Disparate Console Cycles

Ex~

Ex~

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
It seems Microsoft is destined to release their "Phoenix" before either Sony or Nintendo get on with a PS4 or a Wii 2.

With the PS3 still weighing in at a heft $400 price tag, and the Wii having yet to drop at all from its $250 launch price, this makes since. The 360, on the other hand, has already dropped significantly, with its launch console a distant memory, and a new basic system at the basement bargain price of $200 and their standard system at an affordable $300.


If the 360 burns out in three years and drops a new console in 2011, that leaves yet another four long years before the PS3's "10 year cycle" comes to a close.

If Microsoft bucked the trend and released their Phoenix even before 2011, how far would Sony be behind?

Nitendo, of course, could go along with Sony in pushing the Wii for years. With such a simple system and business strategy, they have really no need to rush into a regularly console update.


So it seems what we are looking at in the future is a trend of much more disparate console cycles. Instead of the 6-month delay between systems we've seen traditionally, we may have years between each console maker putting out their system.


Do you see this happening? Or will Sony have to counter a Phoenix release with a PS4 release around 2012?


Who will this benefit? Will gamers pass over the Phoenix as too expensive, and by the time they get around to thinking of upgrading, want the new, several year younger PS4?
 
I cant imagine Microsoft will release in 2010 but I guess thats two more years away in regardst o holiday seasons.

Sony would follow a year after and probably Nintendo as well. Maybe 2 years after depending.
 
Actually the price of the Xbox 360 is high compare to other system in the past. It is still high for a system going into year 3. Main reason is that MS lost so much money cause of RROD
 
The PS3's "10-year life cycle" is PR nonsense. There's no historical precedent for it, and how can there be in the technology industry? Sure, the PS2 has nearly 10 years of software support, but it was made obsolete by the PS3 in much less time.
 
If the 360 burns out in three years and drops a new console in 2011, that leaves yet another four long years before the PS3's "10 year cycle" comes to a close.
Click to expand...
Five.

A new XBox in 2011 isn't that far fetched, not even 2010 is that far fetched - 360 came out in 2005. That'd be 5 years. The original XBox only had a four year lifespan.
 
I think that 2010 will be the year for new systems.

Nintendo will be ready to release a WiiHD because HD technology will have come down enough in price for them to make a profit on it and there will be demand for HD Nintendo games. Plus they can re-sell their stuff in HD!:roll:

MS will release a new console because it will be five years and that seems to be the magic number for new consoles.

Remember, when Sony says "10 year life", they don't mean as a primary system. The PS1 had and the PS2 currently has plenty of new releases after it's replacement arrived. Unless Sony feels that the PS3 is a bomb, expect it to stick around a few years after the PS4 comes out. I don't see a PS4 though until 2011 or 2012.
 
[quote name='Scorch']A new XBox in 2011 isn't that far fetched, not even 2010 is that far fetched - 360 came out in 2005.[/quote]

Agreed. 2011 is the most likely year we'll see new home consoles. 2010 is definitely a possibility as being first to market did help the 360 quite a bit and MS could be looking for a repeat.
 
2010 would be the magic number. even with 2 years the ps3 still is pricy and needs it's user base yet to grow.

I really don't see sony doing anything till 2012, they can't make another $600 entertainment system.

Getting a new system that's impervious to RROD would benefit MS more than anything, plus getting a better system with BC.

Nintendo will do it's own thing, and with motion+ coming... i could see 2012 too for them.. the masses will have HD which will benifit the new hardware then.
 
Sony doesnt get to decide how long their system is supported. The market does. Whoever has lead marketshare has always had longer support from both 3rd and 1st parties, but sales have to stay robust. That is largely out of their control at this point.

I personally think Sony shouldve skipped a generation entirely and just sold software on the 120M+ PS2 install base. They wouldve taken down 360 as well. Many HD games have to be multiplatform to be viable, and without that option, 360 would be in a very different place. Hell, the next Dragonball Z game is a PS2 exclusive, because they tried it next-gen and got burned bad.

