• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft's rush to next-gen could see the Xbox take a tumble

GigaDrive

Banned
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3635

Rob Fahey 23:46 17/06/2004
With the next generation of Xbox due to arrive in 2005, Microsoft is taking a huge gamble on the power of first-mover advantage - but the company's faith in the importance of being first to market may well backfire catastrophically, argues Rob Fahey.


There's been no shock announcement, no official confirmation and no stunning leak that made the headlines - but over the past few weeks, the industry as a whole seems to have accepted that Microsoft is planning to try and bring the current console generation to a close prematurely, with the launch of a next-generation console in the USA by the end of 2005.

There are a number of reasons for Microsoft's decision to bring about a swift end to the current-generation Xbox - which will have been on the market for under four years when its new younger sibling appears to usurp its position. The company's continuing losses on Xbox hardware sales and resultant bleeding of investment in the current generation is something it would obviously like to stem as soon as possible; after all, while Nintendo and Sony are reaping huge profits from this generation, it's easy to see why Microsoft, bleeding cash with every Xbox sold, would be champing at the bit in its eagerness to move on.

More important, though, is the company's desperation to enter the next-generation race with "first mover advantage" - establishing a strong beach head before its competitors can launch their own fifth generation (counting from the NES) machines. Despite its claims to be delighted with the performance of the Xbox, the fact is that many within Microsoft have been bitterly disappointed with the console's market share. Prior to launch, there was a genuine belief that they would deliver a system which would be neck and neck with Sony in the global marketplace; managing to come neck and neck with Nintendo instead, while both companies are being trounced by Sony's PS2, is an achievement in its own right but not what Microsoft had hoped for by any means.

The belief within Microsoft's top Xbox executives, according to company insiders, is that the main reason that Xbox has failed to seriously challenge the PlayStation 2 is because Sony had first mover advantage - a gap of a year in which to build up its installed base and convince consumers and industry alike that it was the key platform of the next generation. Hence the urgency around launching Xbox 2 well ahead of its competitors; if, as seems increasingly likely, PlayStation 3 doesn't arrive until late 2006 or even early 2007, Microsoft believes that it will have won a huge competitive advantage by being to market as much as two years earlier. This, the conventional wisdom says, is how Microsoft will crush Sony.

It's a plan that makes sense on the surface, but probe a little deeper and you encounter serious flaws in the logic - and hints of the old Microsoft arrogance which the company has tried desperately hard to hide since the early days of the Xbox. The single biggest problem is that developing for Xbox 2 is going to be a major leap for game creators - and Microsoft is effectively asking them to make that leap while the current generation is still profitable, and the biggest contender in the next generation is still years away.

To be entirely fair, Microsoft sees this problem, and that's why XNA exists - but no game programming framework is ever going to get around the fundamental problem, which is that creating games for next-generation systems is going to require tools, technologies and resources which simply don't exist yet, and which will be hugely expensive and time-consuming when they do arrive. Studios which focus on cross-platform titles, as many of the largest publishers in the world do, face a gigantic problem - while developing a title on PS2, Xbox and GameCube is an easy prospect as code, art and audio can be effectively reused on all three platforms, adding a next-generation platform to the mix will require complete re-development.

In other words, studios are being asked to invest in next-generation R&D two years before it's required for PS3, and to spend more money developing an Xbox 2 version of a cross platform title - for an audience of a few million people - than they'll spend developing all three current-generation versions of the game - for an audience of well over a hundred million. Faced with this prospect, huge companies like EA may be able to throw money at the problem, and some small independent developers may be able to make a go of it by switching entirely to Xbox 2 development; but the simple fact is that nobody is going to stop supporting PS2 for Xbox 2, and the cost of supporting both may be prohibitive for a great many publishers and developers.

Microsoft may be making a colossal mistake by trying to force the industry into a next-generation cycle before it is ready to move. Sony, with its enormous dominance of the market, could probably just about get away with it - if it moved, the industry would have to move with it, however much it hated the idea. But Microsoft, still a relatively small player in the games industry, just doesn't look like a company that has the influence needed to force a shift like this. It may be backed up by the biggest software company in the world, but publishers will still look at the bottom line - in this case, installed base and cost of development - and base their decisions on that alone. Herein lies the arrogance; Microsoft isn't used to making decisions as an industry small-fry, and it's trying to act like an industry leader in an industry it simply doesn't lead.

