270°

Sony's 10 Year Plan Is Flawed, And Here's Why

AnalogHype.com writes: "Sony's approach to the industry is not so much unique as it is bold: we're going to make consoles that last for decades. That's exactly what they did with the PlayStation 2 and it's exactly what they set out to do with the PlayStation 3. Will the PS3 make it, though?"

Read Full Story >>
analoghype.com
SasanovaS19875212d ago

its 3 years in and it doesnt even feel like it...so whats another 7 years? its a 10 year estimate in my opinion, but it can go 13-14 years easily

chrisnick5212d ago

This article wreaks of retarded guessing. Pioneers take risks, it's what makes them great. Will it last? It's not even 4 years old yet and based on the quality of stuff its putting out, I'm afraid for what they do for ps4. That reminds me, gotta save up my 1000 for that.

Lifendz5212d ago

Amazing how so many are basically saying Sony should've given us a PS2.5 and basically progress in tech in small incrimental steps.

Sorry man but I don't see why 10 years isn't plausible or a wise move. Look at how good the games look in what...year four of the life of the PS3. I know graphics aren't everything but it's usually the first indication that it's time for a new console. The way Sony keeps raising the bar I really think the ten year plan is possible.

And PSN is leaps and bounds better than it was just 3 years ago. I'd go as far as to say Sony has improved PSN more in the same timeframe than MS did Live.

So what's the rush? I paid 550.00 for a 60gb unit. I don't plan on spending that again (or any amount close to that) until 2016 regardless of what's out. So I guess in closing MS and Sony can do whatever they want so long as they continue to support the current consoles. After seeing how people that waited got the benefit of a cheaper PS3 or a 360 with a lower failure rate, I'm not buying a console within a year of launch ever again.

jcgamer5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

cause Ken Kutaragi said so! now BOW DOWN analoghype.com!

lol :)

Maddens Raiders5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

lol ::looks at the ME2 wallpaper plastered on the site::

Analog Hype? site should be called FUD Hype.

"If Microsoft were to introduce a new console at that point, and Sony keeps their focus on the PlayStation 3, then yes: it'll easily pass up the Xbox 360. What does that say, though? Microsoft will already be on their next console, making money on that one and leading the pack in the next generation of gaming technology (presumably)."

..so if MS introduces some new big bad a$$ console with or without blu-ray and is rrod-free (hopefully) you presume they will be making a profit and kicking a$$?

good job wasting our time Quentyn Kennemer, but hey at least I know to avoid your future ramblings... moving along now..... >_>

nycredude5212d ago

The only people who thought it a better idea to release Ps2.5 are the xbox 360 fans becuase they are butthurt the console is looking more and more dated as the Ps3 is looking better and better.

Not that it means there are no games or no reasons to own a 360, as I have one and enjoy it also. Those who have both consoles will know what i am talking about.

pixelsword5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

The Cell processor/RSX combination.

Out of the Cell/B.E., GPU and FPGA, the Cell is not only the overall best of the three, but it's the easiest to program. This is according to Tony Williams, a man who not only has experience programming on all three, but spent an estimated two years worth of programming time on the Cell when most people were just getting familiar with it.

http://www.simbiosys.ca/blo...

That means that people/companies that can't get a grip on the Cell really have no hope for the future unless they re-hire programmers or add new ones, essentially doubling their staff while only being half as productive.

So, not only is the PS3 ready to go 10 years, if programming techniques are used and/or improve (like the better than 16x AA example on The Saboteur) and techniques implemented to alter the lens aperture of the Blu-Ray to accept higher-capacity discs, the PS3 could go upwards of 15 years.

Simon_Brezhnev5212d ago

well look at who wrote it im not surprised

Giant_Chibi5212d ago

i say just report the article and move along.

Don't give these guys anymore attention than they deserve

edgeofblade5212d ago

This really exposes the flaw with the PS3 10-year plan. Their promises have locked their current-gen console, PS3, into a fight with next-gen consoles, Xbox "720". Sony can't just stand up and say "technology will not advance in the next ten years because we say so". They will have to compete with whatever happens in the next 10 years.

Of course, there is nothing stopping them from "supporting" the PS3 to that 10 year mark while they release a PS4 in another 3 years or so.

FamilyGuy5212d ago

I'm gonna guess the PS3 will be ahead of the 360 at or before the PS3 is 6 years old.

JD_Shadow5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

Why am I not surprised that YOU agree with this joke of an article coming from one of the usual suspects?

EDIT@below: You said that ANALOGHYPE, a site that last year tried to bend N4G rules to flamebait their podcast further, exposed something. That's a joke in of itself. Sony should blacklist THESE guys. I would rather believe HHG above AH.

As for what you're saying, didn't MS say they weren't ready to release a new console, too? It's not like Sony is the only company that thinks their console is future proof. Only thing is, if MS really thinks that about their 360, THEY are the ones smoking the weed, not Sony.

sikbeta5212d ago

Hilarious when you read an article from a site called analog[hype] actually trying to teach a MultiNational Electronic Manufacturer and Entertainment Producer Company like SONY how to RUN Its BUSINESS, I mean Come On a nøøb trying to teach a Master is just Unbelievable

SO, How you Explain The PS2, being the less powerful Console compared to The Competition and STILL SELLING

The Ten Years Life Cycle is the Base of The PS3, you can't change that with an Article..

avengers19785212d ago

Of course it will, that's not saying that they won't come out with something else by year seven, but that being said they still support ps2 so why would they stop support for the ps3. Besides that they just keep improving the quaility of the system so ten years will be easy for them. Plus there really isn't technology out there currently that would vastly improve gaming so why come out with something else, the PS3 is the top of the tech food chain... If the question is can the 360 or wii go ten years then no way. Both are lacking blu-ray drives, and that alone makes them need to improve there hardware.

edgeofblade5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

@darkpower: Fine, I'll rephrase it to come to a conclusion independent of this article, which while makes several good points, is still baised as all f**k.

Sony claiming they were on a 10-year cycle is meaningless, confusing marketing-speak designed to excite only the lowest IQs of Sony fanboys. Everyone else in the world takes one look at the statement are realizes it has no meaning, Sony's going to weasel out of it by abusing the "spirit" of the promise, and it's the standard corporate chest-beating everyone does.

Can we please bury this crappy marketing-speak and move on with it?

@ABOVE RE-EDIT: Oh, I have no doubt Microsoft will be driven to release a new console before Sony does. I won't debate that. But Sony is the one making promises. Microsoft isn't tied down by anything other than what the market will bear.

boodybandit5212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

*rolls-eyes whiles scratching head, shrugs shoulder, turns and walks away*

SaberEdge5212d ago

The PS3 will be around for 10 or more years, but it won't be Sony's main console all those years. In a couple years the next Playstation will come out and will become the focus of Sony and most third parties.

Same goes for the Xbox 360. It will be supported for 10 or more years like Microsoft has said, but it won't be their main console once the next Xbox launches.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 5212d ago
Bnet3435212d ago

I thought Sony was making a profit with the PS3 Slim? Either way, I'm sure they will be making a profit in the next couple of years. We'll be seeing the Xbox 360 and PS3 releasing games in the next 5 years. These machines are powerful and I'm most certain no one has tapped all the power out of them.

STK0265212d ago (Edited 5212d ago )

Will we still see 360 and PS3 games in 5 years? absolutely. Will the PS3 or the X360 be the flagship system for either company? Not a chance.

I find it amusing when a company (MS, Sony or Nintendo) talks about a ten year plan. Sure, when the console launches, it makes sense to tell potential customers that their product will last for 10 years and is therefor worth every single penny they're paying at launch, since it will entertain them for 10 years. Little do they say about the fact that their next console will be out in less than 7-8 years.

For example, the venerable PS2, which is, as far as I know, entering its 10th year on the market, received Persona 4 in 2008 (NA), I haven'T seen anything worth my time or money on the PS2 after that. To me, the PS2 lived about 9 years, which is quite impressive, don't get me wrong, but it "died" the day P4 arrived (at least, to me it did).

It really depends on what your understanding of "10 year lifespan" is. To some, having the system on the shelves, with a few games per year, others will count a system as alive, even if it's only being sold in South America. But, believing in a "true" 10 year lifespan seems ridiculous to me, the PS3 got here in 2006, 6 years after the PS2, and the moment the PS3 launched, it started sucking the momentum out of the PS2, thanks to new technology and possibilities. The same will happen with the PS4, once it launches, the PS3 will slowly start to die, it might survive 10 years on the shelves, but game releases will be sparse and its appeal for "non-casual player" will go down quite quickly.

