Kotaku: Microsoft And Sony Targeting 2014 For New Consoles

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaptainZombie

Did you forget that this console generation didn't "start" until Sony entered the race and we have seen how that turned out. LOL!

Did no turn out bad at all.

I dont see how people can harp, when A) the 360 launched 1 year before and the PS3 is almost neck and neck in global sales now, despite being way more expensive at first, and supposed inferior online play, and B) the Wii sales mean nothing because most people bought it for a secondary console, it is mainly for Nintendo games, and all the third parties still flock to the PS3 and 360 and sell assloads on them. It is not a threat to either the 360 or PS3, unless the sales are robbing the third party support where both MSFT and Sony make their money. And it is not doing that.

[myghty]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rawdeal28

2015 would be perfect for me

Cheapo... lol

[cardswin2006]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

Did no turn out bad at all. I dont see how people can harp, when A) the 360 launched 1 year before and the PS3 is almost neck and neck in global sales now, despite being way more expensive at first, and supposed inferior online play, and B) the Wii sales mean nothing because most people bought it for a secondary console, it is mainly for Nintendo games, and all the third parties still flock to the PS3 and 360 and sell assloads on them. It is not a threat to either the 360 or PS3, unless the sales are robbing the third party support where both MSFT and Sony make their money. And it is not doing that.

If the object of the game is to break even with console sales 5 years into the generation, then yeah, Sony's kicking butt. I think that's moving the goalposts a bit, though.

I don't think anyone could really argue that the Wii won the "most popular" race (they also could win the "short sighted" award ironically), the 360 is the assumed "winner" at this point and Sony is hoping to break even with Microsoft at the end of the console life cycle in terms of total units sold.

To be fair, the PS3 really is an awesome machine and really does have more to offer in the end, it's just that the 360 had more to offer sooner which won a larger install base. 360 should probably would win "the biggest flop" award for backing HD-DVD. That really worked out well

The thing is, Sony cannot dictate the generation like they are at the top of the mountain and in a vacuum. They were at the top last generation but have been knocked off the mountain in the game of console King of the Hill. They are just as dependent on third party support as anyone else, which means developers are going to want to release their games at the same time on both consoles to move the most units. Would you buy a game that's at least one year old just because it has Sony on the label on it? Developers aren't interested in selling you that game anyway. They are likely well ahead on the next project and don't have time to recalibrate everything for a new system to only sell a few thousand units.

It's in both consoles' best interest to both release at the same time (or within a handful of months) for that reason alone. First party games, while occassional console movers, are not enough to drive sales alone and never have been. Sony and Microsoft are dependent on those third parties to eat the development costs of new games to appeal to a broad base of gamers. They do not have the time/manpower/resources to completely provide their own library of decent games.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by cardswin2006

If the object of the game is to break even with console sales 5 years into the generation, then yeah, Sony's kicking butt. I think that's moving the goalposts a bit, though. I don't think anyone could really argue that the Wii won the "most popular" race (they also could win the "short sighted" award ironically), the 360 is the assumed "winner" at this point and Sony is hoping to break even with Microsoft at the end of the console life cycle in terms of total units sold. To be fair, the PS3 really is an awesome machine and really does have more to offer in the end, it's just that the 360 had more to offer sooner which won a larger install base. 360 should probably would win "the biggest flop" award for backing HD-DVD. That really worked out well The thing is, Sony cannot dictate the generation like they are at the top of the mountain and in a vacuum. They were at the top last generation but have been knocked off the mountain in the game of console King of the Hill. They are just as dependent on third party support as anyone else, which means developers are going to want to release their games at the same time on both consoles to move the most units. Would you buy a game that's at least one year old just because it has Sony on the label on it? Developers aren't interested in selling you that game anyway. They are likely well ahead on the next project and don't have time to recalibrate everything for a new system to only sell a few thousand units. It's in both consoles' best interest to both release at the same time (or within a handful of months) for that reason alone. First party games, while occassional console movers, are not enough to drive sales alone and never have been. Sony and Microsoft are dependent on those third parties to eat the development costs of new games to appeal to a broad base of gamers. They do not have the time/manpower/resources to completely provide their own library of decent games.