It would also do well to remember that in fact, PlayStation 2 didn't have first mover advantage in the last generation; that dubious honour fell to Sega's Dreamcast, which launched well ahead of its Sony competitor and was completely crushed by a combination of consumer anticipation for the Sony console, and publishers being perfectly happy to stick with PlayStation 1 and wait for its successor. Two years later, Sega was out of the console business for good; and while that seems unlikely to happen to Microsoft, a defeat on that scale in the next generation would be a crushing blow to its ambitions in the console space.

I pray thee, that Xbox Next / Xbox2/ Xenon is pushed into at least mid-06 !
 

open_mouth_

insert_foot_
It's certainly an interesting conundrum for Micrsosoft.

On the one hand, they'd like to get the jump on Sony and they've already had developers start on games for Xenon. They feel the market will be ready by the end of 2005 for the next-generation to begin and they think Xbox1 will continue to get support as well. If current gen's Q4 '05 line-up isn't strong or the Xenon's line-up blows it away, then I could see a large portion of the hardcore gaming community picking up a Xenon along with a few games to help jumpstart Microsoft's new platform.

On the other hand, if lots of publishers (especially EA) hold back early Xenon support, then it could very well have a slow roll out and momentum is everything in this business. So, if Microsoft hopes to succeed, they have to do the following:

1) Make sure to support the Xbox with lots of high quality 1st/2nd party games right up to Xenon's launch and even for a year after launch to show that they actually want to give you the most bang for your buck and that they can be trusted not to abandon a platform too early.

2) Make sure live accounts work seemlessly on both platforms and that support for the original Xbox's online gaming remains strong.

3) Make sure EA is on board with next-gen versions of their hit games (even if just graphically superior than their ps2/xb counterparts). EA MUST BE THERE WITH SUPPORT.

4) Have at least 2 or 3 "system seller" type games and advertise the hell out of them.
 

GigaDrive

Banned
Microsoft wanted to have the first Xbox out fall 2000, to greet the PlayStation2 in America. those plans went out the window. I do hope Xenon is pushed to September 2006, which should still allow Microsoft to get the jump on PS3 by a month or two, if PS3 makes it out in late 2006 that is. If PS3 is pushed into 2007, MS gets a bigger jump on PS3, all the while having not rushed Xbox 2 to the market, in which many gamers say 2005 would have been too early.
 

open_mouth_

insert_foot_
I agree with the Giga. Microsoft should consider going for a worldwide simultaneous launch during Augut 2006 and come out of the games with a stellar launch line-up. They'll have the jump on the competition by at least a few months in USA and Europe and go head to head with the competition in Japan. They'll get all the hardcore fans early on and then continue their momentum right through the holidays as people will get more Xenons for their friends/family. Plus, the extra 8 month "delay" could be used to improve the quality of the system as well as it's power (more RAM hopefully).
 

GigaDrive

Banned
plus, that would most likely ensure Xenon is not outclassed power wise by either Revolution or especially PS3. or at least not outclassed too badly if at all.
 

cja

Member
I hope (and expect given what the likes of M-Systems, Pseudo Interactive have said) Xbox 2 is released late 2005. I like to have varied hardware with different strengths and weaknesses. If Xbox 2, PS3 and "Revolution" all launch within a week of each other in late 2006 at $300 apiece and all with similar hardware performance with the same 3rd party software on each platform it'll give everyone a nice flamewar but it doesn't really give anyone much choice.

If on the other hand you have a one year old Xbox 2 with a nice library of software and a $200 price-point versus a more powerful PS3 that costs $300 with a smaller library or a $250 N5 with its own innovative/gimmick/niche spin then that creates some much needed variety.
 

Redbeard

Banned
If they launch too close to the PS3 (with a difference of only a few months), then people will be more likely to just wait.
 

Razoric

Banned
No way it will come out next year. There has been no word of it, no working games shown, no hardware displayed, no nothing. Even if the sysem is ready by 2005, software delays will no doubt push it to Spring of 06. You can quote me on that.

