You already know that Nintendo will have a new console (Wii U) in 2012, but what about its competitors? Well if Bitmob’s source is to be believed then you can expect a new PlayStation in about 18 months (Q1 2013). According to the site:
An anonymous source shared a quote with me, direct from what they described as a “high-level meeting” at Sony: “PlayStation 4 in 18 months.”
My source — who, I hasten to add, isn’t a neophyte, an outsider, a gossip, a fake, or a show-off — remains convinced for excellent reasons, and I trust that conviction. PlayStation 4 in 18 months. Done deal.
Some of you will recall that the PlayStation 3 launched in November 2006 and that Sony has been adamant about the console having a 10-year lifespan. Launching and supporting a new system would detract from that. Then again, Sony has had a rough (though still successful) outing with the PS3. Perhaps it might be wiser to start anew and learn from its mistakes this generation in order to dominate once more.
What do you think? What are the chances of the PlayStation 4 hitting in 2013? Is Bitmob’s source believable or is it just a bunch of hot air?
I think advancements in the mobile space including cheaper content makes a 10 year life cycle too long. So yes, I agree it needs to come out sooner rather than later.
This caught me off guard. Smartguy's reasoning makes sense, but I'm still thinking of our discussion on the hardware keeping release dates for both Xbox and Playstation next gen consoles close to 2014 and doubting this theory. Hopefully there will be more news/gossip on this theory soon.
Yeah, I feel that a 10 year life cycle on a consumer electronic is too long now. I wouldn't consider a game console a major purchase, so every 5 years at most seems about right. I just think things have changed since these antiquated machines were designed a decade ago.
Especially with the mobile side of things moving so quickly right now it is hard to justify some of the hardware in current gen consoles, I get that. At some point though there has to be a limit on how many different machines we as consumers will keep putting money into every few years. A 10 year life cycle for a console sounds great on my wallet. If we have to keep replacing desktops, laptops, consoles, tv's, etc.
I would consider a console a major purchase considering it won't be relevant for as long. In comparison to a dishwasher or a washer and dryer it is not as much of a major household purchase, but the 5 year life cycle you are talking about is 1/4 the expectancy I have for the other purchases.
A 10 year life cycle does seem to be a little long from a hardware perspective, but I still have to think of it in terms of what is affordable. Ex) I want a new laptop right now and I'm having a hard enough time justifying the purchase of a new one, even for all the flaws it has. If I'm wanted to buy into a 5 year life cycle I need to see a reasonable decrease in price comparatively (xbox, xbox 360, PS3). My eyes can look at all the stuff that's out there, but if my wallet can't afford those things then it simply can't happen for me.
I'd consider a major purchase being a long term purchase…appliances, hot water heater, gas grill, etc.
How many machines will people buy? Look at how often people buy smartphones. Granted there is a subsidy but the new devices won't sell any slower because they're priced at $300. $200-$300 is a sweetspot for a 24-30 month investment in a consumer electronic.
I really think the new mobile markets are going to push MS, and Sony to release updated hardware earlier than anticipated and have the machines be compatible with their old libraries. I really can't see MS saying that XBLA titles purchased for the 360 no longer work on the new model. Sony will have to do the same.
I always thought the adjective of "future proof" was stupid when applied to the PS3.
As far as the lower price…I agree. $500 is way too much and $400 is even too much. The games are $60 and the online content priced at 20-30 probably has a higher margin by far. I tend to be an early adopter of tech, but I'm not jumping on the next gen if the price exceeds $300 at launch. I'll just wait and let the crap titles be overhyped and then purchase once the price is right.
While replying to this I began to think of the last time I used any of my consoles. It's been a while.
-"$200-$300 is a sweetspot for a 24-30 month investment in a consumer electronic. "-
Only with smartphones. Nobody is gonna through down that kind of cash for a Norelco shaver. And an iPad at that price is a steal.
With consoles, we want them to play until we get bored which is potentially for the rest of our lives. If someone offered me an Xbox 360 for $200 and guaranteed me it would red ring in 30 months… I wouldn't take it.
Maybe I'm reading your analogy wrong though.
EDIT: Fore!
If that were the case you never would have bought a new console.
Considering a smartphone costs 200-300 plus about 80 per month..the costs are the same if not more. I think every 36 months is a good way to go for consoles. 10 years is way too long. Maybe I just like things to continue looking better and better and become more expansive. I will admit I am a picky gamer at times.
