Support NeoGAF

[Kleegamefan]

I'd say it'd hurt it. Consoles are popular because people know they can buy a console and be set for awhile without having to worry about buying a new console because developers have swapped over to the next gen. If you start turning it into who gets the best tech the fastest that's going to kill the industry faster than anything. If you go 4 years, who's going to stop it from getting even shorter? You don't have to wait 4 years for superior technology.

Totally Solid...

Yeah, if it keeps getting shorter, it starts to turn into the PC business (which, conversely, is getting longer all the time).....great, I guess, if your name is Microsoft but I already have a PC....

As I said before, in the end the market usually finds its own equilibrium anyway.....consumers on the large are not slaves to Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft (thank god) but are instead attracted to viable products.....if one of those guys introduces a too fast product upgrade, consumers WILL react with their wallets and they will be the next Dreamcast only for different reasons

Viability is key....Nintendo and Sony gets this and I hope X360 will be the beginning of this trend from MS too....

 

[Kleegamefan]

It AMAZES me that there are people in this thread that actually think this would be a GOOD idea....

This being a long or short upgrade cycle?

 

[monkeyrun]

it will be great.

everyone rushes, nobody wins.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Viability is key....Nintendo and Sony gets this and I hope X360 will be the beginning of this trend from MS too....

Yep, as you said earlier its good that Sony has been keeping on their own schedule. When you see them announcing big budget games like Tourist Trophy and Rogue Galaxy for the PS2 instead of the PS3 you see they get the big picture of doing what's best for consumers. And it also helps Sony because its giving a confidence to consumers that they can get the PS3 and get a similar level of support all through its life.

 

[Kleegamefan]

it will be great.

everyone rushes, nobody wins.

 

[kaching]

It AMAZES me that there are people in this thread that actually think this would be a GOOD idea....

Well, you see, Darien, it's like this: GAF conventional wisdom tells us that competition is *always* good for the consumer. Therefore, any action these companies take in the name of competition must naturally be in the consumer's best interest.

Honestly, it's not that hard to connect the dots.

 

[Liquid]

i dunno why no ones brought this up yet but i think both sony and ms have made their tech VERY future proof this time around. Tech isnt getting any cheaper and dev costs damn sure aint either. I'm thinking a 7 to 10 year cycle. i mean look at the first 360 games. PGR3 absolutely destroys anything on the market right now and its a first gen game. Barely even scratching the surface of what the 360 can do.

I think this upcoming gen with give flexability for very artsy graphics and awesome gameplay on smaller budgets for devs. Devs like Criterion and Bizarre will be able to find new ways of pushing the systems for years to come. MS and sony wanna make a nice amount on the hardware this time too. Enough to fund their NEXT gens without using anything out of pocket.

 

[puck1337]

They won't go with a 4 year cycle again.

 

[genjiZERO]

I don't think MS is trying to shorten the cycle, it's just that they were late entering the market this generation, and are trying to be the first one out in the next generation for strategic reasons. If XBOX360 is successful for them I don't think they'll upgrade it in 4 years.

 

[Pimpwerx]

4 years is bad for the consumer and the dev. We pay more money in the long run b/c the upgrade cycle is shorter. Devs pay more b/c as a gen progresses, they get to reuse a lot of the assets they developed early in the gen (tools, engines, etc...) thus reducing their overall costs. So their profits can increase as a gen goes on. They also get to squeeze more from the hardware. A longer cycle is just plain better. 5 years should be the minimum. I complained about Sega doing the 4 year thing, and if MS does it again, I'll complain too. They had a good reason for doing it this time, b/c the XB business was losing them money with no real hope of becoming profitable. However, they have to extend the 360 to at least 5 years. 6 might be a stretch. Sony can only do it b/c they have such a large lead. PEACE.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

isnt the ps3 suppose to last for 10 years?

 

[Rhindle]

For all the bitching around here, if you look at the declining console sales numbers (both in the US and Japan), Microsoft's timing was right on the money. The current gen is petering out rapidly.

Even software sales are soft this year, projections are that this year's Xmas sales will be substantially below last year's. Publishers are generally quite happy to see the new console launch to drive sales.

 

[Kleegamefan]

I don't think MS is trying to shorten the cycle, it's just that they were late entering the market this generation, and are trying to be the first one out in the next generation for strategic reasons. If XBOX360 is successful for them I don't think they'll upgrade it in 4 years.

That would be nice, but lets just say I don't possess the same amount of faith in Microsoft you do at the moment....

They are beginning to get a reputation of saying one thing and doing the other and then *hide* under sematics......BUT XBOX 360 *DOES* HAVE A HARD DRIVE.....THE CORE SYSTEM IS NOT AN XBOX 360!!!