Not even mentioning the fact that 2005 will see the full fledged effect of Halo 2 on XBL. Why the hell would MS kill that momentum? Especially if XB2 isnt backwards compatible.
 

Pug

Member
Xbox 2 will launch when the launch titles are ready. This will be precisely 3 months before PS3 hits the shelves. Actually only Element has the answer.
 

emerge

Member
Halo2 won't make Xbox profitable suddenly. The Xbox Hardware platform will never turn profitable, so MS hopes to use the momentum they have to establish another platform with a better profitability outlook.
 

GigaDrive

Banned
I hope (and expect given what the likes of M-Systems, Pseudo Interactive have said) Xbox 2 is released late 2005. I like to have varied hardware with different strengths and weaknesses. If Xbox 2, PS3 and "Revolution" all launch within a week of each other in late 2006 at $300 apiece and all with similar hardware performance with the same 3rd party software on each platform it'll give everyone a nice flamewar but it doesn't really give anyone much choice.

If on the other hand you have a one year old Xbox 2 with a nice library of software and a $200 price-point versus a more powerful PS3 that costs $300 with a smaller library or a $250 N5 with its own innovative/gimmick/niche spin then that creates some much needed variety.

addmitedly you have a good point.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Razoric said:
No way it will come out next year. There has been no word of it
What are you talking about? The article being discussed in this thread alone is "word", and there's many more articles and individual comments like it out there.
 

SKluck

Banned
Sony has never launched with a lot of good quality titles. If MS just waits and comes out within a month of Sony's launch with a great group of games, they could make great headway, maybe get 40%.
 

Razoric

Banned
human5892 said:
What are you talking about? The article being discussed in this thread alone is "word", and there's many more articles and individual comments like it out there.

Bad choice of "words" on my part. I take all this speculation with a grain of salt. If XB2 is backwards compatible than I can see late next year, early 2006. If not I cannot see them only allowing one year for Halo 2 to have the spotlight and to sell XBL memberships. This game has been hyped for so long and Halo 1 is still selling like crazy. Not even mentioning KOTOR2 and whatever else XBOX has next year. That's just dumb to kill all that with a new machine.
 
SKluck said:
Sony has never launched with a lot of good quality titles.

The PSone launch was very good, and plus they had alot of quality games coming out right after the release. The PS2 launch was slower but most people weren't bothered by it, alot of the hatred just came from people who were pissed because of the nail that the PS2 hammered into the DC's coffin based on it's hype alone. The general public was pretty much fine with the PS2's launch titles.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Razoric said:
Bad choice of "words" on my part. I take all this speculation with a grain of salt. If XB2 is backwards compatible than I can see late next year, early 2006. If not I cannot see them only allowing one year for Halo 2 to have the spotlight and to sell XBL memberships. This game has been hyped for so long and Halo 1 is still selling like crazy. Not even mentioning KOTOR2 and whatever else XBOX has next year. That's just dumb to kill all that with a new machine.
I agree that in some respects the 2005 launch might be a bad idea, but in others it makes sense to Microsoft: it gives them a chance to stop the cash-bleeding Xbox and try and recoup costs in a more cost-effective machine, as well as giving them (in some people's eyes) an advantage over Sony.

It's understandable to take rumors with a grain of salt, just as long as you see the writing on the wall, too. I'd bet a good amount of money that at this point and time, Microsoft is aiming for a 2005 Xbox2 launch.
 
I am hoping for Christmas 2005 launch, I am ready for it,.. I hope they launch as early as possible.

Half you saying "I hope 2006" are, as far as I can tell, PS2 lovers, that really dont hope that, but want to give the impression that their current plan is bad... if you dont want it in 2005, dont buy it! it will STILL be out in 2006 and probably for cheaper! wow amazing!
 
LuckyBrand said:
I am hoping for Christmas 2005 launch, I am ready for it,.. I hope they launch as early as possible.

Half you saying "I hope 2006" are, as far as I can tell, PS2 lovers, that really dont hope that, but want to give the impression that their current plan is bad... if you dont want it in 2005, dont buy it! it will STILL be out in 2006 and probably for cheaper! wow amazing!