Edit: With consoles we pay a premium for content, therefore I expect a better experience overall than a changing UI. With that Shaver the cost to use it isn't eclipsed by cleaning solution. The bored sentiment is relative however and can't be applied across the board I believe.
The bored sentiment is absolutely relative when it comes to anything that has to do with entertainment. Just because there is absolutely no way to measure it and equate it into the bottom line doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You're right that it's relative… but it shows up everywhere eventually. That's why I'm not still only playing my NES that I got for Christmas in 3rd grade.
It's like trying to say that greed is relative and doesn't apply when trying to come up with a national economic policy.
3 years is way too short because most developers don't even begin to use 3/4 of the potential of new consoles until 5 or 6 years later. Think about it.
36 months is when you get a new PC. Consoles are a different market simply based on where in the home and how they are used. I gave my kids a 360 and a Wii. No way in hell I would get them a badass PC at their ages.
I think we could find a happy middle simply by making console tech modifiable to allow advancements. Remember how the N64 had that red jumper pack that basically turned your 64 into a 68? That theory… on crack. Boards, CPU's, GPU's, Storage (in whatever form), etc. Just design the console so that it's easy as hell to swap the parts in and out.
You are ignoring the backwards aspect of the machine I mentioned.
It does not take 5 years to max out or figure out a console. Maybe years ago when game programming on the scale it is now was still growing, but not now. Look what Carmack was able to do with 3GS hardware. That was relatively quick.
I'm just saying, the conventions of the N64 and PS1 gen are no longer applicable. Time has passed those ideas up.
Then why is it that in the first 3 years of PS3's life the only person to really take it to the hilt was Hideo Kojima?
Nintendo proved that consumers just want cheap thrills. If you wanna talk short console lifespan, here's $150 sitting in the closet or propping up a window after 2 months.
The quality of the hardware as in your Wii example doesn't fit. The 360 was obsolete 3 years after release. The PS3 much the same.
Hideo had unlimited funds to make that game.
The PS3 was/is farther from obsolete than either of the other 2, but everything you said was true… I just thought that was a given and was past that.
Lesser quality tech makes for cheaper consoles which Big N proved the majority of consumers want more than the current tech limit.
PC gaming and console gaming are different animals for different demographics. The PC gamers can upgrade their rigs and console gamers can't… which is what made me think of the happy middle.
What works for you or me doesn't exactly work for everyone. For example… I hate seafood and won't eat any creatures that came from that medical waste dump site we call the ocean. If I'm at the only food joint for miles and the choices are 3 lbs of shrimp for $1 or 18 oz of sirloin fot $10…
I'm getting steak or starving.
But back to the point… Why wouldn't a company capitalize on the cheaper tech for as long as they can first?
Easy answer: Things like OnLive, Apple TV, and Google TV are not going to allow a 10 year life cycle on a machine. Considering there are big announcements on scheduled times throughout the year, a game company such as Sony, MS, and Nintendo can't stand by 10 year old equipment. They also can't capitalize on cheaper tech as in gens past due to increased competition.
We can look at the Wii and see that it sold a boat load. We can also argue that once the Kinect and Move were made public that they helped stem the sales of the Wii. Nintendo however hit 2 birds with one stone. They brought in new consumers in addition to gaining interest as a "healthy" alternative in gaming habits. We all hear (stereotype of course) how gamers are overweight slobs who never see the light of day. Bravo for them finding a way to win those people over.
What NIntendo also proved is that people want higher tech games. Compare Wii game sales to those of the competition. Horribly low attachment rates.
The happy medium would be great. The manufacturers would have to do a better job at creating an ecosystem that doesn't leave past systems out of the loop though.
Sirloin over shrimp really??? I don't eat beef so I guess you know what I'd choose for a buck!
Btw, I'm enjoying this. The weather is bad and I can't go anywhere. I also fully understand that I'm in the minority here but feel my side is just as valuable. I'm surprised Ray hasn't popped in trying to tell me I'm ignorant :P
Nah, you're actually making a real point today. Both of you are making interesting points, some of which I agree with and others that I don't. Ultimately, it's too soon to say much about how consoles will play out. There's a ton of change in the near future and too many variables that can change quickly. The next generation of consoles could be drastically different from the last fee generations depending on broadband conditions. I agree with Epic Mike Capps that the old way of doing console business is coming to an end.
I consider all of my points real. Thanks for the endorsement otherwise. I'll be sure to disagree on principle in the future.
I agree that 10 years is too long, but I like the idea that when I buy a console at launch that it's going to be up to date for at least 7 years.
