When Sony said the PlayStation 3 had a 10-year lifespan, they meant it.

SCEE boss Andrew House has reasserted that claim, telling CVG that the 50 million units sold thus far is "just the start" for the company's flagship console. House says he always anticipated a lifespan of 10+ years and the only question is…how long is that "plus" part? In fact, 10 years is the minimum. Said House:

"What we've said many times before and we're confident about is we launched a device that is very, very powerful, that has a whole range of possibilities and that's at the very least a ten-year life-cycle. I know I'm guilty of repeating myself but I think it's always worth pointing out we're still selling PlayStation 2 in its millions around the world, 11 years after it was launched.

That's different markets and a different profile of consumers but there's still some vibrant demand. That for me bodes extremely well for where the potential of PS3 will go."

When asked if he thought Microsoft would soon release a console, House simply said- "I think that's a question for Microsoft to address rather than us." Most gamers will probably agree that the PS3 is just fine; we don't need the fourth PlayStation just yet, and most developers agree, too. But yeah, that's an interesting question: how far beyond 10 years might it go?

Subscribe
Notify of
64 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gangan19
gangan19
9 years ago

Oh god yes!

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I figure that we'll hear about a new console and see a final product in time for Holiday 2013/2014, but the PS3 will continue 5+ years beyond that eventual launch giving it a life of 12-14 years. The eventual sell through of PS3 will be well in excess of 100 million units.

godsman
godsman
9 years ago

5 years cycle simply isn't enough. To me PS2 is dead once PS3 is announced. Same theory, I don't want PS4 to be announced for another 3 years.

In the end, I think PS3 can sell 130 million, but by that time, I think gamers stopped caring that it outsold the Wii and Xbox.


Last edited by godsman on 6/15/2011 10:36:16 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Hold on, if a PS4 is announced in 2012, that's 6 years, and if it launches in 2013 that's 7 years. There's a limit to how long a system can stay current, and as good as everyone probably knows I think the PS3 is, it really can't stretch to 10 years and stay current.

raiden213
raiden213
9 years ago

If only my ps3 can last that long i'll believe him, do they even know lots of them don't last long as mine got yold just last month on its 3 1/2 year.

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

Lucky, mine only made it two and half years.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

Hehe that's actually a good point, I'm on my second PS3 now but unlike last time, next time it breaks it's not covered by the guarantee.

But one question is if it will keep going, another question is will there be released more games for it once the ps4 is out? There are no ps2 games released nowadays?


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/15/2011 10:30:29 PM

godsman
godsman
9 years ago

Three years for me and still going strong. I got the 40gig version.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

My original 60GB launch system dies after about 4 and a half years, and will be replaced by a refurb. My other is still going strong. To be honest, 5 years or more from one of these seems like a pretty good deal, I don't expect a $1000 PC to last any longer.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

The old 2008 fatty is still alive and kicking here. Just got to take care of her and not overplay.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

haha, I remember seeing a New PS3 60gb on Ebay worth the $1000.
They probably have them for more.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

Whoa… Alex. I know we can get away with blaming the scroll bar for a double post, but 16 is a bit excessive, don't ya think?

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

It's not the record, though. Someone posted the same comment over 20 times a few months ago.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

With all the up-to-36 hour marathon gaming sessions I've done on my launch day 60 Phat Princess, I'm surprised that she lasted all the way to this past March.

And the fact that I had bought her used at in late 09 at GameStop, & have no idea how many before me had fondled or mistreated her, that's really saying a lot about her will to live & longevity.

It's just a shame that she only needed a minor procedure, but a f*cking careless USPS Orangutang Hitman located out of their Package-Bunglers union had to go smash the last gasp of breath out of her young life, before she could reach her golden years.

And mark my words, the USPS will pay out on my $500 insurance claim!!!!(and that includes my future engagement party & all related wedding costs to another of my 60gb Phat Princesses many sensual sisters)

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Sadly Biker, my dead phat princess remained dead as she was beyond resuscitation. So now, it's contact Sony and arrange a 'service request' AKA trade her in for a Sony refurb.

