Xbox 360 lacks longevity in gaming hardware, How Far Sony PS3 Will Go?
Does the Xbox 360’s ‘lack of longevity’ matter? Kaz Hirai, Sony Computer Entertainment America president and CEO, told Official PlayStation Magazine in its latest issue that the Xbox 360 “lacks longevity.”
He went on to say that “unless things go really bad, there’s no way that at the end of a life cycle, our competition is going to have a higher install base.” Sony PlayStation 3, Your friend for 10 years. (Credit: Sony)
But what is “longevity” in gaming hardware? Sony has promoted this idea for years now and it always points to the PlayStation 2 as proof that its consoles have lasting power.
December’s NPD sales numbers might prove the company’s point: 1.1 million PlayStation 2 units were sold in December, besting both the PSP and the PlayStation 3 for the month.
Sony has said on numerous occasions that it plans to keep the PlayStation 3 going for 10 years, and to judge the victor of the console war before that time period is up would be foolish. So far, the PlayStation 3 has just over two years under its belt. If Sony gets its wish, the console will still be in production until at least 2016–a whopping 7 years from now. And quite a bit can happen in that time.
But that doesn’t answer the simple question of whether or not longevity in gaming really matters.
To find out, we need to look back at the top consoles from each generation of the modern gaming era–the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), PlayStation, and PlayStation 2–and determine if they had longevity.
The NES was first released in 1983 to Japanese consumers and in 1985 in the U.S. Selling more than 61 million units, the U.S. version was finally discontinued in 1995 by Nintendo, while the Famicom, Japan’s version, was in production until 2003. Its total lifespan was approximately 20 years in Japan and 10 years in the U.S.
The SNES, the follow-up to the NES and leader in what was then known as the “16-bit generation,” was originally released in 1990 to Japanese customers and in 1991 to U.S. consumers. After selling 49.1 million units, Nintendo discontinued the U.S. model in 1999 and 2003 for the Japanese version. Its total lifespan was approximately eight years in the U.S. and 12 years in Japan.
The PlayStation was originally released in Japan in 1994 and in the U.S. in 1995. A hit from the beginning, the console sold 102 million units worldwide. The PlayStation’s production was discontinued in 2006. Its total lifespan was approximately 12 years in Japan and 11 years in the U.S.
The PlayStation 2, Sony’s wildly popular follow-up to the original PlayStation, is still in production. It was first released in 2000 and Sony has sold well over 140 million units of the console. Sony currently has no plans to discontinue the console.
Maybe Sony is on to something. The leaders in each generation since the NES have lasted approximately 10 years on store shelves before the hardware manufacturers decide to abandon production. If both the Wii and the Xbox 360 fail to last 10 years, it’s possible that the PS3 could catch up to its competitors, since Sony is intent on making its own console last that long.
In an interview with CNET in 2006, Kaz Hirai said that he believes the PS3 is providing “a very good value for the consumers.” And that’s exactly why his company will be sticking with the PS3 for 10 years.
“We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we’ve proven with the PlayStation,” he said. “Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that’s going to be with you again for 10 years. We’re not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside.”
Perhaps 10 years really is important to Sony, but it begs the question of why the company and all its predecessors released new iterations of their respective consoles before that 10-year period was up. Doesn’t that fly in the face of its longevity claim? I don’t even remember the last time I bought a new PS2 title and yet, Sony believes it’s still providing value to me. It might to those 1.1 million who bought the console in December, but for someone like me who owns a PS3, the PS2 is but a memory.
And that’s exactly why I believe the 10-year life cycle matters more to hardware companies than consumers. For Sony and the rest, it matters because it gives them an opportunity to recoup their investments over the long-term.
Hardware manufacturers typically launch consoles at a price that’s lower than their production costs. As production costs start to decline over the life of a console, vendors start turning a profit on each console sold. In some cases, like the Nintendo Wii, that’s almost instantly. In other cases, like the Xbox 360, Microsoft didn’t make money on each console sold until a year after its release.
But Sony is different. Even though the PlayStation 3 has been available for over two years, it’s still being sold at a loss. According to a report from iSuppli, each PlayStation 3 unit costs Sony $448.73 to produce–almost $49 more than its current sales price.
