudent thing to do? You're a member of a web forum devoted to video game collecting, do you see the irony?

heybtbm

01-12-2009, 01:43 PM

If it wasn't for Blu-ray's from Netflix...my PS3 probably wouldn't be connected. I can't remember the last disc-based PS3 game I played.

Still, I routinely laugh at the fact that I essentially paid $599.99 for a shiny PS2/PS1. No serious complaints though...I'd rather have this 60 gig than on of those lame no B/C models anyday.

udisi

01-12-2009, 02:09 PM

I don't think the PS3 will be a complete failure, that being said I don't think they will finish anywhere but 3rd this generation.

1)The wii is retardedly sucessful, nothing is gonna catch it. Say what you will about it good or bad, it's a buisness sucess and will win this generation.

2)we're a good 3 years into this generation now, developers and publishers have to pick sides quickly to survive themselves. at this point, the wii has outsold everyone thus every publicher wants their games on there, and the 360, has been the system for sales of FPS's, sandbox, and graphics intensive games. The PS3 will still get cross-platform titles, but it's exclusive good game list will be shortened by it's position behind the 360 and wii. They may not want to publish on the wii or 360, but money makes the world go round.

3)PS3 will survive because the JP developers, although they make break excusivity with the PS3 will NOT pull support from a JP company to go exculsively with a US company. Still a stigma there, and it will garentee that the PS3 will still get some good games. Those good games will probably be on 360 though too, as the developers have to go where the sales and money are too.

4)If the PS2 showed me anything, it's that although gamers get pissed off about system reliability, that won't make them go to the competition if the games are still there. I know people who have gone through a half dozens PS2, and a dozen 360's. why? ...These systems have the games, that it. 360 has the publishers and games now, and that will carry the system over the ps3 reguardless of the system failures

I own all 3 systems. I personally like the PS3 best as an interface and system the best. I think the 360 actually has more 1080p games, but really graphics are secondary to me. I probably play my wii most of the 3 as it has more games that I enjoy, mostly first party things. I would by more games for my PS3, but there's just not much I see worth dropping $60 on.

Nature Boy

01-12-2009, 03:34 PM

Back to the original questions, I think you're pretty safe sticking with your PS3 and selling your 360. PS3 isn't going anywhere.

It's of course *possible* that a 3rd party game might become 360 exclusive that you'd want to play, but that just seems unlikely to me. If I were you I wouldn't think twice about selling my 360 if I wasn't playing it anymore.

(Of course, if you were I you'd be hooked on getting Achievement points and would probably be in the opposite situation :) ).

Press_Start

01-12-2009, 03:39 PM

You compare items that range anywhere from $50,000-$10,000,000 to a high definition television and PS3? Two items when purchased together, can both be had for under $1000 total? I don't see that a fair comparison.

Since when is collecting anything a financially prudent thing to do? You're a member of a web forum devoted to video game collecting, do you see the irony?

The irony here is you think you got my point but keep missing the mark. What you lack is the understanding that everybody isn't as loose with wallets. I'm coming across from the POV of a person who isn't as devoted and worries about his financial standing in this economic rut. Will I be laid off tomorrow? Do I have enough support my family? How long can I pay off my bills, insurance, mortgages, gasoline, food, etc. These are the questions that most Americans are asking themselves. With companies letting off workers and businesses closing down, I doubt the question on everyone minds is "Should I get a 360 or a PS3?"

As someone else stated, millions of units have been sold already BUT the holidays are over and there isn't much incentive for people to go and get a $400 game system with $60 games not with the competition offering the same for about half the price.

The 1 2 P

01-12-2009, 04:04 PM

People seem to think the last place console needs to die. Right now, the market can support three consoles. Forever? maybe not, but for now, yes.

I agree. This may be the longest the market continually supports three different systems when it's all said and done. While the PS3(from last place) will NEVER cetch the Wii, they are less than 10 million behind the 360 so their fans can atleast have a glimmer of hope. And thats actually a good thing because it means that all three will stay supported for the next several years. What that means for us consumers is more healthy competetion. However, if the Wii keeps selling the way it does--that thing may NEVER come down in price. Don't believe me? Then why hasn't the PS2 been lowered to $99(or $49) yet.....9 years later???

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 04:07 PM

The irony here is you think you got my point but keep missing the mark. What you lack is the understanding that everybody isn't as loose with wallets. I'm coming across from the POV of a person who isn't as devoted and worries about his financial standing in this economic rut. Will I be laid off tomorrow? Do I have enough support my family? How long can I pay off my bills, insurance, mortgages, gasoline, food, etc. These are the questions that most Americans are asking themselves. With companies letting off workers and businesses closing down, I doubt the question on everyone minds is "Should I get a 360 or a PS3?"

As someone else stated, millions of units have been sold already BUT the holidays are over and there isn't much incentive for people to go and get a $400 game system with $60 games not with the competition offering the same for about half the price.

