75 million PS3s sold by 2010

[Jtnguyen12]

Research firm: 75 million PS3s sold by 2010
The first professional prognostication of the year says Sony's system will win the console wars but won't dominate like its predecessor.
By Tim Surette, GameSpot
Posted Jan 2, 2007 10:42 am PT
While most of the globe spent the last few days popping champagne and recuperating from the subsequent headaches, business analyst firm Research and Markets, based out of Dublin, Ireland, was busy putting the final touches on its latest examination of the gaming industry.

The company is currently peddling a brief titled "The Transforming Global Video Games Market: The Emergence of Next Generation Gaming," which examines the future of the industry, concentrating largely on the race between the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Wii.

The firm believes that the PS3 will ultimately carry the largest market share, with 75 million PS3s sold worldwide by 2010. However, the company doesn't expect the PS3 to dominate the new console cycle the same way the PlayStation 2 did last generation, due largely to European "late launch issues" and the head start of the Xbox 360.

Though Research and Markets didn't divulge its long-term sales predictions for the Xbox 360 or Wii in today's press release, a quick look at the brief's table of contents reveals more of the company's opinions. Titles of topics include "Xbox 360 is close on the heels of the PS3 overall," "The US is expected to be the largest next-generation console market by 2010," and "The handheld market is no longer a one horse race."
=========================================================

Good luck if sony can sold 35 millions by 2010 & 75 million PS3s sold worldwide by 2013 (After price drop & re-design version).

[Michael Corvin]

Not sure why this analyst's report warrant's it's own thread. Some random analyst seems to come out of the woodwork every week to report on a victor.

Here are a few other analysts "predictions:"

Could Sony go from Worst to First? (http://www.dfcint.com/game_article/june06article.html)

Sony to Win Big in Long Run? (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/16/analyst-sony-to-win-big-in-long-run/)

Sony's PS3: High-Scorer No More (http://www.thestreet.com/_tscrss/markets/activetraderupdate/10330004.html)

I just pulled these three from a Joystiq Article (http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/02/analyst-ps3-will-win-with-75-million-units-by-2010/) and I'm sure there are more out there. While fun to read (they all end up sounding just as biased as the fan bases they are reporting on) truth is none of them really have any more insight into the matter than any of us do.

I think it is only of a matter of the PS3 being a hot topic right now and these articles drive traffic to their sites. Nothing more.

[abrg923]

75 million? That's laughable.

[taffer]

If they expect to sell 75 million PS3s there better be some huge price drops on an annual basis. No way is the average consumer going to buy a $500-$600 video game machine.

[The Bus]

I don't think 75 million can be achieved by 2010. The PS3 has a tougher road ahead than any of its predecessors and I don't see how they could sell 75 million by 2010. Fifty or sixty million? Sure. Seventy-five by the end of the life cycle? Absolutely. But 75 million by 2010...?

It would need to sell as quickly as the PS2. I don't see that happening.

[raven56706]

rotfl rotfl rotfl.....

at that price..... rotfl rotfl

[Samisking23]

huh??? 2010??? wait shouldn't PS4 be coming out sometime by then , and wouldn't we will end up with Xbox 720 by 2009??

What is this about the Handheld not being a one horse race??? Ds is dominating now and Nintendo handheld will dominate all thru 2010. If the psp is any indication of the future of the competition Nintendo need not sweat.

[dom56]

By 2010 Sony well probably file for bankrupty becauce they're getting their ass kick by M$ and Nintendo.

[Setzer]

By 2010 Sony well probably file for bankrupty becauce they're getting their ass kick by M$ and Nintendo.

-rolleyes-

[Lastblade]

120% defective rate might get Sony there.... maybe. :D

[FantasticVSDoom]

Um, was this research funded by Sony?

[DVD Josh]

I love my PS3 but this is some weed-smoking shit right here.

[BigDaddy]

I can not figure out why people want Sony to fail. Competition is a great thing.

[mrpayroll]

http://www.cbronline.com/article_researchwire.asp?guid=76EE3846-05CA-4E11-9D99-2717A77A7C4D

Games consoles: Sony's PS3 to win the console war by 2010
2nd January 2007

By 2010, Sony's PS3 is expected to have 'won' the console war, although not as securely as it did in the previous generation lifecycle. Around 75 million PS3 consoles are forecast to have been sold globally by the end of 2010, while Microsoft's Xbox 360 is expected to have sold around 40 million units, and Nintendo's Wii is predicted to have sold around 31 million.

http://www.cbronline.com/article_image.asp?guid=76EE3846-05CA-4E11-9D99-2717A77A7C4D

Source: Datamonitor, "The transforming global video games market: the emergence of next generation gaming (Market Focus)" (BFTC1488)
I think they are vastly overestimating the difference between the 1st and 3rd place machines. No way Sony (or XBox 360) is going to sell that much more than the Wii.

Chris

[Jimmy James]

I don't think this is all that crazy. If Sony wins the HD format war and therefore gets the prices on the drive going in the right direction, they have a shot. They're going to need some killer games within the next 12 months, but I imagine they probably have that covered. I think it's pretty clear that they're going to be going into holiday 2007 behind due to 360's head start and Wii's extreme popularity, but Wii could end up just being a fad and the PS3 might be really compelling from then on out. I'm focusing less on the number here than on the ultimate winner. At this point, there is a ton of battling left to do.

[Setzer]

I can not figure out why people want Sony to fail. Competition is a great thing.

It's apparently "cool" to hate Sony these days. :rolleyes:

[Setzer]

http://www.cbronline.com/article_researchwire.asp?guid=76EE3846-05CA-4E11-9D99-2717A77A7C4D


I think they are vastly overestimating the difference between the 1st and 3rd place machines. No way Sony (or XBox 360) is going to sell that much more than the Wii.

Chris

I think that Sony will eventually catch up and pass the 360 in the next 2 years but Nintendo is going to win this thing. Wouldn't surprise me if the Wii catches passes the 360 by this fall.

