Fanboys, start your engines. A recent Cnet article has predicted that by the time 2012 rolls around, PS3 will be the undisputed champion of the next gen universe. How did they come to this conclusion? A lot of speculation and some liberties were taken in finding this conclusion. They believe that future price drops in the PS3, its built in WiFi, Blu-ray, and more exclusive titles, it will be the console to have. No one predicted the 360 to hit 10 million sales. The above graph shows the PS3 and Wii dominating and the 360 almost flatlining. Just to be safe, I bought all three of ‘em. What do you guys think?
I think its BS.
I would agree with their reasons, but I’m not sure about their estimates. Only time will tell. And are that many people still gonna be sold on wii sports? Dear god.
“I think its BS” care to elaborate???
Personally,I think they’re on the money.By then HDTV penetration will be well over 40% in America,and with HDTVs come HD Players.People always want a complete product,everyone wants 1 box that can do it all;The Ps3 is that box.
I won’t be as blunt as to predict the 360 won’t be doing well by then,but I will say this;Microsoft have a big challenge ahead of them,especially since Epic aren’t gonna pass up the chance to expand the Gears of War franchise to more platforms with Gears of War 3 and beyond.And Mass Effect is now under EA,Bioshock has just been confirmed to be no longer a console exclusive,PGR devs are now making multiplat games,etc.
I can agree that the PS3 will be a really good console by 2012 it will no longer be that expensive tank it was when it came out. I was right Sony is really shaping things up
. I don’t know about it’s sales though.
Heres the dilemma …. blue-ray sucks…. yes its great for playing movies and sony took a big chance GIVING that technology away to the PS3 but its what won them the format wars. The only problem being it SUCKS for gaming… slow ass read rate = HUGE installs to get true next gen games to play well. There are games now pushing half hour installs with 5 GB of space needed … im not looking forward to 2 hour installs of 20 gigs by 2012. Pretty much everything other than cinematics needs to be loaded on a PS3 for it to substain decent FPS.
Now with that said MS has an even bigger problem on there hands because they are out of disk space and have YEARS left on the current console cycle. How MS handles that dilema will have dramatic effects on consoles sold by 2012. Heck they might even jump the gun again and but out a new console sooner as from the way i look at it it is there only option and it worked well for the 360. I mean MS was way late in the game on there Xbox ( dreamcsat was out for like 2 years PS2 for one) and they beat sony to next gen by a year ( so they had 2 less year product life on the original Xbox then sony had on PS3) and it worked well they sold alot better than alot of people expected and thats including there retardedly high RRoD rate.
So in short i think MS needs to do something pretty drastic and pretty fast in order to make those numbers not become a reality.
By 2012 there will be new consoles for sure. I am thinking it will be amost about time for a PS5 by then, hehe.
I think Nintendo by far has the upper hand on their next console, look at how much money they can put in it thanks to the Wii, unless possible Wii Fit Lawsuits bankrupts them lol.
Ps3 is awesome and imo the best console made
fauken,
Whilst I agree with your comments in general, there is a couple of points I’d like to make.
1. Most installs are 5 minutes. MGS4 is the one everybody brings up to say how bad the install times are, & it is by far & away the exception. I know no other games that get anywhere near MGS4’s install times (& MGS4 is well worth it, if you like that kind of game).
2. Blu-Ray isn’t slow. It’s the seek times that are slow. The actual read times are as quick, if not quicker than DVD. The problem is that it takes a lot more thought on how to put the information on the disk. It can be done though. Uncharted, & Killzone 2 have proved this, but it’s obviously a challenge for most developers, so they choose the install route. Not that this matters too much anyway, as every PS3 has a sizeable hard drive out of the box(+ you can upgrade the hdd anytime you want reasonably cheaply).
I think MS have commited themselves to the long term with the 360, what with Natal on the way, & that’s a good thing considering how quickly the dumped the original Xbox. As for the disc space problem, it never used to be an issue putting things on more than one CD/DVD. I really don’t see why it would be now. Is the cost really that prohibitive? Surely it’s cheaper to burn DVD’s than Blu-Ray discs anyway. Both formats work fine, they just have to be handled differently. I’ll stick with my PS3 for now though (I’d love to play Fable II, but I can’t justify buying a 360 for the one game that I want, & I keep hoping that it’ll hit PC at some point).
I suspect those sales figures shown for the 360 are a little on the pessemistic side, but Sony has finally got the ball rolling, & the competition is all good as far as us consumers go.
