PS3 not till 2005 or later.
- Thread starter Ferocious
- Start date
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,390
- 407
- 126
we might see "PS2 Lite" but theres no chance in hell that they'll have a new console out this year.
The sales are still strong and people have just started to buy their second units because the first ones are starting to fail. Why would they want to stop that?
Anubis
No Lifer
no way its been schedguled for a ~2005 release forever. no reason to do it now. the PS2 is still killing everything else and some of teh new games loook better then ever
yep the PS2's are still outselling XBox and GC combined and i see no signs of slowdown
they are probably not even losing money producing them anymore though im not 100% sure about that
anyways i just hope ps3 plays ps2 and psx games
OK. Here's the deal. No video game product has ever been released on time. To be released 2 years ahead of time? Let's just put that under "not going to happen".
I think a good rule of thumb is the one-and-half rule. You can tell when a video game is coming out by taking the estimated release date, and then tacking on half the time leading up to it. Since PS3 is supposed to come out in 2005 (two years away), I'd expect it to be released in 2006 sometime. Of course, it doesn't always work, like Duke Nukem Forever is probably never going to come out.
I think a good rule of thumb is the one-and-half rule. You can tell when a video game is coming out by taking the estimated release date, and then tacking on half the time leading up to it. Since PS3 is supposed to come out in 2005 (two years away), I'd expect it to be released in 2006 sometime. Of course, it doesn't always work, like Duke Nukem Forever is probably never going to come out.
Is it just me that's reading the article as "Sony to announce PS3 in 2003"? If it's just an official announcement (as opposed to rumors or a product launch), then I can definitely see it happening. And E3's only two short months away and what better way to whet some appetites than to keep gamers salivating for a year. 
edit: Thanks aves2k. Whoops, looks like I'm going back to grade school for a reading skills refresh.
edit: Thanks aves2k. Whoops, looks like I'm going back to grade school for a reading skills refresh.
Aves
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2001
- 12,232
- 30
- 101
Originally posted by: tenchim
Is it just me that's reading the article as "Sony to announce PS3 in 2003"? If it's just an official announcement (as opposed to rumors or a product launch), then I can definitely see it happening. And E3's only two short months away and what better way to whet some appetites than to keep gamers salivating for a year.
So what if PS3 is coming out this year? The most important thing is I've yet to see a PS3 game preview or ingame screenshots. Besides, it'll take a year or so to have a mature library of decent games.
Since there are going to be a supposed smaller Xbox at E3, Sony could have in fact proceed to intimidiate everyone else if they release this so-called "PS3" at E3 for Japan in the summer and the US for the upcoming Christmas season. It would definitely give developers a leg up since it looks as if the "PS3" will be an even bigger pain in the @ss to develop games on. MS intimidiates with its practically unlimited funds why not Sony intimidiate with timing?
Release it at a price point of $250 dollars, give it the ability to be PS1 + PS2 compatible. Release one or two games atl X-mas 2003. Chances are once Christmas of 2004 comes around Sony will shrink production costs for this console and be able to slash the console price once the next gen of MS and Nintendo come along.
I dont think its going to happen though.
Release it at a price point of $250 dollars, give it the ability to be PS1 + PS2 compatible. Release one or two games atl X-mas 2003. Chances are once Christmas of 2004 comes around Sony will shrink production costs for this console and be able to slash the console price once the next gen of MS and Nintendo come along.
I dont think its going to happen though.
Okay i haven't been scouring for info on the PS3 lately, but I have heard some stuff about it and have been reading the threads recentlly being posted to the forums. But i seem to recall reading somehwere quite a while ago that the PS3 would be using that new blue ray technology. I could be wrong or that could have changed, I'm not sure. Hopefully someone who knows more about blue ray can help with an answer, but I would wager to guess that by changing laser types that it probablly won't play all the older games. But I could be wrong, hope to heck i am really. Although I am not sure how much sense this would make for sony. I'm sure they pay people a lot of money ot figure this stuff out but, they made the PS2 backward compatiable with the playstation games to give there system that added punch. They new they were getting a big jump on the other 2(MS and Nintendo)but I think they added that to make sure they could continue to stay competetive with the other two after they came out. Now they have realized that they have what it takes to beat the other 2, and if the PS3 is as good as the hype about it, they have no reason to make it backward compatiable. It sure would be nice, but why would they do that when they know people will buy more new games if they can't play all thier older ones.
Anyways thats just my opinion.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
they don't even have the development work done on the PS3
what they *could* do is release a ps2 with hard drive and network adapter and call it ps3. i would not put that past them at all.
hey was that sony owing nintendo gobs of money for the PS name BS or no?
what they *could* do is release a ps2 with hard drive and network adapter and call it ps3. i would not put that past them at all.
hey was that sony owing nintendo gobs of money for the PS name BS or no?
fat chance. considering that the ps2 is slaughtering the competition in sales, why kill the success prematurely? 2005 is when you will see the machine launch. e3 2004 will be when it will be unveiled stateside.
blurredvision
Lifer
- Oct 19, 2000
- 17,860
- 4
- 81
Well, in order to make the PS2 backward compatible, they had to put the original PSOne chip in the PS2 itself. That was ideal, as they had already made buttloads of money off of the proven chip, so it was cheap to continue to produce, but it still added to the cost of the system with the extra silicon inside the unit.
Now call me silly, but I seriously doubt the PS3 will be backwards compatible with PS2 and/or PSOne games. It will simply cost too much money. And I'm sure they didn't design to Cell chip to play PS2 games, since the Cell was designed to run numerous devices throughout the home. Although, if they can make where you work your toaster from your PS3, then anything possible, right?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
the whole of the psx was shrunk to one chip and then used as the IO processor for the ps2... it wasn't a waste of silicon and it cost them hardly anything to make anyway, and probably helped sell a lot more ps2s and a lot more psx games
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 389
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter