Topic: How will the PS3 be able to compete against the more advanced Wii 2?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Developers will complain that after 5 years of learning Wii controls, they now have to learn expensive Nintendo graphics.

[Chozo Ghost]

I am aware that my Dad's old IBM XT cost more than any other computer he's ever owned, despite it being vastly inferior.  But if I was releasing mass quantities of inferior hardware now wouldn't it still cost less than what's brand new.  Right now a PS3 is $300 while the Move is expected to be about $100.  So if we consider Move to be Sony's next gen we're looking at a $400 price.  But that's today.  By the time the Wii 2 is released I'm assuming it would be lower in price.  How is Nintendo going to make something the same price with state-of-the-art technology?  I would assume that as the PS3 becomes older it would become cheaper to make.

I think you're missing my point. I wasn't arguing that the PS3 can't go down in price (I know it can, and will). All I was saying is that if Nintendo makes a $249.99 console in 2012 there's no reason it can't be more powerful than the $600 PS3 of 2006 while still being sold at cost or for a profit like every other Nintendo console in history.

By the time the Wii 2 is released the PS3 could be down to $99 for all we know, or at least $149 or something like that. But it would be inferior hardware, and that's the point I was getting at. Would you rather own a $149 system from 2006 or a more powerful system from 2011-2012 for $249?

[Ian Sane]

All I was saying is that if Nintendo makes a $249.99 console in 2012 there's no reason it can't be more powerful than the $600 PS3 of 2006 while still being sold at cost or for a profit like every other Nintendo console in history.

I see.  Yeah, that makes sense.
 
But they won't do it.  I just don't think they will.  It's too rational of an idea for Nintendo.

[TJ Spyke]

I think it's a little bold predicting the PS3 will last 10 years. The only way it will last that long is if Sony doesn't want to admit defeat. It is a distant third and is still losing money for Sony.

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

[Guitar Smasher]

Even if Wii2 was computationally superior to PS3, would we even be able to notice?  Is the average consumer going to notice, or even care?

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think it's a little bold predicting the PS3 will last 10 years. The only way it will last that long is if Sony doesn't want to admit defeat. It is a distant third and is still losing money for Sony.

Actually PS3 is in a close third, Xbox360 is in a distant second.

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

They could, but just going by historical trends Wii2 is due at the end of 2011. Nintendo has released a new system pretty much every 5 years since the beginning.
NES - 1985/86
SNES - 1991
N64 - 1996
GC - 2001
Wii - 2006

history would lead us to believe that Nintendo has always had a plan to take a step every 5 years. Why would we believe that they would change that pattern now? Wii will keep selling to the late adopters for years just like the PS2. There are many people out there waiting till the Wii hits $99 and the rest of us will be enjoying new games on the Wii2. I'm also pretty sure that MS would love to get the jump on Sony and outpower them graphically and try to force Sony's hand before they are ready, like the 360 did to the PS3. NextBox will be ready to go by the end of next year, but probably won't see release until 2012 unless Nintendo makes a move first.  You have to remember that the Xbox360 came out in 2005 and this is it's 5th year. The original Xbox came out in 2001 and only lasted 4 years, so Xbox360 has already extended the Xbox average generation span.

[Ian Sane]

For those who think that the Wii 2 will come out in 2011, what makes you think that? It is still easily beating both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 and is still $200. When sales start to slow down, they just drop the price and boost them back up. Nintendo is also actually making money on the Wii, so they could afford to keep this gen going longer than Sony cold.

2011 follows the existing pattern of five year generations.  It seems like the natural time period.  Though 2012 has been rumoured as well.
 

Even if Wii2 was computationally superior to PS3, would we even be able to notice?  Is the average consumer going to notice, or even care?

The gap is narrowing.  Can you imagine much more than this gen?  Sure you could always go to photo realism but who has the money to develop games like that?  That's part of why I figure Nintendo wouldn't bother topping the PS3.  Nintendo barely pushes the Wii now.  Most of their games look like Gamecube titles and not even really pretty ones at that.  They'll eventually upgrade their hardware because the adoption of HDTVs will force them to.  But it will be third parties or devs like Retro that push it.  EAD will mostly crank out stuff that looks like a Dreamcast launch title.
 