I’m sorry Fauken but I don’t buy that Sony’s bundling Blu Ray with PS3 helped the format win the format war against HD DVD. PS3 has been dead last in the market ever since its arrival — 2012 also is a long shot even if by then Sony is able to reverse its dismal market share and make the PS3 a winning system. Blu Ray won the format war with little or no help from PS3.
Main reason it won was that most movie studios chose to exclusively make their Hi-Def releases on Blu Ray Disc. Any consumer aware of the DRM if they had to choose between HD DVD and Blu Ray HD DVD would be the better format with less DRM.
The movie studios chose to release exclusively on Blu Ray and the majority of consumers wanting to upgrade to a Hi-Def disc format more likely just bought Blu Ray because they had to — it was their only option to get the most content. With more content for Blu Ray any sensible consumer would buy the player that has the most content.
If you were to choose between HD DVD and Blu Ray based on which format has the most content and you see HD DVD has a more limited selection it would make more sense to buy Blu Ray. Consumers didn’t overwhelmingly choose Blu Ray because it was the best format the studios chose the format they wanted and now everyone wanting Hi-Def discs in U.S. is forced to use Blu Ray.
Why did the studios hop on the Blu Ray bandwagon because they liked its more draconian DRM. HD DVD had a bad DRM system also but was not as bad. Both used AACS but from the start HD DVD had something called Managed Copying (Blu Ray is now going to have Managed Copying added to it) however, Managed Copying sucks you have to pay to make a digital copy to your computer and can only make 1 copy.
You can’t make a copy of a Blu Ray Disc to your computer and then re-burn to another Blu Ray.
Did you know about Blu Ray’s anti-piracy features — Blu Ray players are required to be connected to a TV’s HDMI port and have Internet access enabled — so they can dial home and if they think your playing a pirated disc or a disc that’s been copied from even if they make a mistake — they can disable your Blu Ray player for a DRM violation — then you have to buy a whole new Blu Ray player — if you get too many DRM violations (they determine of course how many is too many) they can even disable your TV’s HDMI port and then you’d need to buy a new HD TV for any devices to work with your TV’s HDMI port.
Once a Blu Ray player or HDMI port is disabled there’s no way to re-enable it you have to replace the unit or the TV. If you try to connect a Blu Ray player via Component thanks to the DRM your picture quality on Blu Ray media can be degraded to 720P.
Sony is trying to force Blu Ray on users.Blu Ray is also still expensive not just the disc players but the media. I remember a while back I bought BBC America’s Series 1 DVD of Robin Hood for $79.98 that was on the expensive side but the Blu Ray version later released was $99.98 — now the Blu Ray version’s price has dropped but Blu Ray media overall still costs more than DVD.
Example: I heard the new recent DVD release of the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button costs $15.00 but the Blu Ray version is $25.00 when looking for discounts especially in this economic climate (unemployment nationwide is almost 10%) why pay more when I can get the DVD version for less.
Only significant improvements in Blu Ray is higher picture quality and increased storage space. Blu Ray is incompatible on Apple Mac computers even if their running Windows because the hardware is not there by Apple — as such there is no or limited support for Blu Ray authoring or playback in Mac OS X. Also since Linux is an open source OS and Linux users don’t accept DRM no Blu Ray compatibility is available for Linux and likely never will be even if Blu Ray comes to Mac
Sony has been tarnishing its brand overall in recent years — before Sony bought any entertainment companies in the old days Sony defended its Betamax VCR business from movie studios wanting to make VCRs illegal — who were afraid the VCR with its recording capabilities would ruin its business but later embraced selling content to VCR users on the VHS format that beat out Sony’s Betamax.
Today Sony’s entertainment business is wreaking havoc on its electronics business which is less willing to stick it to entertainment companies — Sony Electronics products today come crippled and quality has gone down – if you buy Sony products they have a shorter life-span these days than they used to and break easier and sooner.
Sony’s music business Sony BMG a few years back was sued for selling music CDs with root-kits. Now I hear a Florida resident and PS3 user is suing Sony for issuing a defective software update that has bricked his PS3 and then expecting him to pay hundreds of dollars to them for repairs.
It’s their fault — they should cover it under warranty.
I make it a point to avoid DRM when I can. Just Google Sony Kills Its Brand or Sony Sucks and read up on how bad Sony has become.