The PS2 is the most popular video game system in history, and with well over 140 million units sold worldwide now, it's kinda difficult to see the PlayStation 3 ever reaching that number. But in terms of a life cycle, Sony thinks the PS3 can live even longer than the PS2.
The PS3 currently sits at about 24 million sold and we're nearly 3 years into the console's lifespan. But even so, analysts expect big sales spikes thanks to the recent price drop and introduction of the new PS3 Slim, and more importantly, those experts are predicting a sustained increase in sales. Plus, you've got the ever-rising popularity of Blu-Ray and the Network, and of course, the games. So perhaps it's not so far-fetched to believe the PS3 will "significantly outpace" the PS2 in the future, but even if it doesn't in terms of sales, it will in terms of years; so said SCE Europe head man Andrew House during a recent Edge interview :
"If you look at the PS2, still in some markets going very strong, especially in North America in its tenth year on the market, we still can't predict where that lifecycle will end. I have a theory that with successive generations, and with more value added and built into the console in terms of experience – and let's not forget that the PS2 really didn't offer a tremendously robust network experience – that what you effectively do is potentially lengthen that lifecycle more and more as you get to the next iteration."
For our part, there certainly is a long way to go; the PS2 launched a decade ago and who knows where we'll be in 2016? Maybe the PS3 will be in 200 million homes by then…or maybe it'll never break 100 million. But the point House wants to make is that they'll still be selling the PS3 in 2016 and beyond, which would favorably compete with the PS2's long-running lifespan.
Yeah, but that does not mean that their will not be a PS4 available on shelves in 2016.
that's good. i like the ps3. that means i dont have to buy another console and just enjoy the games that are continuously being released. there's actually TOO MANY games being release from now to next june, IMO (which isnt bad at all). but im not rich or have that kind of time ya know.
why make a new tech when the current tech hasnt reached its max level?
wonder how much the next gens cost when they are released… 600? *sigh*
2016 is only 7 years, that's going to fly by..especially if you try and keep up with all the great games that are coming..lol.
And with Sony the only system right now able to put so much information on 1 disc, I think they can just focus on selling the PS3 and wait to see what the others are going to do. The questions is though, does anyone think that the PS3 will be able to outsell the PS2?
Or, even though it's sales numbers are dropping, will the Wii be able to knock the PS2 out of it's spot?
Last edited by CH1N00K on 9/4/2009 2:24:10 PM
PS4 better be PS3 BC.
Do what I do, make a list of the games that look good, buy a couple, then as you start beating them move to the next on your list.
If you can't keep up, that's good, because maybe a year later, the game will have fallen to $20, and it'll have saved you cash.
I wouldn't count on backward compatibility unless a new system is basically a faster/expanded version of the same hardware (e.g. a 24-48 SPU Cell B.E. @ 4.8GHz and 'RSX2'???)…or at least the new hardware being designed to 'assist' software emulation (e.g. the 'RSX2' having native support for RSX and PS2 Graphics Synthesizer instructions). Pure software emulation requires WAY more processing power (usually estimated at least 10x that of the hardware being emulated) and is often still kinda glitchy.
That and if they find that people will still pay money to re-download all the old games they loved, there won't be any point to bringing B/C back.
That's what I'm afraid is going to happen. Games are already being downloaded onto the PS3 that are PS1 and PS2 classics, by the time PS4 comes out, they might say "we could do B/C but what you would have to pay for it, we'll leave it out, and you can rebuy all your old favourites again and download them."
And you know we will.
There's downloadable PS2 games on PSN?
@ World / xnonsuchx
I expect PS4 to use some form of the Cell chip (or some combination of Cell chips), so it wouldn't be as expensive to include BC as it was on PS3. Whether there will be an easy solution for the RSX remains to be seen, however.
Downloadable PS1 (and PS2) games REQUIRE software emulation to be working on the PS3; they aren't an alternative to BC, they are an offshoot of it. Why don't people understand this?
Though they could do like they are doing with GOW1&2, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/4/2009 7:29:29 PM
The next Xbox might be interesting to see what they do with it…AFAIK, IBM hasn't been doing anything more w/ the Xenon CPU the 360 uses, so the next Xbox could have to be a totally different architecture (back to Intel???).
No, I don't think that there are any PS2 games on the PSN yet..but you know they are coming.
I wasn't necessarily talking about the techniques of how BC is made, I was talking about the sales side of it. If Sony could make a few more bucks off of a game that's already been made, they'll do it. PS1 games are now on the PSN, I'm sure PS2 games will be coming…and they can be played on PS3's that don't have B/C, if you download them.
But if the price of putting B/C into the PS4 will be cheaper then this time around, maybe we will see some B/C. How cool would it be to have a system that plays all the games from PS1-PS4?
Yes, Sony would love to sell those games again.
No, PS2 games can't play on PS3s without some form of BC, not now, not ever. It's not freaking magic; the system can either run a game coded to run on the PS2 or it can't. It doesn't matter HOW you get the game (on-disc or DLC).
The PS3 and the PSP both have emulators to run PS1 games, which is why they can run the PS1 classics (and the PS3 can run PS1 discs). For either system to run a PS2 download, it would need to have a hardware or software solution to emulating the PS2.
Yes, it would be totally cool (might as well throw in PSP games as well).
Last edited by Fane1024 on 9/5/2009 5:10:08 PM
Even in 2016 the PS3 will still have a fair amount of processing power.
To me it seems lately a lot of games have been coming out that can be beaten in 5-6 hours (such as Heavenly Sword). Rather than see the next gen console with even better graphics, I'd rather see longer games. I have no problem still playing my PS3 in 2016.
I agree. Graphics have reached a point that slight details are gone unnoticed. I want to play a game and play it for the story (MGS for example) or for the endless multiplayer value (Tekken for example).
I agree, we need longer games. Also, more engaging stories are very much needed since gaming is now competting with the movie industry imo, we are starting to see these great stories in the Uncharted series and Heavy Rain.
Given that the ps2 is still selling, it's likely the ps3 will indeed have a longer life span. There's still many parts of the world where the ps3 can tap into once they become capable of online gaming and interaction. I think that the ps3's full potential is yet to be realized/reached.
Its fair to assume that with each generation quality games are taking longer to develop 3-5 years, so we'll actually hear about a new platform well before one comes to market. One would definetly need titles to launch with.
I'm always happy of Sony's commitment to previous generations I be playing the PS3 for as long as it's supported with or without a PS4.
Having the hardware change too fast is no good. Not now that so much money and time has to be invested into games and the hardware to run it. 10 years should be a minimum.
IBM are moving forward well with the cell so another 8 years or whenever they lock down the spec it will be very meaty.
PS3 has sold roughly 10 million units a year. If the price cut elevates sales by an average of 60% consistently, then that will average at 16 million units a year.
NPD thinks the Slim model and price cut lift PS3 sales by 40-60%. If we go with a 50% jump we could see the following (Excel is a great tool)… PS3 sales in year 4 up by 50% over year 3 (10 million units), in year 5 the sales rise another 10%. Year 6, sales are steady, and then in years 7, 8 and 9 sales start declining 20% year on year before dropping by 50% in year 10. That scenario has Sony selling 111 million units by the end of year 10. Making the sales spike sharper, and decline a little faster still gives around 110 million units over 10 years.
To me, if the PS3 even hit's 100 million units, then no matter what anyone says, it's a win for Sony.
It could be better than that though. The market for video games and game consoles is bigger than ever. Far bigger than when the PS2 was on it's way to 140 million units. That market continues to grow as consumers in many developing nations become affluent enough to join in. The transition to HD is another factor. The PS3 is in a perfect place to be the HD entertainment player of choice since it does literally everything needed. It plays games, it plays HD movies on disc (BD) and can streem/download movies online, it browses the net, it plays CDs, it plays DVDs, it plays downloaded music, it does photos, and so on, and so forth. I know we all know this stuff. I listed it to justify saying that the PS3 could be the HD entertainment player of choice. If the PS3 becomes a default choice for HD in the home, then sales way past 100 million units are well within reach.
