Stringer says PS3 is "future proof."

So you are telling me that a console that will probably have the same amount of power as a 360 is future proof? WTF?

"BetaMax: Proof Of The Future"
What the hell are the guys at Sony smoking? Yes the PS3 will move millions of units, but saying it's "Future Proof" is down right nuts. He might as well say that he saw the PS3's success in his crystal ball. Everyone wants whatever it is they are selling to do well, but sometimes the market dertimines otherwise.

I think there is a very good chance that someone from Sony's cafeteria is slipping mercury into management's lunches.

'Mad as a hatter' may soon be changed to 'mad as a Sony exec'.

Yeah, Sony wants to think that the PS3's hardware will last forever, but it's really just an Xbox 360 with a Blu-ray drive...

Everyone needs to remember: the type of disc media is NOT what makes something last. It's the rest of the hardware. So rest assured, if you buy a PS3, you will be spending more money on the PS4 in 5 years.

is it me, or do these sony execs keep pumping out bs statements almost as much as our gov't?!

What happens if blu-ray is beaten in the new media standard race? It won't be so future-proof then, especially with the 360 already established. Sony's getting really cocky.

Hmm , that must mean my pc should last 20 + years,sike!

It sure is future-proof. If they don't start shutting up and start putting up, then the PS3 will have no future.

Pay for potential. Pay for Bluray. Pay for HDMI. Pay to lose rumble. Pay for a PSP to be your rearview mirror. Pay for a single indepent core processor. Pay for a 1080p-supporting television.

So...what else do we have to pay for? Without games, I'm looking at a $600 PS3 + $250 PSP + $2500-5000 1080p television? It better be Next-Gen x 100.

It's future-proofed right up until the moment that MS announces their next console, which I'm betting will be under four years at this point. Then it will look like what it is, an aging console with an out-of-date non-standard video playback mechanism.

And that assumes they don't screw the hog technologically, like they did with the PS2.

So who exactly are these Sony execs trying to convince that the PS3 is an outstanding product that is worth $600? Is it the Sony Fanboys, because they are already preparing to stand in line and get this console when it comes out? Is it the press, so that they will stop questioning the absolute need for Blu-Ray and there by a $600 price tag? Is it the shareholders and other business people at Sony, so they do not get nervous that one of their consumer flagship products is in trouble?

First Sony was quiet and would not say anything about their console, now the pendulum has swung to the other side and they are making wild promises that this machine is the must have gadget no matter what the cost.

I just puzzled as to what is going on here. You do not hear Nintendo execs making all these wild statements and comparisons. I do not remember Microsoft going off on these wild tangents about how the Xbox 360 may in fact shape the history of the world.

the only thing that is "future proof" is a PC

Um, Ninja, you realize that all the math you did applies equally to the XBox?

Next Gen is about HD -- XBox 360 included... remember the requirement for games to be in HD? So if you need that HDTV for the PS3, you need for the 360.

And when it comes to price, the XBox 360 WITH a HD-DVD drive will be at a similar price point to the low-end PS3. And in your zealotry to bash the loss of rumble, you forget to mention the addition of motion control.

I don't agree with the "future proof" comment, but I also don't agree with pointless rag sessions on Sony. The PS3 has a lot of potential, and it really is similarly priced to the XBox 360.

-Pie

"the only thing that is "future proof" is a PC"

How do you figure? Aren't PCs the opposite? The second you buy one, it's yesterdays news. Several short months later, you'll need a new graphics card or more memory. So...I'm not sure I follow.

Maybe you mean the idea of a PC is future proof? That would make more sense.

why they still calling it PS3? I got a feeling they more like selling PS3 as a media player, just like a DVD player. Maybe this is why they call it is "future proof". I still using my DVD player I purchased on 1998. almost a decade.

Even Pc's arnt future proof, they have to be upgraded constantly, so unless sony is going to be upgrading the PS3's on a regular basis, like i do with my PC then its XboxWii60 for me.

As for the so called "next gen" thing, high def gaming has been a pc thing for years, most if not all monitors sold these days (except the cheapest or the cheap) are either "high def" or the 4:3 equivelent. Damm with the right mother(main)board and a few video cards i can make my screen resolution whatever i want it to.

PCs are NOT future proof.

Whats he holding? A chrome-plated Dreamcast VMU?

