Awwww crap. Price for PS3?

[Paul2]

well, the playstation one was still going strong even after the launched of ps2.  The sales of PSOne were still pretty strong for a couple of years after the release of PS2, so were the games if my memories serve me correctly...

i still bought some games for PSOne after the launched of PS2 in the U.S. where I didn\'t have a PS2 yet, and even after I got a PS2, I still bought a few of PSOne gems.  Games like Chrono Chross, Castlevania: SOTN, Final Fantasy Tactics, Mega Man X4, and Mega Man 8...

thanks goodness the PS2 is backward compatible with PSOne games, because not long after I got a PS2.  My sister wanted the PSOne for her kids, so I give it away and still enjoy any PSOne games on my PS2 when i feel like playing old school games...

Added: so, what\'s my point?

I can see PS2 may still sell well, even after the launch of PS3.  Why?  Well, for one, I can imagine PS2 will have a price drop around the time the PS3 launch.  Say, now its still cost $150 to get a ps2, who knows, maybe by the time PS3 comes out, it might drop down to $130, or even down $100 to draw buyers who still haven\'t got a PS2 yet or wanted the new slim design to replace the bulky one so they can plug it in the car...who knows...

but what really makes ps2 still doing well for a couple more years are the games.  Old and new.  By the time PS3 are going to launch worldwide, doesn\'t means there won\'t be any more great titles coming to PS2, there still will be a few more great titles coming to PS2, just not a lot, but still a few before it die out.  And some great games might be re-release for ps2 in "greatest hits" price drop to keep it alive for a while.  A game I will definately going to get for PS2 sooner or later in the future even after the launch of ps3 is FFXII, which can keep me busy for a while.

If I buy a game, it\'s either X360 or DS at this point.

To me, I feel like getting a PS2 game is an expensive step backwards. Maybe I would get a cheap one, but probably I\'d get a DS game instead.

And that type of consumer mindset it why it\'s time to move on to PS3.

-Dan

[Paul2]

well, that\'s because you are more hardcore gamer i say and you are more financially secure i suppose...

Not many people are rich enough to buy first generation consoles of xbox 360 nor do xbox 360 really interested them enough to buy the first generation.

PlayStation 3, on the other hand, are very good with its add on features, and #1 biggest add on features that will interest many videogames developer are support of Blu Ray.  Add that with hype of its processing power and performance, and a reasonably cheap price tag and consumers will be drawn into it.  Sooner or later, they are more likely to get PS3 than XBOX360 or Revolution.

A console lifespan of 10 years is BS.

I\'d say 6 or 7. The remaining 3 years
it\'ll sell remaining stock and production
has ended.

[Paul2]

I kind of agree, the difference between the PSOne and PS2 when its first launch were 5 years, 3 months.  With the PSOne still doing okay for a couple more years.  That makes it about 7 good years of lifespan it have...

The timeline difference between the launch of PS2 and PS3 is longer.  PS3 officially announced a launch date in Nov of this year.  Then that would make it 6 years 8 months difference between the launch date of ps2 and ps3.

That\'s about 17 months longer than the launch between psOne and PS2 and the ps2 is still doing all right.  I could image ps2 still doing okay after the launch of ps3 till 2008, where it may reach it peak.  and that would make it 8 years of lifespan it have.

PS3, I am not really sure about its lifespan.  Back in 2002, I was guessing that the PS3 won\'t come out until 2006 instead of 2005 to include a Blu Ray drive because I believe Blu Ray Players won\'t come out until 2006.  Also, by delaying the launch date to 2006, the PS3 can get an extra year of more powerful graphical performance.

Why was I guessing that the ps3 is likely to include a Blu Ray built in is because I look at the patterns between PSOne and PS2.

PSOne use CD-ROM drive and support CD-Audio discs too.

PS2 support CD-ROM and Audio too, but its also include DVD-ROM built in, and can play DVD-Video too.

By looking at that pattern I suspect the future ps3 will include a Blu Ray drive built in and can play back Blu Ray Video too. And knowing quite sure that Blu ray playes won\'t comes out until 2006, I have a feeling the PS3 will not launch in 2005...

A very welcome suprise about ps3 that I wasn\'t sure and doubt that the ps3 will include was a Hard Disk Drive.  But I was pleasantly surprised when sony announced that the ps3 will include a detachable 60 Gbytes HDD.

