Sony Should Skip A Generation

What I'm saying is Sony should not release a Playstation 4 when we think the 8th generation will start in 2011 or 2012; but instead release the Playstation 4 when the 9th generation starts in 2015-2017. I'm not saying skip a genration like cease support for PS3 and start again with the PS4, I'm saying just keep going with the PS3 (like the level of support they are at now or more) and just don't release the PS4 until 2015-2017 (when the 9th generations starts).

Heres why:

Sony lost 3 billion dollars on Playstation 3 due to development, sales, and the price of the console. This is more than they made on the Playstation 2. There are no financial benifits to release a Playstation 4 when the 8th generation starts in 2011/2012. The Playstation 2 continued to sell more than the 360 until last year.

The Playstation 2 continues to sell very well, clocking in at a very respectable 144.1K in the August NPD results, keep in mind this is a console that was released in October of 2000 in the U.S. Sony barely even supports the Playstation 2 anymore so this is even more amazing. This shows that if Sony did skip a generation and continued to support the Playstation 3 it would sell even more than the Playstation 2 is selling now; now to what degree depends on how much they continue to support the Playstation 3 in the future (after the 8th generation starts).

The benifit of releaseing the Playstation 4 in the 9th generation is:

• Sony would have had time to develop it (from 2007-time of release) this is good because the cost of the technology in the Playstation 4 would have gone down over the course of development. This in turn would result in a cheaper launch price.
• Developers would have had ample time over the long PS4 development process to develop games to the fullest instead of rushing to launch with the console, development kits would be updated due to long development
• Playstation 3 would have a similar (if not better) game library to the Playstation 2 at this time. This is because games take longer to develop now, because of the long life cycle more and more games would be released on the Playstation 3. If a Playstation 4 launched in 2011 or 2012 let's be honest the Playstation 3 library would look lackluster (in terms of size) compared to the Playstation 2.
• The cost of the Playstation 3 is inevitibly going to go down as technology costs reduce, this results in more sales because of price drops that will not cause the company to lose money. Different models can be released (much like the Playstation 2 Slim SKU)
• A large Backwards Compatibility library for the Playstation 4 (assuming the PS4 has backwards compatibility)
• The Playstation 3 will be competitive with the Xbox 3 and the Wii 2 because of firmware updates, on top of that the Playstation 3 will have a far superior game library in comparison to the just out of the gate Xbox 3 and Wii 2, and at a lower price

Some may say it is a bad idea for Sony to release to Playstation 4 in the 9th generation instead of the 8th because the competition will have the upper hand in terms of technology. This is not true because there is something called the law of diminishing returns, for example as you get closer and closer to the speed of light time slows down. In this case as you get closer to reality in terms of graphics, processing etc... the jump from one generation to the next becomes less and less impressive. Lets say Microsoft for example releases the Xbox 3 in 2011 or 2012 and then releases the Xbox 4 in 2015-1017. The jump from Xbox 360 to Xbox 3 will be less impressive than the Xbox to the Xbox 360. The jump from the Xbox 3 to Xbox 4 will be less impressive than the jump from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox 3. The Playstation 4 (launching 2015-2017), while still bound to this law will be a larger jump from the Playstation 3 than the Xbox 3 to the Xbox 4(launching 2015-2017) simply because Sony skipped the previous generation opting not the update the technology until PS4. In the consumers mind they will see that the Xbox 4 is not much of an update from the Xbox 3 while the Playstation 4 had a much larger jump from the Playstation 3. The consumer will prefer to pay for something they see is a larger jump from what they already have, as opposed to something with a smaller jump.

Overall this is good news for both Playstation 3 owners, Playstation 4 buyers and Sony because the Playstation 3 owners will have had gotten their money's worth with a 9-11 year console lifespan. Playstation 4 owners will inherit a console cheaper than the competition and better games due the the very long PS4 development time. It is good for Sony because they will be able to make a comeback by having sales similar to PS2 with the PS3 simply because it was out (and supported) for so long, and will have a great launch into the 9th generation.

you make some good points

but when MS/nintendo releases a new console, you can bet your paycheck Sony will follow. they have to stay in competition

you make some good points

but when MS/nintendo releases a new console, you can bet your paycheck Sony will follow. they have to stay in competition

killerfist

as of right now sony is not truly going at it the same way as Nintendo or Microsoft... Sony is going for the Hardcore gamers with HD Systems... thats not at all what MS and Nintendo are doing because there going as hard as they can at the casuals..

Why would Sony want to give up what remaining momentum away by skipping a generation?