I for one am a child of a single parent family, which relied on wellfare to survive- so don't give me any lectures on frugality. $400 is a lot to spend on a video game system when caught in a financial dire straight- I completely agree. But using a weak hyperbole to compare things you can buy at Wal-mart to luxuries only afforded by the elite of society is asinine.

What I'm trying to understand is why you spend your time crapping on a thread to offer half-baked ideas on how a manufacturer of a technology (that you think is a waste of money) could improve their product.

The Shawn

01-12-2009, 04:09 PM

@12P-The PS-2 hasn't been lowered to $99 new/retail because there are still games being produced for it.

Nionel

01-12-2009, 04:18 PM

@12P-The PS-2 hasn't been lowered to $99 new/retail because there are still games being produced for it.

That doesn't mean much, the Gamecube was dropped to $99 long before games stopped being released for it. I believe the reason that the PS2 isn't $99 is because the console still sells just fine at it's current price point, so there really isn't any reason for Sony to lower the price.

Ze_ro

01-12-2009, 04:54 PM

scooterb23

01-12-2009, 04:58 PM

So your brilliant plan involves making a new PS3 that can't play any of the existing PS3 games?

--Zero

Luckily, that will only affect about 7 people.

*Obvious troll is obvious*

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-12-2009, 05:19 PM

Gaaaahhhhhhhhrrrr.....fighthing the urge here.

Against my better judgment I feel the need to make a point - as long as "comparisons" are being made to other systems and other systems' "price points" vs. the PS3 -

(and before I start, this is not a swipe at the 360, I love the damned thing, this is just what I think of every time people call the PS3 "expensive".)

I personally feel that the quote-unquote "low" price point of the 360 "Arcade" unit was formulated (in part) to take advantage of a faction of gaming consumers.

That price point is built like one of those one-way subway turn-styles. Once you're "in" for the ride, you can't go back out the way you came.

If a consumer (mainly those who don't do the proper research) purchases an Arcade unit based solely on its low price-point they are left with a system that screams for additional hardware to be purchased.

Yes, you can play a majority of the games using only the 512 MB "memory card" that comes included with the system - but if the unit is one prior to the Jasper motherboard that's barely enough to house the NXE data required for online/xbl system operation.

Nearly every strength that the XBOX 360 (deservedly) markets REQUIRES that the user own a hard drive (not even a standard HDD ... a proprietary drive that Microsoft ridiculously overcharges for per Gig. You can get a Terabyte HDD for close to $100 these days...so why are we getting charged close to $200 for 120 Gigs?).

And while I think it is fair to charge for the quality of service that MS supplies for XBOX LIVE, it is a significant charge none the less. (Vs Sony and Nintendo's FREE online gaming & web browsing ... which you can't even do on a 360.)

And lets not even get started on the outlandish cost of their proprietary Wi-Fi dongle. $100???

One. Hundred. Dollars.

Similar dongles (that don't contain the coded hardware that allow it to function the way that it should on a 360) can be found for less than $10 online or elsewhere.

Even the controllers don't have rechargeable Li-On batteries in them.

What does an official play-n-charge kit cost? $30?

Basically, what I would LOVE to see is a statistical break-down of how many XBOX 360 owners purchased an "Arcade" unit since the system dropped to $200 and then did not make any further purchases during the course of that year outside of GAMES. (No HDD, no XBL, no Wi-Fi dongle, no controller batteries, no additional hardware whatsoever.)

Don't get me wrong, the 360 is a great system ... but to predicate the notion that it is a "bargain" in this economy, or even a "smarter choice" based solely on the low price point of the Arcade unit .... is exactly what Microsoft is hoping you will do ...

... and then have to buy a Hard Drive. And a 12 month XBL card (yearly). And a Wi-Fi Dongle. And some Play N Charge Kits bringing the grand total for your system to a whopping $480...or more (depending on where you shop).

Great system? Yes. "Smarter" economic buy? No.

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 05:23 PM

Back to the original questions, I think you're pretty safe sticking with your PS3 and selling your 360. PS3 isn't going anywhere.

Hey, that's more like it! ;-)

I'm more worried about games that would normally be multi-platform rather than Microsoft system exclusives. I know I would be opting out of Gears of War 3, Halo 4 (or whatever), Forza, PGR, etc., if those are even valid franchises anymore.

bangtango

01-12-2009, 05:26 PM

So your brilliant plan involves making a new PS3 that can't play any of the existing PS3 games?

--Zero

The next part of that brilliant plan probably involves spending lots of time and money to do watered down, non-Blu Ray versions of all the games that have been released up to this point for PS3.

"There may be minor to significant dropoffs in the gameplay, graphics and music but we feel gamers will still have the same general experience."

Rob2600

01-12-2009, 05:32 PM

a high definition television and PS3? Two items when purchased together, can both be had for under $1000 total

Actually, spending less than $700 or $800 on an HDTV just isn't worth it...and most really good ones cost more than $1,000.

Yes, I know, there are HDTVs that only cost $400, but they're small and low quality. Sitting six feet away from a 30" HD screen defeats the purpose. It cancels out the benefit of the higher resolution.

So, $800 HDTV + $400 PS3 + $60 game + sales tax = $1,350.