This is all the more reason for Sony to stay put.  Where do they go from here?  How do you top the PS3 in any significant way aside from doing new stuff with the controller, which they're doing and which would not require a new console?  There is concern that game development these days is too expensive.  So how can Sony or Nintendo or anyone else take things even further?  Who will have the budget to make games that take advantage of hardware superior to the PS3?
 
This is why we hear rumours of 3D displays.  We can't think of anything else.  You can only make graphics look so good before it no longer makes business sense.  You have to go to somewhere else.  And if going somewhere else just involves extra doodads then why not just make it an accessory and keep your existing userbase?
 
Imagine if Nintendo had literally just repackaged the Cube and included the remote and called it their next console.  I don't mean this 1.5 Gamecube thing I mean if you opened up the machine you would discover that it was actually the EXACT same hardware only with a new controller and some sort of chip or something that just "unlocked" Wii games so that you couldn't just put Wii games in your Gamecube.  In other words you could actually mod a Cube to play ALL Wii games.  Would you not feel ripped off?  If new doodads are the only direction we can go in now then that's what it would be to release a new console.  It would be that kind of rip-off so they might as well make the doodad an extra.
 
I think we're reaching a point where hardware will just stay put.  At some point it will do to the law of diminishing returns.  Even if some company tries to keep pushing in new console it will become harder and harder for them to come up with something that people will feel the need to upgrade to.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Nintendo would like all their systems to follow the Game Boy life cycle.

[TJ Spyke]

I know PS3 is not far behind 360, I meant distant third compared to Wii.

I won't get into the release dates (the NES was first released as the Famicom in 1983, the SNES as the Super Famicom in 1990). I will point out though that competition basically forced them to release new systems. The NES's best year was actually 1990, but the Genesis (which had been released in 1989) was vastly superior to the NES in terms of technology (as was the TurboGrafx-16). It would have been like if Sony had expected the PS2 to be their only console in 2007 or 2008. Same thing with the SNES. The N64 and GameCube were different, they were no longer on the lead and couldn't afford to keep their last place systems going. The Wii shows no sign of being beat anytime soon, the most I can see is Nintendo announcing Wii 2 at E3 2011 and releasing it in fall 2012.

I think you know why Xbox was killed after 4 years. Microsoft had been stupid enough to build it with off the shelf parts (rather than custom made like every other console), so they had limited ability to bring down the costs of parts and ended up losing billions of dollars on the system.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You don't think a PS3 with Move (should it catch on) step on the toes of Nintendo and the Wii? That is reason enough for Nintendo not to take Sony for granted and at the very least, release a machine that can match if not exceed the PS3 graphically & in basic gaming features and to introduce the next big thing (gimmick/feature/fad/hook/etc. etc.).

If Nintendo sits by and lets Sony even think Move has the potential to be a success, then that is only gonna weaken Nintendo's position in the market. Why sit for yet another year and let Sony get a foot hold in the motion market instead of stomping out like stray embers from you fireplace on your carpet. PS3 with Move has the potential to capture those early adopting Wii buyers that are looking for some more HD content to go with their HD TV's over the next few years, and if PS3 is the only choice (since it plays like Wii and plays BRD) then that is a lost opportunity for Nintendo and possible loss of mind share in the market.

All the late adopters are sure to keep Wii selling just fine over the next 2-3 years if there is a Wii2/HD or not. They will keep the Wii alive and well just like late adopters are keeping the PS2 visible in the sales charts to this day.

[TJ Spyke]

Considering how much money Sony is planning on charging for PlayStation Move, I severely doubt it will be successful (especially if it is as laggy as the reports I am reading state it is). Nintendo won't even factor it in unless this thing shocks everyone and is actually a success. Take a look at the EyeToy and how that pretty much bombed (except in Europe for some reason).

[Ian Sane]

You don't think a PS3 with Move (should it catch on) step on the toes of Nintendo and the Wii? That is reason enough for Nintendo not to take Sony for granted and at the very least, release a machine that can match if not exceed the PS3 graphically & in basic gaming features and to introduce the next big thing (gimmick/feature/fad/hook/etc. etc.).