Sorry, it's too RISKY Not to release a newer platform.

maybe sega has been skipping the gaming generations over the years and will come out with the ultimate console:shock:

but i doubt Sony would do it.

Why would Sony want to give up what remaining momentum away by skipping a generation?

Sorry, it's too RISKY Not to release a newer platform.

SolidTy

They would not totaly skip a Gen... they would hold off and support the PS3 into which would help sales because at that point its tech may not be totaly out dated and a lot of casuals buyers would see it as a cheaper solution over buying at ever microsoft and Nintendo through out next gen... then they could just come in with a system that has much better tech then either Nintendos or Microsofts tech when its not insanly expensive for them to produce it...

They already skipped this gen how many more do you think they should skip?Riverwolf007

WTF are you talking about???

They already skipped this gen how many more do you think they should skip?Riverwolf007

Have you heard of the Playstation 3?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]They already skipped this gen how many more do you think they should skip?spidadragon1

Have you heard of the Playstation 3?

He's making a joke about all the delays.

[QUOTE="spidadragon1"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]They already skipped this gen how many more do you think they should skip?Floppy_Jim

Have you heard of the Playstation 3?

He's making a joke about all the delays.

Thanks I actually didn't see the joke (because it was a bad joke) >_>

They couldn't afford that.

The PS3 was nothing more than a push to get Blu-Ray on the market. I figured more people would have figured that one out by now.

The PS3 was nothing more than a push to get Blu-Ray on the market. I figured more people would have figured that one out by now.

Wasdie

A push can be good.

remember Ps2 pushing the DVD format?;)

I think, judging from what I'v seen thus far in this gen, that Sony will release yet another SKU later on with a faster (by then cheaper) BluRay drive to push it even further

Your theory is idealistic and it would be very risky in a real business situation. I see where you're coming from though.

I think they could skip it in a sense , and just be sure to release before the competition's next system and get that one or two year lead.

I think you may be right tc, but you're wrong on some points. I dont think that having a long development time would instantly mean cheaper tech unless the later released console would not be much of an upgrade in hardware. What I mean is that they could be developing their console for 10 years but then microsoft or nintendo just swoops in during year 8 with some new IBM chip or whatever. Tech moves that fast now

I see the value of waiting when you look at the ps3. If they waited just one more year they would have kept a lot of their momentum and released a better product. I'm with you on anything like bluray was with the ps3 tc. Sony should have waited to have the right components. They basically didn't have enough bluray components for the ps3 to even sell enough to be a success.

It's not just bluray either. If they waited another year they could have made the hardware superior to the 360 in every way. If I remember it right, the ps3 lacks RAM in their CPU compared to the 360, and if sony had waited they could have taken advantage of the drop in price of RAM.

Also, the ps3's first year for games was really bad. They could have had a much stronger launch had they waited, and the ps3 would have been a much more exciting product

You make valid points, but then again, you know nothing about business. Skipping a generation, would actually erase Sony of the market. The 3 billion losses are predicted even before they happen, PS2 did not turned into the profit zone until 4 years after release. Even if they kept supporting the PS3 for that long time, they would need to release "renewed" models every couple of months to keep showing that it is not something old, which would actually cost a lot, since they would have to change production matrixes all the time, and that alone is what costs the most.kenshinhimura16

I know but what I'm saying is mostly good for the gamer with a few good and bad things for Sony

You make valid points, but then again, you know nothing about business. Skipping a generation, would actually erase Sony of the market. The 3 billion losses are predicted even before they happen, PS2 did not turned into the profit zone until 4 years after release. Even if they kept supporting the PS3 for that long time, they would need to release "renewed" models every couple of months to keep showing that it is not something old, which would actually cost a lot, since they would have to change production matrixes all the time, and that alone is what costs the most.kenshinhimura16

I know but what I'm saying is mostly good for the gamer with a few good and bad things for Sony

Well since the PS3 is a super computer and you could easily upgrade your HDD, maybe Sony can give you tools to upgrade other things with your PS3, making skipping the PS4 more likely. So you can keep on upgrading your PS3 for more than 15 years.

I agree. Plus, not only will it be the cheapest system, but it will also be the cheapest to develop for.

But then again, the PS3 is hard to develop for. And it hasn't amassed the support of the PS2 yet. It has to gain a lot of support before it can pull off such a bold move. And sony needs to make sure that the cell becomes easier to develop for in the future, creating some sort of a library that developers can access.

Edit: Actually, they would have have MORE support than the PS2. The only console that is in the position to possibly pull off such a move is the wii, but its graphics are too outdated.