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 06:22 PM

Rob2600

01-12-2009, 06:30 PM

Err? I have a 30 in tube hdtv and it looks amazing.

From what I understand, sitting six feet away from a 30" HDTV cancels out the extra resolution vs. an SDTV.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 08:01 PM

Actually, spending less than $700 or $800 on an HDTV just isn't worth it...and most really good ones cost more than $1,000.

Yes, I know, there are HDTVs that only cost $400, but they're small and low quality. Sitting six feet away from a 30" HD screen defeats the purpose. It cancels out the benefit of the higher resolution.

So, $800 HDTV + $400 PS3 + $60 game + sales tax = $1,350.

Rob, err no it doesn't. I happen to own a sony kv30-hs420, which is a 30 inch widescreen HDTV. I have an HD-DVD player and a Dish Network HD receiver hooked up to the TV. I sit approx 8 feet away and can tell an obvious difference between HD and SD. I paid $649 for my TV several years ago, and I am completely happy with it. I don't care what you've read or heard- you're wrong.

If you check out websites like this often, you can catch quite a few 720p LCD, DLP, or Plasma TV's under $600-700 shipped that range anywhere from 32-50 inches. They may not be top of the line, but they're from major manufacturers and when hooked up to a high definition source they look markedly better than SD.

http://dealnews.com/

$60 for a PS3 game? Who says you have to buy a $60 game? You and I both know that there are online deals all the time that offer great PS3 games for well under $30. Bad Company for the PS3 is $20 right now at Best Buy.

And as for a PS3? Dell.com often offers coupon discounts that work on video game systems they sell. Slickdeals.com posts these deals a lot... PS3 systems for $330-ish new.

Late last year Sears had a 42" Samsung plasma for $598. If you are persistent and find a dell.com coupon deal you could get a PS3 for $330. Then pick up a cheap PS3 game for $10 or $20 then you could skate by for under $1000, no bullshit. This isn't counting finding some good used deals. There are awesome deals to be had on the internet from reputable retailers if you just look.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a bit of browsing here are some current and recently expired online deals.

Here's a few sub $700 HDTV's 32 inch and up. Some of the deals may be no longer active but here they are.

32 Toshiba 720p for $500
http://dealnews.com/Toshiba-REGZA-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-500-free-shipping/271950.html

32 Sharp 720p for $469
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-469-free-shipping/273226.html

37 Sharp 720p for $620
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-AQUOS-37-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-from-600-20-s-h/271390.html

And here's a recent PS3 deal from Dell.com for a $425 PS3 bundle with a game and 160GB hard drive. Free shipping.

http://dealnews.com/Sony-Play-Station-3-160-GB-Uncharted-Bundle-for-425-free-shipping/273181.html

$500 HDTV + $425 PS3... hmm under $1000. And if you're patient, there are better deals to be had.

Press_Start

01-12-2009, 08:39 PM

I for one am a child of a single parent family, which relied on wellfare to survive- so don't give me any lectures on frugality. $400 is a lot to spend on a video game system when caught in a financial dire straight- I completely agree. But using a weak hyperbole to compare things you can buy at Wal-mart to luxuries only afforded by the elite of society is asinine.

First off, I said I didn't say I don't "love", I said I don't CARE for Blu-ray cause its basically the same as DVD, given "better" graphics. Their discs have better storage space, so what. How much memory does one movie take anyway? A DVD can hold a movie plus hours in extras, so how much more is needed. The only thing the BR disc really help is reducing the number of discs in compilations of TVs shows and cartoons. In other words, saves shelf-space for collectors. Second, I'll do a better example for ya. Go outside and ask someone whether they like HDTV or SDTV, the answer is usually...they don't care. People could ponder less whether HDTV is better than SDTV the same way they take the time to see if the PS3 or 360 display better graphics than the Wii.

What I'm trying to understand is why you spend your time crapping on a thread to offer half-baked ideas on how a manufacturer of a technology (that you think is a waste of money) could improve their product.

The only half-baked idea was Sony's decision in adding the B-R in the first place instead scheduling as addition for later models. It's practically the reason we all cringed at the $600 price tag. If they didn't have their hot-air-filled heads up their behinds, they realized the PS3 wasn't ready to be tied down by something that's way ahead of its time.

Nionel

01-12-2009, 08:48 PM

Hey guys, just chiming in with something I just read over at Magicbox...

- Nikkei business news reported that Sony will be posting the first loss in 14 years. The company expects to have a 100 billion yen or $1.1 billion operating loss for the fiscal year.

Rob2600

01-12-2009, 09:01 PM

I don't care what you've read or heard- you're wrong.

