[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I think I read somewhere that 360 games outsell PS3 games 5 to 1.

Perhaps because there are 10x as many 360's on the market?

[ort888]

Well, not only does the 360 have a 10 to 1 ration of consoles on the market, they are also outselling the PS3 2 to 1. So, uh, I'm not sure what you are getting at. At the current pace, the PS3 will never come close to catching the 360s install base.

Games sold is the most important number anyway. Any developer that isn't being paid by Sony is going to make their game for the 360 or both platforms. It's financial suicide not too.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Well, not only does the 360 have a 10 to 1 ration of consoles on the market, they are also outselling the PS3 2 to 1. So, uh, I'm not sure what you are getting at. At the current pace, the PS3 will never come close to catching the 360s install base.

Games sold is the most important number anyway. Any developer that isn't being paid by Sony is going to make their game for the 360 or both platforms. It's financial suicide not too.

At this point yes, but the market changes all the time. So anything can happen. Trying to call a winner in a race that is a few months old is a bit naive. Both systems are in it for the long haul. The PS3s best position at this point is first party exclusive titles, which are all due summer as well as other network strategies with Home. Most people are out there pointing fingers at crappy ports. Last I checked the developer was responsible for crappy ports. If you want to see a developer that learned to do a good port see Oblivion. It can be done. Either way as time goes in it will get better and has to potential to do so. Neither company is sitting still, but over the long haul the PS3 has a greater potential if done right, some just don't look forward enough to see that.

[Dazed]

Sadly Sony thought the world would wait for them to catch up. It didn't.
Sony thought everyone wanted Blu Ray, Everyone didn't.

They can still compete, but not until a major price reduction and some solid games.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Dazed 

Sadly Sony thought the world would wait for them to catch up. It didn't.
Sony thought everyone wanted Blu Ray, Everyone didn't.

They can still compete, but not until a major price reduction and some solid games.

Bluray movie sales, say otherwise. Besides that point, I agree the game selection could be better.

[Rumor]

I'll purchase a PS3 and a 360 sometime around 2011.

[ort888]

$600 is a lot to pay for potential. By the time it lives up to it's potential, it could very welll be way to late. Also, it's game libraries that sell systems, not power. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2, and got outsold 5 to 1.

Microsoft and Nintendo have just as many 1st party exclusives. Sonys strength has always been 3rd party exclusives, which they were able to attract by having a giant user base. Remove that giant user base and you remove their greatest asset.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by ort888 

$600 is a lot to pay for potential. By the time it lives up to it's potential, it could very welll be way to late. Also, it's game libraries that sell systems, not power. The Xbox was more powerful than the PS2, and got outsold 5 to 1.

Microsoft and Nintendo have just as many 1st party exclusives. Sonys strength has always been 3rd party exclusives, which they were able to attract by having a giant user base. Remove that giant user base and you remove their greatest asset.

Give it at least a year and see where they all stand. Complain that someone has died in a few months of launch is premature, however you spin it. Their start was terrible, no one can deny that, but none of these guys are out of it at this point.

[ort888]

Who said anyone died or would die? Not me. Sony isn't going anywhere.

I'm just not so sure that anything is going to change in a year. What's on tap that's going to turn things around? Nothing that I can see.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Well, not only does the 360 have a 10 to 1 ration of consoles on the market, they are also outselling the PS3 2 to 1. So, uh, I'm not sure what you are getting at. At the current pace, the PS3 will never come close to catching the 360s install base.

Games sold is the most important number anyway. Any developer that isn't being paid by Sony is going to make their game for the 360 or both platforms. It's financial suicide not too.

You're looking at this **** the wrong way. The PS3's powr hasn't even been tapped yet. In a year or two, its games will easily eclipse the 360, AND its price will come down, making the 360 the system to own last year, and MAYBE during 2007. But from then onward, the PS3 will pick up a LOT of momentum.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

You're looking at this **** the wrong way. The PS3's powr hasn't even been tapped yet. In a year or two, its games will easily eclipse the 360, AND its price will come down, making the 360 the system to own last year, and MAYBE during 2007. But from then onward, the PS3 will pick up a LOT of momentum.