 

[monkeyrun]

For all the bitching around here, if you look at the declining console sales numbers (both in the US and Japan), Microsoft's timing was right on the money. The current gen is petering out rapidly.

Even software sales are soft this year, projections are that this year's Xmas sales will be substantially below last year's. Publishers are generally quite happy to see the new console launch to drive sales.

so to assure every game's a million seller we release new generations every year, so most of the released games will be launch games, and will probably be million sellers.

 

[SolidSnakex]

For all the bitching around here, if you look at the declining console sales numbers (both in the US and Japan), Microsoft's timing was right on the money. The current gen is petering out rapidly.

The PS2 sold another 253k for August in the US. It's Japan sales are lower because alot of its big software is at the end of the year (December specifically) so it'll ramp up then.

 

[Kleegamefan]

For all the bitching around here, if you look at the declining console sales numbers (both in the US and Japan), Microsoft's timing was right on the money. The current gen is petering out rapidly.

Even software sales are soft this year, projections are that this year's Xmas sales will be substantially below last year's. Publishers are generally quite happy to see the new console launch to drive sales.

And why are PS2 and Xbox sales on the decline.....partially because of Xbox 360!!!!

The market doesn't exist in a vaccumn....people realize NEXT GEN AM COMING!!! and so this *will* also affect the current gen market to an extent!

Do you not agree with this??

 

[KingJ2002]

if they made a console every 4 years they would lose me as a customer.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I think four years is too short, but seven is too long. I like getting new technology and more power.

 

[Rhindle]

The PS2 sold another 253k for August in the US. It's Japan sales are lower because alot of its big software is at the end of the year (December specifically) so it'll ramp up then.

Harware sales in August are down 18% over last year. They would be down even more, were it not for the fact that the PSTwo was still in short supply last year.

 

[Kleegamefan]

We are on our third PlayStation yet the wait for PS2 or PS3 didn't seem to long or short for me...

I think Sonys Six year model is best, particularly for the non-hardcore who only buy one console per generation and even then, not at launch.....

 

[Rhindle]

And why are PS2 and Xbox sales on the decline.....partially because of Xbox 360!!!!

The market doesn't exist in a vaccumn....people realize NEXT GEN AM COMING!!! and so this *will* also affect the current gen market to an extent!

Do you not agree with this??

Sure, I agree that it will have some effect. Though not as much as you might think. The people who waited 4-5 years to buy a current-gen console will not be the same people who are looking to buy an X360 on launch.

so to assure every game's a million seller we release new generations every year, so most of the released games will be launch games, and will probably be million sellers.

Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The PS2 still hasn't hit $99, and is more than 20M units clear of where the PS1 was at this point in its life. This gen isn't over by any means. PEACE.

EDIT: Make that 30M units clear. PS1 was at 60M 5.5 years into its cycle. The PS2 is over 90M.

 

[Beer Monkey]

We are on our third PlayStation yet the wait for PS2 or PS3 didn't seem to long or short for me...

The wait for the PS2 would have seemed long to me if I didn't have a Dreamcast for that last year.

 

[Rhindle]

The PS2 still hasn't hit $99, and is more than 20M units clear of where the PS1 was at this point in its life. This gen isn't over by any means. PEACE.

EDIT: Make that 30M units clear. PS1 was at 60M 5.5 years into its cycle. The PS2 is over 90M.

That doesn't mean much. The people who wait to buy sub-$99 consoles are pretty much worthless to developers/publishers. They do not buy $50 games, they just rent or hit the bargain bin.

Sony will make a little bit off money on the hardware margin on these last sales, but not much in terms of software royalties (which is where the real money is).

 

[Kleegamefan]

That doesn't mean much. The people who wait to buy sub-$99 consoles are pretty much worthless to developers/publishers. They do not buy $50 games, they just rent or hit the bargain bin.

Sony will make a little bit off money on the hardware margin on these last sales, but not much in terms of software royalties (which is where the real money is).

I will say I disagree with you and leave it at that...this thread is progressing nicely at the moment and there is no need to heat up the discussion....I hope others will heed my warning

 

[Piepz]

Ok, this post will be stupid, ignore it if you want.

So...
4 years life span for Microsoft.
5 years life span for Sony.
If we do the math, then after 20 years MS will be one gen ahead Sony, smart move from MS! Lol am i rite ?!?!11

...

 

[Pimpwerx]

That doesn't mean much. The people who wait to buy sub-$99 consoles are pretty much worthless to developers/publishers. They do not buy $50 games, they just rent or hit the bargain bin.