This honestly could work and may be a good idea. It'd be funny watching the PS3 just totally destroy the next generation consoles in sales because it would be the cheapest console just like the PS2 is doing right now. And it would still be getting support with games. I don't think they should skip the whole generation though, maybe just half of it then anounce plans for PS4. I hope Sony sticks to it's word and keeps the PS3 going for 10 years. All consoles should have a life span of 10 years or over.

But I think Sony and Microsoft will have different plans next gen. They will try and filter out all the mistakes they've made this gen. They will be both aiming to make a cheap well made console while trying to keep the hardware as upgraded as possible.(A faultless console, no RROD, no lack of exclusive games, Large HDD in every console. etc)Aswell as trying their best to appeal to casual non gamers. Shovelware will be unavoidable but oh well. Then ofcourse theres the gimick that the Wii spawned. Both Sony and Microsoft will create there own gimick. Or they might just copy Nintendo.

An interesting and thought-out idea. As far as games development goes, I don't think the developers are feeling fully comfortable with this generation yet, especially the Japan side. I'm hoping to see a price drop for all the new releases sometime down the road as a result of the reduce in development cost and hence the more games and varieties.

I think it's a total posssibility for sony to skip a generation.

as of right now sony is not truly going at it the same way as Nintendo or Microsoft... Sony is going for the Hardcore gamers with HD Systems... thats not at all what MS and Nintendo are doing because there going as hard as they can at the casuals..R0gu3Do0d

And what makes Play Station "hardcore"? :roll:

This honestly could work and may be a good idea. It'd be funny watching the PS3 just totally destroy the next generation consoles in sales because it would be the cheapest console just like the PS2 is doing right now.Dahaka-UK

Mybe it sells well,but its so cheap that its hardly profitable

And its software that brings money to table

this is actually brilliant...but i would guess 2013 or 2014 with a much more powerful system than whatever microsoft or nintendo comes out with... or 2-3 years after the competition releases their systems but that is clearly much more powerful....then they can say they are the next gen

its extremely risky as some might confuse the ps4 as just coming out late and being part of generation 8

the question would be is how long can the ps3 compete with the new xbox and wii...they would have to have some patience but i think it would be viable because systmes are loss leaders and they can re-coup everything they lost from the ps3....

i think its worth the risk

What I'm saying is Sony should not release a Playstation 4 when we think the 8th generation will start in 2011 or 2012; but instead release the Playstation 4 when the 9th generation starts in 2015-2017. I'm not saying skip a genration like cease support for PS3 and start again with the PS4, I'm saying just keep going with the PS3 (like the level of support they are at now or more) and just don't release the PS4 until 2015-2017 (when the 9th generations starts).

Heres why:

Sony lost 3 billion dollars on Playstation 3 due to development, sales, and the price of the console. This is more than they made on the Playstation 2. There are no financial benifits to release a Playstation 4 when the 8th generation starts in 2011/2012. The Playstation 2 continued to sell more than the 360 until last year.

The Playstation 2 continues to sell very well, clocking in at a very respectable 144.1K in the August NPD results, keep in mind this is a console that was released in October of 2000 in the U.S. Sony barely even supports the Playstation 2 anymore so this is even more amazing. This shows that if Sony did skip a generation and continued to support the Playstation 3 it would sell even more than the Playstation 2 is selling now; now to what degree depends on how much they continue to support the Playstation 3 in the future (after the 8th generation starts).

The benifit of releaseing the Playstation 4 in the 9th generation is:

• Sony would have had time to develop it (from 2007-time of release) this is good because the cost of the technology in the Playstation 4 would have gone down over the course of development. This in turn would result in a cheaper launch price.
• Developers would have had ample time over the long PS4 development process to develop games to the fullest instead of rushing to launch with the console, development kits would be updated due to long development
• Playstation 3 would have a similar (if not better) game library to the Playstation 2 at this time. This is because games take longer to develop now, because of the long life cycle more and more games would be released on the Playstation 3. If a Playstation 4 launched in 2011 or 2012 let's be honest the Playstation 3 library would look lackluster (in terms of size) compared to the Playstation 2.
• The cost of the Playstation 3 is inevitibly going to go down as technology costs reduce, this results in more sales because of price drops that will not cause the company to lose money. Different models can be released (much like the Playstation 2 Slim SKU)
• A large Backwards Compatibility library for the Playstation 4 (assuming the PS4 has backwards compatibility)
• The Playstation 3 will be competitive with the Xbox 3 and the Wii 2 because of firmware updates, on top of that the Playstation 3 will have a far superior game library in comparison to the just out of the gate Xbox 3 and Wii 2, and at a lower price