Agreed.  At the very least Nintendo has to have something behind the curtain to reveal if they need to.  All it would take is one Move game that creates the sort of frenzy that Wii Sports did and cannot be ported to the Wii because of the hardware difference and Nintendo is stuck with their thumb up their butts.  They can't just assume they'll be fine forever.  Staying put assumes that the neither Sony or MS will be able to catch up in any way.  That's a dangerous way to play.  They need to stay ahead of the game.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Considering how much money Sony is planning on charging for PlayStation Move, I severely doubt it will be successful (especially if it is as laggy as the reports I am reading state it is). Nintendo won't even factor it in unless this thing shocks everyone and is actually a success. Take a look at the EyeToy and how that pretty much bombed (except in Europe for some reason).

It's the software that is laggy not the hardware. And just because this thing is gonna cost less that $100 ($99.99?) doesn't mean it might not catch on. The PS3 sold pretty damn well for being $599 US DOLLARS, it's actually outpaced the 360 even at that price. So it would be unwise of Nintendo to just site back and take the wait and see approach. If Move happens to catch on, then it is too late for Nintendo to announce something since it will still take time to make it to market.

Remember that back at E3 2008 Nintendo pre-emptively announced M+ with expectations that Sony and MS were gonna announce Move & Natal even though they didn't. I expect Nintendo to take that same initiative towards making sure that the competition doesn't beat them at their own game which is videogames and Nintendo will make sure they are first to market with the next big innovation and not let Sony ape their success with an improved version of their own tech.

[TJ Spyke]

Actually, PS3 did not outsell the Xbox 360 when it was $600. In fact, the first time the PS3 beat the Xbox 360 in the US was in January 2008 (by which point the cheapest PS3 model was $400). Taking 15 months before finally getting a month where it wasn't in last place (and multiple occasions it was even embarrassingly outsold by the PS2) is not impressive. If anything, it shows that the consumers weren't happy with the $500 starting point for the system. Even after that, they have only occasionally outsold the Xbox 360 (never on a regular basis).

I am sure Nintendo is already working on something (as is Sony and Microsoft), I just don't think they are in a hurry since I doubt that Move will be a success.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I worded that wrong. I meant that the PS3 is outpacing the Xbox360 even though it was $600 for so long. World Wide sales. The 360 had a 1 year head start and the PS3 is less than 6-8million units behind.

[TJ Spyke]

I am not sure about that, I think the Xbox 360 was only about 6 or 7 million when the PS3 launched, so I think the PS3 is pretty much at the same pace as the Xbox 360 (which means it won't be passing the 360). The only region the PS3 beats 360 more than once in awhile is Japan.

As for the PS3 price point. You are forgetting that the PS3 launched at 2 price points: $500 and $600, and it dropped to $400/$500 after less than a year (this was after they had already increased the HDD sizes of both models and took out stuff like backwards compatibility and multi media card slots).

Anyways, I still think Nintendo is not worried. They are, no doubt in my mind, keeping an eye on Sony but are not worried about PlayStation Move.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I'm not saying that Nintendo is worried about Move, but they should have the Wii2 ready to go holiday 2011 if necessary. That means games that are nearing completion and everything. Don't want to get caught off guard for any reason and definitely don't want to look reactive instead of pro-active (....looks at Move & Natal)

Move will literally have 9 months (Oct. 2010 - June 2011) to make it's impact felt before Nintendo could literally deflate all hype surrounding it with the announcement of Wii2/HD+ at E3 2011 like most of us expect them to.

But that brings us back to the topic in question. How could Sony compete with that?
They don't, they just have to make sure their tech is adaptable enough to whatever Ninteindo has planned next so that they are able to send ports <--> back and forth. It would be much more in Sony's favor to make MS be the odd man out than to try share strengths with the Xbox and help MS keep it afloat (or vice versa) while Nintendo continues to strike out on their own and succeed even while failing.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Also it looks like 3D is coming to PS3 in July(according to Best Buy), so that is something else that PS3 will have to differentiate itself from the competition.

3D coming to PS3 in July 2010....?

What do I need to buy to get full HD 3D in my home?