[Jimmy James]

There is still a significant danger that the Wii is a fad. I'm rooting for it because I think it's a very cool idea, but it's going to take a while before we know how things are going to shake out with it.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I can not figure out why people want Sony to fail. Competition is a great thing.
I don't even think it comes down to the implied fanboyism: Blu-ray + $500-$600 system just sucks for the vast majority of people who buy consoles. I'm personally not the least bit interested in spending 'extra' to help Sony trojan horse their way to a new media standard. In particular, I don't believe that the leap from DVD to Blu-ray is going to be meaningful for more than a handful of games.

[Dazed]

I too hope the Wii will be more than a fad and cant wait to get my hands on one :)

At the moment its doing a great job undermining the PS3 Launch (seems every other article is about how well nintendo are doing and how badly sony are doing) but hopefully the PS3 will gain some momentum as Id like there to be 3 consoles available.

Sony should have given a non Blu Ray option, this seems to be the thing which is the focus of peoples anger towards the PS3 and whats put the price so high.

[NiCK Crush]

i just saw 5 60GB PS3s at my local Meijer.

-NiCK

[abrg923]

I don't think this is all that crazy. If Sony wins the HD format war and therefore gets the prices on the drive going in the right direction, they have a shot. They're going to need some killer games within the next 12 months, but I imagine they probably have that covered. I think it's pretty clear that they're going to be going into holiday 2007 behind due to 360's head start and Wii's extreme popularity, but Wii could end up just being a fad and the PS3 might be really compelling from then on out. I'm focusing less on the number here than on the ultimate winner. At this point, there is a ton of battling left to do.

Re-read that post, and you'll realize that that's a ridiculous amount of "ifs".

As far as killer games, they have very few that won't be on the 360 as well.

I don't even think it comes down to the implied fanboyism: Blu-ray + $500-$600 system just sucks for the vast majority of people who buy consoles. I'm personally not the least bit interested in spending 'extra' to help Sony trojan horse their way to a new media standard. In particular, I don't believe that the leap from DVD to Blu-ray is going to be meaningful for more than a handful of games.

Bingo.

[Michael Corvin]

It's apparently "cool" to hate Sony these days. :rolleyes:

-ohbfrank-

I don't think that is it at all, at least on these boards. I mean the average age around here is 30+, way beyond acting "cool" to a bunch of strangers.

Sony fucked up this gen royally...so far. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hating Sony. They are digging their own grave and the only people blind to the fact are the ones that are buying it for the brand name and not the console. Seriously, who buys a console for $600 for Resistance and 15+ other titles that are available on the $200 cheaper machine that not only look better but have far superior online capabilities? Brand name. That is what Sony is floating on and to be fair, that is what they have been banking on all along. Kudos to them for nailing their target demographic.

And to hit that 75 million Sony needs to start cranking them out, at roughly 19 million a year. That is a preposterous amount of consoles considering their price structure.

*edit
Thinking about it, what is wrong with wanting them to fail anyway? I'm in it for the games and I have a BIG problem with price. It's $600 and $60 games this gen, but if they succeed at those prices what's to stop them from charging $1000 for the PS4 and $75 for games thus paving the way for the other companies to charge more as well? It is a downward spiral that began on Nov. 20, 2006. Just like the Horse Armor was the beginning of the Marketplace content downward spiral. They think they have carte blance when it comes to pricing because of their name, but by paying Sony's outrageous prices it tells them as well as Nintendo & MS that you are okay paying $600 for a gaming console. More people need to speak with their wallets.

[Nefarious]

I agree with what the posters before me have said in regards to Sony's actions/motives.

That being said the first two consoles I owned were the PS1 & PS2. I finally got an Xbox (once they dropped to below $150 and that was more for XBMC capabilities for divx than anything else).

Of the next-gen systems the only one I've bought so far is the Nintendo Wii. If you had asked me 6 months ago, nay 2 months ago, if I would have figured to ever own a Nintendo product I'd have said "hell no". But they got it right...they built a gaming machine first and foremost.

That article reeks of Sony shill-ism. Perfect time to throw some bullshit numbers out there to try and divert attention from their third place holiday sales and fact that people can find the machine everywhere now. They have no buzz right now and this is an attempt to generate some. The hope that people will not see through it and think that "if this is the end-all-be-all and will sell that many...why don't I own one...I need to go buy one."

[FantasticVSDoom]

Sony makes it real easy to "hate" them... But I don't think its so much that people hate them, but some of the comments coming from Sony just seem to rub people the wrong way. For me personally, its just the price issue. As soon as BD and or a PS3 is more affordable, I will buy one in a heartbeat. Depending on when/if the price drops and for how much will determine if this will beat the 360 or the Wii.

Plus, is was much cooler to hate MS before Sony anyways :D...

[abrg923]

*edit
Thinking about it, what is wrong with wanting them to fail anyway? I'm in it for the games and I have a BIG problem with price. It's $600 and $60 games this gen, but if they succeed at those prices what's to stop them from charging $1000 for the PS4 and $75 for games thus paving the way for the other companies to charge more as well? It is a downward spiral that began on Nov. 20, 2006. Just like the Horse Armor was the beginning of the Marketplace content downward spiral. They think they have carte blance when it comes to pricing because of their name, but by paying Sony's outrageous prices it tells them as well as Nintendo & MS that you are okay paying $600 for a gaming console. More people need to speak with their wallets.

I couldn't have said it better myself...that's the exact reason I'm so anti-Sony and anti-PS3 right now.

[Setzer]

-ohbfrank-

I don't think that is it at all, at least on these boards. I mean the average age around here is 30+, way beyond acting "cool" to a bunch of strangers.

Sony fucked up this gen royally...so far. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hating Sony. They are digging their own grave and the only people blind to the fact are the ones that are buying it for the brand name and not the console. Seriously, who buys a console for $600 for Resistance and 15+ other titles that are available on the $200 cheaper machine that not only look better but have far superior online capabilities? Brand name. That is what Sony is floating on and to be fair, that is what they have been banking on all along. Kudos to them for nailing their target demographic.

And to hit that 75 million Sony needs to start cranking them out, at roughly 19 million a year. That is a preposterous amount of consoles considering their price structure.