Heh. Not a chance, unless you completely discount the opinions of the actual game developers.

P.S. Here's the requisite cat picture:

[serphium]

I think in North America it will be 360 domination for some time. Perhaps with a lot of exclusive 3rd party titles the Ps3 can catch up. And, relative to that point, don't forget Japan. Japan doesn't care for the 360, so a lot of those great developers will probably default to the PS3.

But there have been a few interesting titles for the 360 in Japan. Here's hoping they do well and people there stop stigmatizing it as a FPS/GTA only console.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

You're looking at this **** the wrong way. The PS3's powr hasn't even been tapped yet. In a year or two, its games will easily eclipse the 360, AND its price will come down, making the 360 the system to own last year, and MAYBE during 2007. But from then onward, the PS3 will pick up a LOT of momentum.

What leads you to believe that the PS3 is so much more powerful then the 360? Shouldn't we be seeing some of this superior power by now?

Any time the PS3 drops it price, Microsoft will match them. Microsoft is in a much better position to lower their price then Sony is.

[Drew]

The PS3 and 360 are still failing miserably compared to Wii.

Current Standings:
Wii>360>NGC>Xbox>PS2>N64>SNES>NES>Virtual Boy>Cd-i>Turbografx 16>Atari 2600>Genesis>Saturn>PS3

That's right. I went there.

[P]

You're all judging this race way too soon. The PS3 isn't selling because of its high price, but the price is high in large part because the Bluray player is expensive. As that player drops in price over the next year, Sony can begin dropping the price of the PS3. If Bluray begins to pull away from HD-DVD, that will only help the PS3. Rumors also have it that Cell yields are pathetically low at the moment. Those sort of things tend to sort themselves out over time, and threadshrinks don't hurt either, so the price of components will come down. When the price of components for the two consoles approaches the same number, it comes down to who can take a bigger loss on the hardware, and don't for a second think that that is MS.

MS is in a bit of a tight spot with the 360. They've never made money on a console, and the old Xbox was a huge money sink. They launched very early because the Xbox wasn't selling anyway, to pressure Sony into launching the PS3 too soon (which they succeeded in doing) but at some point even MS will have to stop throwing money at a losing business. Sony can afford to wait out MS - as long as the next-gen battle isn't over, the conservative choice is the PS2.

What MS lacks is the differentiator - the thing that it has that noone else has. Sony has Bluray - love it or hate it, it's something noone else has. Wii has the input method, and everyone seems to love it. MS has neither - they talk about online gaming, but everyone is doing that. They have an online market place, and not enough HD space for people to use it. Bottom line is that I can see Sony winning, if Bluray wins, they can get the price down and some great exclusives out, and I can see Nintendo winning, if they can keep up with demand and expand the market. There is no scenario where MS wins. The best they can hope for is some sort of tie with Sony, and a tie would mean that everyone loses money. Sony can afford that - they would have the extra PS2 revenue to make up some of the loss - but I'm not sure MS can.

For the record, I think that Wii is the winner of this generation. It will expand the market and move focus away from stunning graphics to intelligently designed games. Nintendo can then make another smaller refresh in three years from now, bring the resolution up to 720p and add whichever HD format disc has won by then. By then MS and Sony will still have two years left on this generation and focused ever more tightly on the hard core gamer.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Also, it's game libraries that sell systems, not power.

Yep. And by your own words Xbox 360 is on it's 3rd generation of games, right? And PS3's still on it's first. So .... yeah, obviously the 360 has a bigger library. Right now. But that's kinda silly really. I mean, by that rational the Atari 2600 is a better system than the Xbox 360.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Who said anyone died or would die? Not me. Sony isn't going anywhere.

I'm just not so sure that anything is going to change in a year. What's on tap that's going to turn things around? Nothing that I can see.

Gran Turismo. Metal Gear. Grand Theft Auto IV.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Drew 

The PS3 and 360 are still failing miserably compared to Wii.

