Tretton reaffirms the 10 year life-cycle of PS3
It's been said before, but Jack Tretton thought it wise to re-issue a statement regarding the life expectancy of the PlayStation 3. A lot of folks may see a price drop this early indicative of a short console life, a desperate move, or the clever cutting of manufacturing costs to help consumers save money also. We like the latter, but the former two are what need addressing -- Tretton assures the world that the PS3 is set for a future-proof, 10 year life. He said Sony could have made a PS2.5 and taken a ride on the money train, but they opted not to. He takes a shot at the competition, saying "To be perfectly honest with you, I think that is a bit of what we are competing with." Or is he talking about the PS2 itself?A few more choice statements from Tretton covered how the system doesn't need to convert everybody from day one. They can take their time selling consoles across ten years, he says. We guess this is since the price is an obstacle for many people right now, even with the price cut. Finally, Tretton assures us Sony has built "a machine that we firmly believe is future proof and is going to carry us for the next 10 years." We hope so and we can't wait for all the years ahead of us. We hardly know more than a handful of titles slated for 2008, let alone 2010.
[via CVG]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DxG @ Jul 9th 2007 2:44PM
i like jack. sony ftw!
rodsky @ Jul 9th 2007 3:10PM
10 years? haha laughable
Stef Geiger @ Jul 9th 2007 3:11PM
It's not all that crazy a concept. The PS1 had games made for it for EIGHT years, and according to the release schedule IGN, the PS2 will still be seeing games in 2008. Since the industry expands more and more every generation, it's safe to say that the PS3 will have a pretty big install base (Assuming Sony gets their act together, and I think they are), so it'll be worthwhile for Sony to support the system for at least eight years. Keep in mind, that doesn't mean we won't see a PS4 in 2011 or so...
pete @ Jul 9th 2007 3:26PM
you all assume that this means that they wont release a new console in the meantime in between time. so will see a ps4 in six to eight years but they will support the ps3 for a decade. makes sense to me!
Popfrogs @ Jul 9th 2007 3:33PM
I think pete nailed this one. If the PS3 is destined to survive for 10 years, it'll be alongside an upgraded console, just like the PS2 is doing now. They're still selling PS2s like crazy (and even reissued a new silver one) and devs are still making games. Sure, most of them are shovelware, but at least they're still supporting it.
rfom @ Jul 9th 2007 4:02PM
In fact should be longer than the 8 years for PS1/2 because this time SOny is actually too far ahead of the tech curve - The Cell-Blu-Ray combo ideally should have launched in 2008 (then the price would have been a more sensible 399 as well)
In fact, the PS4 could be brilliant from a backward compatibility point of view, simply continue with Blu-Ray (maybe with dual layer) and an overclocked Cell (similar to the wii), both of which are powerful enough for 15 years, leave alone 8. Simply add a faster graphics card and more RAM and they would be set, with tried and tested technology.
BulletToothTony @ Jul 9th 2007 4:15PM
hey rfom.. i read your comments and i know you like the ps3.. but you should make a little bit more research on the graphics card and the ram.. because you are probably thinking it needs more because of what haters have said..
i have found some incredible information on both.. the graphics card it's customable and the ram, it's crazy fast compare to regular ram..
i used to think the same way you did, but research it.. you'll be glad you did.. plus hater my see what you're saying and believe the lies even more..
Stef Geiger @ Jul 9th 2007 4:22PM
rfom: The current PS3 Blu-ray drive IS dual layer - how the hell do you think we're able to watch most Blu-ray movies? The majority of them are dual layer.
manic @ Jul 9th 2007 4:49PM
I'm hoping the Playstation 4 will have some sort of a Dual-Core Cell processor - thats what they were going to do but opted for a Cell + RSX combo instead.
And they should add two graphics cards.
:|
rfom @ Jul 9th 2007 4:53PM
"the graphics card it's customable and the ram, it's crazy fast compare to regular ram"
Well, looking at the current set of games coming out, seems true - they have some superfast XDDRRAM (half of the 256 MB). And the graphics card is also at par with 360 except for AA - which should be handled by the Cell over time.
However, my point was that the PS4 will need more RAM and garphics power to compete with the next generation or consoles (or next to next - we will see XBOX4 by then), while BR and Cell are future proof for many years to come.
Realists @ Jul 9th 2007 5:15PM
"He said Sony could have made a PS2.5 and taken a ride on the money train, but they opted not to. He takes a shot at the competition, saying "To be perfectly honest with you, I think that is a bit of what we are competing with.""
Huh. So how future proof is the PS3 when evidently the xbox 1.5 is shooting out as good, if not better quality graphics?