I think it's great how many PR people Sony spits out, going higher and higher up the food ladder. Shows their desperation. Microsoft can live without the 360. Sony cannot live without the PS3 - and as we get nearer and nearer to launch, the comments from the Sony crowd get more and more vitrolic. It's going to be fun.

That is doesn't support HD DVD means it's already not future proof.

i just read that vhs was a lower quality then beta...and guess what, hd dvd has a lower quality compared to blu-ray...i feel the past coming after sony

Future Proof? Even if Blu-Ray becomes the standard there will be Blu-Ray players at Walmart in 2 years that are only 50 bucks... And in 2 years the ANCIENT video card in the PS3 will be junk... it has been in development so long I can't believe they haven't decided to upgrade the video card that comes with it yet... really how much have PC video cards changed in the last 2 years? At least the 360 uses some technology that is only now coming to the PC with the unified shader... by November the graphics that the PS3 has will easily be better on the PC... Period... that IS NOT FUTURE PROOF.

Not to mention the fact that Holographic Discs are just a few years away and will have about 100 times more storage then blue-ray.....

Why have 50 discs for the entire Simpsons Collection when you can stick them all on ONE holo-disc?

SONY=BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!

Funny story..... To the guy who says Blu Ray is better looking then HD-DVD. So far the reviews for the current Blu-ray movies are that sony kinda dropped the ball. HD-DVDs are looking better. As far as image quality is concerned.

Hd-DVD doesn't have a lower quality than Blue Ray. They both support the exact same video codecs. The only advantage Blue-Ray posseses is storage capacity.

Cary on.

Yeah, the only difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray is that Blu-ray holds a bit more and reads a bit faster. Also, Blu-ray is a lot more expensive, which is why I think Blu-ray will lose the format war. Blu-ray is only a little bit better, but a lot more expensive than HD-DVD. In the end, because of this, HD-DVD will win because it's cheaper.

More of Sony's hot-air blowing, what they seem to be good at.

The PS3 is no more "future-proof" than the Xbox 360. Heck, the Xbox 360 is probably more "future-proof" because, unlike the PS3, it can be upgraded. If MS wants to make a bigger HDD, easily done, use 802.11n WiFi or use WiMAX in the future, can be done also, use HD-DVD, already going to be done, etc. The Xbox 360 was built to be expandable and upgradable, the PS3 is NOT. The cheaper PS3 can NOT be upgraded at all to have any of the features its more expensive version has. Whereas, you CAN upgrade the Core 360 to the same specs as the full system.

Also, I can tell that the tilt idea in the PS3 controllers is going to fail, and become a lost feature. People have done it (even MS) in the past on PC and 3rd party controllers that uses it on past on certain consoles, and guess what, it all flopped miserably. Infact, it seems like its more of a pain than fun to use, in that demo at Sony's E3 conference, it seems like that guy couldn't hit the broadside of a barn and the plane was going all over the place..

Also, the space in Blu-Ray is NOT necessary in games in my opinion. I believe most games will not get above 8.6GB, about the size of a DVD. The Blu-Ray disc will only open up one thing, the ability to let developers do sloppy programming.

We also don't know anything of the PS3's final software features. It currently looks like their just using the PSPs interface. Its not too bad but its a far cry from what the 360's interface can do. The only advantage it has it can play movies, and just like an issue were having with Media Center, it can only play MP4s, ONLY Sony-seeded MP4s so you need special encoding software.

So in my opinion, I don't see how something that's similar in graphics capability, unupgradable, forcing you to use a uncertain disc format, extremely hard to develop for CPU, and currently lacking in software features is more "future-proof" than the Xbox 360.

Like I said, its more of what Sony's good at, blowing hot air, and they seem to be doing it allot more this time than any other console pre-release.

DIE!!! SONY DIE!!! LMAO!!!

Actually, HD-DVD holds more information than blueray at this point. Blueray (at the moment) information is only able to be read on a single layer (25 GB). HD-DVD can hold 30 gigs on a dual layer disc. The last I read, dual layer blueray discs were not able to made.
Of course that is just the short term. The future is anybodys guess. Sony will perfect the dual layer blueray discs, but will there be a triple layer HD-DVD at that time?
Also, from what I remember, Blueray uses an older(less efficient) codec than HD-DVD.
Sorry I cant give links, but just search around a bit to find this info.