BTW, I used the PS3/4 as an example, but the same could be said about any video game system, may it be a home console or a handheld system.

nycredude5212d ago

Dude I don't know what the heck you are ranting about, but not a single word you said is fact, just your opinion. Opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one, and they all stink.

And just a harmless question, why don't you use the xbox and xbox 360 as an example? Oh wait... where IS the xbox?

STK0265212d ago

Well, please enlighten me with your facts and tell me which console lasted a full 10 years on the market without having it's successor come out before the end of said 10 years. Or maybe you have some examples of game consoles thriving more than two years after the release of their back then "next generation" consoles?

When the PS2 launched, the PSOne line-up quickly dried-up, the same happened to the PS2 once the PS3 was on the market, developers, mostly first party one may I add, moved on to the new tech. And, since it would seem you believe this to be an all out attack on the playstation family, I will gladly include other examples. When the Cube launched, the N64 became irrelevant, when the Wii launched, the Cube was already irrelevant. The Xbox died in 4 years, the 360 came out in 2005, the original Xbox had already been killed by Microsoft. When the DS launched in late 04, the GBA line-up, once an unstoppable force, died a slow death with a handful of noteworthy titles.

As for my point, I thought it was quite a simple one, guess I was wrong, so I'll rewrite it so that every one can understand it : Consoles do not have a "true" 10 years lifespan, they might stay on the market for 10 years, but once their successor enters the arena, most developers move on, leaving the older console left with little more than shovel ware games.

Oh, and Nycredude, while you might think I'm being hostile toward you, I'm not, I'm actually glad to see someone explain himself rather than the too usual stealth disagrees.

blackboyunltd5212d ago

sony needs to revamp its entire gameplan

sikbeta5212d ago

And you Need a LIFE...PAL

Unbelievable

Meryl5212d ago

sigh another anti-ps3 article

Knightrid8085212d ago

I've noticed them popup more every time Sony post their numbers. Needless to say, a good chunk of those articles are written by dumbasses trying to gain hits and not realizing in the long run their website's name will be tarnished.

raztad5212d ago

Another day, another fail article/"prediction" . Those "analysts" have been dooming the PS3 for quite a while but it just keeps doing better and better.

Show all comments (109)
280°

Why Xbox believes it must cut costs and close studios

Companies, particularly public companies like Microsoft, need to grow.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
gold_drake21h ago

i mean its pretty simple, they spent close to 30 billion in acquiring activision, they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen.

its just shit that because of MS's miscalculation alot of people lost their jobs.

Jingsing18h ago

This is exactly what many people said would happen including the CMA and FTC. Lies lies and more lies and they allowed a $69 billion buy out to happen.

gold_drake18h ago

oh yeh it was 70 billion. that was my bad haha even worse.

thesoftware73018h ago(Edited 18h ago)

gold,

You can't be serious, right?

Do you think that MS thought they would make 80bill in a year & Half? They haven't even released titles under MS yet, lol.

But in fact, that A/B revenue is already paying off, look at the last earnings call. That $80 billion is long-term money, my guy, no sane person/company would think they would make that back in any short-term situation, it's a long-term investment.

Let's play silly then. If MS's reason for laying off staff and closing studios was due(which it really was not) to the A/B deal, tell me what Sony's reason was for past studio closures, the recent 900-person layoffs, closing Sony London, shutting down Dreams, and closing Japan Studio? Zipper? Psygnosis? cuts at all their internal studios.

Keep in mind, you are claiming MS's reason is because of the A/B deal; please explain Sony's reason.

Hofstaderman18h ago

You actually still defending them? Sheesh.....

gold_drake18h ago

this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt.

and of course not, but im pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. they didnt, and closed off some studios.

its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case.

romulus2317h ago(Edited 17h ago)

(It really was) due to the Activision Blizzard deal and the loss of physical sales due to gamepass. You keep bringing up Sony in all your posts about this, stop deflecting and trying to change the topic, this is about MS and what they are doing.

BehindTheRows17h ago

Has nothing to do with Sony. Stay on topic.

notachance17h ago

once in a while you see someone too invested in their make-believe console war that everything happened has to be connected to said war…

a bit of banter between fans is normal, this crusade you’re doing now isn’t.

Chevalier16h ago

Wow idiotic. You bring up very old closures not that there haven't been recent ones from Playstations, but, seriously stop deflecting. This has NOTHING to do with Playstation.