I agree with Pete....it's Sony Speak at it's best. Most certainly the PS3 will be around for 10 years like it's younger brothers, but we'll be seeing a PS4 about the same time when the other 2 roll out their next console, but at that time, the PS3 should be chugging along nicely, if history is any indication.
Dahk @ Jul 9th 2007 6:04PM
"Huh. So how future proof is the PS3 when evidently the xbox 1.5 is shooting out as good, if not better quality graphics? "
Realist, if you're talking about the x360, its fully the second xbox. Totally different architecture, dumped support for original xbox, new controllers, everything.
Sony, however, has PROVED its long term commitments. Its future-proof, because people haven't yet figured out the cell, and has TONS of room for growth. Uncharted and other devs are hitting maybe a plausible 30-50% now? Blu-ray won't be used fully until I'm guessing mid-3008 MAYBE.
x360's limitations are known and are being exploited well right now from such examples as gears, and definitely the upcoming CoD4 (bottlenecked development for GTA4?). But I'm guessing it has until 2009/2010 before they hint at a 2011/2012 xbox1080 release (clever clever? =D), while Sony should hit the next at a presumed, 2014 release.
I'm guessing a new sexy SKU in about 2010 though.
Skyfire360 @ Jul 9th 2007 6:35PM
I agree with Pete and Popfrogs, but I believe the biggest factor will be the hardware: specifically the GPU.
The Cell processor is quite powerful, and developers will take a long time to eventually tap all the power within it. However, the GPU is comparable to todays GeForce 7X00 series graphics cards. While no slouch by any means, this card may begin to show its age when the new DirectX 10 cards start coming out.
Taking it one step further, the PS3 games will look downright ugly compared to the next Xbox's graphical capabilities. True, it hasn't been confirmed yet, but I can promise that the next Xbox's GPU will be more powerful than the current PS3's and that it will be out well before 9 years from now.
That's why I believe that pete and Popfrogs are correct in stating that it'll be surviving its 10 year lifecycle alongside an upgraded console 4-6 years from now.
Andy @ Jul 9th 2007 7:46PM
When will gaming plateau?
...
...
I think pretty soon and so will consoles. Sony's trademark is long lifespan.
I was also thinking. Wouldn't it be great if Microsoft and Sony worked together on the Next2(squared) console together?
They could take the best of both worlds:
Long lifespan from Sony
Good online from Microsoft and they could lower the price to like $25 a year
Double cash flow
No consumer headaches
No fan boy wars (and Nintendo could keep making casual consoles)
By the way the 10 year promise is why I choose a PS3 over the competition.
IsThatBlazeRock @ Jul 9th 2007 9:43PM
Tretton is a tool. I cringe everytime i see an article that quotes him, interviews him or brushes his presence. Something about the guy makes me want to sell my PS3 haha.
Seriously though, Kaz needs to reel in the dogs for a bit so everyone can get on one accord in a direction that is equally beneficial to Sony fans, consumers and the company's bottom line.
With that crabbiness out the way, i like the idea they went a little overboard on the PS3, so as to in a way allow for future benefit - i just wonder how long its going to take to see some current benefit, that will further outline the future.
Darko @ Jul 10th 2007 1:03AM
@Dahk + rfom
...
....
.....
I want to remind people that a true bottle neck of any PC or game console is the graphics card. I can have a quad core cpu thats uber fast with an ATI 9000 or something lame like that.... you know what, I wont be able to play a lot of games beyond a certain point. The cell can't become a gpu, thats not how it works. From a technical standpoint RSX < Xenos, by how much, probably not a whole lot. To be honest nvidia is generally better than ati but in this case its an early version of the R600 vs a Nvidia 7 series. And the Xenos 10 mb of eDRAM is very beneficial. The cell has a lot of power but none of it can be used for graphics... it can be used for complex computations such as physics. You can emulate things but at a large cost.
End of rant. Please read up on the technology before you comment.
Neil @ Jul 10th 2007 5:40AM
Well, Motorstorm looks great and moves great. If future games can look 50-100% better then I'm a happy bunny with this generation esp if they can double what they achieve with the CELL chip ( which is likely ).
I'm sure the PS3 has technical bottlenecks, most Consoles do... I believe the PS2 did and yet take a look at GOW2 for example, it looks almost next gen PS3 quality and with what, 1/20th the power..... ditto GT2 on PS1.... how the F### did they achieve that!? I know that adding blades of grass that move in the wind and wavy hair all flows realistically all rob processing power but for me, this gen is getting me quite excited, and for me, it all starts with Rockstar Norths GTA4 this Autumn.......