Check out this chart:

HDTV - size and resolution vs. viewing distance (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)

Supposedly, at 8' away, you'd need at least a 36" 720p (or 52" 1080p) HDTV to notice the improvement in resolution vs. a 27" SDTV.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 09:05 PM

First off, I said I didn't say I don't "love", I said I don't CARE for Blu-ray cause its basically the same as DVD, given "better" graphics. Their discs have better storage space, so what. How much memory does one movie take anyway? A DVD can hold a movie plus hours in extras, so how much more is needed. The only thing the BR disc really help is reducing the number of discs in compilations of TVs shows and cartoons. In other words, saves shelf-space for collectors. Second, I'll do a better example for ya. Go outside and ask someone whether they like HDTV or SDTV, the answer is usually...they don't care. People could ponder less whether HDTV is better than SDTV the same way they take the time to see if the PS3 or 360 display better graphics than the Wii.

Sir, if you haven't sat down and watched a movie in HD then watched a movie in SD then you wouldn't know the difference or care. I could also say that a Blu-Ray disc contains 2-4x the amount of picture information that a standard DVD does, but that obviously means nothing to you.

The difference between a well transferred movie on Blu-ray is as much a difference between a DVD and VHS tape. Do you think VHS looks better than DVD? Do you see a difference? Is there a difference to you between an audio cassette and a CD?

For people that love movies and go to the theater often, Blu-ray is a great consumer product. It is the closest yet that home technology has come to replicating a movie theater experience. If none of these things are important to you, then I understand. But I just think you're being an asshole.

If I were to walk outside when DVDs were just coming out and asked a person if they cared about DVDs more than VHS I'm sure a similar response would have happened. Unless you've seen a great HD picture, then you'd have no frame of reference.

And because you obviously have no idea the storage capacity of optical media, I'll give you a really basic crash course.

CDs around .7 GB
DVDs up to 8.5Gb
BluRays up to 50Gb

In order for a 35mm film to even fit onto a Blu-ray it has to be compressed to over half of its resolution. Now if a standard DVD has a 1/4 to 1/2 the resolution of a Blu-ray how much does a movie have to be compressed to fit onto that?

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 09:09 PM

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 09:11 PM

Check out this chart:

HDTV - size and resolution vs. viewing distance (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html)

Supposedly, at 8' away, you'd need at least a 36" 720p (or 52" 1080p) HDTV to notice the improvement in resolution vs. a 27" SDTV.

You pull out this chart a lot. I understand that you can use the google search function. Awesome. I don't care what this chart says. If you don't own the product in your own home, please don't lecture me.

There's a whole website called avsforum.com. Please take your chart over there and tell them that an HD picture looks the same from 8 feet away as a SD picture on anything smaller than a 36 inch. You'll be in way over your head Rob. Seriously, come back when you own an 30+ HDTV.

Press_Start

01-12-2009, 09:12 PM

So your brilliant plan involves making a new PS3 that can't play any of the existing PS3 games?

--Zero

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

c0ldb33r

01-12-2009, 09:15 PM

You pull out this chart a lot. I understand that you can use the google search function. Awesome. I don't care what this chart says. If you don't own the product in your own home, please don't lecture me...
BLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Will you guys move the "is an HDTV worth it or not" argument to PMs or another thread and quit derailing this one. I'm not posting much in this thread but I find it interesting to read.

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 09:15 PM

scooterb23

01-12-2009, 09:19 PM

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

So, you get Sony to remove Blu-Ray...and the Sony fanboys will line up to rebuy the HD stuff they have...but in a lower quality format...

You know, I can actually see that happening.

Someone get this guy a Shamwow commercial...fast. He's a marketing genius.

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 09:21 PM

In order for a 35mm film to even fit onto a Blu-ray it has to be compressed to over half of its resolution. Now if a standard DVD has a 1/4 to 1/2 the resolution of a Blu-ray how much does a movie have to be compressed to fit onto that?

You answered my question just as I was posting it.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 09:22 PM

BLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

Will you guys move the "is an HDTV worth it or not" argument to PMs or another thread and quit derailing this one. I'm not posting much in this thread but I find it interesting to read.

Sure quote me, but not the original derailer. It wasn't an "is an HDTV worth it thread" till Rob came aboard.

Dangerboy

01-12-2009, 09:22 PM

Wouldn't the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive be...

the Phantom?

scooterb23

01-12-2009, 09:23 PM

I think it would only be a George Foreman grill at that point.

c0ldb33r

01-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Sure quote me, but not the original derailer. It wasn't an "is an HDTV worth it thread" till Rob came aboard.
Heh sorry, it was intended for all parties. Yours was just the one I happened to click quote :D

Richter Belmount

01-12-2009, 09:25 PM

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b400/smith0009/yourewinner.jpg

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 09:27 PM

Wouldn't the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive be...

the Phantom?

I'll say it because if I don't I'm sure someone else will.

It would be a 360.

100101010101010101010101001001

(sorry it's been a while since I started a thread that got locked.)

Kid Ice

01-12-2009, 09:31 PM

Cause it's better than sitting on your arse and explaining how a $400 system is cheaper than a $200 one. X_x

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=2759

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).

Boy that link to BengaBenga's blog entry really kinda buried you all the way dude. Sorry.

