1. Well everyone knows that Segas success...

Oh thats right, they out of the console race.

Go make another shit Sonic game Sega...

Posted at 3:28PM on Jun 15th 2007 by silence

2. Wow, Nevelo....just wow.

Anyway, I'm not even sure why I'm commenting on this post. I mean really that's a sentiment felt by most Playstation fans is it not? The system will come into it's own once developers get a handle on the hardware.

And yes the NPD numbers are pretty similar to last months, but of course they are. People are holding out for the big titles. I would too if I wasn't fanboy. If the numbers are still sadening in the fall. Then we may have cause for concern.

Posted at 3:34PM on Jun 15th 2007 by Jonathan

3. 10 Years seems like a long time but the PS2 is still a better selling system than either the PS3 or Xbox 360 and probably sells almost more than the two combined even though it is now more than 7 years old. Therefore one could extrapolate from that even when the next generation war starts this will not spell the end of the PS3. Unless something really radical happens in the meantime spelling the end of the PS3, which is extremely unlikely. The most likely scenarios will be that the PS3 will start shining a little late once the Wii and Xbox start becoming more dated and above all when it starts getting a better line up of AAA titles and maybe get a price drop which at this rate at least the latter two seem inevitable.

Posted at 3:38PM on Jun 15th 2007 by William

4. CAPS & NO PUNTUATION FTW!!!!! ;)

'Can the PS3 really last the 10 years claimed by Sony?'
If the PS2 can manage 6 years and still holds strong today i dont see why not. At the time of its release DVD players were the 'new' technology, most people probably had 1 in their home, but they werent cheap to pick up. The PS3 has BlueRay and is probably a good 12 months earlier into the BR release than the PS2 was with DVD, and the inclusion of the drive was a key factor in the PS2's success, and its almost certainly going to be where the 360s limits are found out (8.5gb for dual layer DVD is its limit), forward planning helped the PS2 succeed, and im certain Sony's insistance to wait and utilise BlueRay will be the main thing that holds the console strong into the Mid 2010's.

Maybe its just me, but its kinda disappointing/sad at the same time if the console does go without a 'PS4' for another 9 years, i'd be happy with another 6 year cycle, but maybe Sony need 10 years to manage to pay off the costs they've footed for everyone to get one in the first 1-2yrs of its lifespan!? (half j/k, half serious)

I think the key for the PS3s is to not fail with the games released in this next 6 months, if it can come out of that strong (which it looks to be set to) then it has everything to push itself to the top, but if it flops then the repercussions could have a huge impact on developers and there willingness to work on PS3 titles.

Posted at 3:42PM on Jun 15th 2007 by P

5. "forward planning helped the PS2 succeed"

Not really. The PS3 has alot more potential than the PS2 when it launched. The Xbox had a DVD drive too but it didn't do all that great

Thanks for all these reassuring posts. I am always on a rollercoaster ride of great console or mediocore console news.

Will gaming ever hit a plateau? (once they get games as good as the cutscenes in them...how much better can they look?)

Posted at 5:03PM on Jun 15th 2007 by massive_98

6. it shouldn't be a matter of whether there's a plateau in graphics, but rather what limits will be reached in forms of interactivity, the reason i am a ps3 fan and not an xbox one, is because graphics are not enough to open up gameplay possibilities. there needs to be more in terms of reality and interactivity, also, people who think the wii has limited gameplay capabilities need to realize the wiimote isn't just a virtual hand or pointer, it's a controller that SENSES MOTION, if they think outside the box there is a lot that can be done with that.

Posted at 5:33PM on Jun 15th 2007 by havi

7. Even gameplay wise what more can companies do.

Maybe one day you can have a holagraphic lightsaber fight with Darth Vader where you actually have to swing at him and you can actually feel his lightsaber when you hit it.

Seriously though? The R&D folks for each console must be think WTF can we do more besides more graphics. (I guess Xbox could add motion to there games)

Posted at 6:30PM on Jun 15th 2007 by massive_98

8. I love seeing PS3 do 80,000 a week with no games out. It really shows how strong sony's name is. It should jump up significantly when the good games come out. Overall I know the PS3 will come out on top but it will be a much closer race this time around.

Posted at 8:52PM on Jun 15th 2007 by Xiru

9. Xiru those numbers are for the month. If Sony PS3 was pulling 80k a week they would be in a lot better situation right now. But even at 80k a month that's really not bad for a $600 device in late Spring.

Posted at 11:24PM on Jun 15th 2007 by acedoh

10. P said, "...but if it flops then the repercussions could have a huge impact on developers and there willingness to work on PS3 titles."

Personally, I think that if it flops it will have a huge impact on console gaming as a whole.

Microsoft is not known for innovation, they never have been. They are just very good at tweaking the ideas of others and marketting the @#!% out of them, and when that doesn't work, buy another company that already is doing whatever they're after well. This has been the company's business model since it's inception. And they only SHINE when they have very strong competition....makes them hungrier.

Nintendo is definitely being innovative, but exclusively in the direction of going after the "casuals" (I hate that term.. but it's what they call it so ... I'll use it here).