*edit
Thinking about it, what is wrong with wanting them to fail anyway? I'm in it for the games and I have a BIG problem with price. It's $600 and $60 games this gen, but if they succeed at those prices what's to stop them from charging $1000 for the PS4 and $75 for games thus paving the way for the other companies to charge more as well? It is a downward spiral that began on Nov. 20, 2006. Just like the Horse Armor was the beginning of the Marketplace content downward spiral. They think they have carte blance when it comes to pricing because of their name, but by paying Sony's outrageous prices it tells them as well as Nintendo & MS that you are okay paying $600 for a gaming console. More people need to speak with their wallets.

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

[Demontooth]

I don't want equivalent to what I get with a PS3, I want to play video games. I can pass up a $200 HD-DVD player because I don't want to buy HD-DVD's.

[fumanstan]

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

I don't care/don't need a HD-DVD player or a wireless network adapter, so the 360 is a cheaper option. That probably applies for most people out there. You can argue that the 360 package is inferior, but as far as the actual games are concerned the 360 is easily better right now.

God, this argument has come up before...

[Suprmallet]

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

As some others have said, some people just want to plug in and play great games. With MS you can do that for $400. With the PS3 it's $600 (and only one game anyone has praised at all). Period.

[Apollo]

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

Setzer

You keep using this view to support that the PS3 is cheaper for a HiDef player and some of your points are true. The big problem is that what if you don't want BD. As a option can I remove it and use a standard DVD? No, You can't. HDMI, Is it needed? Yes for 1080P, but the percentage of TV with HDMI is pretty low. So if you are a supporter of BD, yes the PS3 is a bargain as a BD player. If you focus is gaming, No at present buying a PS3 is no bargain vs. the 360.

I hope in the future to get PS3 when the price drops to reasonable point. I just don't have a need for a BD player right now.

[Michael Corvin]

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

As the previous posters have pointed out, this argument is seriously flawed and a tired one at that. You DON'T NEED an HD drive to play games. You DON'T NEED a $100 wireless adapter to play games. I'm online and it cost me the price of an ethernet cable. Far from $100. You are forcing your individual situation into the general consensus. You may need those features to appreciate the system but to people that just want to play games, we don't.

Let's turn the table. I have an HDTV so I NEED component cables to enjoy my 360. I get those out of the box with my $400 Xbox. I do not have HDMI on my TV so I would NEED Sony Brand Component cables(third party does not suffice, so $80) for the PS3 making my entry to Sony gaming $680. I don't go around spouting that the PS3 costs $680 just because that's what it would cost me-individually, that is just silly. At that point the 360 would be $280 cheaper!

As for the "all I get is a 20GB drive" argument I have to say, I've had mine since launch and haven't dropped below 9Gb available. The 360 also doesn't require you to install GB chunks of data to play games, meaning I don't need that extra 40GB you seem to need.

So we can all fudge numbers and features all we want. Core vs. Premium system to system JUST TO PLAY GAMES is a $200 difference. Simple as that. I don't get the confusion.

[Setzer]

As some others have said, some people just want to plug in and play great games. With MS you can do that for $400. With the PS3 it's $600. Period.

You can get a PS3 for $500.

[Michael Corvin]

You can get a PS3 for $500.

:rolleyes: And you can get a 360 for $300. $200 difference. It may not be the desirable choice, but it can be done.

Core vs. Premium system to system JUST TO PLAY GAMES is a $200 difference.
... and round and round the argument goes...

[Setzer]

As the previous posters have pointed out, this argument is seriously flawed and a tired one at that. You DON'T NEED an HD drive to play games. You DON'T NEED a $100 wireless adapter to play games. I'm online and it cost me the price of an ethernet cable. Far from $100. You are forcing your individual situation into the general consensus. You may need those features to appreciate the system but to people that just want to play games, we don't.

Let's turn the table. I have an HDTV so I NEED component cables to enjoy my 360. I get those out of the box with my $400 Xbox. I do not have HDMI on my TV so I would NEED Sony Brand Component cables(third party does not suffice, so $80) for the PS3 making my entry to Sony gaming $680. I don't go around spouting that the PS3 costs $680 just because that's what it would cost me-individually, that is just silly. At that point the 360 would be $280 cheaper!

As for the "all I get is a 20GB drive" argument I have to say, I've had mine since launch and haven't dropped below 9Gb available. The 360 also doesn't require you to install GB chunks of data to play games, meaning I don't need that extra 40GB you seem to need.

So we can all fudge numbers and features all we want. Core vs. Premium system to system JUST TO PLAY GAMES is a $200 difference. Simple as that. I don't get the confusion.

It's a $100 difference in price if you want to make that comparison. Anyone who buys the core 360 package is a fool, imo. For what you get more with the Premium, the Core shouldn't even be considered an option.

Ok, you all say "at least Microsoft gives you the option" -- ok, that's cool. I never said I supported Sony's idea to include a BD player in the PS3 - I believe it's a risky move and who knows if they'll succeed. I do however think that what you're getting for $600 is a good value. Some people may not see it that way and that's fine but for those of you who post here, the majority of you have Xbox Live and I believe the majority of you also went out and bought the $200 HD add-on and yet you bitch about Sony price gouging the consumer with a $600 console even though you, yourself spent the same, if not more on your Xbox 360 + Add-ons. This is what pisses me off. You hate Sony because of a $500/$600 PS3 and yet you have no problem spending $400 on a 360 and then spend $300 on add-ons.

[Setzer]

:rolleyes: And you can get a 360 for $300. $200 difference. It may not be the desirable choice, but it can be done.


... and round and round the argument goes...

:lol:

[Michael Corvin]

This is what pisses me off. You hate Sony because of a $500/$600 PS3 and yet you have no problem spending $400 on a 360 and then spend $300 on add-ons.

And data to back up those claims? I don't own the HD drive or the wireless adapter. I believe the 1up guys reported, in a recent podcast,the HD install base thus far was around 5% of 360 owners. Far from what you are claiming.

Like I said above, I'm in it for gaming.

