If Sony had to do it all over again... - Blu-ray Forum

Steelmaker · 01-29-2011, 02:58 PM

Do you think they would have designed the PS3 a little differently? Now obviously we are all fans of the PS3 and love it exactly the way it is. However let's face it, Sony decision to make the PS3 such a high end gaming console has cost them this generation. It has cost them market share, it has cost them a lot of money (despite the high price tag), etc. My question is, if Sony had to do it all over again, would they change anything and if so what do you think those changes would have been?

bandit29 · 01-29-2011, 03:23 PM

Looking back... the PS3 really didn't need a memory card reader. It is nice to have but I've barely used mine. That would have cut the price there. Sony shouldn't have launched with two models. I thought that was a mistake from the start.

OG Pooh · 01-29-2011, 03:44 PM

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format. It's really a catch-22... If the PS3 hadn't been BD, BD may not have won the format war, or at least not as quickly. On the other hand, had Sony went with a less expensive DVD drive, the PS3 may have done better initially.

By the way, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the PS3 or say I love it exactly the way it is. Gamewise, the Playstation brand has (IMHO) gone downhill since the PSone. In saying that I'm not intending to single out Sony, I think game developemnent has been extremely stagnant across the board for a couple of generations now. I like all te current machines equally, for different reasons. That said, I like all of today's consoles only a fraction as much as the original Playstation, the Sega Dreamcast or even the Genesis/Sega CD.

I would have liked a new standard controller. For me, that is the Playstation's biggest weakness. The controller is too small, the buttons have no feel to them and the analog sticks are in completely the wrong positions.

Denoku · 01-29-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format. It's really a catch-22... If the PS3 hadn't been BD, BD may not have won the format war, or at least not as quickly. On the other hand, had Sony went with a less expensive DVD drive, the PS3 may have done better initially.

By the way, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the PS3 or say I love it exactly the way it is. Gamewise, the Playstation brand has (IMHO) gone downhill since the PSone. In saying that I'm not intending to single out Sony, I think game developemnent has been extremely stagnant across the board for a couple of generations now. I like all te current machines equally, for different reasons. That said, I like all of today's consoles only a fraction as much as the original Playstation, the Sega Dreamcast or even the Genesis/Sega CD.

I would have liked a new standard controller. For me, that is the Playstation's biggest weakness. The controller is too small, the buttons have no feel to them and the analog sticks are in completely the wrong positions.

I personally think the BD drive was a great idea. Considering games are on BD. It holds way much more data compared to DVD as I'm sure you may know.
Whereas Final Fantasy XIII was on 3 discs compared to the one disc we have for PS3. Even Dead Space 2 on Xbox is on 2 discs. I'm not countering anything you're saying I just think the BD Drive was a good idea. Sure it may of hurt sales in the beginning since it was so expensive but considering where were at now, I think it was good move.

Everyone has their own preferences, I don't have a problem with the controller. It has never once bothered me or felt awkward to hold. Maybe it's just after playing Xbox the PS3 controller seems weird. I don't think the Analog sticks are too close and I have never bumped my fingers together because of it.

jsteinhauer · 01-29-2011, 04:02 PM

Actually, I always thought that during the HD optical media wars, Sony could have swung things in BD's favor much earlier, if they had put some PS3 guts into a component that looked like a DVD player, included an AV style remote control, and marketed it as a Blu-ray disc player that you could ALSO play games on, rather than a gaming console that looked like a console and also played movies. I think the price point of the PS3 was very competetive among BD and HDDVD players, but many simply did not want a game console, for a variety of different reasons. Those who were reluctant because they worried about obsolescence would have had those fears allayed. Seriously, the PS3 was a first generation BD movie player, and it has been able to remain up to date into the 3D era. Nothing else can come close.

Furthermore, the PS3, especially the fat PS3, looks more like a toy than an AV component, which certainly turned some off.

OG Pooh · 01-29-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denoku

I personally think the BD drive was a great idea. Considering games are on BD. It holds way much more data compared to DVD as I'm sure you may know.
Whereas Final Fantasy XIII was on 3 discs compared to the one disc we have for PS3. Even Dead Space 2 on Xbox is on 2 discs. I'm not countering anything you're saying I just think the BD Drive was a good idea. Sure it may of hurt sales in the beginning since it was so expensive but considering where were at now, I think it was good move.