Does Playstation got $3 trillion behind them and daddies wallet? No they don't so stop making a fool of yourself.

Xbox has never been profitable really and they just keep losing money so between their worst hardware sales, terrible 3rd party sales and now terrible 1st party sales.

Gamepass numbers that are no longer being announced shows their numbers after 3 years of missed targets has flatlined. Plus their recent gains up to 34 million were ONLY because they folded Gold members in too. Absolutely take your idiotic rhetoric out of here. Keep on topic without deflecting.

S2Killinit16h ago

Ayayayay with these xbox/MS excuses.

Reaper22_11h ago

How dare you mention Sony! Everyone here knows when Sony closes a studio and lay off workers it was the right thing to do. Even when they bought Gaikai and fired almost everyone it was the right thing to do.

Gamers can be such hypocrites sometimes.

andy8510h ago

Is it? That's revenue not profit. Completely different.

fr0sty1h ago

The earnings call only showcased how dire the situation is... Even with ABK and Bethesda, they still couldn't make enough to keep investors happy, gamepass subs are stagnant, and hardware sales are tanking.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
thesoftware73015h ago(Edited 15h ago)

Drake,

"this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt."

You are correct that it's not an MS Vs Sony Topic, but when exaggeration and imagination mix from a one-sided social group, similar examples are needed to ground radical thoughts; in this instance, the example was that shutting down 3,4,5, even 6 studios during a restructure/ buyout/acquisition is not some anomaly(it can suck) that has to be dissected or spell doom and gloom.

"But I'm pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. They didn't, and they closed off some studios."

But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue.

"its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case."

The fact that they did make money, kinda throws this out the window, and besides, you don't wake up and say, hey let's close a studio, you look at the output, you look at the dev as a whole, the long term and short term, you weigh it against all other studios and goals, you keep key members, ect..then you close if they are the weakest links...which by MS analysis they were.

Again, I will make a small Sony comparison, just so some of you can understand and see past the bias; Insomniac, ND, and Bungie have made some of the best games ever created, yet Sony saw fit to cut jobs in every of these studios, even tho Insomniac & ND are the biggest producers of PS games, leagues ahead better than Tango and Arkane, yet, they saw cuts, mind you, while being the TOP produces of PS first party. They were told to cut costs, and more jobs may be on the line, and Bungie is being threatened by a hostile Sony takeover. Put that in perspective, as I know that layoffs and dev closures are different, but if the best of the best is getting cut off, it is less than surprising, that lesser studios are closing.

@Cheva,
My response fits well with your comments as well. You even went on to prove that the dev closures are not just due to A/B acquisition. Then you point out Sony has less money than MS, inferring that MS should keep devs open that they see as lesser earners, while Sony having less money makes it okay to close them. lol...it doesn't work that way.

gold_drake15h ago

im not reading all of that. u have ur opinion, i have mine.

thats rly it.

but this aint sony vs ms.

ApocalypseShadow14h ago

You're trying to compare a 100 billion company to a company that has 3 TRILLION worth. SIE has to live or die on their own. And in turn, PlayStation has helped the main company again and again. Sony has to balance out what is working and not working in the company.

While Xbox has Daddy Warbucks footing the bill to keep the platform afloat. They have been bleeding money from Nvidia hardware in the OG Xbox, the RROD fiasco, the attempted 2013 DRM nonsense and the lies about being the most powerful console in the world and the losses of paying out millions to prop up a service hoping it catches on with enough subscribers to justify its existence.

They're not comparable if Xbox isn't allowed to live or die by its actions. It's subsidized. Revenue isn't profit. And if they were profiting on their own, they wouldn't be closing developers. If they were profiting, they wouldn't need Daddy Warbucks spending 80 to 100 billion buying up 3rd party publishers to sustain a loss leading platform.

They stopped announcing game sales, stopped announcing hardware sales, stopped announcing game pass subscribers, they are putting games on their competitors platforms but you're telling us that they are doing great even after killing jobs and closing developers at Xbox.

Stop drinking the Kool aid. You're drunk.

Chevalier5h ago

Again at which point did Playstation have a $3 trillion company shift the market with a giant purchase?

"But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue."

Lol. No they didn't. Increased revenue was ONLY due to adding Activision Blizzard revenue in. Growth was only 1 percent. It's idiots like you that have no idea what they're talking about is why Xbox isn't better than it is. You guys just make excuses continually.