If they're "PS2 lovers" why would they be against it? Going up against a full steam of Sony's hype is much more dangerous than releasing it in a smaller time span between the 2 as most are suggesting. Throw in the fact that the PS3 is going to have the most momentum going into next gen, plus if the schedules stay as they are (Xbox2 in 2005 and PS3 in 2006/7) the PS3 is going to have the strongest hardware along with backwards compatibility ect. I don't really know why any "PS2 lover" would be bothered with the launching timing of the two as it put Sony in a much better position to do what they've been doing.
 

Razoric

Banned
LuckyBrand said:
Half you saying "I hope 2006" are, as far as I can tell, PS2 lovers, that really dont hope that, but want to give the impression that their current plan is bad...

Yeah that's it. :\
 

Chopin Trusty Balls

First casualty in the war on idioticy.
Rob Fahey/Gamesindustry.biz is bunch of wannabees,seriously this article only repeats everything people were arguing about on the net for like a year now.

I still remember thier article about Nintendo/Capcom buyout :lol
 

rastex

Banned
Some of N64's best games came near the end of its lifespan. How long was it after Conker came out that the GC was released? Same with games like FF9 on PSOne vs PS2. And look at Madden 2001, that came out for both PSOne and PS2, and both sold damn well. Remember what the PS2 hype was, it wasn't JUST based on the graphics, a lot of it was based on the games as well. Sony could hype that the next-gen MGS and GT, 2 of the most successful franchises would ONLY be available on their console. Sega had no mainstream rep to claim, sure there was Sonic, but that's about it. Sega had no ultra successful franchises to point at and say "This will be on only OUR next-gen system!", so people didn't have anything to look forward to.

GC was actually similar, Nintendo could say "Our next-gen games will only be on our console!" unfortunately, after the N64 that just didn't mean as much. Now Sony has a couple of the top franchises in the industry, MGS3 and GT and MS has Halo. There are also a lot of 2nd tier franchises that both consoles have, a ton on PS2, and a lot of Xbox as well. Stuff that people will look forward to on PS3 and Xenon. This was never the case with the DC and is a VERY VERY VERY important distinction to make.

I'd say that in Sony's launch the 2 system selling games were Madden 2001, and Tekken Tag, with Madden being the more important. What this means is that if Xenon launches with a next-gen Madden plus the promise of Halo 2, plus a nice host of other graphically wowing games then MS will be alright. I don't know if they'll get into a dominant position, but I don't think they'll be losing any marketshare this way.

The key is that they have to demonstrate just how monstrously better next-gen games will be over the current stuff. If they can provide that to consumers NOW, then nobody will stand for having less. All they need is to convince a good 3-5million of the hardcore gamer/tech geeks that they can have the next-gen NOW and they'll be good for the first year. Then to combat Sony's hype, they have a price-drop and Halo2 launching.
 

Firest0rm

Member
Fleming said:
Rob Fahey/Gamesindustry.biz is bunch of wannabees,seriously this article only repeats everything people were arguing about on the net for like a year now.

I still remember thier article about Nintendo/Capcom buyout :lol

So they summarized everything for us. Thats kind of them. :) Now we don't need to go back through all the different articles. :)
 

Kon Tiki

Banned
LuckyBrand said:
Half you saying "I hope 2006" are, as far as I can tell, PS2 lovers, that really dont hope that, but want to give the impression that their current plan is bad... if you dont want it in 2005, dont buy it! it will STILL be out in 2006 and probably for cheaper! wow amazing!

Ok kid.

There is no need for a next gen system so early. This is the console market, not the PC video card market. The XNA demos have not shown anything that is leaps and bounds about what we have now, all that has been show ssem to resemble a 'video card upgrade' liek jump. The only people that want next gen now are the gamers who want to keep up with the latest PC ports, without upgrading thier PC.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Scene: Cheery country, far far away.

There's a clunk heard off stage. Suddenly the houses open, and dozens of little Mushroom People emerge.. they wander out nervously... until a tall Mushroom Guy in a black cape appears.

CAPE: Let the joyous news be spread, the wicked old Box at last is dead!

The Mushroom people begin dancing in the streets.