Everyone has their own preferences, I don't have a problem with the controller. It has never once bothered me or felt awkward to hold. Maybe it's just after playing Xbox the PS3 controller seems weird. I don't think the Analog sticks are too close and I have never bumped my fingers together because of it.

I do agree, I too think in the long run, the BD drive was a good idea. I'm just wondering how much it hurt them initially. It probably would have a larger installed user base today, had the price been closer to the 360 at the time of it's release. It just launched at an akward time as far as formats go.

Yes, the controller thing in a personal opinion. I do think that the general preference leans toward the 360 type controller nowadays. If you browse the web at all, you'll find lots of discussion regarding this preference, but hardly any the other way around. Also, quite a few converters have poped up to allow 360 controllers to be used on the PS3, but I haven't seen any (that I remember) that let a PS3 controller be used on a 360. There's just no demand for it.

As for jsteinhauer's comments... I agree completely. I have always wished that game consoles looked more like regualr A/V components & less like toys. If manufatureres want them to be taken seriously, they have to stop making them the red-headed stepchildren of the component world.

Steelmaker · 01-29-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format.

I agree with this. Don't get me wrong. I love blu ray and I am glad that it won the format war. However was it worth it to Sony to lose SO much market share from one generation to another? Remember, the PS2 is the all time highest selling console. It had a userbase of 140 million! Was winning the HD format war worth losing nearly 2/3 of your market share this gen? Yes I realize this gen is not over yet and Sony will continue to grow their current userbase. However it's highly unlikely the PS3 will ever approach PS2 numbers, nor is it likely they will ever completely re-gain the financial losses they sustained from the cost of developing PS3. I know hindsight is 20/20 but I believe that if Sony had launched the PS3 at 399.99 with a dvd drive and put a little more R&D in their online infastructure from the beginning instead of investing so much in blu ray, the gaming landscape might look a lot different today.

Denoku · 01-29-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

I do agree, I too think in the long run, the BD drive was a good idea. I'm just wondering how much it hurt them initially. It probably would have a larger installed user base today, had the price been closer to the 360 at the time of it's release. It just launched at an akward time as far as formats go.

Yes, the controller thing in a personal opinion. I do think that the general preference leans toward the 360 type controller nowadays. If you browse the web at all, you'll find lots of discussion regarding this preference, but hardly any the other way around. Also, quite a few converters have poped up to allow 360 controllers to be used on the PS3, but I haven't seen any (that I remember) that let a PS3 controller be used on a 360. There's just no demand for it.

As for jsteinhauer's comments... I agree completely. I have always wished that game consoles looked more like regualr A/V components & less like toys. If manufatureres want them to be taken seriously, they have to stop making them the red-headed stepchildren of the component world.

Plus Xbox was already out a year before the release of the PS3. So I'm sure it hurt a lot in the beginning. From my understanding, even at the initial price of the PS3 when it came out Sony was still losing money. Price ranging from $450-$500 I believe when it released. As you said it did release at an awkward time, it was just too damn expensive. Especially when the Xbox and Wii were already out and at a reasonable price.

OG Pooh · 01-29-2011, 04:43 PM

Thinking about it a little more, I think where the PS3 is at a real disadvantage is when you start comparing PSN to Live. Live is set up much better, more well organized & better maintained. PSN feels real haphazzard in comparison. Kind of like You're online, good luck. I'm the first to admit that I am not an online gamer. I highly prefer the one-player experience and tend to gravitate towards one-player type games. But for people who are into the online aspects, Live is far superior to PSN, and that is a big selling point circa 2011. Of course, Microsoft being who they are, have a big advantage when it comes to online setup.

SkillzthatKillz · 01-29-2011, 04:56 PM

One thing I know they would do differently is launch the system with the dualshock 3 instead of the rumbleless sixaxis. As for the bd drive, I think they would launch it with one even though it drove the price up initially. The PS3 is the main reason that bd won the format war, plus it really gives game developers a lot more options when designing games. One thing they might do differently is use more standard "off the shelf" CPU/GPU components in the system. I love the cell processer as much as anyone, but from everything I've read it can be a royal pain in the ass to develop on and I know that a lot of devs hated it early on. If they would have used something more familiar to the industry, it would have helped early games look a lot better when compared to the xbox and it would have helped keep costs down

Mavrick · 01-29-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Ken Kutaragi genius didn't expend far past the first Playstation. The PS2 succeeded despite it's architecture. The PS3 was unable to rise above it's wrong-headed geometry.

With the PS3 in particular, Kutaragi was absolutely obsessed with performance to the exclusion of all other considerations (such as cost and ease of programming). IBM tried to convince him to go with a game console based on the Power4 core, a PowerPC core used in high-end servers and minicomputers. It would have been powerful, yet the R&D would have been a fraction the cost and it would have been dead easy to develop for!

Even the Power4 core wouldn't satisfy Kutaragi; the Cell was born, and it was a terrible business decision for Sony. They sank buttloads of R&D into it, yet their dreams of breaking out of Moore's Law (which Kutaragi frequently spoke of) and selling the Cell for other applications have all but evaporated. There are four companies that sell Cell-based machines, but three of those (IBM, Toshiba, and Sony) were the three that paid for the R&D and collectively own the right. The fourth player is a bit player in the industry. The dreams of legions of consumer electronics and scientific supercomputers running the Cell have not materialised.

Oh, a few use it, but not enough to come anywhere close to justifying the R&D cost.

But go back to the PS2, and the story was much the same. The PS2 design was not easy to develop for, and the Emotion Engine and the Graphics Synthesiser were also not adopted widely outside of their use in the PS2. Sony's market hegemony and successful use of hype made the PS2 succeed, not the hardware.

But the original PS1 was a dream to programme for. Kutaragi either didn't realise that was significant, or forgot that that was important, somewhere along the way.

The NGP looks easy to programme for, so things are looking up. Apparently Sony Worldwide Studios now has a role in designing new hardware architectures, which they should. They didn't have a hand in the PS3, and that cost Sony.

There's a great book on the development of the PS3 and 360 CPUs by David Shippy, with first-hand accounts from IBM insiders. I highly recommend it!

/slow clap

This^ is why NGP is already a hit with devs! Easy to develop for! 1 week to port a ps3 game! Ease of progremming will win over any dev to a new console. Something Ken forgot about in his stuborness. Now we have Kazuo Hirai at the helm the only way is up!

Mavrick · 01-29-2011, 05:25 PM

And lets not forget Old Kens infamous quotes!

Quote:

“The PS3 is not a game machine “

“Beating us for a short moment is like accidentally winning a point from a Shihan (Karate master), and Microsoft is still not a black belt. Just like with their operating systems, they might come out with something good around the third generation of their release.”

“I believe we made the most beautiful thing in the world. Nobody would criticize a renowned architect’s blueprint that the position of a gate is wrong. It’s the same as that.”

“Microsoft shoots for the moon. Sony shoots for the sun.”

"This time, Microsoft has stated clearly that it is going after PlayStation. However, they're going not after the PlayStation 3, but the PlayStation 2. They were looking at 2, and that's why Xbox 360 became like that."

“With the PS3, our intentions have been to create a machine with supercomputer calculation capabilities for home entertainment.”

PS3 is “for consumers to think to themselves ‘I will work more hours to buy one’. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else.”

“The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline.”

“Microsoft is trailing behind us, but they are not a threat. They are good at improving [on products], but we will be advancing to the next level with revolutionary technology.”

“We’re not going to equip the PS3 with a HDD by default, because no matter how much capacity we put in it, it won’t be enough.”

Ken Kutaragi has now once again commented on how he views the launch of the PS3 and what the PS3 really is, though am starting to suspect that even Sony doesn’t know what the PS3 is about anymore. Speaking in an interview with Electronic Engineering Times Asia, Ken Kutaragi said of the PlayStation 3, “Though sold as a game console, what will in fact enter the home is a Cell-based computer.”

He continued, “The model image for the Cell-based network may be the Internet: servers around the world form one virtual 'computer,' and each PC accesses it. Application programs can no longer directly access the hardware; instead they will have to be written in high-level, object-oriented language. The Cell processor will completely change the concept of programming. I am sure that a technology revolution is about to occur, not only within Sony but throughout the digital consumer electronics industry.”