To watch 3D Blu-ray Discs, you'll need to add a 3D-ready Blu-ray player (or update your PS3 with the appropriate firmware when it becomes available in July).

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

StarFox beat them decades ago.

[Guitar Smasher]

3D will become the new waggle - totally unnecessary and unimaginatively tacked on.

[broodwars]

Isn't "true" 3D-equipped Blu-Ray useless without a 3D-equipped TV that can properly display it?  Considering my Coraline Blu-Ray, I could already watch 3D movies with my PS3.  I just had to wear the goofy and irritating glasses that made the movie look considerably worse.  This update will be useless to me (and just about everyone else in the country) if it requires purchasing a new TV (which isn't going to happen).

[BlackNMild2k1]

To watch 3D cable or satellite channels, you'll need a 3D-ready HDTV, as well as active shutter 3D glasses designed to work with the HDTV.

Looking up 3D glasses, I found a few from different manufacturers. All costing from about $130-$150 a piece. That means for a family of 4, you would have to spend at least $520 to watch your movie in 3D, and that's just for the glasses alone. Then $55 for a infrared or blue tooth emitter (to sync your shutter to your TV).
That is assuming you have a 3D capable HDTV ($2500?) and a 3D capable Bluray player ($250?).

That is a heavy investment.

edit: And your glasses have to be made by the manufacturer of your 3D capable TV. SO take that into account when you get that 3D capable Vizio on sale or that Store Brand TV cause you will need the same brand shutter glasses.

After reading all that, I think 3D is a long ways from catching on at home.

edit2:
This is even more discouraging

Previous "3D-ready" HDTVs

For those who bought older HDTVs that had "3D-ready" listed in their specifications, as of now, none of them will work with the new 3D-ready Blu-ray players and other new sources of full HD 3D. Some of the reasons can include lack of sufficient processing power or response time, and the inability to handle a 120Hz input signal (not refresh rate).

Mitsubishi has announced they are working on an adapter box for some of their previous "3D-ready" HDTVs (although the resulting 3D picture quality is still an open question). Manufacturers of other previous "3D-ready" HDTVs have not announced plans for a similar adapter box, although it's possible they may do so in the future, or that a third-party manufacturer will step in with a solution.

So for even those that have "3D Ready" Tv's that bought them in the last couple months to a year might not even have 3D ready tv's. now that sucks. I wonder if that will lead to legal issues in the near future for false advertising.

[Chozo Ghost]

The gap is narrowing.  Can you imagine much more than this gen?  Sure you could always go to photo realism but who has the money to develop games like that?  That's part of why I figure Nintendo wouldn't bother topping the PS3.  Nintendo barely pushes the Wii now.  Most of their games look like Gamecube titles and not even really pretty ones at that.  They'll eventually upgrade their hardware because the adoption of HDTVs will force them to.  But it will be third parties or devs like Retro that push it.  EAD will mostly crank out stuff that looks like a Dreamcast launch title.

But that's just counting graphics. What about processing power? Consoles can still improve by beefing up in order for more advanced A.I., more enemies on screen, etc. There's really no limit there in how many times we can advance until we finally run into the limitations set by the theory of relativity. Processors won't be able to handle calculations faster than the speed of light, so that's a firm limit, but I guess that is still far into the future before we reach that limitation. So consoles still have much room in that regard.

Plus there is also things like optical drives and stuff that could be upgraded in order to offer more capacity for games. The Wii and 360 still use DVD media, which is okay for most games but some games hit a point where they need to be split into two or more discs. Adding blu-ray drives like the PS3 is one advance, but there are also HVD and PED on the horizon that make blu-ray look like videocassette in comparison.

I've heard the NATAL thing for the 360 sucks a lot of processing power out of it, so if companies want to add new interfaces like that on their consoles then they need to beef up their specs in order to handle it. The 360 wasn't designed to handle something like that, so that's the sort of add-on that might justify a console upgrade.

[ShyGuy]

I hope it does as well as it did against the first Wii. lololololol

[KDR_11k]

Talking about a Wii 2 is pointless because there will not be one. The system after the Wii will be radically different and no matter whether Sony has the Move or even a move-enabled PS4 by then they will be side-stepped.