Ze_ro

01-12-2009, 09:39 PM

Without the Blu-Ray, the system can finally be affordable. Although, it means companies would have to re-release they products in non-BR format, but it will give them another chance to rack in more cash, the same way those re-released Gamecube titles for the Wii will probably bring more sales for those who missed out the first time around. Besides look at the 360, it doesn't have Blu-Ray and the games it holds can pull off incredible graphics (when it works).
So just stop releasing Blu-Ray games and shoehorn them all onto DVD's? That would certainly be a nice kick in the balls for everyone who already owns a PS3. It would also remove pretty much the main technological advantage the PS3 has over the 360.

Blu-Ray discs and lasers are coming down in price fast. Given another year, it won't even be an issue.

In any case, the PS3's ace in the hole is Final Fantasy XIII. Sure, it's coming to 360 as well, but most people associate the franchise with the PS3 or will assume it will be better on the PS3, and will buy one purely for FF. Sony is falling behind, but if they can hold it together until then, they have a chance.

--Zero

Rob2600

01-12-2009, 11:00 PM

I don't care what this chart says.

If I spent $650 on a 30" TV, I guess I wouldn't care what a chart would say, either.

By the way, I'm not talking about being able to tell the difference between an HD signal vs. an SD signal, both on an HDTV. An SD signal looks like garbage on an HDTV.

I'm talking about being able to notice the difference between an HD signal on a 30" HDTV vs. an SD signal on a 25" SDTV, both at 8' away. Supposedly, the extra resolution is wasted with such a small screen at that distance.

It's like looking at a 25ppi billboard vs. a 300ppi billboard, both at 60' away. You won't be able to notice the difference in resolution at a distance like that.

ProgrammingAce

01-12-2009, 11:28 PM

Frankie_Says_Relax

01-12-2009, 11:44 PM

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.

I managed the projection booth in local theatre for 7 years.

Modern movie theatre-grade Christie/Disney DLP projectors (the 2007 models anyway, that's the last time I used one) would run movies that would come on HDDs that we would load onto a server, and if my memory serves, none of them were even close to a terabyte ... (if my memory serves) most were around 30 gigs. (Some might have been larger depending on the feature ... maybe up to 100 gigs or so for a 3+ hour feature or disney 3D film.)

I assume that those are generally "uncompressed" as they would display in a native resolution topping out at 4096×2160 at 24 frames per second. (Though, the terabyte sized films that ProAce is referring to could be raw digital studio-master-level versions.)

Considering that most films are still shot on "film" and then converted to the digital format, there's SOME compression that goes on ... but based on the size that these films would take up in theatre-grade digital presentation (in most cases less than 50GB, which is roughly how much space that a Blu-Ray disc holds) there's very little reason that a blu-ray disc couldn't handle well above what would be needed to get the most out of a home theatre setup, even if you have a HUGE home-theatre sized projection screen.

Though, there probably ARE higher grade theatre DLP projectors with higher resolutions that I never had a chance to work with.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-12-2009, 11:50 PM

If I spent $650 on a 30" TV, I guess I wouldn't care what a chart would say, either.

Spin this quote anyway you like Rob, but it has nothing to do with how much I paid for the TV. It has to do with what I see.

It's hard to believe this coming from the mouth of someone who has lectured others here about bit depth in computer monitors. My 30 inch TV is a Sony CRT set, and the price paid was fairly reasonable for it. And since you gain most of your knowledge from charts and wikipedia vs. actual experience, I'm sure you'll read how highly regarded sony CRT sets are.

By the way, I'm not talking about being able to tell the difference between an HD signal vs. an SD signal, both on an HDTV. An SD signal looks like garbage on an HDTV.

I'm talking about being able to notice the difference between an HD signal on a 30" HDTV vs. an SD signal on a 25" SDTV, both at 8' away. Supposedly, the extra resolution is wasted with such a small screen at that distance.

What?! For posterity I've included your original trolling attempt below, that makes no mention of this convoluted comparison, that you now claim to have been talking about all along. All I've said all along is that I can tell the difference between a SD and HD transfer of the same movie at 8 feet away on my 30 inch monitor. Re-read my original posts and your direct responses before you try and backtrack. You comparison above in no way relates to my or any other posters original comments. Please stop trolling for the sake of trolling.

From what I understand, sitting six feet away from a 30" HDTV cancels out the extra resolution vs. an SDTV.

A chart you find on the internet does NOT make you an expert.

Rob2600

01-13-2009, 12:06 AM

I can tell the difference between a SD and HD transfer of the same movie at 8 feet away on my 30 inch (HD) monitor.

Again, you're talking about noticing a difference between HD content on an HDTV vs. SD content on that very same HDTV. I agree with you, there is a difference.

However, I'm talking about not noticing a difference between watching HD content on a 30" HDTV at 8' away vs. SD content on a 25" SDTV at 8' away. Small screen + large distance = no noticeable difference in resolution.

It's hard to believe this coming from the mouth of someone who has lectured others here about bit depth in computer monitors.

Graphic artists use 30" HD monitors to do high-end graphics work. Do they sit 8' away? No, of course not. Why? Because at 8' away, all of that extra resolution/detail is lost.