So? Sales of baby toys eclipse designer vinyl toys, but taht doesn't mean they're cooler. It just means more parents are buying their kids baby toys that aren't remotely offensive and are super happy and cheery and YAAYYYYY chinpokemon! YAYYYYYYYY!

Wii= lame. Sorry. I'd buy a wii if I was 11. MAYBE.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

For the record, I think that Wii is the winner of this generation. It will expand the market and move focus away from stunning graphics to intelligently designed games.

That's what they said about the gamecube, the N64, etc. It's another way of saying weak system. And another way of saying "We don't get any of hte cool games so we have to enjoy the same games over and over and over and over, but they're MORE INTELLIGENT than other games"

Come on. Like mario party is more INTELLIGENT than something like metal gear, yeah right.

[zro]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

So? Sales of baby toys eclipse designer vinyl toys, but taht doesn't mean they're cooler. It just means more parents are buying their kids baby toys that aren't remotely offensive and are super happy and cheery and YAAYYYYY chinpokemon! YAYYYYYYYY!

Wii= lame. Sorry. I'd buy a wii if I was 11. MAYBE.

How juvenile. Adults buy Wii's for themselves and their families. I ought to know.

Wii = ****ing funnest game machine ever. Sorry. I'd buy a PS3 if I was 15.

[P]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

That's what they said about the gamecube, the N64, etc. It's another way of saying weak system. And another way of saying "We don't get any of hte cool games so we have to enjoy the same games over and over and over and over, but they're MORE INTELLIGENT than other games"

Come on. Like mario party is more INTELLIGENT than something like metal gear, yeah right.

No, that's not what they said about Gamecube, N64 etc. N64 was more powerful than its competitors of that era (mainly the PSX) but the PSX was easier to code for. Nintendo was the incumbent back then, they relied on their old guard of players to buy yet another generation to experience the next sequel. They added exactly the same thing everyone else did - 3D graphics and analog controls - and were the follower that time around. The Gamecube was, if anything, a segmentation thing, focusing on younger gamers with a lower price, but not adding anything new technologically. The motion sensing IS new, at least to the level that Nintendo is taking it, and Sony's minor similar feature is very much a me-too thing.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Gran Turismo. Metal Gear. Grand Theft Auto IV.

Grand Theft auto is coming on both systems, Gran Turismo is not releasing this year and Metal Gear Solid 3 had disappointing sales (Sold half the copies that Metal Gear 1 and 2 did, despite the PS2 having a much larger user base at the time of its release)

[pyrite]

some of you are saying PS3 launch games look better than current 360 titles... have any of you played gears of war? motorstorm is hot, but it has very little onscreen compared to GOW, and GOW manages to thoroughly outshine it still. i've had non-gamer friends gloat over motorstorm at entertainment stores and then i've shown them gearsof war afterwards, and they've been floored by the difference.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by zro 

How juvenile. Adults buy Wii's for themselves and their families. I ought to know.

Exactly. Have little babies running around? Toddlers? Juveniles who aren't above the age of 15? Want to play videogames with kids still in elementary school? Buy a Wii, because the game library of the Wii is targeted towards people who haven't even gone to middle school yet.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by P 

No, that's not what they said about Gamecube, N64 etc. N64 was more powerful than its competitors of that era (mainly the PSX) but the PSX was easier to code for. Nintendo was the incumbent back then, they relied on their old guard of players to buy yet another generation to experience the next sequel. They added exactly the same thing everyone else did - 3D graphics and analog controls - and were the follower that time around. The Gamecube was, if anything, a segmentation thing, focusing on younger gamers with a lower price, but not adding anything new technologically. The motion sensing IS new, at least to the level that Nintendo is taking it, and Sony's minor similar feature is very much a me-too thing.

