I think being a year behind Microsoft again would be a mistake, although I also hope they don't rush it out like Microsoft with the 360. The current consoles are getting long into the tooth IMO, hardware has come a long way since then, I was hoping for some E3 showings. Maybe Microsoft will show theirs at E3 and then Sony will be forced to play their hand soon after.
Consoles are far outdated before they are even released-compared to a well equipped PC. Of course my brand spanking new PC will have a newer better processor/video card every 6 months to a year. 10 years between hardware releases is ginormous in technology years. I think price plus being a year behind Xbox really hurt the PS3 and gave the Xbox that extra push to succeed. I mostly gamed on my Xbox (now PC) since most of my friends do. PS3 has and will be my DVD player. They should plan on a simultaneous release against the 720 if they want to stay competitive. As far as the Wii U, I'm LOLing because it seems like they are finally getting around to releasing a console with equivalent power to the Xbox360 and PS3 right around the same time Xbox is talking about releasing a new console. Who knows, it might be good though if they don't try charging us $600 for it and $200 for one of those remotes with the screen.
I always thought the 5 year cycle was long enough. I believe there's enough innovations in the Tech we have today in PC's to have a possible drive forward that would warrant a new console arrival. Take example 1: Battlefield 3, it plays nicely on consoles it does, but its 100% better on PC. It literally took my breath away, playing on consoles it just looked like the hardware couldn't push out what dice was trying to achieve. Lets not forget that in order to move the industry forward faster a new console should have a came out by now. I just feel if we don't release new consoles faster then we currently are there is no reason for Nvidia and Ati to make any innovations in GPU's to really spark our imagination. If you think of GPU's in the passed there was always a jump forward big time especially within a 5 year mark. I still don't see games do what they should be able to do today. It seems like a very stale market all halted because of the lack of new consoles in the field. Though i could be talking non-sense and in reality when will games act realistic to the point each bullet round, each car explosion leaves its wake of destruction there for the entirety of the match. I think BF3 could of been a whole lot better if they really used what our current high tech gpu's have to offer. Doesn't seem to use any Tessellation. Any who Sony better re-gear themselves and announce one this E3 otherwise the PC market will and is indeed rising again since who really wants play a outdated console that can't keep up with current PC tech. I know i don't.
So no PS3 showing in 2012? That still leaves a 2013 release fully possible, albeit unlikely; there's still E3 2013, and we can probably (safely) assume that whatever year it releases in, it'll likely hit American shores in time for the Christmas season, as seems to be the norm for consoles... Though the PS2 appeared first in Japan during the spring, and both were announced/unveiled the year PRIOR to their release.
Since there's been no official announcement of the PS4 yet, a 2013 release seems less likely. If this claim holds up and E3 '12 passes by without a PS4 announcement, then odds are good it won't release until 2014. Of course, Sony could change this all by using a new release schedule, and simply showing a finished PS3 at E3 2013 and releasing later in the fall of the same year.
The older, latter model seemed to handle itself just fine after the younger sibling hit the market, and continues to see new games despite the PS3's growing momentum.
Sony claimed a 10-year lifespan for the PS1, even though the PS2 had squashed it out almost entirely by maybe 2003 or so. I think the PS2's longevity in spite of the PS3 is partly due to how big a drop in market share the PS3 has; from 150 million units and a 72.7% market share to 27.6% and 56; that's a drop down to nearly 1/3. In that case it only makes sense for developers who aren't so concerned about the "graphics" (as inferior to the PC as they are anyway) to simply make their game for the platform with nearly three times the installed base and market share. In the prior years, with the difference being even more severe, we saw this being even more prevalent.
The fact that apparently it's all too easy to just port a game from the PS2 to Wii shovel-ware style, (in spite of the Wii's greatly increased power over the PS2) makes it even more appealing from a market perspective: that gets you 44% of the 7th gen market as well, and a grand total of over 240 million units for an installed base.
This is also what's likely delayed the release of a successor. Sony's investors were almost certainly expecting that, given the 9-digit sales numbers and >70% market share scored by both the PS1 and PS2, that placing at least #1 was a foregone conclusion, even if it wouldn't be by such an embarassing margin. Given that, unlike the Wii's sales numbers, we're not seeing sales numbers decline from saturation, Sony can safely say that they have more market that will buy the PS3, so there's no need to waste R&D dollars and release the PS4 early when the PS3 is still competitive.
A similar story goes for the Xbox 360, at least with its current sales rates, so Microsoft, likewise, has less incentive for bothering to put out the next generation of consoles, and thus why we're seeing what we have now: over 5 years since the last (North American) 7th-gen launch, and only the Wii U has been announced.
The previous record gap between console generations (from the last NA launch of the older generation, to the first of the next) was 2 days shy of 4 years, between the Game Cube (November 18, 2001) to the Xbox 360. (November 16, 2005) Before that it was the 3 year, 8 month, 19 day gap between the Super NES (August 23, 1991) and Sega Saturn. (May 11, 1995) It's possible that the gaps are just getting bigger, (there was almost no distance between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generations) though the intervals had remained the same until now.