That is all.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-13-2009, 12:09 AM

Here's a quote on Wikipedia about Digital Projection and it's various resolutions.

"As of 2007 the most common acquisition medium for digitally projected features is 35 mm film scanned and processed at 2K or 4K via digital intermediate. Most digital features to date have been shot at 1920x1080 HD resolution using cameras such as the Sony CineAlta, Panavision Genesis or Thomson Viper. New cameras such as the Arriflex D-20 and Silicon Imaging's SI-2K can capture 2K resolution images, and the Red Digital Cinema Camera Company's Red One can record 4k RAW. Thus the future of digital cinema can be expected to have as a standard 4K capture and 4K projection. Currently in development are other cameras capable of recording 4K RAW, such as Dalsa Corporation's Origin, and cameras capable of recording 5k RAW, such as the RED EPIC, and cameras capable of recording 3k RAW (for budget filmmakers) such as the RED SCARLET"

And the whole digital projection article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

Although it doesn't make a mention of how much space is required for an uncompressed digital film. It does talk about the resolutions that films are scanned into the computers, which are notably higher than the resolution that Blu-Rays are encoded.

From personal experience with importing raw DV footage into my computer, here's what I can tell you.

I recently imported 2 and a half hours of regular SD Mini DV footage into my computer. In it's raw and uncompressed form it takes up about 35GBs. Thats regular DV footage which is about half the resolution of the closest High definition format.

swlovinist

01-13-2009, 12:14 AM

meanwhile back in the backcave...

Zap!

01-13-2009, 12:45 AM

Err? I have a 30 in tube hdtv and it looks amazing.

Just not as amazing as my 1080p 61 incher. The benefits of HD greatly increase in size.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-13-2009, 12:46 AM

Again, you're talking about noticing a difference between HD content on an HDTV vs. SD content on that very same HDTV. I agree with you, there is a difference.

However, I'm talking about not noticing a difference between watching HD content on a 30" HDTV at 8' away vs. SD content on a 25" SDTV at 8' away. Small screen + large distance = no noticeable difference in resolution.

I still disagree Rob. For one, the scan lines on a 480 line NTSC set are clearly visible when paired next to an HD set (that either scans progressively or has twice the amount of pitch of an SD set). This is easily visible at 8 feet on sets of these sizes.

From many years of watching DVDs on 24 inch Sony analog set, and then upgrading to a 30 inch Sony HDTV and watching my first HD-DVDs I can assure you, to my eyes, there's a difference. And that's even while watching full-frame movies- which would yield comparable image sizes on both sets.

Unless there's some sort of sound scientific reasoning behind those charts as why this is not possible, I won't agree with you.

One last post before the lock!!

Zap!

01-13-2009, 12:50 AM

Rob, err no it doesn't. I happen to own a sony kv30-hs420, which is a 30 inch widescreen HDTV. I have an HD-DVD player and a Dish Network HD receiver hooked up to the TV. I sit approx 8 feet away and can tell an obvious difference between HD and SD. I paid $649 for my TV several years ago, and I am completely happy with it. I don't care what you've read or heard- you're wrong.

If you check out websites like this often, you can catch quite a few 720p LCD, DLP, or Plasma TV's under $600-700 shipped that range anywhere from 32-50 inches. They may not be top of the line, but they're from major manufacturers and when hooked up to a high definition source they look markedly better than SD.

http://dealnews.com/

$60 for a PS3 game? Who says you have to buy a $60 game? You and I both know that there are online deals all the time that offer great PS3 games for well under $30. Bad Company for the PS3 is $20 right now at Best Buy.

And as for a PS3? Dell.com often offers coupon discounts that work on video game systems they sell. Slickdeals.com posts these deals a lot... PS3 systems for $330-ish new.

Late last year Sears had a 42" Samsung plasma for $598. If you are persistent and find a dell.com coupon deal you could get a PS3 for $330. Then pick up a cheap PS3 game for $10 or $20 then you could skate by for under $1000, no bullshit. This isn't counting finding some good used deals. There are awesome deals to be had on the internet from reputable retailers if you just look.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a bit of browsing here are some current and recently expired online deals.

Here's a few sub $700 HDTV's 32 inch and up. Some of the deals may be no longer active but here they are.

32 Toshiba 720p for $500
http://dealnews.com/Toshiba-REGZA-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-500-free-shipping/271950.html

32 Sharp 720p for $469
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-32-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-for-469-free-shipping/273226.html

37 Sharp 720p for $620
http://dealnews.com/Sharp-AQUOS-37-720-p-Widescreen-LCD-HDTV-from-600-20-s-h/271390.html

And here's a recent PS3 deal from Dell.com for a $425 PS3 bundle with a game and 160GB hard drive. Free shipping.

http://dealnews.com/Sony-Play-Station-3-160-GB-Uncharted-Bundle-for-425-free-shipping/273181.html

$500 HDTV + $425 PS3... hmm under $1000. And if you're patient, there are better deals to be had.

Let me find some common ground between you guys. Him saying there's no difference between a 30" 720p HDTV and a standard def old TV is wrong. There is a big difference, it's a lot better. Now, on to his side...