I actually loved the line that you are paying for potential.

So Sony would you buy my Bic pen that has potential to win the powerball lottery for $25.99? Or would they like the pen with the same potential but missing features like the Cap and all the ink for $15.99?

Seriously can we mic these Sony folks up so that the unlimited comedy will continue?

^lol

10 years life cycle? Playstation 1 did it, Playstation 2 will do it, i don't doubt Playstation 3's potential for a 10 years cycle. I used to flame Sony for forcing people into getting blu ray, but now that i think about it, i don't have to buy a PS3 anyway. If they thought they can pull a PS2 (DVD) with the PS3 (bluray) this time, then it's their decision to take the risk.

Xbox 360 is a game machine that offers next gen graphics and Wii offers next gen gameplay. PS3 offers next gen movie player. At this point, i just need next gen gaming, hence i'll go for a Wii60 combo.

"The Blu-Ray disc will only open up one thing, the ability to let developers do sloppy programming."

Actually, the more space a disc has, the less compressed a pre-rendered or recorded video must be in order to fit. This could make pre-rendered cutscenes look better, but that's it. And I doubt that a 5GB difference in these 25GB and 30GB discs will affect the abilities of either. Companies will never use that much space to fill with uncompressed videos.

"10 years life cycle? Playstation 1 did it, Playstation 2 will do it, i don't doubt Playstation 3's potential for a 10 years cycle."

But what you don't understand is that PS1 and PS2 had 10 years forcefully SQUEEZED out of them. PS2 games cannot even compare to Xbox 1 games graphically, since Xbox was released later and had twice the hardware power. The same thing will happen to the PS3. It will supposedly "survive" for 10 years, but once the next generation of non-Sony consoles hits, the PS3 will suck in comparison and all games released on it will be graphically sub-par with the current consoles of that time.
5 years for any type of PC-like hardware is already a stretch, 10 years is just spreading it too thin. WAY too thin.

I really, really hate it when I hear heads of major corporations making stupid comments like 'future proof'. Not only does it show him as someone that has no idea what 'future proof' commands as a term in the English language, but also that he is gullible enough to be persuaded by those beneath him on the snake oil notion.

Sony puts out almost as much BS as they put out announcements that BluRay has been further postponed. I guess BlueRay players are going to be on the market ONE month now before PS3 hits. Any bets as to whether or not PS3 is available before the holidays?

EatingPie, correct that you need an HDTV to take full advantage of the 360. However, you will not need the 360s HD-DVD player to play games. Motion Control v Rumble? I will choose rumble every time!

On second thought, don't believe everything that Sony says.

Fact is, they were caught with their pants down when the X360 was announced. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they are already working on the PS4. Sony needs to have somthing ready for when MS announce the Xbox3.

Jason (#20) is right, the video gfx chipset will be old in 6months (maybe a year). Even if blue ray does take off(which I'm doubting more and more), its a 1st gen drive. It will be SLOW. In year (if blue ray lasts that long) there will problably be 2x, 4x blue ray drives. The video card and media are the main components that drive the game (unless its all done through the drive at some point, and if it is the drive is slow and small so its aged already too!)

I don't think anybody's commented on what Stringer actually MEANT by "future proof."

First, I believe he's referring to 1080p. The XBox requires HD, but it's 720p, with 1080i/p optional. But the trend in HDTVs is toward full-blown 1080p adoption... 720p TVs will fade away over time. So in the 1080p sense, the PS3 IS "future proof."

I think people have keyed in on the Blu-Ray drive as well. The XBox has a DVD drive, decidedly NOT future proof (I realize the upcoming HD-DVD add-on). Sony, of course, MUST act like BD is THE next-gen format, whether it or not it wins the war... So this points to -- again -- Sony claiming Future Proof (new BD vs. old DVD)

In this context, I agree wth Stringer's comment to a certain extent (no avoiding CPU obsolescence of course). I'd love to see what others say, IN THIS CONTEXT, because I think that's the REAL meaning behind Stringer's statements.

-Pie

Sony = idiots!

First Sony says that the PS3 is a PC. At one point, Ken Kataguri even says they never called the PS3 as a game machine. Then Sony says it's future proof and will last 10 years but doesn't go into details.

