Sony's Peter Dille: 'We're attacking online very, very aggressively'

*Snicker*

BTW. Lovely jab at RROD.
Will MS counter with jab that their paperweights last longer than ten years and doesn't cost 600$?

It's people like Peter Dille and Anonim (above me) that make me embarassed to own a PS3. It's an alright console, but the 360 is far better, and until you own them both this is something you'll never realize.

Indeed, like myself who owns both the 360 and PS3, Have had to Send my 360 back twice and am looking forward to more games that are coming out on the PS3. Don't get me wrong they are both good systems unless your one of the unlucky 1/3... twice.

Oh yeah they're attacking online aggressively. It's remnicent of when they capped old yeller..

"None of them have a Blu-ray player, and the HD-DVD will be out of business in a matter of months. Is this a ten-year product?"

Yes. We can be reasonably sure he is. ;)

lmao! love it!!

And please tell us how they fucked up. I'd really like to know. I want facts, not the usual tripe of no games and price. All my games play wonderful and price wasn't a hindrance.

Sorry, those ARE facts. I bet those are the two most common reasons people are not buying. If it had more great games (exclusives) people could overlook the price. If it was cheaper, people could overlook the lack of games. Currently though, the general public has decided to wait it out. F-A-C-T

Jason's covered this pretty well, so I won't go into it too much. I think it's great that price isn't a hindrance to you, Jason-- but most consumers don't have the money (nor desire) to drop $600 for AA games like Motorstorm and Resistance.

The hardware is the main place I think Sony screwed up. The Cell processor was touted to redefine graphical and processing power on a console and has, so far, been anything but that. There is still yet to be a multiplatform game on PS3 that clearly outperforms the X360 counterpart while the "Best Versions" continue to roll to the Xbox.

Sony has taken plenty of losses on exclusive content in North America and so far Sony's few exclusive titles have been nothing to brag about.

...lol, why am I arguing w/ a PS3 fanboy?...

Look at it from Sony's perspective: they are making boatloads of money of the PS2 right now - supertankersize. From their cashflow model point of view 10 year life cycle is a very good thing, even if next next gen starts in year 5 or 6 or 7.

"This "10 year" talk is getting old."

Even as a Sony fan, I might have agreed with you in the PS1 generation. However, the fact that the PS2 is still going strong means that there is some truth to that boast. I think only the Wii is outselling the PS2 week by week.

However, that assumes the widespread adoption of the PS3 to get the life extension given to the PS2.

Well said [+]

Would you pay $500 for a 10 year product or $400 for a 5 year product or $250 for a 2-3 year product?
For me, it looks better to say that they are standing behind this product for at least 10 years. How long has MS or Nintendo claimed to stand behind their products?

According to all the Sony Fanboys, it's a 'Sony Thing' and you wouldn't understand.

And WE don't.

Because you are narrow minded and short sighted. Sony is not going to abandon the PS3 after a year of low sales. More games will come more systems will sell. It's a long race.

Matt B, don't kid yourself. Sony's milking the 10-year argument because they have nothing going for them at this point in time but want to sustain the illusion that they'll somehow become wildly successful in the future. In reality, a console's sales is the most important factor in its lifespan, and that means that as of now the Wii is the 10-year product and the PS3 the 2-3 year one. Not saying that will happen, mind you, just that it's much more likely than the scenario you're suggesting.

Sure, you can go Sony's route and believe they'll make a miraculous turnaround... just make sure you realize that it would go completely against all reason (consoles with low installed bases attract fewer developers, meaning fewer games, meaning continued low installed base, etc.) and all precedents in videogame history (no console has ever come back to prominence from this far behind).

If things never change REVO, how come NINTENDO is doing so well?

Way to misquote. Where did I say things never change? What I said was that it's just stupid to believe a console can make complete 180º turnaround smack in the middle of its lifespan.