His most interesting comment was maybe this one “If processors of high performance and wide bandwidth like the Cell were linked together without sufficient security, a worldwide system crash could occur with one attack.”

Cevolution · 01-29-2011, 06:23 PM

One of the biggest mistakes Sony made was announcing that the ps3 would be expensive to the point where it would cost people 3 full weeks pay if they wanted one, such a stupid comment scared a lot of people off before the console was even released.

Another big mistake was how differently the price of the console varied from country to country. Here in Australia when the ps3 was 1st released it had a price tag off $999au but it was only $599 in the U.S. Based on the value of the Australian dollar at the time we should have had a price tag of around $725au, which is $125 more than the U.S not $400. Plus we also were paying a much higher price for ps2 backwards compatibility which was done by software not hardware like some other regions had at the time (I understand that other countries went on to receive ps2 backwards compatibility via software but was quite a few months after Australia), but for $999au a lot of Australian's felt that we should have been getting exactly the same product as other countries for that kind of money.

Psx0005 · 01-29-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Thinking about it a little more, I think where the PS3 is at a real disadvantage is when you start comparing PSN to Live. Live is set up much better, more well organized & better maintained. PSN feels real haphazzard in comparison. Kind of like You're online, good luck. I'm the first to admit that I am not an online gamer. I highly prefer the one-player experience and tend to gravitate towards one-player type games. But for people who are into the online aspects, Live is far superior to PSN, and that is a big selling point circa 2011. Of course, Microsoft being who they are, have a big advantage when it comes to online setup.

And why wouldn't they? They have tons of experience in this regard over Sony as let's not forget, they have their MSN service and the technical know-how from running rampantly through the software side of the business with their Windows/Server/PC gaming infrastructure. Sony had always been a more hardware-oriented business, so they were obviously going to make poor calls or have people calling them out on "copying" the other guy's way of doing things so I don't give Microsoft any props for their Live service. And with Sony constantly having to watch out for the happy-go-lawsuit way that Microsoft tends to be when someone "infringes" on something they've done, I'd be hard-pressed to try to one-up them. But my $0.02 anyways.

Oateyboat · 01-29-2011, 08:28 PM

Increased protection against hackers, I would think, with recent events

Mavrick · 01-29-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oat-a-bix

Increased protection against hackers, I would think, with recent events

I think 4 years of being un hacked is quite impressive! No console in history has lasted much more than a year.

DonRSD · 01-29-2011, 08:49 PM

Coming from 360 and xbox live to psn, I don't see a difference in online gaming at all.

399 is the highest price point for a new system, anything more and you're asking for doom.

Sent from my rooted EVO running CM6.1.2 using Tapatalk

Clark Kent · 01-29-2011, 08:57 PM

Sony overdesigned the PS3 and got cocky, thinking the market would lap up anything they released. I really don't believe Sony saw the Wii and Xbox360 as any kind of threat, which in retrospect was a huge mistake. The decision to use CELL processing as the basis for the system was too soon. Choosing Blu-ray was an integrated strategy with all divisions of Sony, to help create a new home video standard to replace DVD.

I doubt they make all the same decisions if they had known how the market was going to develop.

Mavrick · 01-29-2011, 09:05 PM

Pricing can be dificult. It cant be judged on a 5 year old consoles price. Inflation and rising taxes are the biggest problem.

A snes was £300 at launch. If it were released today it would be around £600. a cinema ticket cost me £3.50 10 years ago. Today its £10.50!

I think home consoles lifespans need to be extended past the 10 year life cycle. Useually around 5-6 years in next gen is anounced the year after its rel eased. then a 3-4 year period after the announcement until the old gen is left behind. We are only A YEAR away from the probable anouncements of the "next gen" of consoles and 2 away from their release.

If it was extended to 15 years say, they could use the extra time to get production costs down meaning a cheaper launch price. Personally I could quite hAPPily carry on with PS3 another 4 years before even wanting a next gen console.