If Xbox got so much profit then why did they stop announcing hardware numbers? Why did they stop announcing Gamepass numbers? Oh right because they're NOT profitable. Their sales in every category has dropped off the face of the planet. It's why Spencer will be closing more studios and canceling upcoming projects too.

WelkinCole10h ago

I am pretty sure MS knew this would happen and this was part of their plan. I mean if anyone with half a brain can see this happening I am pretty sure a multi billion company like MS knew this would happen

The whole strategy in buying Beth and Acti/Blizzard is for

1. Buy established games they can have under xbox because they have done a horrible job in building their portfolio internally for the past 15 years

2. Following from 1, try and boost xbox competitivenss against a dominat PS which MS after 3 tries still can't crack

3. Follolwing from 2, try and weaken Playstation dominance by taking out these massive multiplats from the PS

4. Following from 3, try and profit off from the PS domiance with selected games they will still have on the PS to make money like COD

5. Obviously get the IP's by buying them instead of creating them which again as I mentioned in number 1 they have been woeful in doing

None of these had anyting to do with keeping all the devs they accuried. MS has always been very shitty to Devs under them. Look at what happned to Bungie for example.

I believe MS in court truely mean it when they said they had to do something because PS was just too dominant. This was their last roll of the dice.

And from the looks of things. It has not panned out as MS had hoped. PS5 is still as dominant as ever and xbox is still behind. Worse still their MP's they got is not irreplaceable as they thought. Starfield? lol!. There have not been any major shift in momentum in this console war in their favor so now its time to start cutting their loses and it starts with the most expensive cost for any company. People.

Michiel19898h ago

for a comparison, sony laid of a bigger % of it's staff this year than ms, it's what companies sadly do nowadays. If you think with GP and Bethesda + acti aquisition they were looking for quick cash, you couldn't be more wrong. It hasn't even been a year, "they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen." shows you have 0 understanding of how a business operates.

Profchaos1h ago

30 more like 70 to 80 plus 7 for Bethesda

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
anast18h ago

They are going to use AI for a large portion of the game development process. Upper management need bonuses and the shareholders need more money. So, people will lose their jobs.

Skuletor18h ago

Maybe they were already using AI to make business decisions, which would explain why they closed Hi-Fi Rush's studio, then said they need more games like Hi-Fi Rush not long after that announcement.

Crows9017h ago(Edited 17h ago)

They shouldn't have bought any studios. Some is okay...but they went on a shopping spree...stupid

Einhander197217h ago

The better question is why did Microsoft buy publishers for a service they were subsidizing they knew couldn't support.

And why are so many websites trying to make people feel sorry for Microsoft instead of truly criticizing the fact they are closing studios and killing jobs that would have been fine if Microsoft themselves hadn't gotten involved.

Quit feeling sorry for Microsoft and start feeling sorry for the industry and the all the gamers who are actually losing out.

THIS IS MICROSOFTS FAULT.

RNTody17h ago

The first thing that happens after any major acquisition or merger is a consolidation of the whole new portfolio, which includes cutting any excess, bloat or portfolios that don't fit the larger MO of the big boy. So far, it's been par for the course with Microsoft and that's why gamers have been so against this acquisition. Tango Gameworks is the beginning. You think Microsoft wants to pay to keep small timers like Ninja Theory in business?

There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Microsoft will improve any of these studios, but plenty to suggest that they will get rid of what they don't need and hold onto the IP. The real agenda of the acquisition was always to acquire The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Fallout, Call of Duty, Candy Crush etc. that will create millions in passive revenue stream for Microsoft regardless of where the games release. Microsoft simply wants their cut.

Because of Games Pass Microsoft has no interest in investing in new IP which is risky and requires creative talent they can neither nurture nor manage. Game Pass has also not grown in the way Microsoft expected it to, even post acquisitions. Therefore the logical thing to do, without serious money makers to release, is to cut as much cost as possible.

Show all comments (39)
110°

7 Deserving Games That Never Got Backward Compatibility

Backward compatibility works for many games on newer consoles, but titles such as The Simpsons: Hit and Run have been left out.

90°

20 Best Survival Games of All Time

From base building to swinging willies, here are the best survival games around, which include a couple of less than obvious picks.

Read Full Story >>
culturedvultures.com
Vader821d 21h ago

No 7 days to die is criminal