Sony will make a little bit off money on the hardware margin on these last sales, but not much in terms of software royalties (which is where the real money is).

You're wrong. Sony sold some 25M PS1s after the $99 price IIRC. You bet your ass they bought a whole lot of $50 late in the gen. Well, they were more like $40 at that point, though. There are a significant number of new gamers yet to enter the gen. A significant number of games to be sold. The PSTwo and its software will dominate the charts for another year. And you can put money on that. This gen is far from over. PEACE.

 

[Deku]

It's all about strategy.

The successful manufacturer will always want to stretch the console life span and the challengers will always want to cur it short and launch early. Sega did the exact same thing with the Genesis/Megadrive before this strategy became associated with it. It's not right or wrong, it's just a good strategy to puruse.

However, incumbents, the market leader, tend to have great power to dictate when a generation starts and ends and it is the challenger's job to take the initiative away from the incumbent and set the schedule. If they can make people think a generation is starting before the incumbent wants it to start, then they win. And the success of this particular aspect has always been debatable.

I think the more porfitable sideeffect of launching early is the relationships and game development head start the challenger gets which will allow it to withstand the launch from the incumbent of a new console.

I DO think however that challengers can't pull this same strategy indefinately as they will have a consuer revolt on their hands. 4 years sounds like a long time, but for most of the first year, only around 10 to 20% of the consoler's lifetime userbase will own the system that cuts it down to a 3 year cycle for the majority. A successful console needs to be able to establish itself, gather a large core of users and give those core users at least two years to enjoy their machine.

Hardcore gamers will always want the newer and better things. But the industry isn't made up of hardcore gamers.

 

[JoDark]

DC shipped first this gen, then PS2 a year later, then Xbox a year after that. THIS is what defines when the generation should change imo.

I think if Sony and Nintendo ship at the end of '06 (VERY possible in the US, and could be '07 in Europe based on their history... what will they do the gen after? Go 6 years again??

With MS starting this gen in '05, next gen HAS TO come in holiday '10. And you KNOW if by some crazy circumstances, Nintendo or Sony or MS really loose out this gen, it could be in holiday '09. At the LATEST, it will be '11.

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

Exactly what happened to MS this time around...

Conclusion: That's a fucking easy one.

Let the games begin! We, the cross platform playing, GAF luvin, pissed off at the planet gamers are about to be treated to multi-billion $ companies fighting for our gaming $. Personally, I fucking LOVE IT!!!

 

[Speevy]

What if Microsoft releases a new console every 4 year? #1

Gamers could have a nice game of Halo after voting for the president?

 

[Solid]

4 years would be pathetic. no way i would support that. 5 or 6 is perfect.

take the xbox for example, here in europe it launched 2002 and it's sequel the 360 in 2005. 3 stinking years. i regret buying the damn thing when i think about this.

 

[Kleegamefan]

4 years would be pathetic. no way i would support that. 5 or 6 is perfect.

take the xbox for example, here in europe it launched 2002 and it's sequel the 360 in 2005. 3 stinking years. i regret buying the damn thing when i think about this.

I rest my case...

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

isnt the ps3 suppose to last for 10 years?

I think that is in relation to how long the Playstations last overall, not when the next system upgrade comes like PS1 lasted for 10 years, and PS2 looks to do the same.

 

[Bishman]

With the technology we have now, this generation should last 5-6 years.

4 years is way too short. I know people who are now picking up a PS2.

 

[sly]

DC shipped first this gen, then PS2 a year later, then Xbox a year after that. THIS is what defines when the generation should change imo.

I think if Sony and Nintendo ship at the end of '06 (VERY possible in the US, and could be '07 in Europe based on their history... what will they do the gen after? Go 6 years again??

With MS starting this gen in '05, next gen HAS TO come in holiday '10. And you KNOW if by some crazy circumstances, Nintendo or Sony or MS really loose out this gen, it could be in holiday '09. At the LATEST, it will be '11.

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

Exactly what happened to MS this time around...

Conclusion: That's a fucking easy one.

Let the games begin! We, the cross platform playing, GAF luvin, pissed off at the planet gamers are about to be treated to multi-billion $ companies fighting for our gaming $. Personally, I fucking LOVE IT!!!

:lol

 

[Pimpwerx]

DC shipped first this gen, then PS2 a year later, then Xbox a year after that. THIS is what defines when the generation should change imo.

I think if Sony and Nintendo ship at the end of '06 (VERY possible in the US, and could be '07 in Europe based on their history... what will they do the gen after? Go 6 years again??

With MS starting this gen in '05, next gen HAS TO come in holiday '10. And you KNOW if by some crazy circumstances, Nintendo or Sony or MS really loose out this gen, it could be in holiday '09. At the LATEST, it will be '11.