Anthony P · 01-29-2011, 09:11 PM

I think they might have gone with the revised model (no card readers, no PS2 compatibility) but I don't think they would have done more. Also the Wii sold incredibly well, but it sold to the none-gaming market, if you look at the gaming market the PS3 did not do badly, it did almost as well as the PS2.

01-29-2011, 02:58 PM	#1
Steelmaker Blu-ray Duke Member since:Mar 2007 Location:Chattanooga, TN Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:1	If Sony had to do it all over again... Do you think they would have designed the PS3 a little differently? Now obviously we are all fans of the PS3 and love it exactly the way it is. However let's face it, Sony decision to make the PS3 such a high end gaming console has cost them this generation. It has cost them market share, it has cost them a lot of money (despite the high price tag), etc. My question is, if Sony had to do it all over again, would they change anything and if so what do you think those changes would have been?

01-29-2011, 03:44 PM	#3
OG Pooh Banned Member since:Jul 2010 Location:Hudson Valley, NY Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:132	What made the PS3 so expensive at first was the BD drive. They could have went with a standard DVD drive and been successful (just look at the 360). I honestly think Sony thought they were untouchable in the game market, and used that to further BD as a format. It's really a catch-22... If the PS3 hadn't been BD, BD may not have won the format war, or at least not as quickly. On the other hand, had Sony went with a less expensive DVD drive, the PS3 may have done better initially. By the way, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" of the PS3 or say I love it exactly the way it is. Gamewise, the Playstation brand has (IMHO) gone downhill since the PSone. In saying that I'm not intending to single out Sony, I think game developemnent has been extremely stagnant across the board for a couple of generations now. I like all te current machines equally, for different reasons. That said, I like all of today's consoles only a fraction as much as the original Playstation, the Sega Dreamcast or even the Genesis/Sega CD. I would have liked a new standard controller. For me, that is the Playstation's biggest weakness. The controller is too small, the buttons have no feel to them and the analog sticks are in completely the wrong positions. Last edited by OG Pooh; 01-29-2011 at 03:47 PM.

01-29-2011, 04:43 PM	#9
OG Pooh Banned Member since:Jul 2010 Location:Hudson Valley, NY Home Theater Gallery:1 Blu-ray collection:132	Thinking about it a little more, I think where the PS3 is at a real disadvantage is when you start comparing PSN to Live. Live is set up much better, more well organized & better maintained. PSN feels real haphazzard in comparison. Kind of like You're online, good luck. I'm the first to admit that I am not an online gamer. I highly prefer the one-player experience and tend to gravitate towards one-player type games. But for people who are into the online aspects, Live is far superior to PSN, and that is a big selling point circa 2011. Of course, Microsoft being who they are, have a big advantage when it comes to online setup. Last edited by OG Pooh; 01-29-2011 at 04:48 PM.

01-29-2011, 06:23 PM	#13
Cevolution Banned Top ranked HT gallery Top contributor Member since:Nov 2010 Location:Sydney, Australia Home Theater Gallery:23 4K collection:668 Blu-ray collection:3104 Trading Score:8	One of the biggest mistakes Sony made was announcing that the ps3 would be expensive to the point where it would cost people 3 full weeks pay if they wanted one, such a stupid comment scared a lot of people off before the console was even released. Another big mistake was how differently the price of the console varied from country to country. Here in Australia when the ps3 was 1st released it had a price tag off $999au but it was only $599 in the U.S. Based on the value of the Australian dollar at the time we should have had a price tag of around $725au, which is $125 more than the U.S not $400. Plus we also were paying a much higher price for ps2 backwards compatibility which was done by software not hardware like some other regions had at the time (I understand that other countries went on to receive ps2 backwards compatibility via software but was quite a few months after Australia), but for $999au a lot of Australian's felt that we should have been getting exactly the same product as other countries for that kind of money. Last edited by Cevolution; 01-29-2011 at 06:37 PM.

01-29-2011, 03:23 PM	#2
bandit29 Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Jan 2009 Location:Chicago, IL Blu-ray collection:88 DVD collection:17 MA collection:3 Digital collection:117 Prime collection:1	Looking back... the PS3 really didn't need a memory card reader. It is nice to have but I've barely used mine. That would have cut the price there. Sony shouldn't have launched with two models. I thought that was a mistake from the start.