I think giving a developer less than 5 years to adapt to the tech is unfair and can only create shovelware.
For me, I have my Mac setup for graphic arts and music. I've played a few games on it (Bully, CODMW, Oblivion, Bioshock… and some others) but I really didn't like it and really only did it because I got the games for free. I'd much rather be laying in my bed with my favorite drink and smoke while playing games. So, that's what makes me a console gamer.
Also… if the cow came out of the ocean… I wouldn't eat the sirloin either. You do realize that the ocean is salty due to all the things that have pissed, shit, died, and had sex in there since the beginning of Earth… right?
… And that, kids, is why sharks are pissed off all the time.
-M
That, and the fact that 5 rows of teeth and no floss could amount to some serious toothaches.
I think 5 years is plenty of time. This need for 10 years to get acclimated with old hardware is too antiquated. Perhaps using the memory controller on a cartridge based system took time to figure out, or how to cache data from a dvd..but that is all old hat now. What if our computer tech never increased due to a set life cycle with a secondary reason that it is fair for developers? Pretty lame. I think compared to everything else, the console industry is actually in a legacy model by comparison. Bordering on cable company stubbornness.
You do realize that the engineered crap fed to chickens, cows, and pigs isn't any cleaner than what's in the ocean? I don't care for beef or pork. I can sometimes eat chicken. I eat a lot of fish.
Might as well have your own garden. haha.
I've always thought that graphics in a game were secondary to gameplay. To me, a game can look like a god damn video during gameplay but if it's boring, I'm selling it or throwing it away soon. If I can't have fun playing it, then all that's left is something pretty to watch in which case there's a whole other industry dedicated to that.
I think this mentality stems from my roots of old school fighting games, balls, and guns. I also love beat 'em ups. Was never an RPG guy (with exceptions). Most of the RPG guys I knew growing up cared alot more about graphics than I ever did. However, It's rather difficult from time to time to play certain games from last gen and earlier since I'm now spoiled.
Half of the point is that I never sunk days or months into games that went 600% effort toward the graphics of it's respective time so I tend to get spoiled come the new gen when everything is up to that par. So I don't crave it anytime soon since all I see is something new to throw money at.
The other half is… if I was more of an RPG and graphics guy… I'd probably want it sooner too, but understand why I can't have it, and put more time and money into PC gaming.
And I feel the need to make this clear… NOTHING is dirtier than the ocean. It's a massive pool on top of the deepest, darkest, dirtiest dirt the world has to offer. I totally understand the hormones and other gross things we do to animals for our consumption. But see, when they make that gross stuff… there's an even grosser byproduct left over. That stuff… GET'S DUMPED IN THE OCEAN!!!!
America alone is bad… think about what Mexico does with their coastline.
The saddest part is that I really want to start eating kelp. This is a plant that grows extremely fast so it's very noticeable within a day and doesn't have a root structure. Eating it has to be amazingly healthy and has proven such. My problem is… every time I look at it, I think of the nasty ass ocean.
I've gone swimming in the ocean recently though for my kids because I'll do anything for my kids. And I also understand that what I think is gross is my problem and I can deal with that. Especially when it comes to making sure my kids know what undercurrent is and don't fall victim to it.
Other than that, you'd have to pay me well to swim in any natural body of water. Living by Lake Erie ruined lakes as well.
We all have our quirks. I think milk disgusts me more than anything else food related.
Agree on the gameplay aspect. Not everything I play has the cutting edge graphical fidelity, but the gameplay requires a good system regardless. Look up vids of League of Legends, the gfx aren't BF3 or Mass Effect quality necessarily, but there is a lot going on.
I used to not feel this way honestly. It all started when i got RDR for christmas.
I can't drink a glass of straight milk mainly because I don't like how it feels going down or coagulating in my stomach. But I eat lots of food with milk in it. And I'll tear up ice cream. I always put cream in my coffee, but I prefer the non-dairy powder. Mainly because I like the consistency the powder makes my coffee over pouring cold liquid in it.
The thing about RDR is that it really is a different skin with a few different mechanics tweaks over a different game. It wasn't supposed to be groundbreaking… just fun and slightly different. I feel Rockstar apologized for that with L.A. Noire. They pushed like 3 different envelopes with that game, all of which addressed common complaints with Rockstar games.
For me… I love hogtying as many people as possible, laying them on the tracks, and watching the train explode all of them one after the other. I was sold the second I saw the lasso.