Whatever way you cut it, the PS3 is here to stay and will sell at very least a significant fraction of 100 million units during it's life – worst case.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/4/2009 11:13:15 AM
Very impressive, I look forward to seeing where the PS3 stands in the future. I will be contributing to the sales since I want another unit for the bedroom.
I'm sure the PS3 will still be going for another 15 years or more. If the PS4 does come out (I'm pretty sure it will because photo realism graphics haven't been achieved yet) The PS3 should be able to survive half-way through the PS4 life cycle. That's what the PS2 is doing right now with the PS3. Of course I might wrong, but it would make sense. I just wonder what the PS4 would be capable of…
A lot of folks think the PS4 will be an evolution of the PS3. Basically a unit that's several times faster than a PS3, but still compatible with the PS3.
so according to your [regression] model, life is good. lol
Definitely, I also checked the Chi distribution…LOL!
indeed, the student's T-test is also in Sony's favor; says the probability of making up for los revenue is very high. lol!
I dont think PS3 will ever sell as much as PS2. The PS2 has issues in the beginning, where gamers purchased more than 1 PS2's in their lifetimes. PS3 is too reliable. It might not fail to require a second purchase.
Microsoft has droped the resolution limit for the xbox which means, they are afraid of RROD or maybe it means that they cannot compete with PS3 in terms of performance.
So, Microsoft is basically abandoning the HD arena? Their so called HD movie streaming isn't HD, there's no BluRay drive, and now their games don't even have to try to hit 720p? Oh yeah, and they stopped shipping the 360 Elite with an HDMI cable, opting for composite video instead.
I guess that leaves Sony as the only HD game in town now.
I know MW2 is going under 720p, this is a bad trend.
Only MS would take the HDMI cable out of a package to save a buck. Jeez.
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 9/4/2009 3:19:26 PM
uh, the ps3 doesn't come with a hdmi cable either..
So much good news surrounding Sony lately. It's good to be a PS3 owner.
There's a little spat going on with sales numbers for Europe. Sony says they're a million units ahead and Microsoft says, no they are a million units ahead.
Microsoft claims that Sony counts shipments not sales, and they count consoles in consumer hands. They also say that Sony also counts more countries as 'Europe'.
Apparently VG Charts shows that both are just under 10 million units in Europe, with the PS3 a mere 250k units behind. That of course ignores the impact of RROD related deaths among 360s and the fact that in Europe, the PS3 has been on sale for a whole 15 months less time.
Personally I think it is fair to say that in terms of world wide sales excluding North America, the PS3 has sold more than the Xbox 360. Funny though that the gaming media still portray things a little differently, almost as if the US market was the world….
Of course The Wii is still comfortably ahead of both, and the PS2 makes all of them look poor.
"almost as if the US market was the world…."
Exactly, and that's just the problem.
Yes, I wonder how many new gamers were brought into the industry since last gen. How many more potential buyers are there for the PS3?
"Microsoft claims that Sony counts shipments not sales, and they count consoles in consumer hands."
Wow. Pot…kettle. That's FoxNews-worthy spin.
2016 huh, well dang that just killed my idea of ps4 ending the world it's graphics were so good.
The way Sony has been approaching things I think well see the PS4 latter as a download only console, while still supporting the PS3 as a disc based console. Just like the PSP Go!
The PS3 will still be going strong through the PS4 life cycle, because a lot of people prefer physical media. Not to mention the rest of the consoles will still be playing catch up to the PS3 graphical capability.
Last edited by iGraves1 on 9/4/2009 2:15:13 PM
Actually I don't think the PS4 games will be digital, mainly because of the size of the games. Even if they were 50GB max most people STILL wont have the speed to download them without having to wait for hours.
However I do think that they will keep the Blu-ray drive because the size limit on blu-ray disks have already gone beyond 50GB. I'm not completetly sure about this but I heard that (multi-layered) Blu-ray disks can store up to 500GB or more! (maybe even 1T!) Obviously these are not normal Blu-ray disks and I'm guessing the Blu-ray player will have to be modified. So perhaps the PS4 will be made to support these disks.
So basically I don't think physical media will go away completely for a long time, and i really mean a long time such as 40 years? (just a guess)
You have a point, I forgot about those multi-layered Blu-ray disc. I heard the PS3 can play them already with a simple firmware update, so the PS4 wont come along for quite some time.