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet. So while you're correct that your TV is far superior to standard def, it's also far inferior to true HD (1080p) found on some of the larger models. In fact, they don't even make 1080p's on small TV's because it's pointless.

The 1 2 P

01-13-2009, 01:01 AM

So um....whats all of this have to do with the PS3 getting discontinued/unsupported?

TheDomesticInstitution

01-13-2009, 01:05 AM

So um....whats all of this have to do with the PS3 getting discontinued/unsupported? Nothing. It's my fault for taking the bait to begin with. I apologize.

So hey, how about that kickass PS3?

j_factor

01-13-2009, 01:55 AM

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet. So while you're correct that your TV is far superior to standard def, it's also far inferior to true HD (1080p) found on some of the larger models. In fact, they don't even make 1080p's on small TV's because it's pointless.

http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=41716902&source=EWBBASE&cm_mmc=CSE-_-google-_-ewbbase-_-Monitors&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=41716902

scooterb23

01-13-2009, 02:02 AM

I have decided to stop supporting the PS3, it no longer suits my needs.

I fully throw my support behind...

http://www.mcphee.com/items/11761.html

the Yodeling Pickle. This will save you hundreds of dollars, and is bound to be more fun in the long run.

Fuyukaze

01-13-2009, 03:37 AM

The PS3 fail? Posible. At this time it's hard to say. Sony's loosing it's edge though and anyone can see it. The cheap blu-ray appeal is quickly fading as more and more players are being offered at cheaper prices by other companies then Sony and the games everyone expected are still in short supply. Look at the best selling games for it currently. The number of exclusives just isnt there right now for many people. Does it have the best hardware? Yes. Hardware doesnt always spell profits and Sony, just like every buisness MUST turn a profit if they wish to remain. Chances right now look like the PS3 could be discontinued somewheres in the future but when is mostly up to Sony. How long can they continue to hemorrhage money is totaly up to them.

c0ldb33r

01-13-2009, 07:28 AM

I think the better question is whether there will be a Playstation 4.

JunkTheMagicDragon

01-13-2009, 09:13 AM

I would be curious to know how much storage space an uncompressed film would take up. Probably more than what's on a BluRay (including uncompressed audio), but I could be mistaken.

to add to what others have said, here are my calculations, assuming a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, 24-bit color, and a 2 hour runtime:

4K = 3996x2160 = 8,631,360 pixels/frame

8,631,360px/frame * 24 bits/px = 207,152,640 bits/frame

207,152,640 bits/frame * 1bytes/8bits = 25,894,080 bytes/frame

25,894,080 bytes/frame = 24.69 MB/frame

24.69 MB/frame * 24 frames/sec = 592.67 MB/sec

592.67 MB/sec * 7200 sec = 4.07 TB

feel free to correct any errors.

EDIT: forgot to add that 4.07TB is just the video information, not including uncompressed 7.1 audio tracks.

mr obscure

01-13-2009, 09:14 AM

swlovinist

01-13-2009, 09:41 AM

While I agree that Sony is currently dealing with a major financial blow, they will do what they have to keep the game systems in stores. If anything, their current financial situation will make them do more drastic measures to generate sales. I am not a Sony fanboy, and actually have been harsh of all three systems for different reasons. They will have to change their marketing of the PS3 this year, with a price drop hopefully more sooner and later to stay in the race. They are still far from dead, far from axing the system, far from discontinuing the system...if they change their approach with the PS3 this year. If they dont do a price drop or major marketing push within the next six months....things could get a whole lot worse for them in hardware sales. A price drop before major tax returns could be a big win for them.

Zap!

01-13-2009, 12:59 PM

I think the better question is whether there will be a Playstation 4.

I be shocked if they didn't try one more time with the success of 1 and 2. But will there be a PS5?

Zap!

01-13-2009, 01:00 PM

http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=41716902&source=EWBBASE&cm_mmc=CSE-_-google-_-ewbbase-_-Monitors&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=41716902

Wow, never seen one of those before. I havve to wonder if it's a waste at that size though.

Rob2600

01-13-2009, 01:04 PM

Kid Ice

01-13-2009, 06:41 PM

I have a 61" 1080P (true HD) HDTV. It will blow away any small TV on the planet.

Well if I wanted to throw my dick on the table I could argue that the CRT image on my 30 incher is superior to any grainy LCD set, or a plasma set what with all those goofy colors.

But I really don't give a shit. I was just wondering if anyone thought Mirror's Edge 2 might not make it to PS3.

Kid Ice

01-13-2009, 06:53 PM

Uh oh........

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/13/sony-said-to-be-sitting-on-1-1-billion-annual-loss-first-in-14/
(Sony 1.1 bil loss)

GrandAmChandler

01-13-2009, 07:13 PM

Well if I wanted to throw my dick on the table I could argue that the CRT image on my 30 incher is superior to any grainy LCD set, or a plasma set what with all those goofy colors.

But I really don't give a shit. I was just wondering if anyone thought Mirror's Edge 2 might not make it to PS3.