End result, given these points regarding Nintendo and MS...Sony flopping entirely would mandate pretty large paradigm shifts for developers across the entire console platform. At least that's what I think.

I also don't think the PS3 will flop. It might not take the crown this gen, but it's not going any where. It's the best machine for the die hard gamer and media buff, and even if our numbers are smaller, we spend a LOT more a year on games and movies.

Posted at 11:46PM on Jun 15th 2007 by Stormkeep

11. For sure they will last 10 years. They have technology that will last those ten years without having to make a new console.

Posted at 12:09AM on Jun 16th 2007 by Lp47

12. The only way the PS3 will last even close to 10 years is if it becomes the #1 console. That's why the PS1 and PS2 enjoyed a good bit of support after their successors were unleashed.
Ditto the NES and Super NES.
That's the ONLY reason those systems got extended life spans. When I hear people talk about the PS3 lasting around 10 years without that caveat, I imagine they must be delusional or something.

But if Sony isn't at the top of the heap again, than in about four years you'll see PS3 support drop faster than George W. Bush's poll numbers.
It would make no sense of them to hold onto what would essentially be a dead-ender.

I don't think the PS3 will be a failure. 110 million people have a PS2 and Sony has the strongest brand loyalty of the 3 console makers.
But the way things are shaping up, it seems like you'll eventually be able to draw comparisons to the N64. It sold a respectable number of units and had some great games, but ultimately got it's butt handed to it by the competition.

Posted at 1:48AM on Jun 16th 2007 by samfish

13. OK, my PS3 is the only console I've owned since the Atari 2600. (I mostly game on PC's.) I love my PS3, and actually bought it as a Blu-Ray player, but I am also having some fun with games on it.

PS3 lasting for 10 years makes absolutely no sense to me. I think it's greatest long term weakness (which also applies to the XBox360) is that it's kind of a half-step to full HD capability.

Seriously, how many games support 1080p? Yes, some. But, true HD consoles should be powerful enough to run ANY and ALL games at 1080p, without the designers having to pull back on the graphics complexity.

Obviously the PS4 and XBox720 will have plenty of power to run everything in 1080p...

Posted at 2:50AM on Jun 16th 2007 by bsd107

14. There's no reason for Sony (and Sega) to be optimistic in the next 10 years. By the 5th year, Nintendo would have launched a new system with new controls and with the processing power of the PS3. Not to mention it's going to be cheap.

By the 5th year, everybody's going to go gaga with Nintendo's "new" system.

Deja vu?

Posted at 6:52AM on Jun 16th 2007 by TheoD

15. The ps3 will indeed rise, as the ps2 did. If it weren't for Microsoft's power to control media, the 360 would be selling less. The failure rate on those things is incredible. It's also important to note all the bad press Sony has seen, thanks again to Microsoft's incredible influence on media.

So while perception has been altered as usual by corporate media so that 360's seem far more reliable than they are and PS3's are seen as not worth the money (it's only $100 more, people-- and guess what? It doesn't break), eventually, reality and truth will make this all pan out.

Yes, the 360 has more games. But it's already at it's limit. Great development tools ARE good. Great development tools have allowed developers to max out the 360. Gears of War is the best you're going to get. And that's fine. But when your console is smoking, failing, making all that noise, and scratching your disks... the ps3 will still be improving, as developers get a hold on it's superior architecture.

Oh, and while they're doing that? It won't break down.

Powerful corporations ALWAYS manipulate media, and Sony is no different, but Microsoft is far more powerful and insidious, and has way more interests on it's side in terms of stockholders who really want it to succeed, so the lies will go on and on and on until reality hits, then they'll release the next xbox early (this time it won't break) and Sony ps3's will be flying out the windows, just like the ps2 did.

Posted at 4:30PM on Jun 16th 2007 by John

16. Patience.

Posted at 6:31PM on Jun 16th 2007 by massive_98

17. why was my comment removed

Posted at 1:41PM on Jun 17th 2007 by Mr. Nevelo S.

18. why

Posted at 1:42PM on Jun 17th 2007 by Mr. Nevelo S.

19. @Jay Black

Your 5th point isn't technically a fact, it's an opinion... one I happen to agree with. Sega backing the PS3 is almost surely a bad omen.

Posted at 2:40AM on Jun 19th 2007 by Tom

20. People still don't seem to realize that this is still the PS3's first year. Looking back at the last two launches they had (PS1 and PS2), it wasn't until 18 or so months into each system's respective lifecycle that the console received mass-marketable games.

That is not to say the systems didn't have anything worth playing in the meantime though. For the attentive gamers, those first 18 months were golden. New special effects, games of unprecedented scale... the first year was always the greatest days, and it took real gamers to recognize that.

We're still living those early days of the PS3. People have doubts, yes, but anyone who's beeng through this before knows that the PS3 is already outperforming both of its predecessors if you compare THEIR initial months after release to this.

Just remember this:

The PS2 first launched in March 2000 in Japan. And it took more than 6 months before it even became available in the US.

Posted at 3:03PM on Jun 19th 2007 by orakga