ūüôĀ

PANICinc
PANICinc
9 years ago

@Beamboom
Don't ring the death bell for the PS2 just yet!

New games continue to be released for the PS2! Majority are sports games like Madden. But there are also kids games that also launch for the Wii, DS, and PSP that are available for PS2.

It's not dead yet! It feels happy! Wants to go for a walk!

Claire C
Claire C
9 years ago

If Microsoft releases the new xbox in 2013 I hope Sony is on their a** with the PS4 right behind. I don't want the xbox to get a year lead again.


Last edited by Claire C on 6/15/2011 10:32:27 PM

Scarecrow
Scarecrow
9 years ago

price my friend, price.

If ps4 is only %50 more than the next xbox gamers will go for the better console.

ps3's price was steep.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I'm sure the PS3 will have the same long life as the PS2 but I don't think it will sell as many units because the PS2 was virtually unopposed. DC died on the table (God rest its soul) and Xbox came late and didn't do well.

If MS offers a new console then maybe multiplat games can be up to PS3 snuff finally. I say Sony should take their time.

raiden213
raiden213
9 years ago

what sucks when my ps3 died i just got a new 3d plasma hdtv samsung(51pnd550)bundled w/ 2 pair of glasses and 1-4 shrek bluray movie, now the tv is just sitting there doing nothing since i had alot of expenses the past few weeks and don't have the extra $$ for a new system.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

I'm terribly sorry to hear about that… nobody should ever have to watch Shrek 1-4.

Eld
Eld
9 years ago

Here we go again.

I really can't understand these unrealistic expectations about ps3 "going strong" for a decade without ps4. Lack of interest in hardware progression is rather disappointing.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I believe it's called a smokescreen…Why tell the competition you're working on a new system if you can make them believe that it's years away?

Scarecrow
Scarecrow
9 years ago

10 years doable, ps2 is still selling to this day.

ps3 will definitely follow that playstation legacy of selling many years into the next generation.

4+ years and still kicking! I expect another 2 good years with ps4 coming out in 2013 or 2014.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

With rumours of MS popping the locks on the NeXtbox at E3 next year, Sony will need to play it smart. They either need to be right there alongside them, beating them in both release schedule and pricing, OR they need to wait a couple of years and offer a full generational leap over the neXtbox and the WiiU within only three years. I can believe ten years for the PS3. I mean, I won't believe that the system is done until every game looks as good as UC3 and GT5, and most games are a LOOOONG way from that.
Peace.

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

Wii U isn't next-generation. It's at best marginally more powerful than PS3.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

They're now touting it to be 50% more powerful than the PS3, but I never said that it was next-gen, but the neXtbox should be. The PS4 needs to leapfrog it in a far more dramatic fashion than the PS3 did the 360.


Last edited by Lawless SXE on 6/16/2011 6:35:01 AM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

If they wait two years beyond Microsoft (assuming Microsoft go next year), that will put their announcement squarely into 2014 which might be too long – even for the PS3. The PS3 arrived 6 years after the PS2 which was around 6 years beyond the PS1. with the economic recession and the fact that the PS3 was literally bleeding edge when it launched, I could see it going an extra year (7 years past launch) before the launch of the follow-up. But, the way technology has developed, 7 years is a lot longer today than 6 years was in 2006. I don't know if Sony can give it two years, and still have the PS3 remain relevant. That said, a two year gap between Microsoft and Sony would be preferable to a 1 year gap. Launching at the same time might be better still but each eventuality has it's own difficulties.

How about they do wait the extra year as you suggest, but get every major first party developer to commit to a launch exclusive for the new system so that even if 3rd party is patchy on day one, the console launches with a killer line-up, unmatched by the others?

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

Not every first party developer, as that would then cripple their efforts for a couple of years, but a good portion of them at least. I do agree that waiting for so long could be a bad move, but it all depends on the way that it gets handled. It also depends on what sort of uptake the 'next-gen' consoles get out of the market. If they manage 50 million apiece, then there'd be real issues, but if both only manage 20-30 million each (as is likely IMO) then Sony would again have a very good chance to overtake them. But that depends on what kind of 3rd party support they can muster. But publishers like putting games on every system, even if it means neutering them, so perhaps there isn't so much to worry about.