[Demontooth]

I don't hate Sony, I just can't stomach paying $600 for a video game console. I waited until I could get the XBox for $330 after discounts. I don't want a Blu-Ray player because I'm not interested in the next generation of DVD yet because I don't want to pay the difference between regular DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

[Setzer]

And data to back up those claims? I don't own the HD drive or the wireless adapter. I believe the 1up guys reported, in a recent podcast,the HD install base thus far was around 5% of 360 owners. Far from what you are claiming.

Like I said above, I'm in it for gaming.

I wasn't talking about the majority of Xbox owners in general. Re-read my post, please. Thanks.

[Suprmallet]

You can get a PS3 for $500.

Forgetting the whole core versus premium argument, I COULD get a PS3 for $500...and still only have one good game to play on it. I still don't see the advantages for people who just want to play games.

[abrg923]

$200 cheaper? :lol:

To get equivalent to what you get with a PS3 with an Xbox 360 you need to buy the Premium for $400, then an HD-DVD Add-on $200, then a Wireless Network Adapter $100 so you can get online.....there's $700 and guess what? You still don't have HDMI and you have an hard drive which is only 20gb. Yes, the HD-DVD add-on is optional BUT if your a 360 owner then how can you not pass up a $200 HD-DVD player. In the end you pay more and support Microsoft and people want to hate Sony?

You can pass it up easily. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray aren't exactly booming - the general public is still unsure about either. The fact that it's optional is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Also, nearly any wireless adapter can be used, so it's not necessarily $100.

And HDMI, again, is not required, nor is it a huge selling feature with the general public.

To the hardcore gamer/videophile, the PS3 is a good deal. But the hardcore gamers aren't where the profits come from, either.

[Michael Corvin]

for those of you who post here, the majority of you have Xbox Live and I believe the majority of you also went out and bought the $200 HD add-on

Fair enough, I'm not one in the purported claim above.

[Fandango]

As the previous posters have pointed out, this argument is seriously flawed and a tired one at that. You DON'T NEED an HD drive to play games. You DON'T NEED a $100 wireless adapter to play games. I'm online and it cost me the price of an ethernet cable. Far from $100. You are forcing your individual situation into the general consensus. You may need those features to appreciate the system but to people that just want to play games, we don't.

Let's turn the table. I have an HDTV so I NEED component cables to enjoy my 360. I get those out of the box with my $400 Xbox. I do not have HDMI on my TV so I would NEED Sony Brand Component cables(third party does not suffice, so $80) for the PS3 making my entry to Sony gaming $680. I don't go around spouting that the PS3 costs $680 just because that's what it would cost me-individually, that is just silly. At that point the 360 would be $280 cheaper!

As for the "all I get is a 20GB drive" argument I have to say, I've had mine since launch and haven't dropped below 9Gb available. The 360 also doesn't require you to install GB chunks of data to play games, meaning I don't need that extra 40GB you seem to need.

So we can all fudge numbers and features all we want. Core vs. Premium system to system JUST TO PLAY GAMES is a $200 difference. Simple as that. I don't get the confusion.

The component cables cost $24.99.

[abrg923]

It's a $100 difference in price if you want to make that comparison. Anyone who buys the core 360 package is a fool, imo.

Anyone who buys a PS3 is a fool, IMO. Again, it's just that. An opinion. It's absolutely irrelevant in the long run. The fact that Sony may have made a mistake is evident in the fact that just over one month after the system launched, they're showing up everywhere in stores, available to purchase, despite a shortage of consoles made. Name the last system that happened with.

[abrg923]

I believe the majority of you also went out and bought the $200 HD add-on

Not me, either.

[taffer]

I do however think that what you're getting for $600 is a good value.

It is only a good value if you want what is included. Most people do not want a blu-ray drive so it is not a good value for them.

Take this as an example:

Imagine there is a huge pile of manure being sold for $1. To farmers, that would be a good deal since they use manure for fertilizing their land. To everyone else, it is just a big pile of shit, so it is not a good deal even at $1.


The majority of you have Xbox Live and I believe the majority of you also went out and bought the $200 HD add-on and yet you bitch about Sony price gouging the consumer with a $600 console even though you, yourself spent the same, if not more on your Xbox 360 + Add-ons.

The reason we dislike Sony is because they are FORCING Blu-ray on us whether we want it or not. MS is not forcing HD-DVD on us. If you want MS's HD-DVD, you can OPTIONALLY buy it for $200. If you just want to play games, you can do that with the $400 console. Sony is making us spend an extra $200 on something that most of us do not want. If Blu-ray had been an option, we would not have had any problem with it. Instead, Sony is being an arrogant ass and forcing us to buy it. That is what we hate.

Don't forget that most members here on DVDTalk are hardcore home theater fanatics. Most people here are really into HD-DVD/Blu-ray, so of course most people here are buying the MS HD-DVD drive. This is far from true in the "real" world where most people couldn't care less about having the highest quality of movie watching. These people couldn't care less that there is a Blu-ray drive in the PS3 and they won't buy the 360 HD-DVD either.

[Setzer]

for those of you who post here, the majority of you have Xbox Live and I believe the majority of you also went out and bought the $200 HD add-on

Fair enough, I'm not one in the purported claim above.

Does that make things easier for you to understand?

:rolleyes:

[Liver&Onions]

OK guys - we've gone over the shit in this thread WAY too many times already. People are entitled to their opinions, but due to the nature of the beast feelings get stomped on and opinions get taken too personally. So let's cut it out right now.

I have a PS3 - yes it sucks that out of the box the cabling was inadequate. I knew that though making it my choice. Also, I have yet to experience a title that REQUIRED a install. I had the option with Genji - but it was an option.

I have a 360. Is the 20G a shortcoming? Not yet. I hover around 10G at all times. Even with downloading movies and tv shows.

So let's cut the back and forth before it results in a thread being locked or worse.

[The Bus]

Back to the topic:

PS2 sold 100 million.
PS1 sold 100 million.

Why would the PS3 suddenly lose half of its installed base? Even during Nintendo's post-SNES freefall, they didn't lose 50% in the US going from the SNES to the Gamecube.