So the wii has motion sensing. Big deal. It's game library is still the same as the N64, only with better graphics on the sequels. There's no real new type of game here.... it's just hte same old 'starwars/donkeykong/mario/marioparty/fzero/mariokart/zelda' crap regurgitated over and over and over.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Grand Theft auto is coming on both systems, Gran Turismo is not releasing this year and Metal Gear Solid 3 had disappointing sales (Sold half the copies that Metal Gear 1 and 2 did, despite the PS2 having a much larger user base at the time of its release)

Metal Gear 4, the one for the PS3, which is what we're discussing, hasn't even come out yet.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Exactly. Have little babies running around? Toddlers? Juveniles who aren't above the age of 15? Want to play videogames with kids still in elementary school? Buy a Wii, because the game library of the Wii is targeted towards people who haven't even gone to middle school yet.

You got to be f*cking kidding me. I'm 26 and my friends are all aged 19-32. We all enjoy rounds of Tiger Woods (seriously, this thing was made for golf), Excite Truck (funniest racing game ever) and Godfather Blackhand (best GTA clone so far).

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I remember the same thing. It was REALLY freaking expensive back then too. I think the PS3 is going to be a loser this year, but pick up the pace the next few years, and then stomp on the Xbox and wii. It's just so powerful I don't see how it could happen any other way.

Exactly. Video game consoles are updated what, Once every 5 years? Remember all the gloom about how xbox was going to be a failure. PS3 is so far ahead of xbox developers would be insane not to develope for it, especially considering at least 3-4 mil units have been sold already. And as far as wii sales go they're not even in the same league. People buy wii because it's cheap...and their cheezy plotted cartoon animal games can easily be mimiced.

Xbox losing money...
Microsoft Xbox losing money despite sales increase - Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle):

Xbox still losing money...
Xbox Biz Still Losing Money For MS - Kotaku

xbox360 costs almost as much as PS3 to make but because MS is such a monopoly they can afford a larger loss. And yet their technology is so inferior. At least sony has an excuse for losing money to every PS3 sold.
Xbox 360 costs $715 to make - Joystiq

And then doom was predicted for Nintendo...
Is Mario Losing His Shine?

[- - e r i k - -]

Except the five year cycle is no more. That's what the brilliance behind Nintendo and Microsoft's strategies are: Reduce the cycle and provide more incremental upgrades, leapfrogging Sony's ways. The five year cycle worked for them with the PS2 and the PS1, but with that broken Sony might have too small of a window to gain traction.

Believe me, they'd rather see the cycle INCREASE than decrease.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

That's what the brilliance behind Sony and Microsoft's strategies are: Reduce the cycle and provide more incremental upgrades, leapfrogging Sony's ways.

This doesn't make sense so I don't really know how to respond correctly. Are you saying Sony is going to leapfrog its own ways with its brilliant strategies?

In any case Sega tried to 'leapfrog' sony (w/ Dreamcast) and failed. They tried to leapfrog Nintendo with other systems and failed. They 'reduced the cycle time providing more incremental upgrades' and ended up burning through 32X, sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast; which just pissed off everyone whose system became quickly outdated.

MS has already shown it can't make money even with its small incremental upgrades that take 5 years. Nintendo has been about the same pace as sony and probably will always have a niche as the cheap alternative. If MS was just a video game company without revenue from software to save it, it would be gone by now because their strategy so far has been worse than Sega's.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P

You're all judging this race way too soon. The PS3 isn't selling because of its high price, but the price is high in large part because the Bluray player is expensive. As that player drops in price over the next year, Sony can begin dropping the price of the PS3. If Bluray begins to pull away from HD-DVD, that will only help the PS3

OTOH, Blu-ray is not doing anywhere near as well as Sony hoped, and its standalones likely won't be able to match HD DVD standalone pricing in 2007. If HD DVD starts to take off more this year, then the PS3's high-priced Blu-ray drive will drag like an anchor even more on PS3 sales.

[Dakarʒ]

AFter Holiday 07, I think we'll have a much better picture of how things are going to be.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

AFter Holiday 07, I think we'll have a much better picture of how things are going to be.

I agree, calendar Q4 2007 is going to be very important for both the console war and the hi-def disc format war.

[Dakarʒ]

You're probably right about that.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Except the five year cycle is no more. That's what the brilliance behind Sony and Microsoft's strategies are: Reduce the cycle and provide more incremental upgrades, leapfrogging Sony's ways. The five year cycle worked for them with the PS2 and the PS1, but with that broken Sony might have too small of a window to gain traction.