"Ding dong, the Box is dead... Gates gave up, the marketshare has fled... ding dong, the wicked Box is deeeaaad...."

-----

Seriously, though... MS can't really completely tailor their schedule to release their new system JUST before the next Sony system... MS does have to decide on final system specs and designs at some point... they could simply wait to release it until just before Sony, so as to get more consumer interest, of course.
 
"There is no need for a next gen system so early."

Need is a meaningless word in this context. Of course the Xbox2 isn't needed in 2005. MS doesn't care. They want what the PS2 got with its 18 month headstart--an insurmountable lead.

And it'll get it. Even if the Xbox2 sells as well in 2005-6 as the Xbox did in 2001-2, it'll own the next generation. A 10 million unit install base for the Xbox2 before either other console launches means no big PS3 exclusive 3rd party games, a 10 million unit install base lead in means many Xbox2 3rd party exclusives, a 10 million unit install base lead means domination.

The Xbox2 is coming out next year, just accept it. What's the point in denying reality, Society?
 
"Throw in the fact that the PS3 is going to have the most momentum going into next gen"

How so? If MS launches next year, the Playstation brand will be old news by March 2007 or whenever that soon-to-be-fiasco is released.
 

Kon Tiki

Banned
Veracruzer said:
The Xbox2 is coming out next year, just accept it. What's the point in denying reality, Society?

If it comes out it comes out. I just do not want to see shortened lifespans on consoles.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Veracruzer said:
And it'll get it. Even if the Xbox2 sells as well in 2005-6 as the Xbox did in 2001-2, it'll own the next generation. A 10 million unit install base for the Xbox2 before either other console launches means no big PS3 exclusive 3rd party games, a 10 million unit install base lead in means many Xbox2 3rd party exclusives, a 10 million unit install base lead means domination.

The problem with that logic is that the Xbox launched -after- the PS2... I can see folks being a lot more hesitant to purchase the next MS system before Sony's new system emerges (the Dreamcast syndrome). As long as Sony's system is still "almost here", I don't know if MS can really get the large numbers of sales it expects... and once the PS3 launches, the new MS system will appear "old" and lose casual appeal...

If the Xbox2-thingy gets released within a few months of Sony's new system, then it might well take control of the market, somehow, especially if it distinguishes itself from the PS3 in some way. Launching too early might be very detrimental, though.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Veracruzer said:
"Throw in the fact that the PS3 is going to have the most momentum going into next gen"

How so? If MS launches next year, the Playstation brand will be old news by March 2007 or whenever that soon-to-be-fiasco is released.
:lol
You must have some pretty damning insider PS3 information to call the successor to the most successful consoles of the past two generations a "soon-to-be-fiasco".
 
"I just do not want to see shortened lifespans on consoles."

1985: NES released in USA.

1989: Genesis released in USA. (A gap of 4 years.)

1995: PSX and SS released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

1999: Dreamcast released in USA (A gap of 4 years.)

2005: Xbox2 released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

The cycle seems to be as strong as ever, mate.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Hey, I'd love it if he were right...

Of course, I'd love it because I'd assume it would mean that the new Nintendo system was thrashing it into nothingness, so I doubt Veracruzer would overly enjoy my jocular vote of confidence.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Veracruzer said:
1985: NES released in USA.

1989: Genesis released in USA. (A gap of 4 years.)

1995: PSX and SS released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

1999: Dreamcast released in USA (A gap of 4 years.)

2005: Xbox2 released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

The cycle seems to be as strong as ever, mate.

Is it just me, or are a few key systems missing from that timeline?
 
"You must have some pretty damning insider PS3 information to call the successor to the most successful consoles of the past two generations a "soon-to-be-fiasco"."

The PS2 was successful only because of its 18 month headstart. If the Xbox and GC were released in 2000 the only place you would be able to buy a PS2 today would be on Ebay.

Sony will not have that lead, they will be the last out of the gate with out-of-date hardware and no games… maybe GT5, but that won’t save them.
 
"Is it just me, or are a few key systems missing from that timeline?"

I listed the systems which started the generation in America. I didn't put the SNES, N64, etc, because the generation started before they were released.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Xbox 2 in 2005?

john-kerry.jpg


BRING. IT. ON.
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Veracruzer said:
The PS2 was successful only because of its 18 month headstart. If the Xbox and GC were released in 2000 the only place you would be able to buy a PS2 today would be on Ebay.