The only time a console maker flubbed so hard as to lose 50% or more in a generation was Sega from the Genesis to the Saturn. The PS3 sales might be underwhelming compared to the Wii, but Sega would've killed to see that kind of success.

[Setzer]

they're showing up everywhere in stores, available to purchase, despite a shortage of consoles made. Name the last system that happened with.

Wow, I guess that must be where you live because here, in Olympia, WA, there isn't a store in the area that has them readily available to purchase. I saw them at BB on Sunday, they brought 5 up and placed them in the middle of the isle and within 5 minutes they were gone -- and that was the first time I saw them readily available. Like I said, though, it depends on where you live. You could have got 360's last year at launch pretty easily if you lived in the right area. I have a friend who lives in Yucaipa, CA and was able to walk into his Wal-Mart 2 days after launch of the 360 and buy one. It was that easy. The Wii is the only system since the PS2 that's been nearly impossible to find and here we are 2 months after launch.

[mrpayroll]

There is still a significant danger that the Wii is a fad. I'm rooting for it because I think it's a very cool idea, but it's going to take a while before we know how things are going to shake out with it.

But just going from the testimonies of people here and how their family and friends have gone crazy over playing (and wanting) a Wii, leads me to believe that the only way that the Wii will fail is if future software fails to deliver. I seriously doubt that that will happen.

Most people in their late 20's and 30's grew up with the retro games that the Wii offers and have a nostalgic feeling about them, so they are attracted to those games on the Wii.

Chris

[Setzer]

Back to the topic:

PS2 sold 100 million.
PS1 sold 100 million.

Why would the PS3 suddenly lose half of its installed base? Even during Nintendo's post-SNES freefall, they didn't lose 50% in the US going from the SNES to the Gamecube.

The only time a console maker flubbed so hard as to lose 50% or more in a generation was Sega from the Genesis to the Saturn. The PS3 sales might be underwhelming compared to the Wii, but Sega would've killed to see that kind of success.

Because it costs twice as much as those consoles did? I believe $300 was the starting price for both the PS1 and PS2.

But I still think 75 million is a very realistic number and for Sony, should be easily attainable by 2010.

[PixyJunket]

Why would the PS3 suddenly lose half of its installed base?Here's why: $600.

[Jeremy517]

Back to the topic:

PS2 sold 100 million.
PS1 sold 100 million.

Why would the PS3 suddenly lose half of its installed base? Even during Nintendo's post-SNES freefall, they didn't lose 50% in the US going from the SNES to the Gamecube.


Did either of those sell 75 million in three years?

[Jimmy James]

Did either of those sell 75 million in three years?

It's 4 years until 2010 is over.

[hail2dking]

Technically, installed base and units sold aren't the same thing. I have six friends, who between them, have purchased 15 PS2s. All of them have had at least one crap out, or purchased the slim version to replace the original or wanted a 2nd one to have just in case.

It was also much more affordable to replace the PS2. The install base is probably less than half of the units sold. The price during the PS2 life cycle is $100-300, while the PS3 will probably be $300-$600.


...loved taffer's example :clap:

[Ocelot]

Anyone who buys a PS3 is a fool, IMO. Again, it's just that. An opinion. It's absolutely irrelevant in the long run. The fact that Sony may have made a mistake is evident in the fact that just over one month after the system launched, they're showing up everywhere in stores, available to purchase, despite a shortage of consoles made. Name the last system that happened with.


Well, i guess i will be the fool you're talking about then :)

As soon as i get my Sony Credit Card, i will use it to buy the PS3 from CC using the $40 off coupon. By doing so, i'm saving $190 ($150 credit from the Sony card). So, i'm really paying $410 (not including taxes).

See, the PS3 is a media meachine... you can use it to play various media files and i got a 56" DLP and a DSLR camera. So, creating instant picture slides on the PS3 with favorite musics is one of the cool things i'm gonna do.

The local BBV got a good selection of BR movies, hey, i got the HDTV, why not? Sure, only a few awful PS3 games now, but who cares, it's not like they are not making them anymore.

Able to use your PSP with the PS3, pretty cool idea to me, hey, i got a PSP...

Errr, anybody know you can use your DS with the Wii? Don't think so... (i got a DS too).

Wait, MS got no portables :)

Yeah, the PS3 is $600 ($500 model is a joke), but hardware-wise, it cost that much (more than that actually).

Lastly, you gotta agree with the BR potential.... Maybe BR movie licenses might not make it, but that won't stop BR games! Oh, the possibility of Sony PS classic games and extras on one BR disc!

[Ocelot]

rotfl


So true.... The fact that PS3s are almost everywhere is good news for me :)

[LivingINClip]

As someone, who has bought every single system since the NES, I can say with certainy, I will never own a new PS3. I refuse to pay the outrageous price that Sony thinks I should pay and I also refuse to give into their arrogance. I guess you could say that their PR before the Sony launch ruined it for me, statements like "it'll make people want to work overtime" and other things just totally put me off the machine.

Will I own a PS3 eventutally? Yes, but it'll be a used one I bought off Ebay. I will never give my money directly to Sony, not until they straighten their act up. It has nothing with being "cool", it has to do with them, insulting me, the buyer with shitty PR statements and an outrageous price tag that is not warranted in a game machine.

[Ocelot]

Technically, installed base and units sold aren't the same thing. I have six friends, who between them, have purchased 15 PS2s. All of them have had at least one crap out, or purchased the slim version to replace the original or wanted a 2nd one to have just in case.

It was also much more affordable to replace the PS2. The install base is probably less than half of the units sold. The price during the PS2 life cycle is $100-300, while the PS3 will probably be $300-$600.


...loved taffer's example :clap:

Yeah, that's one serious thing to consider... However, in my gaming experience, i rarely have anything break down before "affordable" or "mandatory" upgrade or simply bore of the item. My original Nintendo might still works (dirty, dusty and systematically abused), Saga Genesis and CD system got stolen (it works), Dreamcast (works, but not playing it anymore), GameCube (of course it works and still play it)....

