There is one thing Sony fears : the Xbox 3.

They know they can win this war with the PS3, but for the next one they're just dead, with no means to fight back.

Yeah... but seriously, with technology advancing this fast, I'm curious to see if Playstation makes it's 10 year mark. I don't believe that the PS3 will last 10 years unless they continue to sell it like they are their PS2, which by the way came out in March of 2000. It hasn't even been 10 years yet! BTW the PS1 came out in Decmber of 1995. So... how can you call that a 10 year gaming machine? Well, if you still support it while coming out with the next gen only 5 or so years later, I guess. Nice way to twist things, isn't it?

It takes an average of two sensible comments on MCV before a fanboy leaps in to deliver their embarrassing tirade of frustration.

Dylantalon, whether you're correct or not, your tone of voice strips you of all credibility before you've even finished.

I find it fascinating that Sony seem to think they decide how long a "generation" should last. They are measuring it it would seem based on the lifespan of the PS1 and 2 and how long these have remained in the market. I understand a company needs to have a timescale which they base on previous business, but what if the PS2 only performed for 5 years? Would Kaz & the Crew be talking about a 5 year cycle for the PS3? Or is it a measurement of their projected lifespan to make a target of sales? What if the console was to sell considerably less units within that ten year span? Is that still their window of success and what then do they define as success? How many units they sell (and at what price to profit) or how long the console sits on a shelf? Or is it how long developers continue to make games on the platform - regardless of the amount of SKU's sold? In that case the Saturn and Dreamcast, for example, are still going?

So is the ten year lifespan what you want or is it what developers want in order to have the time to get to grips with a console and then have sufficient time to make games and turn a profit after learning the tools purchased for the given system?

I find it interesting how he comments on "where are the Gamecube and Xbox now?" I'll tell you where they are - they are on the new consoles supported with backwards compatibility which was what I recall Sony had promised on their system. In that case developers can still have previous games converted to download and maintain a business for their IP.

Let's be honest, one of the main reasons the PS1 and to a degree, the PS2 did so well was the marketing teams hired to promote the console. This has had a major major impact on the first consoles success and as a result a knock on effect to the second systems fruits.

I would be interested to see what the original projected lifespan of the PS1 was. It is great that it lasted as long as it did, but Sony seem to be stuck on this 10 year measuring stick and believe that this is the rule of success. Perhaps Microsoft and Nintendo have a different business model and measurement of success. Kaz cannot say "Let's see in ten years where they are" as though that is the finishline. You are not the dictator on how long gamers should enjoy a system. We'll either use it for years or pop it on Ebay.

yes im happy,
i would love to spend another 400 bucks on a 360v2 in oo 3 years?
whats next? better graphics? better sound? don't we have that already? the systems havent been put thru there paces yet in turns of pushing them to the processing power.
its to soon, if u think about it id rather spend 299 for a ps3 then 400 for the new xbox.

Who cares what they both say - there is room in the market for both and if it means getting MS and Sony to give gamers a better overall experience then that can only be a good thing. Sony are competing with MS, who has extremely deep pockets, so they won't find it so easy to dictate the pace of development. However, I've had an Xbox and currently have a 360 and if Microsoft are really telling me that a new console is on it's way in the next year or two it had better be of a higher quality than the piece of junk that sounds like it wants to take off everytime I put it on. Anyway, all this could amount to nothing if the future really is casual games. If that really happens then I wont be interested in the next "next gen" anyway.

Come out with an xbot every 4 years and call it a war . How do you win a next gen war when the previous console you came to battle with is already slowly dying . What next xbot 700 with blu ray , hdmi , hd..blah , blah , blah .. Man already have that on the ps3 . Man post on top had a point .
ps3 for $299 or xbot 700 for ????
But please do come out with the new console sonys needs competition to improve as well

Someone said these systems havent put through their paces yet wait til we have games that tax the PS3, like snake eater, god of war 2, gran turismo 4, san andreas & the greatest game ever made Shadow Of The Colossus did for the PS2. Then we can talk about next next gen consoles. THIS IS BARELY YEAR 2. like The Joker said.... "just watch you'll see"

They're pushing their PS2 and PS3 as different units. They want PS2 owners to upgrade to the PS3 - that's their target fanbase. That's the reason for BC removal, and nice way to try to spin this. Why does BC matter if the original Xbox is already dead? There's really no point for BC if you already have the old system. And also, MS always does this with their consoles and Operating system - release a new one filled with bugs every so often. Sony will beat MS this generation, and it will be soon with the way things are going.

The interesting question is of course, will MS cut all life on the 360 when the 720 comes out (like they did for their first try)?

Here is the reason why sony decides the life cycle.
PS2 140 million
gamecube/xbox combined 60 million

You are missng the point. The fact they shift double the units is not the determining factor that there should be a 10 year cycle. It just means they are the market leader. What I am saying is that the 10 year cycle is something that has become SONYs business model. But they have turned it into some sort of trumpet call.

It is as though they are telling the industry that if no other console is selling for that duration then they are not successful. That is a nonsense. My question is why do people agree with that? (i am asking intelligent industry people - not 11 year old fanboys)

Did Sony base their initial PS1 sales on Megadrive and SNES sales or did they come up with their own forecast and plan for their venture into the industry? Whichever they followed they did hugely great but Kaz is being very clever by using the 10 year cycle point because it puts Sony as the leader and measuring stick in a new generation of console where the business is very different. Downloads and online distribution entertainment is very different from what we saw in the days of previous consoles.

Microsoft are bringing the industry true worldwide gaming connections and distribution.

Nintendo have created a hugely inovative console - those who call it a novelty are deeply short sighted on what makes a game fun - what the very essence of gaming is.

Both companies are competing with Sony but they are very likely on different lifecycles to their business models be that five ten or more years.

What I am saying is from an industry point of view Sony's 10 year model is only relevant to us if it is plotted out with us as developers and retailers in mind as to if it maximises our business as well as theirs - otherwise it is just what Sony wants to make money for them. If that is the case then that is great for them but then the 10 year thing means nothing.

Well everyone knows Sony is gonna kick Microsoft 's ass everything like every other company does always. Microsoft is just pathetic they still haven't fix the red light of death and they started copying the Wii Xbox sucks big time. Sony is the company that has always contributed more to the gaming industry. Microsoft lost 4 billion on Xbox original. The PS3 has the technology to last ten or more years. Don is an idiot.

Wow. So much for intelligent discussions. I may as well try to eat my own head...

I find it very interesting that a lot of this conversation has revolved around what the PS2 achieved. I don't think anyone would deny The PS1 and PS2 dominated the market, no questions asked, all hands down win. The XBOX struggled to compete mainly because of the market share the PS2 had already managed to get a grip on before it was released and also because of the backwards compatibilty so a lot of PS1 owners thought it to be a logical upgrade.

This time around the tables have been somewhat reversed although not to such an extent with the 360 beating the PS3 to market by a considerable margin and having backwards compatibility with the previous xbox so a lot of XBOX owners simply upgraded and due to the length wait a substantial amount of PS2 owners also switched loyalties.

I'm sure both companies have their eyes on the future and what they will be developing next but with MS getting the most out of their console at the moment and Sony struggling to achieve what the console can really do I guess the question is..............how soon is the next generation........have Sonys problems now caused them to slip too far behind that they will "miss the boat" again ??

and just for the record I think you will find Ms are now making profit on all 360's unlike PS3's and Microsoft as a company is a bit of a generalisation as I bet, if you liek the product of not, most of you using a windows based PC to leave these comments. I bet a lot of similar tech is used in the xbox !!