Why I didn\'t think the ps3 will include a HDD is because PS2 didn\'t include it and have to be bought seperatedly.  Also, because PS3 with blu Ray and HDD might increase the cost of the console.  I guess Sony realized that add-on bought seperatedly usually don\'t do well.  So, this time around, Sony is more serious about Internet and online gaming and download, that they have to include the HDD for the ps3.  Which is a good thing.  But now, that makes me curious is just how much will the ps3 going to cost?

I used to think ps3 might cost $500, but now that it will include a 60 Gbytes HDD.  I wouldn\'t be surprise if it be sell at $600.  But anything higher, Sony is really in trouble.

Sorry for this long post, but anway.  If Blu Ray is going to come out in 2006, then next generation optical disc after blu ray might come out in 2015.  So, you can expect PS4 to come out in 2015 as the earliest, or maybe a year later to include that newer next generation optical disc, which is holographic versatile disc, again assuming if sony is willing to include HVD for ps4.  So, that would make the launch date between ps3 and ps4 about 10 years difference...

unless next generation optical disc after blu ray comes out earlier than 2015...say 2013, then...

[clips]

well as long as they are makin\' great games for ps2, why not keep supportin\' it? i agree with mm, ps2 has been producing some excellent games late in it\'s life cycle..god of war plays great and graphic wise it can compare to some of the higher end xbox games, also to a lesser extent res evil 4..the ps2 supposedly couldn\'t handle a game like that, and given the system\'s age, that game looks incredible. If they can continue to put out AAA games for it, i say let the cycle continue for as long as it can go...only real upgrade at this point for purchasing a new system is the graphics, and to be honest, at this point graphics really isn\'t an issue anymore...

I\'d pay $499 for a PS3 if but that\'s my cap.

IMO the PS3 will be worth it, but I fully suspect a more conservative # like $449, or $399


People need ot remember that it\'s much more beneficial to get more PS3\'s into homes then for Sony to try and reduce the profit loss on the system itself. Sony wants to make money of the online portion of the PS3 this gen, and they can\'t do that unless there are plenty of PS3\'s sold.

Sony also owns more then double the market share as MS, so they can afford to taek double the hit on profit loss per system sold, because the marketshare Sony has will easily make up the difference and easily make Sony lots of profits by 2008.

ALso MS lost 4 billion on the Xbox so if anyone has somethng to worry about its MS and the Xbox 360 whicn IMO is a real good system, but will probably go down as Xbox 1.5

A console lifespan of 10 years is BS.

I\'d say 6 or 7. The remaining 3 years
it\'ll sell remaining stock and production
has ended.

let me know when PS2 production stops

by the way, PS1 production just stopped recently
it was launched dec 94\'...that makes it\'s lifespan.....:eek:

[videoholic]

IF the Blue Ray Drive is a perfectly good option as a stand alone HD player, then the unit is worth every penny.  You are not going to find an HD Blue Ray player below this price for quite some time.

Only thing I\'m screwed with is because I\'m an early adopter, my TV doesn\'t have HDMI support, only DVI and RGB.  So thanks to Hollywood, I won\'t be able to play movies on my Hi Def set because of encription.

Not too much of a biggie though since I will be getting a front projection system anyway, but for now it kind of blows.

[Paul2]

Disagree with you videoholic.

Sony have said it themselves that their studios won\'t set the down-resolution flag via analog connection for their blu ray movies.  The flag is optional instead of manditory, so it\'s up to other studios to decide if they want to implement down-rezz flag for their movies.  Sony at the moment, have no plan to do so.  So, for HDTV owners that doesn\'t have a digital video connection, rest assure as you still can get all the 1920 x 1080i resolution or 1280 x 720p resolution via component video cable.

Also, since you say your hdtv have DVI, you shouldn\'t need to worry either.  HDMI and DVI are backward compatible and vice versa.  As long as your DVI is HDCP, then you should have no problems using the HDMI connection on the blu ray player, or in this case the PS3.

Just get a cable with HDMI on one end and DVI on the other end, or DVI to HDMI adapter and you should be fine.

[Living-In-Clip]

You do know that last week they just stopped production of the PSONE. It was still a viable console in some area\'s. The same will happen with the PS2 and PS3.  The PSONE is over ten years old.....

Now that the PS2 is almost dead I feel that overall, it wasn\'t as cool as the PSX.

I blame lack of original games.

i\'ll just leave that one alone on the basis of pure stupidity

/me agrees.

*edit*

/me reads Halberto\'s statement again... /me shakes head.

[Titan]

Pwned