I would like to see how they plan on keeping the PS3 updated.

I still have a computer that is 10 years old and it works, but that doens't mean I use it. Sony's comments are getting more and more ridiculous

*edit* should read Ken Kutagari. I think he's an idiot but he should have his name spelled right :)

"Um, Ninja, you realize that all the math you did applies equally to the XBox?"

Not so. For the 360:

A: I don't have to buy a PSP to be my rearview mirror and to use as my media-streaming device. Sony is saying the PS3 and PSP are inseparable (aka, you'll need one for some stupid reason). Yes, I already have one. Don't use it though.

B: I have an HDTV, but it doesn't support 1080p. It was also under $1000, 51", and looks great, but apparently it isn't "True HD" for Sony. I've got to pay triple+ to get that.

C: I don't have to pay for the HD-DVD, because I don't want it. Bluray and HD-DVD are both scams. But it's not optional with the PS3. Trying to say this is a necessary purchase for the 360 is just silly. If I wanted to watch movies, I'd get a dedicated player that didn't suck.

D: I could get that motion control now, WITH rumble for the PS1 and PS2. What's so special about it? I'd rather have rumble. The Wii is what I'll be interested in motion control for.

So what's wrong with my math? $600 PS3 + $250 PSP + $2500-5000 1080p television with no games seems correct for the "potential True 4D HD Playstation fine dining experience".

Not that I won't get one (FFXIII duh), I just think they are making the whole "playing a playstation" process ridiculous.

Dear Eatingpie,

I agree with your comment about the context. However, I don't think that 1080p HDTVs will be that popular in the near future. I personally have a 720p 50inch HDTV - it cost me around 1500$. The size HDTV at 1080p will cost atleast twice more. This migth be worth it if the 1080p resolution was twice as good as 720p, but its not. According to CNET (I'm sorry guys, run a search on CNET's site, I'm too lazy to look up the link) the difference between the two resolutions are Marginal and can only be seen on 42inch TVs or greater. Even then, its about a 20% improvement (I know that its hard to quantify image quality). Now, lets look at the number of people who will be able to afford a 42inch TV and willing to pay twice at much for a 20% improvement; I think the number isn't that high. Besides, even some of Sony's own game developers have come out to say that they can't make gameplay at 1080p at this point; only the pre-rendered scenes can achieve that resolution.

If BLu-Ray does win the format war, then the PS3 is a steal. However, if HD-DVDs or even HD video downloads end up being the norm, then the PS3 will be an over-priced console. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for 50GB games, if Oblivion can fit onto a DVD, I don't see the real need for games to be bigger. Even If they are, it will come at an increased cost to consumers. Sony will have difficulty selling their games at 80$ as is, and these are games that can easily fit onto a DVD9. Although I agree that the PS3 is future-looking, I can't but wonder whether its looking just a little too far. (Meaning, it might make sense for me to buy the PS3 in 5 years, given ideal conditions prevail, and a 360 or a Wii right now.) Wouldn't it be wiser for to push these technologies once they are market-tested and not before?

Laylalore you are very correct about 1080p. Fact is that the distance you sit from your HDTV determines if you need 720p or 1080p. The british did an extensive study and figured that the human eye can only see so much detail. My 50" DLP HDTV is the perfect distance to see every detail that my eye can see. If I went with a bigger HDTV then I might need to upgrade to 1080p.

The other factor to 1080p is programming. Their is NONE and won't be ANY for a long time. If I can only get 22 HD channels right now at 720p, I could get about 4 in 1080p. Until we go Fiber-Optic and BIG TIME, we will only have movies to watch in 1080p. Television companies will not broadcast in 1080p for atleast 5-7 years.

Why would I spend another $2,000-$3,000 to watch movies in 1080p? I honestly can't imagine my picture being any better. I just watched the shuttle launch in HD and it was better than being their.

The funny thing about the 1080p people is that most of them don't even own an HDTV. The people who own an HDTV understand and realize that 720p is more than enough.

Oblivion was 70% plus audio I heard so more space equals more talking no thanks, plus has anyone seen GTHD look at the trees and people if thats what 1080p makes my games look like then no thnaks

at this point the PS3 graphics look roughly as good as the 360. who buys a console for the future potential? thats dumb.