As much as I wish that were true... it isn't. Sony's -overwhelming- success is partially due to the 18 month advantage, but it's not the only reason. Sony was in a much better relationship with all of the key third party companies than either MS or Nintendo was, and the (annoying) domination of the Playstation led to a expectant demand for the successor... even when the PS2 launched with -nothing worth playing-.

Sony can still ride off the steam of its brandname, although stiff competition will make it much more difficult for them. However, to claim that being the first to launch will necessarily imply victory raises many more (Saturn) questions than (Dreamcast) it answers.

Veracruze said:
I listed the systems which started the generation in America. I didn't put the SNES, N64, etc, because the generation started before they were released.
The problem with that is that "generations" don't dictate the lifespan of an individual game -system-. The complaint was about the shortening life of game systems, NOT about the "generations"... heck, you could make the case that the 3D0/CDI/Sega CD era was a unique (and failed) generation in and of itself, if you really wanted to.
 

Kon Tiki

Banned
Veracruzer said:
"I just do not want to see shortened lifespans on consoles."

1985: NES released in USA.

1989: Genesis released in USA. (A gap of 4 years.)

1995: PSX and SS released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

1999: Dreamcast released in USA (A gap of 4 years.)

2005: Xbox2 released in USA (A gap of 6 years.)

The cycle seems to be as strong as ever, mate.


Why are you comparing NES to Genesis?

console life = Length a console it out before it gets replaced by the company that makes it.

I was NOT talking about generations.
 
"I can see folks being a lot more hesitant to purchase the next MS system before Sony's new system emerges (the Dreamcast syndrome)."

MS is not Sega, and the Xbox2 is not the Dreamcast. The Xbox2 will have 5-6 EA launch titles, refresh my memory, how many games did EA make for the Dreamcast again? That right there should but that thought out of your mind.
 

wazoo

Member
Veracruzer said:
"I can see folks being a lot more hesitant to purchase the next MS system before Sony's new system emerges (the Dreamcast syndrome)."

MS is not Sega, and the Xbox2 is not the Dreamcast. The Xbox2 will have 5-6 EA launch titles, refresh my memory, how many games did EA make for the Dreamcast again? That right there should but that thought out of your mind.

how many games, EA did for the 3DO ??
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Veracruzer said:
The PS2 was successful only because of its 18 month headstart. If the Xbox and GC were released in 2000 the only place you would be able to buy a PS2 today would be on Ebay.

Sony will not have that lead, they will be the last out of the gate with out-of-date hardware and no games… maybe GT5, but that won’t save them.
As DavidDayton pointed out, by that logic, the Dreamcast -- with its earlier launch and stellar software (not the best launch, but certainly better than the PS2's) -- should've been the king this generation. The PS2 succeeded on much more than just an early launch alone.

I also find it incredibly presumptious of you to portend to know the PS3's launch software years before it actually comes out. Not to mention damning the console's hardware as "out-of-date" is just bewildering. Wouldn't the Xbox2's hardware, launching much earlier, be more out-of-date?
 

DDayton

(more a nerd than a geek)
Veracruzer said:
MS is not Sega, and the Xbox2 is not the Dreamcast. The Xbox2 will have 5-6 EA launch titles, refresh my memory, how many games did EA make for the Dreamcast again? That right there should but that thought out of your mind.

Not really. The Xbox 2 will have the same EA titles that will appear on the PS2 and GC at the same time... fancier graphics, perhaps, but the -same game-. How will this drive overwhelming demand?

A change in market dominance will NOT be dependent upon the launch year of the new systems... it will be the result of several years of steady change in the buying habits of consumers. Sony is currently the trusted brand... they'd either have to make a massive mistake (like Nintendo did by opting against optical media) or be COMPLETELY bested in every single catagory by another company. If MS (or Nintendo) can produce a system that looks better, costs less, has all of the "traditional" Sony exclusive properties, piles of new exclusive games, and appeals to the average idiot (cough cough), it will outperform Sony, although it might take a year for it to truly happen.
 
Top Bottom