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

they are dreaming. this is not the ps2. all i know is sony better be right there and have a new system to go when the next ms system is ready. i find the lack of interest in hardware progression disturbing as well. blah, blah. we built it for ten yrs yet gave it a tiny 512 mb of memory.

Kiryu
Kiryu
9 years ago

aren't u satisfied with the graphics of the uncharted series?
I want to see more games come from japan especially now with that potential.This generation is still not done sir.
HD is what ruined this generation's developers creativeness.


Last edited by Kiryu on 6/16/2011 5:29:16 AM

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

i just don't like the idea of a 10 yr console cycle. that's a long, long time as far as advancements in computer technology go. is this really even the true hd era? there are still a ton of games out there that run at sub hd resolutions, and slow frame rates. hardly any games at 60 fps. i would just like to see the promise of 1080p, and 60 fps fully realised.

how much more are developers going to be able to squeeze out of a system with only 512 mb of ram? only 256mb of vram is a problem. 10 yrs is really pushing it.

i imagine the ps3's got maybe a couple of years left in it. they might still make them after that, but it will be sold alongside the ps4. very few games, if any will be made for it.

i think sony should be ready to luanch the ps4 as soon as ms next system is ready. they can't afford to let ms get out in front again. sony already has uphill fight on their hands becuase of way things have turned out in na.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

But Excelsior, it isn't really a ten year CONSOLE cycle that they're touting, it's a ten year LIFE cycle. Basically, repeating what the PS2 has managed to do. Thing is though, if Sony play it smart and somehow bump up the install base of the PS3 to 100 million (a tough ask, I admit but possible) before the release of their next console, developers are more likely to support it as software sales will stay strong while they acclimatise to the new development environment on the PS4.

Even if there is a two year overlap, that gives the PS4 eight years from the launch of the PS3, which is still three years away. That'll likely be two years out from the launch of both of their competitors systems, which according to Hobson's(?) Law, dictates that it should be twice as powerful at a similar launch price point. Admittedly, the others will be much cheaper by then, but do you not think that a lot of developers would migrate over to the more powerful hardware to test their mettle and creativity?

Taking this route could go either way, but it's up to Sony to either muscle their opposition that way, or beat MS to the punch with an earlier, cheaper and more powerful device, as I mentioned above.
Peace.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Lawless,

If the PS3 closes 2012 as the main Sony video game console, and if they drop the price again this year to $249.99 – which i honestly expect in the autumn – then they'll sell past 65 million units by the end of FY12, and possibly 80+ million by the end of FY13. If they announce a new console during FY13, and drop the PS3 to $200 (which I doubt, $249.99 seems to me to be about the low point, but you never know), then we could see 100 million PS3 units by the time the PS4 launched in FY14. By the time they stop making the PS3, I expect it will sell past 120 million – perhaps more.

If the PS4 is an evolution of the PS3, I could see the following happen.

1st party games get released in three versions. 1080p running on the PS4, 720p running on PS3 and the Vita version, on the Vita of course. The dev environment on the Vita is said to facilitate easy movement of assets and high level code from the PS3 dev environment. Home and PSN in general will remain as a consistent part of the Playstation Brand and environment. If the PS4 is a development of the PS3 technology, Sony might be able to set up their development environment to allow games to easily scale down from PS4 to the PS3 and Vita. That would let them pitch things in such a way that the PS3 represents the base level of PlayStation, PS Vita is the mobile element and PS4 is the premium gaming platform, all combined across PSN an Home both of which are platforms in their own right.

If such a scaleable development environment worked well enough, you might never see a new Playstation – as such, but rather you would simply have three PlayStation SKUS that could all play the same games, but scaled to their respective market segment. PS3 would represent the 720p and sub HD 'cost sensitive' market. PS3 would represent the full 1080p HD 'premium' market and the Vita of course has the handheld market – though the PSP might continue in more cost sensitive markets in the developing world as well.