I give this quote and this thread the GAC seal of approval.

A++++ would read again.

Rob2600

01-13-2009, 07:16 PM

Uh oh........

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/13/sony-said-to-be-sitting-on-1-1-billion-annual-loss-first-in-14/
(Sony 1.1 bil loss)

More "uh oh"...December 2008 U.S. sales data:

Wii - 3.25 million
Xbox 360 - 1.35 million
PlayStation 3 - 750,000

IGN - Wii Dominates December Sales (http://wii.ign.com/articles/944/944479p1.html)

MarioMania

01-13-2009, 07:58 PM

Sony will keep the PS3 aflot..But would 3rd Party Comps like EA will

Sudo

01-13-2009, 08:23 PM

More "uh oh"...December 2008 U.S. sales data:

Wii - 3.25 million
Xbox 360 - 1.35 million
PlayStation 3 - 750,000

IGN - Wii Dominates December Sales (http://wii.ign.com/articles/944/944479p1.html)

Those are not actual numbers, they're predictions. Official NPD numbers will be released on Thursday.

Sony will keep the PS3 aflot..But would 3rd Party Comps like EA will
Of course EA will support the PS3, only an idiot would think otherwise. Their games sell well on it (though admittedly not as much as on 360), and they've begun using the PS3 as the lead SKU when developing them even.

Kid Ice

01-13-2009, 09:44 PM

Of course EA will support the PS3, only an idiot would think otherwise.

Have you ever had the feeling you were just not being heard? ;-)

Fuyukaze

01-13-2009, 11:13 PM

[QUOTE=Fuyukaze;1493682]The PS3 fail? The number of exclusives just isnt there right now for many people. Does it have the best hardware? Yes. Hardware doesnt always spell profits

This reminds me of the n64 vs playstation battle where nintendo kept saying:the n64 has better hardware and graphics.but way less games
nintendo lost.

after ps1 and ps2 i would never ever thought sony would lose this console war.And nintendo on top after the n64 and gamecube no way.
But it happend.

Ps3 out of the shops,no way..
They will do a number of price drops first..but..times are different now..
economic crisis..people will not spend a lot of cash on video consoles.
So i think the market will not change and sony is not a video game only company like nintendo.
Sony will look at the big picture if the lose to much money on tv's they will stop making tv's. But if the keep losing money on ps3's?
Don't worry they will stop psp's first.
The difference between the PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs Gamecube, and the PS3 anything current is that Nintendo still managed to turn a profit on them practicly from launch where as Sony is still selling the systems at a loss. Sony's losses are not based simply on software licenses loss but upon hardware cost. Sony will keep the PS3 active for atleast a year in my opinion but where it'll be within 2 or more is hard to say.

Sudo

01-13-2009, 11:24 PM

[QUOTE=mr obscure;1493775]
The difference between the PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs Gamecube, and the PS3 anything current is that Nintendo still managed to turn a profit on them practicly from launch where as Sony is still selling the systems at a loss. Sony's losses are not based simply on software licenses loss but upon hardware cost. Sony will keep the PS3 active for atleast a year in my opinion but where it'll be within 2 or more is hard to say.

They pretty much HAVE to keep the PS3 alive for a few more years at the very least. They don't have the money to finance a new console launch any earlier than that.

Icarus Moonsight

01-14-2009, 12:36 AM

Especially since they are currently enacting heavy cuts in the R&D dept. That is what troubles me the most. Diminished R&D = diminished future of new product. A future Sony box may just be branded with all the components, design and tech outsourced.

j_factor

01-14-2009, 03:20 AM

Lothars

01-14-2009, 03:56 AM

The PS3 isn't going anywhere and like Slip81 said that once a price drop hits, it will be totally a different story

I still see the PS3 either beating or tieing the 360 by the end of the generation, there's no way the PS3 will be gone and I can also see there being a PS4 eventually.

Icarus Moonsight

01-14-2009, 08:18 AM

Or it could be a slightly upgraded PS3 with a fancy controller. Ahem.

Clever. I could see that. The PS4 having a lot in common with today's Wii. Only problem is, the Wii succeeded because it was cheap and radically different than the other boxes and those before it. If they do PS4 that way it will be more like the Gamecube and less the Wii. You can't take the top while playing catch-up.

TheDomesticInstitution

01-14-2009, 08:21 AM

Or it could be a slightly upgraded PS3 with a fancy controller. Ahem.

Careful, the apologists are lurking.

EDIT: For all those looking for a good deal on a PS3- here's an 80GB for $316 (+tax I think) on Dell.com, follow the instructions in the linked thread to take advantage of the deal.

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1129383

EDIT - THURSDAY JAN 15TH-

Today only dell.com small business offers a 42 inch HD plasma from Panasonic for $600. That's right, for the few naysayers- here's 2 deals when combined can get you a 42 inch plasma from a major manufacturer and a PS3 for under $1000. Brand new.

http://dealnews.com/Panasonic-VIERA-42-720-p-Widescreen-Plasma-HDTV-for-600-free-shipping/274154.html