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

Exactly what happened to MS this time around...

Conclusion: That's a fucking easy one.

Let the games begin! We, the cross platform playing, GAF luvin, pissed off at the planet gamers are about to be treated to multi-billion $ companies fighting for our gaming $. Personally, I fucking LOVE IT!!!

What would have happened if MS tried launching the 360 during the height of the PS2's life, like in 2003? Not a very pretty picture, right? This is ignoring the fact that last year's numbers were limited largely due to shipments, not demand. You can't launch in the middle of the gen when one system is steamrolling. It would have to be a close fight between the PS3 and Rev for MS to try cutting this gen short again. Otherwise, it would be lost in a sea of quality titles and large hardware shipments. Devs won't pass on a system in its prime to develop new titles for a new system starting from scratch. The startup costs are high, and the the payoff is marginal in comparison. It would be much like what happened to the DC. A bunch of half-assed ports, which do more to kill the system's momentum than anything.

The incumbent dictates the start of the new gen a lot. MS couldn't have launched the 360 much earlier than this. Sony could have held out longer, but it will already by 6 years for Japan next Spring, so it's not like they've really been cut short or anything. If nothing else, they've just been kept from getting lazy. But 4 years is just too short. It's a bad trend that hasn't exactly helped any systems in the past. PEACE.

 

[stone128]

DC shipped first this gen, then PS2 a year later, then Xbox a year after that. THIS is what defines when the generation should change imo.

I think if Sony and Nintendo ship at the end of '06 (VERY possible in the US, and could be '07 in Europe based on their history... what will they do the gen after? Go 6 years again??

With MS starting this gen in '05, next gen HAS TO come in holiday '10. And you KNOW if by some crazy circumstances, Nintendo or Sony or MS really loose out this gen, it could be in holiday '09. At the LATEST, it will be '11.

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

Exactly what happened to MS this time around...

Conclusion: That's a fucking easy one.

:lol :lol

 

[bishoptl]

DC shipped first this gen, then PS2 a year later, then Xbox a year after that. THIS is what defines when the generation should change imo.

I think if Sony and Nintendo ship at the end of '06 (VERY possible in the US, and could be '07 in Europe based on their history... what will they do the gen after? Go 6 years again??

With MS starting this gen in '05, next gen HAS TO come in holiday '10. And you KNOW if by some crazy circumstances, Nintendo or Sony or MS really loose out this gen, it could be in holiday '09. At the LATEST, it will be '11.

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

Exactly what happened to MS this time around...

Conclusion: That's a fucking easy one.

Let the games begin! We, the cross platform playing, GAF luvin, pissed off at the planet gamers are about to be treated to multi-billion $ companies fighting for our gaming $. Personally, I fucking LOVE IT!!!

I thought we had quality control on account approvals?

 

[Amir0x]

I thought we had quality control on account approvals?

AGAIN, iho, SO PLEASE BE NICE!

 

[MightyHedgehog]

OK, let's look at using some common(?) sense...

Games are generally taking quite a bit longer to produce, on average.

The cost of creating games is rising fairly significantly, compared to this current gen.

The above two generalized facts make the idea of intentionally aiming for 4-year generations a stupid one, for MS as well. This generation was different, but then they've all been different from each other in the past...there's only a very loose pattern here, with regard to generation length.

Longer generations benefit all of the console makers because that is more use out of R&D and widening profit margins for the hardware as well as the software.

 

[CarlosX360]

I'm SO lucky not to have owned a Xbox, I will turn to the darkside of Microsoft this coming november with the release of Xbox 360.

Because I currently regret buying a GC...Not too many good games, just short gap of releases...and short lifespan. GC launched the same year as Xbox...Twightlight Princess will probbably end up my last, my VERY last GC game ever purchased.

I am very proud of owning a PS2 than any other console, next to Genesis/SNES/NES. N64 was a very worthy purchase, but other than that, not close to the giants.

5 to 6. Shut up on shortening the fucking lifespans! I hate people ENCOURAGING shorter lifespans. I hate it. Fuck.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

well sony has stated that they want an expanded life time for the ps3 and im sure nintendo would love to not make any more hardware until they have to.

 

[Piper Az]

Short generation from whom?

Not from Nintendo.....we are getting 5 years between GC launch (2001) and Rev launch (2006)...and before that??? another 5 year gap (N64 in 1996 to GC in 2001)

We are not getting a short generation from Sony either....PSone(Dec 1994) to PS2 (March 2000) is a little over 5 years and the gap from PS2 to PS3 is even bigger (Spring 2006 from March 2000 is more than 6 years)

No, the short generation is exclusive to Microsoft at this point.....look at the UK who just 3 years ago (2002) got the original Xbox......they will need the most convincing from MS that they won't be asked to upgrade to a new Xbox in 2008 that may or may not play some of their Xbox/X360 games....