[citation][nom]whiteodian[/nom]Consoles are far outdated before they are even released-compared to a well equipped PC. Of course my brand spanking new PC will have a newer better processor/video card every 6 months to a year. 10 years between hardware releases is ginormous in technology years. I think price plus being a year behind Xbox really hurt the PS3 and gave the Xbox that extra push to succeed. I mostly gamed on my Xbox (now PC) since most of my friends do. PS3 has and will be my DVD player. They should plan on a simultaneous release against the 720 if they want to stay competitive. As far as the Wii U, I'm LOLing because it seems like they are finally getting around to releasing a console with equivalent power to the Xbox360 and PS3 right around the same time Xbox is talking about releasing a new console. Who knows, it might be good though if they don't try charging us $600 for it and $200 for one of those remotes with the screen.[/citation]
Must be nice to have the money to get a new CPU and video card every 6 months to a year. Or, you are just saying that and blowing smoke up everyone butts.
You also seem to forget why Nintendo has always been successful. It's not graphics, it's GAMES. A lot of adults have always gotten Nintendo's systems for the first-party games. While still having other consoles and/or a gaming rig.
Would I love to have the money to build a gaming rig? Yes. Is it mandatory for my survival? No. Has my PS3 gotten me where I want to go the past 5 years the little I game these days? Yes.
I would love to play BF3 on Ultra settings at 1920x1200. But, I have just as much fun playing with some friends on my PS3. I will admit, the resolution of the game gets to me a bit, but when really playing a game, you look past all that crap and just have fun.
Most ignorant decision they could make. They've been pretty competitive with XBox this last generation, carrying many of the same titles and features. If MS has something to offer and they do not, Microsoft won the race. They will be able to court the developers who are likely more than happy to upgrade their platforms for new hardware rather than waiting for Sony to catch up. Sony loses their 3rd party titles, and they are nothing without 3rd party titles.
[citation][nom]rabidface[/nom]Must be nice to have the money to get a new CPU and video card every 6 months to a year. Or, you are just saying that and blowing smoke up everyone butts. [/citation]
Just saying, "generally." I honestly don't have that kind of money to upgrade that often.[citation][nom]rabidface[/nom]You also seem to forget why Nintendo has always been successful. It's not graphics, it's GAMES.... ...I will admit, the resolution of the game gets to me a bit, but when really playing a game, you look past all that crap and just have fun.[/citation]
I have owned every system including the Wii and I love the old games from the market as well as some of the first party games such as Zelda, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart. Other than a few games such as those I lost interest in my Wii. Also the lack of HD really bugged me.
The PS3 still looks good, and contains many great games and titles. I am looking forward to see how much they can improve on such a good unit. The big question is: what software will be available upon release?
[citation][nom]cobra5000[/nom]3.9 Million P3's sold during the holiday season10 Million XBOX 360's sold during the holiday seasonSony=Dead Man Walking.[/citation]
Do you even have any backing for those numbers? A check suggested that both are inaccurate.
[citation][nom]hoof_hearted[/nom]And I just bought a PS3 this past Christmas, and I still find it lacking in the RPG area compared to the PS2[/citation]
the PlayStation two is the de facto system, it had everything on it. Hell it had a game where you pretend to be a mosquito sucking people's blood. And before that you had the PlayStation one in a generation where JRPG's were the normal RPG's, at least I'm consoles.
Of course the PlayStation three is going to be lacking, especially when the first-person shooter genre move from the PC to the console. If oversaturated in the third person and first-person shooter market, because they pull in money. You can put already first-person shooter and almost be guaranteed to make your money back, you can't say the same thing about an RPG, especially if you can't do it right.
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]well the xbox isn't much better in the RPG field either.[/citation]
at the very least in America I believe it has more exclusives for RPG's compared the PlayStation three.
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]10 year life cycle when these things become outdated within 2-3 years really. Glad I only use my PS3 to watch Blu Ray movies now, as my PC is light years ahead of it in gaming.[/citation]
I say this a lot, and I feel the need to keep saying it, graphics aren't everything. We have point where it's pointless just push more more graphics, with resistance one in resistance two, they doubled the polygon count, but nobody noticed it. I almost don't want to put all new console until tessellation takes off, because tessellation is going to be the biggest factor in gaining for the next probably 10 years. It allows us to focus on objects closer to us in more detail than further weight without swapping polygon models completely. It allows for smoother transition which is desperately needed. I want to use standard tessellation before we even consider new console generation. But it looks like Nintendo is going to be a testing ground for tessellation concerning their to have a GPU with the hardware tessellation unit. There can be first to market in there to take the heaviest hit when the 720 and PlayStation four come out.
Realistically for me there's only two places where games can increase graphics and still be noticeable.
First is textures, this requires RAM, consoles don't require as much RAM to run the equivalent to the PC version.
Second would be tessellation, allowing 2 to 3,000,000 polygons to be rendered up close to you that would honestly be be game changing.
they could have just launch a the console in a 5 years cycle. 10 years cycle in electronic world is like SNAIL. if u design ur console as 5 years cycle u dont even need to "go all out" losing $100(due to high manufacturing cost) on every console u sold like PS3 in the beginning stage of the cycle, Yet with 5 yrs cycle u can update ur hardware and stay competitive. Resell new console for customer for more money.
10years console cycle is dragging everything behind, it only benefit the lazy developer, not the consumer because chances are PS3 is are less likely to last 10years.