See, if a console's lifespan is longer enough for the next "wave" it's good enough for me (including mild abuse of course, i.e. play lots of game for long hours like 3-4 hours a day).

[Setzer]

Well, i guess i will be the fool you're talking about then :)


:lol: I guess I'm already one.

Yeah, the PS3 is $600 ($500 model is a joke), but hardware-wise, it cost that much (more than that actually).

The $500 PS3 model isn't as big a joke as the $300 360 model. With the $500 PS3 you're only getting 40gb less HD space and no built in Wi-Fi connection.

[pdutta2000]

I think the future of the console wars will be won by the company that makes their system the most media centric. At $400 for the XBOX360 and $600 for the PS3, both consoles have become major purchases for families and they must both do more than just play games. I'm looking at my XBOX360 as a media center and I'm waiting for them to allow me to surf the web on it. For me, the XBOX beats the PS3 in the following features:

1. XBOX Live - I can play games, download demos, download arcade games, watch trailers and it's easy and in a family friendly format. Not only that, but it is a standard place to go...not game specific.

2. XBOX Media Connect - I can link to my computer and look at pictures, listen to music and watch home videos. Once again...in the same place as XBOX Live.

3. Regular DVD player - I don't care what anyone says...the bulk of America will not buy a particular format until a standard is chosen. This will hurt the PS3 since Sony has a terrible record when trying to force a standard (Betamax, Mini-Disc, Memory Stick, etc).

[cleaver]

What are the current sales numbers at, because supposedly Nintendo was going to ship 2 million Wiis and Sony 250,000 PS3s domestically, and it's difficult to find 1 of either.

[Michael Corvin]

It is only a good value if you want what is included. Most people do not want a blu-ray drive so it is not a good value for them.

Take this as an example:

Imagine there is a huge pile of manure being sold for $1. To farmers, that would be a good deal since they use manure for fertilizing their land. To everyone else, it is just a big pile of shit, so it is not a good deal even at $1.



rotfl

Nice. Good way to lighten up the thread. It also works as a great analogy.


See, the PS3 is a media meachine... you can use it to play various media files and i got a 56" DLP and a DSLR camera. So, creating instant picture slides on the PS3 with favorite musics is one of the cool things i'm gonna do.

The 360 has been capable of this for over a year.

[mr.snowmizer]

I can't somebody brought up the 'throw in $200 for the HD-DVD drive' spin on pricing.

Since we're in a thread discussing tens upon tens of millions of consoles being sold, that means it's long after the mainstream gamers have started buying. So what do they want?

"Madden" and "GTA" are as good as any answer you can come up with today.

So what's the cheapest current (and future, as far as anybody can foresee) route somebody could take to get a system that plays these two games, an extra controller to play against a buddy at their house, and a way to save progress in solo play?

If somebody can think the prices are equal, that's proof of some massive Kool-aid drinking going on.

[Tracer Bullet]

I think the future of the console wars will be won by the company that makes their system the most media centric. At $400 for the XBOX360 and $600 for the PS3, both consoles have become major purchases for families and they must both do more than just play games.

It's a vicious cycle though, isn't it? Microsoft and Sony seem to think people want a game console that doubles as a media center, thus adding features and driving up the cost. And then look at how the Wii is doing. :shrug:

Me, I'm going to continue my PC gaming habit and get a Wii when I can. I have zero interest in either the XBox 360 or the PS3.

[Homer Simpson]

A brand new Atari 2600 in 1977 ran for $199, adjusted for inflation it would cost $645.75 in 2005 (2006 isn't available at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/). Based on Wikipedia, there were 9 games avalable for the 2600. That would imply that cost isn't as much of a factor, if the PS3 were compelling people would buy it. It still may become compelling but it will be much harder to make draw the masses later without Sony doing something to make that happen. They'll need a killer app, free BluRay movies, or something to beat what is soon going to be bad press that the general public sees.

The PS3 just doesn't have anything that compelling unless you want BluRay which will be worthless in 5 years anyway. There are too many technologies out there that will surpass it soon enough. I'd rather store movies on my hard drive (ala mp3 files) than have discs that my kids can scratch. My ~1000 CD collection is now underneath my daughters bed, it's not that far off that my ~200 DVD collection will join them.

[PixyJunket]

If somebody can think the prices are equal, that's proof of some massive Kool-aid drinking going on.Might that be Blu Kool-Aid?

[abrg923]

Wow, I guess that must be where you live because here, in Olympia, WA, there isn't a store in the area that has them readily available to purchase. I saw them at BB on Sunday, they brought 5 up and placed them in the middle of the isle and within 5 minutes they were gone -- and that was the first time I saw them readily available. Like I said, though, it depends on where you live. You could have got 360's last year at launch pretty easily if you lived in the right area. I have a friend who lives in Yucaipa, CA and was able to walk into his Wal-Mart 2 days after launch of the 360 and buy one. It was that easy. The Wii is the only system since the PS2 that's been nearly impossible to find and here we are 2 months after launch.

It's not just where I live. That's being reported all over the country. Check out some of the threads here on the forum.

[Jeremy517]

It's 4 years until 2010 is over.

But it is three years until "by 2010". It is four years until "through 2010" or "by the end of 2010", but that isn't what the article says.

[The Bus]

Here's why: $600.

The PS3's $499 pricetag is only slightly higher than the pricetag of the inflation-adjusted PS1 and considerably higher than the PS2. Regardless of what detractors say, the $499 (with HDMI) is a perfectly playable console. For a barebones PlayStation fan, it does everything they need. The $299 Xbox 360 is not, as it requires purchase of at least a memory card or hard drive. That doesn't eliminate the 360's advantage, it just dulls it slightly.

My point: The PS3's $499 option is not as limiting as the 360's $299 option.

Did either of those sell 75 million in three years?

The PS2 did. The PS took five years.

(Going by VGCharts North America numbers and assuming that NA sales continue to be 40% of the total).

Like I said, 75 million might be a tad optimistic. Maybe 60 million.