In a sense you have this now with the PS2 representing the lower resolution cost sensitive market, the PS3 has the HD premium market, and PSP is PSP. If Sony managed to pull that trick off, you could see the PS3 eventually sell more than even the PS2 has.

Incidentally Microsoft is rumored to be bringing a new Xbox360 based on a System on a chip design, where the Xenon and Xenos CPU/GPU heart of the 360 are on a single piece of silicon along with their RAM. It would produce a very inexpensive 360 motherboard and increase reliability considerably. It may be that the big announcement from MS next year could be the introduction of that system.

Sony could pull a similar trick with the PS3, but with the memory probably kept off the same chip. Both would be much less expensive to make then the existing chipsets and would be easier to cool and more reliable. Such a system on a chip design might also pave the way for the system on a chip to become a service processor in a new console…

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Moore's law.

The number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years.

The amount of computing power a given processor has depends on many factors, such as the efficiency of the design, the number of execution units, the number of cores and the clock speed (to name a few). If you double the number of transistors available each two years, a CPU can double the number of cores every two years, Just with design improvements and doubling the cores, you see more than a twofold increase in performance every two years. With shrinking transistor size and improved design/power efficiency, chips get faster and cooler as well. So that a mature processor design in it's third iteration might have two or four times as many cores, 50% better clock rate and use a fraction of the power of the original.

If you look at processor generations, the rate of acceleration of performance has increased at an even faster rate, perhaps doubling every 18 months. A lot of that has had to do with clock speeds. But clock speeds have hit an upper bound in the 3-4GHz range. You can go faster, but it produces a lot of heat, and requires very well made, components using extremely small geometry – such as 32nm or less manufacturing. So the practical limit is the 3-4GHz range. Now that the clock speed has effectively maxed out, we are left with improving designs, adding cores and processing elements and multi-processing. As we get closer to the physical limits of silicon, we are also having to recognize that we can't simply keep throwing more components at a single chip – they become very difficult to make with a good success rate, and very expensive.

In the last 10 years, performance of systems has doubled every 1-1.5 years. If you compare the benchmarks for a 1GHz Pentium III (2000) to a 6 core i7-990X running at more or less 3.5GHz today, just multiplying the number of cores and clock speeds you net a 21 fold increase in power. But the i7 cores are far, far more capable than the PIII ever was. Based on the available benchmarks, the i7990X of today (Intel's best) is 58 times faster in terms of integer operations, and a whopping 83 times faster for floating point operations. that's comparing the best i7 of today against the best PIII of 2000. If you normalize the clocks, that means that a 6 core i7 is clock for clock between 17 and 23 times faster than a PIII due to it's additional cores, execution units and design improvements. Doubling every 1.5 years you'd get about a 49 fold increase in power. So Intel, for example, is well ahead of that curve in both Integer and floating point.

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that a 10 year gap between systems has historically been a really, really long time.

All of that said, because we are hitting certain fundamental limits with the technology, that acceleration is starting to slow down. The industry is having to look to multi-processing, multiple cores, multiple execution units and parallelism to find performance improvements. The next generation processor used by Sony might – for instance, have two PowerPC cores and 16SPU cores. With performance gains due to design improvements, the number of cores doubling and perhaps a modest clock bump to 3.5GHz, you might see upwards of 4 times the overall performance, with better gains in the floating point math than in the general PowerPC performance. If the number of PowerPC cores went from 1 to 4 with 16 or more SPUs we'd see a 4-6 times increase in system performance – or rather computing power.

There are other factors in system performance and this doesn't even begin to touch on the work being done with GPU designs. But you can see that there are a lot of things to consider when thinking about the potential performance difference between a modern CPU and a Cell (or even Xenon) of 5-6 years ago.

I actually wrote a ton more, but realized this was becoming not just an essay, but a thesis. So I cut it shrt. I'm happy to continue the discussion on the forums though.