Realizing that, Sony has a vested interest in seeing its console last 10 years on store shelves–it needs to make money.
But for me, someone who buys new consoles when they’re made available– usually every four to six years–I want the best bang for my buck in that time frame. Once a console’s follow-up is released, longevity means nothing to me.
Whether or not the Xbox 360 has longevity wouldn’t stop me from buying it. Sure, it’s nice if the company continues offering an older model, but if I knew that production would stop once its new console was released, it wouldn’t stop me from wanting to own the hardware.
I know that Microsoft will support it until it releases a follow-up and I’ll keep enjoying games that are made available on it until that happens. But once the Xbox 720 (or whatever it will be called) hits store shelves, I’ll put my Xbox 360 in my closet and forget about it. Or, if I don’t want the next version yet, I’ll keep playing my Xbox 360. No harm, no foul.
Longevity or not, the Xbox 360 suits me just fine.
Fact is: Sony needs a price drop to compete – particularly in this economic climate. They could also do from listening to their customers a bit better.
Frankly, I know a number of folks switching over to the PS3 (which has some serious challenges to overcome [i.e. private voice chat, voice messaging, in-game music play, etc.] just out of frustration with the “lack of longevity” of the 360. The red rings claim us all. I spoke with a gamer the other day who was playing on his seventh Xbox 360. Seven! My own PS3 has outlasted 3 XBox 360’s now. I’ve had to rebuild my last 360 just to finish out my XBox live account.
I’m not a shill for either system, but the truth is, my PS3 seems to be a far better built piece of hardware.
“Frankly, I know a number of folks switching over to the PS3 (which has some serious challenges to overcome [i.e. private voice chat, voice messaging, in-game music play, etc.] just out of frustration with the “lack of longevity” of the 360.”
What lack of longevity? The 360 will be around for about 6 years, by which point new technology will allow a new Xbox to be built that is state of the art. At that time PS3 owners will be playing a unit built on obsolete technology. Longevity in anything is trumped by new technology. Cars can be driven for centuries if treated right, yet no one drives a model A Ford as a daily driver, new cars being safer, quieter, more fuel efficient, less pollution, seatbelts, etc. Would you try to force your computer to last 10 years, especially without any upgrades besides memory, not likely?
As Far as the Sony fanboy’s favorite topic, the red ring of death, I have a launch day 360, never has it failed, and I abuse it. I leave it on for months at a time; it has been dropped twice and taken all over the country. I’m not saying there is not an issue, but it has been ridiculously overblown.
Consider yourself lucky. I’m on my *fifth* 360 since launch. My launch console went to the Microsoft service center after two weeks because it locked up every single time I tried to play online. Unfortunately, the service center “dead pool” is responsible for the vast majority of those failures. Once you got in, you were pretty much guaranteed to get a half-assed refurb in return, which would die within a short period of time. Knock wood, but this last one’s been working (minus an occasional DRE or lock-up here & there) for about a year and a half now.
Things may have changed since I last went through that fiasco, but response times dropped significantly when the call center moved from Canada to India. Console turnaround times more than doubled in quite a few cases, especially in the period leading up to and for months after Microsoft acknowledged the RRoD problems and announced the 3-year warranty. Quite a few consoles were also “lost” in transit, with both Microsoft and DHL placing the blame on each other.
And, heaven forbid if you bought anything on Xbox Live Marketplace and had your 360 replaced. My family got locked out of their DRMed content for months, and it took the intervention of both the BBB and my state Attorney General’s office to get that resolved (twice). They’ve since provided a once-a-year user-initiated transfer process that has alleviated that issue for many, including myself (thus far).
During the last go-round, which included a six-week turnaround for the console replacement (and re-replacement due to a DOA), I purchased a PS3. The PS3 has been *far* more reliable than the 360. Also, before anyone starts spouting off about lack of games, take another look at the PS3 catalog; there’s plenty to play.
We have all three consoles, and play-time is pretty evenly split between the PS3 and 360. The Wii only gets played occasionally due to a wealth of shovelware and only a few quality titles here and there.