<hr>

The only year where I see the PS3 being in trouble is 2007. I see it selling more along the lines of the PS1 as opposed to the PS2. The PS2 sold two to three times quicker than the PS1. And, it had an absolute gangbuster-bananas first true holiday season: Final Fantasy X, Grand Theft Auto 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3.

This is akin to the Xbox 360 releasing Halo 3, only there's four titles that big. This is like the Wii coming out with the new Mario, Mario Kart, Metroid, and Super Smash Brothers all in 2007.

Can the PS3 repeat that?

Final Fantasy XIII is not coming to the US in 2007. Kotaku seems to mention 2008 or 2009 for a release date. It would need to be released in spring for it to make a North American release in that year (given the usual 5-8 month delay). It's not coming out in Japan anytime soon.

Grand Theft Auto is not an exclusive.

Grand Turismo 4 is not coming out this year, and if any title got delayed to 2009, I'd put my money on this one.

That leaves Metal Gear Solid 4 to carry the torch. Even if it's not an exclusive, it's still only one title. One exclusive title never propels a console into first place. The PS3 simply will not do 2001-era PS2 numbers this year.

<hr>

Part of the PS2's strength was that with its large initial userbase, you started getting a lot of the crappier games that sell tens or hundreds of thousands of copies to idiot parents. Stuff like Spongebob titles, anything based on Pixar, Tetris 2007, Yu-Gi-Oh, Scooby Doo. Tripe like that. I mean Simpsons Road Rage sold 600,000 copies more than God of War.

This is the Sysco butter that goes on the Wonderbread of the consoles.

The PS2 had no competition in this arena: A large installed base with a lead that continued unchallenged forever. The PS3 has three very real competitors in this arena.

The 360 has a plainly higher installed base although not enough to make anyone think they should go on the 360 by itself. From the failure of Viva Pinata, I'm willing to bet that family-type 360 games aren't a big feature and the 360 hasn't really expanded past the Xbox's hyper-hardcore gamer demographic. But, some of the crap EA churns out (Godfather, etc.) will come to the 360 as well as the PS3. Lots of previous-gen game-mill software from big name publishers came out on the PS2 only.

At least through next year, a lot of these games are going to be on the PS2, which may be "good enough" for a lot of people, considering the PS3 would be $300-500 more than what they may have spent on the PS2.

And then there's the Wii. From their release schedule so far, it's obvious crappy licensed stuff is going to make it on there: it already has a Sponge Bob game, bad movie games, and a DBZ title. If we're extrapolating from 6 week's worth of data and anecdotal information, the Wii will be #1 by 2007 or 2008.

[The Bus]

See, the PS3 is a media meachine... you can use it to play various media files and i got a 56" DLP and a DSLR camera. So, creating instant picture slides on the PS3 with favorite musics is one of the cool things i'm gonna do.

The PS3 has some advantages but media use isn't one of them. Can you play music during a game? Can the game itself control the music (new song when you enter a new track in a racing game). Can you download TV shows or movies? Can you stream video from your PC?

No, no, no and no. Granted, the 360 didn't do this all so cleanly upon its release and the PS3 will be updating its features, but the reality is right now one does this, the other doesn't.

[The Bus]

Titles of topics include "Xbox 360 is close on the heels of the PS3 overall," "The US is expected to be the largest next-generation console market by 2010,"

By 2010? It already is. Hell, it has been for years now.

[Nuff]

...So, i'm really paying $410 (not including taxes).
...
See, the PS3 is a media meachine... you can use it to play various media files and i got a 56" DLP and a DSLR camera. So, creating instant picture slides on the PS3 with favorite musics is one of the cool things i'm gonna do.

Look into xboxmediacenter open source freeware for xbox 1s. Does more media wise than ps3, does it better and you can buy an x1 on ebay for < $100.


Yeah, the PS3 is $600 ($500 model is a joke), but hardware-wise, it cost that much (more than that actually).

Welcome to sony's marketing BS. PS3 is actually inferior to xbox 360 hardware wise. [Essentially] PS3 is one big chip (with a clever name so they can market it) that has to do the duty of multiple hardware chips in the 360. For example theres a chip on the 360 just for scaling. PS3 has to do all that with the processor on the fly, is it any wonder that 360 has better scaling? 360s memory pool is the same size as the PS3 but its one unified pool of memory, PS3s memory is split which means it is more limited. The comparisons go on and on...sure the PS3 does in fact have a superior processor to the 360 but when you compare all that it has to do the 360 hardware is actually quite a bit better.

[BGPu]

But just going from the testimonies of people here and how their family and friends have gone crazy over playing (and wanting) a Wii, leads me to believe that the only way that the Wii will fail is if future software fails to deliver. I seriously doubt that that will happen.

Most people in their late 20's and 30's grew up with the retro games that the Wii offers and have a nostalgic feeling about them, so they are attracted to those games on the Wii.

If software for the Wii drys up, which it's doing by the way, it's entirely possible for the Wii to hit a wall.

Everyone loves Zelda on the Wii, but outside of that you have a lot of games that are different but far from great. Nintendo has their franchises lined up to come out every few months, which is eerily similar to the Gamecube. If the only games worth playing are the 1st party releases and they only come out every 3 months or so, Nintendo's not winning anything.

Virtual Console is cool but it can only string people along for so long. They are just old NES/SNES/N64 games that we've played hundreds of times before anyway. And isn't Nintendo the company criticizing the competition for going to the well too many times?

As far as Sony deserving to lose because they're arrogant, have people read some of the interviews with Nintendo mouthpieces over the years? Mr. Yamauchi, Howard Lincoln, Mr. Iwata, Reggie... they've all been full of a lot of hot air. Although to give Reggie credit he did do an interview a while back saying that there doesn't have to be a loser in the console wars.

I think in the end Sony sells the most, with Microsoft in 2nd & Nintendo in 3rd. Sony will lose market share and MS & Nintendo gain. That's just my opinion.

I just think it's ridiculous that any gaming news story that is favorable in any way to Sony & PS3 is laughed off as being complete BS.