Isn't that what happened to the original XBox though? At first I thought Microsoft was stupid for even considering entering the console market, then Fable, Morrowind, and Halo came and I couldn't wait to get one

Yes, the Playstation and PS2 had/have long lifecycles. But they were adopted quickly and continuously. The PS2 sold more than 3 times the number of consoles in its first 8 months as the PS3 has. It starts the cycle that keeps the system alive - people buy the console, so developers make games for the console, so more people buy the console... If there were very few games on the PS2 that weren't on a cheaper console, do you think people would still be buying the PS2?

The point is, if the PS3 doesn't get its act together, it won't have a full five year lifecycle, let alone ten year. They have to show the developers that their system is where the money is or there won't be any reasons for people to buy the console in the future.

That is because they can. If the ps3 doesn't do as well as hoped (a shocking situation, i know) then just watch them dump it. Do you really think if they don't win this generation they will waste effort on holding up what was a failed console? No, they are gonna go head first into the PS4, just like MS did this time.

Fanboys need to look at history. This isn't a unique sony philosophy, it is simple business. Nintnedo supported the NES for 2 years into the 16bit generation...because at that point, it was raw profit.

"Unlike the other two guys, Sony continues support for their last generation (hence a 10 year life cycle)"

Here's the problem with your argument. SONY isn't providing the support. Their ps2 support is coming primarily from 3rd PARTY COMPANIES. As long as third party companies continue to support your system you will have viability unless (like Nintendo)you have first party support that can match third party support. Sony never had to really worry about 1st party support because of the number of ps2s sold the last generation so they didn't focus on it. Now that they don't have the largest installed user base with the next-generation they're having problems because without 3rd party exclusives there really is no reason to get your system. Unless of course you offer a better version of those games or can offer them at a cheaper price. Sony presently can do neither. Sony is being very cocky to make the assumption that:
1.Their system will still be a viable platform for gaming for ten years. That is a long time to make predictions over.

and 2.Third party companies will continue to decide to release exclusive content on their system to the point where it justifies purchasing your system.

If they can barely get exclusive content now how will they manage that over the course of 10 years? And what happens when they decide they need to upgrade their hardware to match the competition? I guarantee you that if it happens before 10 years is up alot of people are going to be pissed. ("I thought they were in this for a ten years time span. They lied!") I think that is Sony's biggest problem. They need to think before they start making statements. And who's to know how reliable ps3 hardware is? Of course it is doing better than the 360 right now. But anytime you have technology that is composed of so many different components you're bound to have problems over time. Will the ps3 blue diodes wear out due to frequent use for movies and gaming? Will the rumored blu-disc rotting become a more serious problem as blu-ray discs get older? Something to think about.

The 20GB PS3 had HDMI, that's how mine is hooked up right now. It's missing Wifi and memory card readers, that's it (oh and I've upgraded the drive to 120GB). If you must bash be accurate.

ALL PS3's come with HDMI, even the 20 GB. The 20 GB lacked Wi-fi... it was basically the same thing as an Elite but with Premium sized hard drive.

Taco,

It's just a matter of time. RROD will rear it's ugly head when you least expect it. Just ask my nephew, he's on number two. He just got his this last Christmas. His friends went as well.

It's just too bad.

... The 20gb PS3 DID have hdmi o.o

The only differences between the 20gb and the 60gb were wireless, chrome, memory stick reader, oh, and 40gb.

Ah...don't I feel like an idiot now. I forgot what the 20GB didn't have from the 60GB one since all I remember from looking at it is go "Holy crap! Why the hell would anyone the 20GB then!?" Thanks for correcting me.

Let see the numbers. I really interested to see proof of hddvd selling more in Europe than blu ray. Do you have a link?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/18/hd-dvd-touts-sales-growth-over-blu-rays-decline/

Phranctoast, I'm not sure sir, but I think you may have just got SERVED.

Also thanks for the link Cosmo, it was an interesting read. I've always felt a bit nervous about hd-dvd to be honest. A bit concerned it would die but I think I might shell out the $200.00 bucks in a year or two or however long it takes my local blockbuster to carry them.