I totally agree with you about the argument that in ten years a given system will be based on outdated technology. I believe the ten year life-cycle was contrived to help ease the sticker shock of PS3 original $600 price tag. If you divide an obscene amount of money for a console over 10+ years then it seems a bit more manageable; only $60/that nothing. This idea ties into Sony?s ?value? argument.
As far as 360 making 10 years?don?t hold your breath. I?m on my third Xbox 360 (actually waiting for my third). They don?t want my power supply with the broken box so there?s no hope of getting any thing other than a refurbished machine. I can only expect to get 2 years out of the console I get back. I wouldn?t consider the RRoD at all over blown. A friend of mine just had his Elite bite the dust this last weekend.
Guys, you forget early PS2s broke easily (a few of my friend went through about 3 or 4, I myself had to replace one). PS2 is the EPITOME of longevity, being supported from 2000 all the way through 2010. It was also the least advanced technology last generation save for Dreamcast.
PS2 was cheaper than X-box, had a ton of third party support, and backwards compatibility. Even though it had technical issues, it outsold the X-box.
Now 360 is cheaper than PS3, has a ton of third party support, and backwards compatibility. Even though it has technical issues, it’s outselling the PS3.
Back when I was a M$ hater, I predicted 360 would have direct correlation to the Dreamcast, with PS3 acting as the X-box of this generation. I was wrong. What Microsoft has shown is that 360 filled the niche of the PS2.
In 10 years PS3 might be still good looking and marketed as a nextgen console, but X-box 360 will be $120 or less, have tons of bargain bin $10 or less games, while you’ll probably have the next X-box as an option, probably with backwards compatibility (speculation, who knows).
By the way, new X-box 360s (I mean one you can buy in a Wal-mart today, not just any “replacement” X-box 360) is less likely to have RRoD in my experience. None of my friend with new X-boxes in the last year have RRoDs and only one had one from a 1 year old X-box.
I know a total of 27 people with xbox 360s (I’ve counted em) and six so far have been sent back for repair. I only know 6 people with PS3’s and one of them has had a warranty repair (me). That’s probably in line with what the actual warranty statistics are yet I hear constantly people saying that they’ve gone through five, ten, fifteen xbox consoles. Well I’m not going to call anybody a liar but if the probability of a console failure is a truly random event and even if the xbox failure rate is as high as 30%, the probability of failing five in a row in a short time is a small fraction of 1%. So if you go on to fail your sixth xbox it’s time to go out and buy a lottery ticket… or maybe stop playing with it when your momma forces you to take a bath.
You’re basing the value of longevity from the perspective of the consumer (and to limit that further–from the perspective of an early-adopter). A business that is working to make money has a much different view. They appreciate the early adopters because those people spur innovation and help create acceptance of new products. At the same time, not everyone can afford the latest and greatest, which is why the PS2 still sells well–it’s inexpensive, has a huge library of great games that can be bought used for $10, or as Greatest Hits for $20, and it provides a nice, stable (though dwindling) income stream for Sony right now (which they desperately need).
So, yeah, if I’m Sony (or Microsoft, or Nintendo)–longevity matters. To some guy who can afford to and relishes having the newest things, you might not think it matters, but those people buying the PS2 are subsidizing the PS3 (and future R&D), so it should still matter to you.
If you think Microsoft wouldn’t like to see the original XBox still selling the way the PS2 is selling, then you’re fooling yourself–lifetime Xbox is a loser for MS to the tune of a few $Billion. MS was first to market with the 360 because they believed it was the only way to get out from under the shadow of PS2–and it appears to have worked. If they had both come out at the same time and the same price, the market today may be completely different.
I think there is still huge potential for both 360 and PS3, but that potential is largely untapped because most American’s haven’t upgraded to HDTV. Until HDTV adoption goes up, I don’t think many people will clamor for better graphics (early adopters and fan boys make up the bulk of those ready to buy new hardware already). I don’t even think software companies are that anxious for the next round of new hardware, because they are struggling to create games that turn a good profit now; even some well-reviewed titles have lost money due to high development costs. Everything doesn’t sell as well as Halo or GTA.
2010 is a pipe dream for Xbox 3rd gen–MS will be content to sell the 360 at a profit as long as they can, and time the next version about one year before PS4. They will only go as fast as the competition pushes them. They are more likely to launch a 360 with motion controls to compete with Wii HD before they launch Xbox 720.