Nintendo cant hope for support for 3 lead systems (Wii/DS/WiiHD). Their 3rd pillar talk of the DS days was PR bullshit. You cant have developers that divided, nor can you divide your own 1st party resources like that.

If they are smart, Nintendo should be the last to launch by a wide margin. Historically that has been the case. Lead marketshare = longer cycle, late next cycle launch. NES was so successful it was competing well against the Genesis for several years before Nintendo had to respond with the SNES. Future proofing is a fictional concept, the weaker systems have always been the champions of the console race.
 
whoever releases first will have the potential to seize the market (much like 360 currently undermined the ps3) so MS has the money to make a new console every 4-5 years if they choose since they consoles are basically made out of Intel and Nvidia chips, which get updated regularly compared to the proprietary format of the ps3/wii.

Just because MS makes a new console, doesn't mean it will cost them more money than fixing or updating an old console, it may cost less, because newer chipsets are cheaper and faster to manufacture and become far more powerful naturally as technology advances.

The problem isn't the hardware it's the software, if the ps3 had tons of great software available at launch and up until today instead of a handful of good titles (many of which are 3rd party non exclusive) sony wouldn't need to make a ps4 to battle the next xbox.

Like someone here said, if nintendo and sony had their way they would make a console once every 6-7 years and then keep the previous version around for 2-3 years after that to squeeze life out of them until everyone makes the next step, effectively gaining a 10 year life cycle out of every console..

of course as these consoles progress, the life cycle will become much longer. Games are already almost photo realistic and after another 10-20 years, games will look better than the movies and once they get to the point where you can't tell they are games, why would they make new more powerful consoles if they are not needed... to improve graphics? At that point, consoles may have 20 year lifecycles and tons of firmware upgrades. If they are able to make 1.6ghz processors more powerful today than the 3ghz processors of 5 years ago, it's possible to make software that will make far better use of game development tools which will allow next gen graphics on current hardware platforms. Which is why the ps2/psp has titles like GoW and then shit titles because many devs don't know how to utilize the 8 year old hardware to the fullest yet.

At that point, they will work on the way you play games, glasses for screens, full 360 degree panoramic views, VR gloves, etc. But hardware will not need to increase to make games look better if the games are at the pinnacle of being photo realisic.

Just think about Sound chips, Music doesn't sound better today than it did 5 or even 10 years ago. If it does, it's very negligible. I used to upgrade my video card every year but my sound system has been the same for about 3 years and I'll keep it for another 10 years.
 
There is currently no basis for better hardware = longer cycles, since the trend has thus far been the opposite.

NES went from 1983 to 1990. SNES 1990 to 1996. N64 - '96 to '01. Gamecube - '01 to '06. Unless someone wants to skip a cycle entirely or do a mid-cycle launch, stiff competition forces a shorter cycle, whether you want it or not. It turns out someone is always going to come with something new to the table.
 
[quote name='Casiotech']whoever releases first will have the potential to seize the market (much like 360 currently undermined the ps3) so MS has the money to make a new console every 4-5 years if they choose since they consoles are basically made out of Intel and Nvidia chips, which get updated regularly compared to the proprietary format of the ps3/wii.

[/QUOTE]

IBM / ATI(AMD) ? :whistle2:s
 
83-90 = 8 years
90-96 = 7 years
96-01 = 7 years
01-06 = 6 years

better hardware will equal shorter cycles UNTIL the hardware reaches a plateau and THEN the cycles will last far longer since there will be little innovation and less need to upgrade, unless of course you consider cycles adding a larger HDD or a better LCD or built in microphone, etc.

I would upgrade from a ps2 to ps3 because it's a huge leap whereas the gamecube to the wii... not so much. If I weren't obsessed with the latest zelda games, I would never even purchase a wii because I would still be content with the GC. Same with the psp 2000 vs 3000. It's a 'new' psp but I can't justify the upgrade same goes with DSi (probably won't sell nearly as well as the DS lite upgrade)

The point is, the future of consoles may be the same as that of the PC, tons of little upgrades but the same software will be available for all revisions and the consumer decides if they wish to upgrade every couple of years or keep the original version which they bought 10 years ago. Technology will plateau eventually, especially for gaming and then it will be just 1 or 2 supreme consoles with HDD add ons and developers can finally start focusing on making great games instead of having to try to keep up with development on new consoles they have no idea how to develop for.
 
The one console scenario is an interesting one, but I dont think it can happen.

Competition will want a slice of the pie, you underestimate their ingenuity to make that happen. Hardware is already plateauing in that the power increase from here on out is going to be much slower than before.

It would be very strange for console gaming to shift back into PC gaming and lose the advantages of having a closed system and not having to deal with upgrades and compatibility issues.

Plus, there is also handheld gaming, which may continue to boom in order to fund the ever increasing development of the added power in home consoles. I personally dont think HD development is legitimately viable, I cant wait to see who can afford to develop for a photo-realistic console.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Time just flies though its hard to believe its been that long to be honest.[/QUOTE]

This. When I play my 360 it still feels like a "new" system. I imagine I'll get used to it right when the next generation begins.

I think MS is looking to put this generation behind them. They've built up a split reputation for themselves. On the one hand, their console has many great games. On the other hand, the RRoD spectre is still haunting them and probably will unless the 360 gets completely redesigned. I'm hoping for a 2011 start to the next wave of consoles.
 
Part of me wants new systems out sooner, because that will be the time for me to grab a 360 and/or PS3, along with a bunch of games, at last-gen bargain prices. :)

The other part wants this generation to last as long as possible, because I'd like to make a bigger dent in my PS2 backlog before I have to worry about being two generations behind.
 
it's not about who's first! it's about who has the better product! nintendo is the last and is number 1! how do you explain your reasoning when the 360 came out first followed by ps3 and the nintendo last, ended as the number one console?

we know what the next 360 will be a better 360. i can also tell you that the next ps3 will be a better ps3. but can you tell me what the next nintendo will be? btw, it won't be a better wii with better graphics.

here's another question, will sony and microsoft follow nintendo's console design and market model? my pov, they won't follow nintendo's model because nintendo has made themselves well established with the wii. for microsoft and sony to follow them would be a plunge. besides, they [sony/microsoft] got the niche population on their hands and they seem to like them.

microsoft will probably release a system that will be able to handle dx10 [dx10.1 included and possibly dx11]. will it change anything?! no!
 
I don't think Microsoft is going to kill the 360 so soon. If you exclude the RROD warranty they have actually made a profit as of recent. I would think for the shareholders since they lessoning RROD cases and making a profit they would push the 360 as long as the market would allow them to. Not to mention they'll want to take their sweet time with the 720 to avoid the whole RROD issue again.

I'm guessing we won't see a new XBox till 2010 or even 2011. If we see a new XBox in 2010 I'm assuming Microsoft will keep the 360 running to offset the 720 costs by profiting on the 360, similiar to what Sony was doing with the PS2 and the PS3.

Lastly we won't see as big as a leap in graphics to offset costs. The PS4 will look slightly better then the PS3, and the 720 will look slightly better then the 360. Wii HD will see It's biggest graphics jump obviously.

Also the MAIN reason the XBox had a four year life span? Costs. The XBox was *STILL* losing money towards the end of It's life. Not so is the case with the 360, even with the RROD fiasco.
 
no I'm hoping the next consoles will look much much better than right now. Sure they look great now but the next batch I expect individual hairs and flowing clothing and extremely dynamic shadows and lighting and far more polygons and 1080p @ 60fps locked down.

I expect the wii2 to resemble a dubbed down 360's graphics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top