Believe me, they'd rather see the cycle INCREASE than decrease.

I don't agree at all. The biggest expense these companies incur is the R+D and manufacturing of new consoles. Both Sony and Microsoft lose tons of money designing and manufacturing new consoles. All of the money comes from sales of games and accessories... and eventually consoles once the manufacturing costs come down.

It's really in their best interest to wait longer then 5 years. It's competition that drives these companies to constantly push the envelope.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm wondering why no one has come in to mock you for not using the ALMIGHTY CONTROL PANEL™. I mentioned that I prefer not to use it, and I felt like a little kid getting bullied on the schoolyard for the next day.

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. You were complaining that the next-gen console thread had been moved to <gasp> the Gaming forum, and when I said that you could use the control panel to see all the forums at once, you said:

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I never...repeat...never go to my control panel for anything other than changing my sig. That's it.

So you're making it sound like I'm suggesting something ridiculous by implying that maybe you should try looking at the other forums. I guess it's way too much work to click the "user cp" link at the top of every page once in a while. Nobody can force you to use the control panel, but we're certainly not going to change the structure of the forums just because you just want to sit there refreshing the first page of the lounge all day.

Anyway, for all of you anti-control-panellers out there, give it a try. For a long time when I first starting using the forums, I just went to each forum and looked for new responses manually, but it turned out that I missed a lot of them, and doing things that way encouraged me to stick to one or two main forums. When I switched to using the control panel, I found that I could post in any forum and not have to worry about missing out on replies. It's very handy. Really.

As for the PS3, I agree that the price is too high for a gaming console (although if you actually want what the PS3 offers, it's a better deal than the 360). But the idea that the PS3 is doomed is not really based in reality. People say the same thing about the PSP. It's not that the PSP is dying or anything. It's just that people had very high expectations for both systems (people were talking about the PSP killing off the Game Boy) and when they didn't immediately take over the market, they were deemed "failures." And of course the DS (and now the Wii) have also been phenomenally successful, which makes a moderately successful system like the PS3 or PSP seem like a failure.

[ort888]

The PS3 is NOT doomed. It's just not going to be the runaway leader this generation. It's probably not even going to be the leader. That's the point I'm trying to get at.

The PS2 outsold the Xbox and Cube 5 to 1. The PS3 will be lucky to outsell either the 360 or Wii, and even if they do, their lead won't be that large. This is a 3 way race, as opposed to the last gen, which was a complete domination by Sony with Microsoft and Nintendo fighting for the scraps.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The PS3 is NOT doomed. It's just not going to be the runaway leader this generation. It's probably not even going to be the leader. That's the point I'm trying to get at.

Well, yeah, I agree it looks that way.

[icruise]

I would agree with that as well. Although I think there's still a good possibility that they will be the leader (at least over the 360 if not the Wii, which isn't exactly competing on the same level).

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

This doesn't make sense so I don't really know how to respond correctly. Are you saying Sony is going to leapfrog its own ways with its brilliant strategies?

Obviously that meant to read Nintendo and Microsoft, with Microsoft leading the way.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

In any case Sega tried to 'leapfrog' sony (w/ Dreamcast) and failed. They tried to leapfrog Nintendo with other systems and failed. They 'reduced the cycle time providing more incremental upgrades' and ended up burning through 32X, sega CD, Saturn, and Dreamcast; which just pissed off everyone whose system became quickly outdated.

There's a major difference here. Xbox 360 is actually successful. The Wii is actually successful. Gaming target markets have broadened and segmented.

Sega had heaps of problems on their own. This generation most definitely is different.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't agree at all. The biggest expense these companies incur is the R+D and manufacturing of new consoles. Both Sony and Microsoft lose tons of money designing and manufacturing new consoles. All of the money comes from sales of games and accessories... and eventually consoles once the manufacturing costs come down.

It's really in their best interest to wait longer then 5 years. It's competition that drives these companies to constantly push the envelope.