Sometimes there’s an advantage of having a high price point item and a low price point item. Some people are willing to play $600 and other want to pay $200. Sony could sell into to both markets at launch and Microsoft could not.
For me Microsoft’s strategy is working against them. I’m not going to spend $600 a new console and $60 per title. I’m going to wait a year or two until the price drops, buy a console, and buy last year’s good stuff for $20-30.
Even now a decent XBox 360 is expensive. To get the hard drive version will set you back $300 and to get it on your wireless network is another $100 so for me the PS3 and the XBox 360 have the same up-front costs.
So in a year when the PS3 and Xbox 360 are really about $300 and Microsoft says we’re coming out with a new box soon and Sony claiming they’ll support their box for another 6 years one might lean their way. This may be why the PS3 is outselling the XBox 360 if you align their totals since launch. Although I think it’s really because Microsoft cannot crack the Asian market and Sony can sell into the US market with decent numbers + the blu-ray factor.
I do feel sorry for Sony. Microsoft does not seem to care how much money they lose on the XBox. If you look at their annual reports since the XBox launch they are a little under $7 billion in the hole (net) for the BU the XBox/Xbox 360 is in. It’s hard to run a for profit BU against something like that.
Why do you say the Xbox 360 “lacks longevity”? Just because some twerp at Sony says so?
That is tantamount to some twerp at Apple saying “Nanny nanny boo boo, Windows PC’s suck.” Yeah, well who has the market share, especially in the all important business desktop and server market? Windows. Period.
Sony will be lucky to be in the console market in 10 years. The only advantage the PS3 has on the 360 is the Blu Ray drive, and even that is questionable. The 360 has a dual layer DVD, which can hold up to 8.5 GB. No game publisher has yet to demonstrate that they actually need more than 8.5 GB for a console game. Any game that requires more than that is probably poorly designed.
Case in point. Epic bellyached that the 360 only had a DVD drive, and that they would load up the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3’s Blu Ray disc with content. Guess what? The 360 version of UT3 is not more than 5 GB. Until Epic adds at least 3 GB more of maps and character models to UT3, they do not need the 25 GB or 50 GB of Blu Ray.
Consider PC gamers. Would any PC gamer purchase a game that required 30 GB of hard drive space? Maybe the ultra hardcore gamers, but the average consumer would never put up with that situation.
Fail for Sony. Maybe they can try again in 10 years.
Xbox 360 lacks longevity in gaming hardware, How Far Sony PlayStation 3 Will Go? The PS3 has two huge benefits over every other console. It doubles as a Blu-ray player and it’s quiet. It will take some more time before this really sinks in and even the naysayers start catching on, but the PS3 is a true all-around entertainment system that not only provides value to the gamers in a household, but the non-gamers as well. Case in point. In my house, my wife is the gamer. We have a PlayStation (albeit sitting somewhere in a box), a PlayStation 2, a Wii and since recently a PlayStation 3. While I do occasionally play the Wii, I’m just not a gamer. I don’t have the patience, but I’m a big movie watcher. Anything from downloads to recorded TV to the occasional DVD and Blu-ray. The PS3 feels right at home when it comes to watching movies. The PS2 never felt quite right when playing DVDs. The navigation is akward and seemd like an afterthought. Sure, the XBox plays DVDs as well and has movie download features, but it has two major flaws. It’s too loud and it doesn’t play Blu-ray! Sony has done an excellent job at marketing the PS3 as more than just a game console. Everybody who knows the PS3 also knows that it still is the best Blu-ray player and price doesn’t really matter. It still is cheaper than buying an XBox 360 and a standalone Blu-ray player as good as the PS3’s Blu-ray player. On the other hand, ask anybody about the Xbox 360 and everybody just thinks of it as a game console. The entertainment features never come up. Nobody buys a 360 just to watch movies, but plenty of people buy a PS3, because it is a Blu-ray player. I think that’s where the longevity comes in. Sony figured out how to market the PS3 beyond the game console aspect.
Related posts
Thank you for visting iflove.com, the fairy legend of Edward Chen the Movie Star! You may want to Find Love or subscribe to RSS feed. Enjoy or do a search!