I agree with you, except for the last part though... yes they obviously need third parties, that is what sells and makes you money ... but Sony has been doing I think, the best job with delivering a wealth or excellent first party games for all audiences and genres comparative to the other two.

And has and still is investing a wealth into first party production and development, because they know as with Nintendo, there is a huge return there.

[jmood88]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

Well I'm obviously living proof of this statement so yes. I'm just saying that if they release their console early simply out of being pressured to, they will end up with an inferior system in the long run anyway. I just want to make sure they are releasing it when they want to, not just so they can run head-to-head with Microsoft. I suppose this will all boil down to how much exclusive licenses will matter next generation, and what it will mean for each brand name. I tend to think that Sony is ahead for video game exclusivity, though is behind with ported games (as well as other kinds of exclusives). I just think that they don't think they should have to compete, they go on their own timetable. There's nothing that says they must release a new console anyway; again, they would only have to for one of two reasons (if not both): demand and competition. I don't see anyone screaming "new consoles" currently because of the ridiculous costs (or diminished returns for that matter), so I think they are allowed to take their time. Apparently they aren't obligated to that and they seem to think they have to keep up with releasing when Microsoft does, but the PS3 has more lasting power than 360 IMO. Take advantage of that, get all those sales out while you still can. The PS2 continued to sell like hotcakes up until about 2009; I can imagine it would still be selling the same, if not better, had they ever made a PS3. I'm not saying they should have gone that route, but if they want to profit the most I'd say they shouldn't go head-to-head with another gaming superpower if they don't have to.

Well there is at least one CEO (Ubisoft's) who wants new consoles and the Crysis developers have talked about all the limitations the current consoles have that they've had to work around, as well as the Battlefield developers talking about how the consoles are holding back PC development. Not everyone wants new consoles but it seems like we're getting to the point where Microsoft and Sony are going to have to start showing something soon. The ps2 was not moving huge units, it was selling a lot for an older console but Sony would have been even farther behind than they are now if they had only had the ps2 and put the ps3 out 3 or 4 years after the 360. They made the mistake of waiting too long once and I'm sure that they won't be doing that again. You say the ps3 has more lasting power but that's not really true, the ps3 has weaknesses that keep developers from being able to achieve what it can supposedly do and with so many games being multi-platform, those weaknesses are what consistently keep the ps3 versions of game inferior to the PC and 360 versions.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmood88

Well there is at least one CEO (Ubisoft's) who wants new consoles and the Crysis developers have talked about all the limitations the current consoles have that they've had to work around, as well as the Battlefield developers talking about how the consoles are holding back PC development. Not everyone wants new consoles but it seems like we're getting to the point where Microsoft and Sony are going to have to start showing something soon. The ps2 was not moving huge units, it was selling a lot for an older console but Sony would have been even farther behind than they are now if they had only had the ps2 and put the ps3 out 3 or 4 years after the 360. They made the mistake of waiting too long once and I'm sure that they won't be doing that again.

Kind of not Sony's fault. They launched per (what has been the normal) console cycle. They were not ready... MSFT decided to shorten theirs by announcing and launching the 360 3.5-4 years later, and not the 5-6 year standard.

And look what rushing out the door to try and beat the competition by a year got them? Huge loss in profits due to the high failure rates of an untested system. But it was probably a drop in the bucket, and worth the sacrifice, instead of taking the juggernaut on head to head at the same time.

It is a double edged sword, and now a lot of minor cutthroat tactics now.

[chadskee]

Anybody want to take a stab at the possible specs? I bet we're rocking octo-cores with at least 2TB of space on the HDD or possibly even a SSD by then.

[Jgainsey]

Quote: Originally Posted by chadskee

Anybody want to take a stab at the possible specs? I bet we're rocking octo-cores with at least 2TB of space on the HDD or possibly even a SSD by then.

I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the ball park of an octo-core, but I have zero faith in console makers giving us a reasonable amount of HDD space.

I've had hundreds of gigabytes in my own computers for the better part of a decade now, and both Sony and Microsoft went with 20GB models out of the gates this gen. It wasn't like HDD space was particularly expensive at the time, but they still decided that their consoles should have the same storage capacity as an ipod nano.