It would be their best interest agreed. Unless they want to unseat the market leader. This is not a new strategy in any business.

I do a part degree in video games and wrote a scholarly paper on the PlayStation 3, I know my ****.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You got to be f*cking kidding me. I'm 26 and my friends are all aged 19-32. We all enjoy rounds of Tiger Woods (seriously, this thing was made for golf), Excite Truck (funniest racing game ever) and Godfather Blackhand (best GTA clone so far).

I'm not. I'm 26 also, and none of my friends own a Wii, or want one. All of them feel that it's a cheap system for children, or 'families with children'. It's game library is small, and targeted towards children.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Believe me, they'd rather see the cycle INCREASE than decrease.

I wouldn't. Then you're forced to buy a new system every few years to play the latest games, much like computers. Plus the game library for each system would be limited, as it would be around less time, so in order to play everything, you'd need a LOT of different consoles. Very annoying, and lots of clutter. I'd rather have one powerful system I don't have to replace for a very long time with a very large, diverse game library.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I'm not. I'm 26 also, and none of my friends own a Wii, or want one. All of them feel that it's a cheap system for children, or 'families with children'. It's game library is small, and targeted towards children.

Well, it's one of two: Either you haven't tried one or you and your friends are simply close-minded idiots.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I wouldn't. Then you're forced to buy a new system every few years to play the latest games, much like computers. Plus the game library for each system would be limited, as it would be around less time, so in order to play everything, you'd need a LOT of different consoles. Very annoying, and lots of clutter. I'd rather have one powerful system I don't have to replace for a very long time with a very large, diverse game library.

Whether you like it or not, that's the way the console business is heading. Shorter cycle, lesser games per generation and more upgrades and peripherals. It will be more cluttering, granted, but you'd also have more options and a more competitive console market compared to the computer game market.

[- - e r i k - -]

Not to mention that the third party exclusive titles have all but disappeared this generation, leaving the first parties to come up with "killer exclusives". This is another area where the PS3 struggles compared to PS2.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Not to mention that the third party exclusive titles have all but disappeared this generation, leaving the first parties to come up with "killer exclusives". This is another area where the PS3 struggles compared to PS2.

This has more to do with cost of development at this point. This is why you are starting to see these 'simple' games come out to all three platforms now. Time to market and cost of development. Not all studios have teh multi-million dollar budget and 18 months to create a game.

I disagree with that shorter cycle. From what I see its the total opposite. The next-gen consoles are now upgradeable as far as firmware and hard drive space. This will help extend the life of the systems, not shorten it. The PS3 when for Bluray to extend the life even further as they have always stated they are going for a 10 year cycle. I dont see why Microsoft couldn't do the same. The Wii, is HIGHLY doubtful.

[- - e r i k - -]

10 year cycle? Sony is obviously talking out their ass again. No amount of upgradability is make the PS3 last a decade and at least three console generations.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

This has more to do with cost of development at this point. This is why you are starting to see these 'simple' games come out to all three platforms now. Time to market and cost of development. Not all studios have teh multi-million dollar budget and 18 months to create a game.

Not just cost, but also the fact that there seems to be a more even mix of consoles out there.

Had the Sony come out with guns blazing in terms of unit sales right from the start (and earlier than they did), I suspect we'd see more Sony exclusives right now. However, the PS3's sales have been tepid at best, so it doesn't make sense for a game studio to lock itself to only that small portion of gamers.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

10 year cycle? Sony is obviously talking out their ass again. No amount of upgradability is make the PS3 last a decade and at least three console generations.

I don't think it will last 10 years, but since when do consoles get refreshed "at least three" times in a decade? I'd say it's closer to two full console generations. Heck, the PS2 lasted 6 years, and it's nowhere near as technically capable. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the next-gen consoles stick around for quite a bit longer than consoles generally do. It's amazing how much better the graphics for the PS2, for example, got when you compare the first titles to things like Final Fantasy XII or God of War. It would be nice if they could concentrate on actually using the existing hardware instead of always planning for the next big thing.