That and Sony's not going to kill the Blu-Ray after spending all this money on getting it to market. They'll push it as long as they can.
Pioneer has shown multi-layer blu-ray with 16 and 20 layers. That gives capacities of 400GB and 500GB respectively. They stated that the optics of the laser and lens are within the specification of existing blu-ray players, but it seems that there is also some level of proprietary hardware involved in reading the deeper layers.
That said, the BluRay specifications layout the format in a way that is expandable. This means that many existing BluRay devices may be able to go to 4 or more layers with a simple firmware update. That would open up capacities of 100+GB even if the more exotic Pioneer system isn't immediately compatible.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/5/2009 12:29:06 AM
I have no doubt that PS3 will last that long, the system is built like a tank and Sony doesnt' rush anything they take their time which helps the console to last longer.
Bearing in mind there is still room for more price cuts down the line this IS possible. If in 4-5 years it drops to 200 because the tech is once again cheaper to make it'll fly off shelves especially with everyone's Xbox720 being a brick.
indeed, just let the console stay and focus on making more and more true ps3-matched games, we will have a bunch coming in the next year or so, this is just the beginning of the immense ps3 game waves
I see no reason to release a PS4 any time before 2016. Looking at games like Uncharted 2, R&CF:ACIT, GOW3 and GT5 and the fact that none of these games are being blown away by any other game on any other platform tells me that it's way too early to even start thinking about a PS4. When you look at previous generations when the PS and PS2 were launched it didn't take long before most PC games started looking better. That's not the case with the PS3, only Crysis on the PC looks better than any PS3 game and even then we're not talking way better and we're 3 years into the PS3's lifespan.
PS3 launched in 2006. PS2 launched in 2000, and the PS1 hit Japan in 1994. That's six years between launch and the successor arriving.
I think that this generation will be a little different because this time the PS4 is likely to be a more evolutionary design building on the PS3 instead of entirely replacing it. IMHO of course. A totally new architecture again would be very costly, and I think Sony may have learned something from the Pain of the PS3. There is a Cell BE processor Roadmap that clearly lays out the future of the cell that includes a version of the cell with 4 PPUs and 32 SPUs. I'd be surprised if it didn't have a compatibility mode for the original Cell BE to ensure software compatibility.
We could see a new PlayStation by 2012. I don't think we will wait until 2016 for a new PlayStation, IMHO the PS4 is most likely to arrive between 2012 and 2014. I think that Sony will have room for maneuver this time because the PS4 will evolve the PS3 design. That process is much faster than starting over from scratch, and will allow Sony to be more responsive to the market, and their competitors.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 9/5/2009 12:51:21 AM
You may be right. Let's say Sony does release a PS3.5 around 2012 when games still look pretty good on the PS3 wont Sony have a hard time convincing people to upgrade? Especially when you consider there are allot of PS2 owners who still have yet to upgrade to this generation.
If it's a PS3.5 then it'll just be a replacement for the premium SKU at first, and then a replacement for the PS3 completely once it drops in price. I think that the difference in specification and power will be enough to call it a PS4 and price it appropriately. For one thing, the BluRay drive will not cost more than $300, which will help keep the build costs under control.
If you had the choice between a console that did it's graphics with real time ray tracing at 1080p resolution or the PS3, which would you pick? The next generation Cell CPU is very likely to be powerful enough to manage real time ray tracing at a reasonable resolution.
If the PS4 is capable of doing real time ray tracing, that will probably be the last big step taken to improve graphics. From the images I saw, ray tracing can produce photo realistic graphics, but you will need a LOT of power to pull it of in real time. But the success of the PS3 depends on it. And we still have a long way to go before we see what the PS3 is capable of. Damn, I'm thinking too much about the future aren't I?
Being a hardcore gamer and a tech enthusiast I would love for the PS4 to release in 2012, that's only three years from now. A PS4 with a 4PPU/32SPU Cell, an upgraded GPU and 8 gigs of RAM would be sweet and would be enough of an upgrade to be called a PS4. And if the PS4 can do real-time ray tracing the graphics would be a significant upgrade over the PS3.