01-29-2011, 04:02 PM	#5
jsteinhauer Gaming Moderator Member since:Aug 2007 Blu-ray reviews:120 Trading Score:66	Actually, I always thought that during the HD optical media wars, Sony could have swung things in BD's favor much earlier, if they had put some PS3 guts into a component that looked like a DVD player, included an AV style remote control, and marketed it as a Blu-ray disc player that you could ALSO play games on, rather than a gaming console that looked like a console and also played movies. I think the price point of the PS3 was very competetive among BD and HDDVD players, but many simply did not want a game console, for a variety of different reasons. Those who were reluctant because they worried about obsolescence would have had those fears allayed. Seriously, the PS3 was a first generation BD movie player, and it has been able to remain up to date into the 3D era. Nothing else can come close. Furthermore, the PS3, especially the fat PS3, looks more like a toy than an AV component, which certainly turned some off.

01-29-2011, 04:56 PM	#10
SkillzthatKillz Special Member Member since:Feb 2008 Location:Cincinnati, OH Blu-ray collection:214 DVD collection:2 Trading Score:1	One thing I know they would do differently is launch the system with the dualshock 3 instead of the rumbleless sixaxis. As for the bd drive, I think they would launch it with one even though it drove the price up initially. The PS3 is the main reason that bd won the format war, plus it really gives game developers a lot more options when designing games. One thing they might do differently is use more standard "off the shelf" CPU/GPU components in the system. I love the cell processer as much as anyone, but from everything I've read it can be a royal pain in the ass to develop on and I know that a lot of devs hated it early on. If they would have used something more familiar to the industry, it would have helped early games look a lot better when compared to the xbox and it would have helped keep costs down

01-29-2011, 08:28 PM	#15
Oateyboat Special Member Member since:Feb 2009 Location:England, UK 4K collection:139 Blu-ray collection:406 Blu-ray reviews:1 Trading Score:4	Increased protection against hackers, I would think, with recent events

01-29-2011, 08:49 PM	#17
DonRSD Blu-ray Knight Member since:Jan 2009 Location:South Florida Home Theater Gallery:24 Blu-ray collection:254 Blu-ray reviews: 3 Trading Score:129	Coming from 360 and xbox live to psn, I don't see a difference in online gaming at all. 399 is the highest price point for a new system, anything more and you're asking for doom. Sent from my rooted EVO running CM6.1.2 using Tapatalk

01-29-2011, 08:57 PM	#18
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	Sony overdesigned the PS3 and got cocky, thinking the market would lap up anything they released. I really don't believe Sony saw the Wii and Xbox360 as any kind of threat, which in retrospect was a huge mistake. The decision to use CELL processing as the basis for the system was too soon. Choosing Blu-ray was an integrated strategy with all divisions of Sony, to help create a new home video standard to replace DVD. I doubt they make all the same decisions if they had known how the market was going to develop.

01-29-2011, 09:05 PM	#19
Mavrick Gaming Moderator Top contributor Member since:Dec 2008 Location:Wales Home Theater Gallery:121 4K collection:62 Blu-ray collection:813 iTunes collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:5 Trading Score:1	Pricing can be dificult. It cant be judged on a 5 year old consoles price. Inflation and rising taxes are the biggest problem. A snes was £300 at launch. If it were released today it would be around £600. a cinema ticket cost me £3.50 10 years ago. Today its £10.50! I think home consoles lifespans need to be extended past the 10 year life cycle. Useually around 5-6 years in next gen is anounced the year after its rel eased. then a 3-4 year period after the announcement until the old gen is left behind. We are only A YEAR away from the probable anouncements of the "next gen" of consoles and 2 away from their release. If it was extended to 15 years say, they could use the extra time to get production costs down meaning a cheaper launch price. Personally I could quite hAPPily carry on with PS3 another 4 years before even wanting a next gen console.

01-29-2011, 09:11 PM	#20
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	I think they might have gone with the revised model (no card readers, no PS2 compatibility) but I don't think they would have done more. Also the Wii sold incredibly well, but it sold to the none-gaming market, if you look at the gaming market the PS3 did not do badly, it did almost as well as the PS2.

Best PS3 Game Deals