Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Report: PS3 Successor to Launch in 2012

tarheelpride

By tarheelpride,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Joscott Newbie

Joscott

Posted
Posted

I don't see this happening next year and maybe even the one after, the PS3 hasn't even been fully utilized yet. Sony just recently started making money in PS3 sales and they have another redesign for the system already in place and ready for a price drop, at this point it doesn't make sense especially when the WiiU has not really shown anything that will make it have a leg up on the competition.

The only thing I think this speculation is really based off of is PS1 and PS2 were around for 6 years before the newer version was released. 6 for the PS3 would make it 2012, but sony will be pushing the Vita pretty hard next year and two systems at once would be a little overkill. Generally, you use the e3 the year before to hype up the system, so maybe we see it next year, but no launch.

I would think Microsoft would beat Sony to a new console, there were even some rumors around this years E3. I think they would be more likely to have one launch soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpanfan96 Grand Master

carpanfan96

Posted
Posted

Not really, consoles typically go in 5 year cycles.

Normally that's the case, but expect the lifespans of the 360 and PS3 to be longer because of the cost of the system and how much the companies were losing on each sale for the first 1-2 years after launch.

Put it this way > Sony spent over 1 billion in research and development for the PS3 and then lost around 200 a system for each one sold for the first 1 1/2 years after the launch.

I'd expect a good 2-3 more years before a new system from Sony and MS. They just started turning a profit on the systems about 2 years ago and haven't made up enough of the losses to launch a new system. On top of that, R&D just started for MS for it's new system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...