Milk is good. You're also talking to someone who did some growing up on a dairy farm in Wisconsin though. Milk straight for the cow was a regular thing for me, as well as any other dairy related product you can think of.
I hope you don't do that now because I'm afraid that the Feds will come for you with their guns drawn:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/755…
http://www.naturalnews.com/028757_raw_milk_FDA.ht…
And this is why I roll my eyes when anyone says that we're living in a "free country". We really aren't.
-M
No we are not in a completely free country, but in comparison to a lot of other countries America is free. We are also very low-key about a lot of these things too. Instead of the gestapo taking people away (Godwin's law invoked) and everyone knowing that they would come, America goes about things with lawsuits that only few people will hear about. Those stories are interesting, but aren't mainstream issues so they would never see the light of day (for me at least) without word of mouth from you due to a unique conversation about milk about freedom.
And I think I would have been safe drinking milk straight from the cow since it was on a local farm next to my house.
That's like saying you're better off than the other slaves because your master gives you more food. A slave is a slave. Oh, and the U.S. has it's own form of Gestapo, it's just a bit more subtle. Don't believe me? Read the full text of the "Patriot Act."
Of course I know you are safe drinking raw milk since people have been doing that for centuries. In fact, one of the articles I linked mentioned that raw milk is actually healthier for you than pasteurized milk. The point is that the National Dairy Farmers' Association of America doesn't want the competition and is willing to throw garbage bags full of cash at the FDA and using a government agency to eliminate their competition. You should be outraged.
Also, I would like to try raw milk… without the threat of being arrested for trying to do it at gunpoint.
-M
Wow, that just goes to show you… I would love to enter a milk-drinking contest. Maybe I've slowed down in my old age, but when I was younger, I could down half a gallon in thirty seconds. I've pretty much replaced drinking water with milk.
-M
That's interesting about your RPG friends. Most of my RPG friends put the combat system and story above graphics. I'm talking JRPGs though and am not sure if your friends are into those or Western RPGs.
It really depends on what gen we go back to, but it was mainly the people who were die hard in to FF throughout all the gens. These folks would be total graphic whores. I'd be happy as hell playing Revenge and these dudes would just scoff only because of graphics.
They wouldn't play the games like Tactics either for that reason. And when I say they… I mean quite a few people that I know and encountered working at a video game store. It's not a stereotype, it's a sample of some gamers in Pittsburgh.
Now… I have trouble playing Revenge mainly because the graphics look like Lego wrestling and I'm spoiled by the more recent wrestling games. They've just gotten more elaborate and better. Especially the writing in the last 2 years.
I'm guessing you mean from FFVII on or FFVI. I love FFIV and FFV, but the graphics weren't extraordinary.
Primarily FFVII through FFXI and then PC gaming captured most of the graphic whores I knew. It makes total sense too.
But for me… I like the story second to gameplay. A game like Borderlands was the right shooter at the right speed for my general habits at the time. Didn't look great, story was basically optional, and the way the weapons worked added an awesome "gotta get it" element.
Now though… I almost game purely out of habit. Maybe I should retry the RPG genre for the hell of it. All the RPG's I've ever liked were a Something-RPG an not a straight RPG. I've just avoided them since I was in high school.
Day 8 of no power, this stopped being fun a few days ago. On topic, there are definitely aspects of the ps3 that are outdated. This being said, console gamers aren't the same type of gamers that pc gamers are. Pc people that I know anal to the point of ocd when it comes to always havin% to stay current with crazy hardware specs that no one will ever need. I don't want to update my console yet, i dont need it. As I mentioned earlier, I have no power. I've got the generator hooked up to the big screen and the playstation. I've been playing single player games. Yesterday
I was playing nba2k11. There is no problem with the graphicall capability of the play station . I have 293 movies on the hdd as well. This is the first gen console that I will truly continue to use after its successor is released. I'm mire interested in what medium the new system will utilize for.game storage. That is all. I also agree on the seafood, but its a.consistancy issue for me.
Phones,however, should be updated twice a year as the technology grows
That sucks about your power dude. I wish you and yours all the best.
Wow. I remember those days :( How's your home?
I see your point about using the PS3 after the new one comes out. Would you still have it hooked up to your main display if the new machine can do everything the PS3 can? I've gotten too used to streaming content over my AppleTV so my PS3 which I use as a BD player these days is no longer my streaming machine.
“You do realize that the ocean is salty due to all the things that have pissed, shit, died, and had sex in there since the beginning of Earth… right?”
Aaaaaaannnnnddd thats why i dont like seafood.