|
|
|
| Rumours of Sony PS3 delay intensify |
| Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 21:23 by Andy Holliday |
Sony are officially planning to launch the exciting new PS3 games console in Spring this year however they admit that delays could occur if specifications for Sony hardware do not get finalised in time.
Rumours on the internet however lend one to believe that it will be a case of how long will the delay be? rather than will it be delayed?
The specifications that Sony is waiting for include the Blue-ray optical drive and both input and output for video and sound.
With Sony dominating the previous generation of consoles it is not clear if any delay will have a major impact on Sony's dominance with the next gen consoles, considering that Microsoft's Xbox 360 launched 3 months ago and Nintendo's Revolution due to be launched this year.
It's also not been confirmed if Sony will bravely attempt a world-wide simultaneous launch a la Xbox 360 or will stagger the roll-out.
Rumours have also been abound that the cost of producing the PS3 will be expensive compared to the 360 or Revolution so any delay may help Sony in one way because the cost of the technology should have come down as the months go by. It's just whether the costs come down enough to benefit any lost sales to rival console manufacturers.
|
|
| |
 
|
|
| HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALARIOUS... Sony is sooo full of @#$ with their talk of all the stuff this box will do - and it'll be out in March. I love that they've gone and done this... when it ships in europe summer of 2007, the brits will look at it and think - "we've been doing this with the Xbox platform for a year and a half".... why so slow Sony? |
|
|
| ps3 should get there act together if they want to beat the 360 |
|
|
| I think it's good it will be late. I feel like I'm getting more mileage out of my PS2. If I can by a sony product and know it will last for 6 good years before being outdated by the next version, I can feel comfortable investing in another sony playstation. Even if it costs twice as much as an xbox, if it lasts twice as long I think it is better. Look at the xbox. it only had a lifespan of 3 and a half years. I'll wait till the PS3. Until then, I'll continue enjoying my PS2. |
|
|
| You must be very loyal and patient. I reserve those things for my country and my family not large corporations. |
|
|
| not being an early adopter of game machines, i'm looking forward to the ps3, and will wait as long as it takes in order to make sure i can compare it against the xbox360 before making my mind up. |
|
|
| "Look at the xbox. it only had a lifespan of 3 and a half years."
You're wrong on two fronts. One, the Xbox is still being supported by Microsoft and third party developers and continues to receive fresh titles. It's hardly a dead console. Xbox owners who have yet to purchase a 360 aren't suddenly unable to enjoy their system any less than you are with your PS2.
Secondly, the Xbox was launched a full four years before the 360. Not three and a half. 4-5 years is about the standard life cycle for a console generation. Microsoft hasn't prematurely cut short this generation by coming out first. It's in Sony's best interest to drag out this round, not theirs.
It's also in Sony's best interest to get the PS3 out and on the market as soon as possible. Delays, necessary as they probably are, will hurt them. While it's nice (for them) that there are people like yourself who are willing to wait up to a whole year and pay "twice as much" for a PS3 than a 360, most consumers won't have that same disposition. If Sony ends up giving Microsoft two whole holiday seasons to sell their product unchallenged...well, that's just bad no matter how you spin it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