[Jeremy517]

If software for the Wii drys up, which it's doing by the way


:lol:

[Suprmallet]

If software for the Wii drys up, which it's doing by the way, it's entirely possible for the Wii to hit a wall.

Newsflash: The software for all consoles is drying up right now, because it's January. Video game releases always slump in the early part of the year. And the Wii is still incredibly in demand right now, so no worries there.

Everyone loves Zelda on the Wii, but outside of that you have a lot of games that are different but far from great. Nintendo has their franchises lined up to come out every few months, which is eerily similar to the Gamecube. If the only games worth playing are the 1st party releases and they only come out every 3 months or so, Nintendo's not winning anything.

Considering the amount of developers itching to make games for the Wii, I highly doubt we'll see a lack of strong 3rd party games this time around.

Virtual Console is cool but it can only string people along for so long. They are just old NES/SNES/N64 games that we've played hundreds of times before anyway. And isn't Nintendo the company criticizing the competition for going to the well too many times?

VC isn't the main selling point of the system at all. It's one of the many features available.

As far as Sony deserving to lose because they're arrogant, have people read some of the interviews with Nintendo mouthpieces over the years? Mr. Yamauchi, Howard Lincoln, Mr. Iwata, Reggie... they've all been full of a lot of hot air. Although to give Reggie credit he did do an interview a while back saying that there doesn't have to be a loser in the console wars.

I've read many interviews with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo execs. Out of the three, Nintendo is by far the least arrogant. The only thing they're really arrogant about is the DS, but that's because the DS has wiped the floor with the PSP time and time again.


I just think it's ridiculous that any gaming news story that is favorable in any way to Sony & PS3 is laughed off as being complete BS.

A lot of people here have given good reasons as to why 75 million consoles by 2010 is a tough sell. I think the defensiveness of your post and the antagonism towards Nintendo says a lot more than some people here saying that the original article might be too optimistic.

[RichC2]

If software for the Wii drys up, which it's doing by the way, it's entirely possible for the Wii to hit a wall.

The Wii had drawn a lot of attention for cheap development costs, a lot of developers have started developing exclusives (Apparently) for the system, so I don't believe software 'drying up' will be a huge issue.

I think the PS3 has a great chance of selling a boatload after the second price drop, redesigned or not (it is ugly as hell right now, though), and some titles become available. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and numerous others are still huge system sellers.

It's shit right now, but will work its way up. The hardware is impressive, save for the fugly casing, and it does have a ton of promise, but right now it all depends on the software -- which also looks promising, but not worthy for a while yet (which is normal).

And as much as I'd love to see Sony fail, it just won't happen -- completely -- they're going to have to take a major hit (I don't buy those "This system costs $x.xx to build" reports at all, but do believe they're losing a bit.) to get the ball rolling though.

[Demontooth]

.....From the failure of Viva Pinata.....

This game has only been out like 6 weeks, how can it be considered a failure already?

[Liver&Onions]

Newsflash!

If i see anymore fanoboyish comments this thread is getting closed. This means blu-koolaid jokes, console or developer bashes, personal attacks that are thinly veiled, etc.

This forum is a safe place where adults can discuss things without needing to resort to bullshit flame wars. We've been doing so well since E3 - can we get back there please?

[Jeremy517]

can we get back there please?

Probably not with this thread open. Nothing good is coming from it anyways.

[Michael Corvin]

If we're extrapolating from 6 week's worth of data and anecdotal information, the Wii will be #1 by 2007 or 2008.

While we are speculating, I think Sony & Nintendo will swap spots this gen with MS being stuck in the middle again. I don't think Sony will completely fail, but they have a hard sell and may do decent but nothing like PS1 or PS2.

Out of the three, Nintendo is by far the least arrogant. The only thing they're really arrogant about is the DS, but that's because the DS has wiped the floor with the PSP time and time again.

Coming in last place for 10 years straight can be quite humbling. As for the DS arrogance, I think they have a right to be a bit cocky. They were basically kicked to the curb over the idea of the DS especially seeing what Sony was bringing to the table with the PSP. There isn't a single person that didn't count them out from the beginning. David won that battle against Goliath and I think has a right to boast a bit.

[BGPu]

:lol:

Strictly my opinion.

If you love collections of mini-games and ports of DS games then by all means the Wii is for you.

Maybe by the time I finish Zelda, Mario Galaxy or Smash Bros. will be out because those are the only Wii games that interest me.

[UncleGramps]

If i see anymore fanoboyish comments this thread is getting closed.

If you love collections of mini-games and ports of DS games then by all means the Wii is for you.

:lol: So long, thread. You've been entertaining.

[BGPu]

Newsflash: The software for all consoles is drying up right now, because it's January. Video game releases always slump in the early part of the year. And the Wii is still incredibly in demand right now, so no worries there.

I know that. But of the 3 systems, the Wii has the least interesting batch of announced games to me.

Considering the amount of developers itching to make games for the Wii, I highly doubt we'll see a lack of strong 3rd party games this time around.

We can only hope. Unless the Wii falls into the same trap as the GC, where the 1st party games are the only ones that actually sell and the 3rd parties give up.

VC isn't the main selling point of the system at all. It's one of the many features available.

For some people it seems to be the main selling point. It's a nice addition, but it's certainly not why I bought the system.

I've read many interviews with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo execs. Out of the three, Nintendo is by far the least arrogant. The only thing they're really arrogant about is the DS, but that's because the DS has wiped the floor with the PSP time and time again.

It's all perception. They are a bit more humble than they were say, 5 years ago, but they do have a tendency to not give their competitors any credit for the good things they've done. On the other hand I've seen plenty of MS & Sony interviews where they give Nintendo credit where credit is due. Kutaragi & Hirai have said some crazy stuff in the last year though, I'll give you that.

A lot of people here have given good reasons as to why 75 million consoles by 2010 is a tough sell. I think the defensiveness of your post and the antagonism towards Nintendo says a lot more than some people here saying that the original article might be too optimistic.

Too optimistic for those exact numbers? Probably. I just don't see Sony, or anyone, rolling over and dying like the rest of the world wants it to.

[Liver&Onions]

yeah - this one is done.