Some may say it is a bad idea for Sony to release to Playstation 4 in the 9th generation instead of the 8th because the competition will have the upper hand in terms of technology. This is not true because there is something called the law of diminishing returns, for example as you get closer and closer to the speed of light time slows down. In this case as you get closer to reality in terms of graphics, processing etc... the jump from one generation to the next becomes less and less impressive. Lets say Microsoft for example releases the Xbox 3 in 2011 or 2012 and then releases the Xbox 4 in 2015-1017. The jump from Xbox 360 to Xbox 3 will be less impressive than the Xbox to the Xbox 360. The jump from the Xbox 3 to Xbox 4 will be less impressive than the jump from the Xbox 360 to the Xbox 3. The Playstation 4 (launching 2015-2017), while still bound to this law will be a larger jump from the Playstation 3 than the Xbox 3 to the Xbox 4(launching 2015-2017) simply because Sony skipped the previous generation opting not the update the technology until PS4. In the consumers mind they will see that the Xbox 4 is not much of an update from the Xbox 3 while the Playstation 4 had a much larger jump from the Playstation 3. The consumer will prefer to pay for something they see is a larger jump from what they already have, as opposed to something with a smaller jump.

Overall this is good news for both Playstation 3 owners, Playstation 4 buyers and Sony because the Playstation 3 owners will have had gotten their money's worth with a 9-11 year console lifespan. Playstation 4 owners will inherit a console cheaper than the competition and better games due the the very long PS4 development time. It is good for Sony because they will be able to make a comeback by having sales similar to PS2 with the PS3 simply because it was out (and supported) for so long, and will have a great launch into the 9th generation.

spidadragon1

We should email this to them....like..thousands of times per day until they get the idea.

Future Ad:

Enjoy your Xbox $500.00

.

.

.

PS3 ... Now $199.00

*insert screens of new PS3 games that didn't have to be cut short for a new console*

Future Ad:

Enjoy your Xbox $500.00

.

.

.

PS3 ... Now $199.00

*insert screens of new PS3 games that didn't have to be cut short for a new console*

hakanakumono

I could actually see that happening.

It might actually give them an advantage over the competition in the 10th generation.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Future Ad:

Enjoy your Xbox $500.00

.

.

.

PS3 ... Now $199.00

*insert screens of new PS3 games that didn't have to be cut short for a new console*

verbtex

I could actually see that happening.

It might actually give them an advantage over the competition in the 10th generation.

Especially if they made deals with developers to continue producing for the PS3. It would be more cost effective for developers for sure.

I think both Microsoft and Sony should push to extend the life of generations. 5 years is just too short.

Why do some of you think it's a bad business decision? How it works now, is they sell for a huge loss at the beginning and don't start turning any profit off of hardware until halfway into the generation. That leaves little time for them to make their money back. If generations are extended, they can actually make money of their game division. Isn't that the reason they enetered the market to begin with?

Nintendo did;)

I think both Microsoft and Sony should push to extend the life of generations. 5 years is just too short.

Why do some of you think it's a bad business decision? How it works now, is they sell for a huge loss at the beginning and don't start turning any profit off of hardware until halfway into the generation. That leaves little time for them to make their money back. If generations are extended, they can actually make money of their game division. Isn't that the reason they enetered the market to begin with?

Rocky32189

Plus investing in new consoles costs them more money than it makes them. It makes perfect business sense for them.

I'm glad to see most people agreeing somewhat with me, I've been thinking this for a while now and I finally decided to make a topic about it (took me an hour).

Overall I'm saying this because I see consoles dieing WAY before all the juice is squeezed out of it and me as a gamer and a consumor doesn't want to have to pay for another console every 5 years, I mean I believe a lot of us will be still enjoying XBOX PS2 and Gamecube but then E3 2005 came around and that was kind of when the "next gen" thing started. But too bad its like you have buy another console if you want to keep gaming (yes I know you can game on older consoles).

I think Michael Pacther said on the latest Bonus Round on Gametrailers that he doesn't think there will ever even be a PS4, it's kinda interesting because nobody knows what is gonna happen. Personally I think that whole idea that Denis Dyack had about a "one console future" that everyone (including me) thought was crazy is getting closer and closer. The thing that is the big road block is probably Nintendo. Because they will always put out a console, even if it only plays their games.MikeE21286

Why do you say that about nintendo?