In the last decade, Nintendo and Sony have shown they will not abandon their gaming platforms early, so they have earned a certain amount of trust from me as a consumer....moreso Sony, who not only seem to listen to their fans as much as MS but have more consistancy than either MS or Nintendo in some key areas, such as supporting previous generations of optical formats and PlayStation game software....they are the benchmark in this area as far as I'm concerned...

Its not in Microsofts strategy to have shorter generations??

Their actions speak differently....

MS came into the market late with the Xbox, and they want to get a year buffer before PS3 hits. Simples as that. There's no evidence that MS is trying to shorten the life cycle of the console business in THE FUTURE. stop saying speculative and far-reaching opinion as it will happen with a high probablity.

 

[----]

People still don't understand why the Xbox was only a 4 year console?

Microsoft rushed to create the original Xbox in 18 months so they made it using off the shelf parts and as a result they didn't own the technology in the Xbox. They couldn't reduce the price of the GPU and the CPU like Sony and Nintendo could for PS2 and Gamecube. As an aside this is also why MS was never able to release a redesigned smaller Xbox. With Xbox 360 they now own all of the technology inside of the box and can redesign and cost reduce the individual parts. Microsoft right now has to transition quickly out of this current gen because it's losing them money by not being able to decrease the cost of manufacturing the Xbox. With Xbox 360 they're going to be able to drastically reduce manufacturing costs over time like Sony does, so it's not likely that they're going to need to cut this next-generation short. Barring any unforseen events I would expect Xbox 360 to have a normal 5-6 year cycle.

GameIndustry.biz: How do the Xbox and the Xbox 360 compare in terms of manufacturing costs and subsidies?

Robbie Bach: They're quite different. Let's just put it that way.

Basically, Xbox was done, as I said, in 18 months. We used a lot of off-the-shelf parts, which was required to get the product to market in time and made it easy for developers, so that was good. The challenges over time have been that it's tougher to cost-reduce the product. We couldn't combine chipsets - we actually couldn't change the chipsets at all, because they weren't ours. NVIDIA and Intel were just producing the chips and then supplying them to us.

So there wasn't anything we could do to combine chips, or merge the silicon architecture - and that's where the huge amount of cost reduction actually comes from. You know, in hard discs and DVD drives, there's actually not that much cost reduction that happens. There are physical laws - a spinning platter costs so much, and there's very little you can do about that.

In this generation, we actually manage the intellectual property for our chipsets ourselves. We have the capability to combine those chips, to redesign them, to cost-reduce them - and so this will be a far more cost-effective product from a manufacturing perspective. The beginning of a cycle is always high cost, but that will go down in a more straightforward and predictable fashion on Xbox 360 than it did with Xbox.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12103

Since they own the chipsets now they can even go to another chipset manufacturer and have them design the console parts for much cheaper.

 

[Scrow]

hopefully this new gen of consoles lasts 10 years.

 

[DCharlie]

4 years is too short , 10 years is too long.

 

[rastex]

One thing about the numbers given for PS2 compared to PSOne, and trying to extrapolate the same trends is that the context isn't the same. The PSOne broadened and expanded the market greatly later on in its life and so when the PS2 came out, those newly created gamers are willing to spend more money earlier on in the PS2's life. How much of a percentage that reflects of current PS2 sales remains to be seen, but people expecting the PS2 to sell twice as many consoles from now just because the PSOne did, aren't looking at the entire picture I think.

As for the original topic. I believe in diminishing returns, therefore there requires more power to show off the same graphical leap, therefore if progress of technology stays the same then the difference in time must increase. I don't think we'll be seeing next-next gen until after 2010.

 

[human5892]

My guess is as follows: the 360 seems to be getting a KICK ASS start, the core, and a lot of early DC and PS2 buyers will buy a 360 before the PS3 and rev ship... it seems EASY for MS to do better this gen based on this start. Could even hit 50% of the market based on if the rev dies (which is could easily (again, imo, so please be nice))...

With about 50%, MS is now a BIG threat to Sony... so they would NOT allow MS another 1 year head start ahead of the PS4... leading to the PS4 in '10 holiday... meaning that Sony would be forced into a 4 year cycle next time around because they were a year + after the start of the 360/PS3 gen...

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

No worries.

MS will be third party the generation after this.

Nintendo Halovelution!

 

[ThunderEmperor]

Keep losing money, simple as that.