Does the Xbox 360's 'Lack of Longevity' Matter?

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.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
thebudgetgamer3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

if you are not rich and you spend 3to 400$ to only have to do it again three or four years later

sony got alot of respect from me because when i could not afford a ps3 they kept supporting the ps2 witch made it easier for me to slide into this gen
youre right good business for them = one happy gamer. me

Silellak3617d ago

Sony's continued support of the PS2 is indeed quite impressive. Though, in some ways, it is also a necessity for them. With the PS3 selling at a loss, they need to have profitable hardware in order to fund development and manufacturing costs for the PS3.

Maddens Raiders3617d ago

seems a bit rhetorical, but meh....i'm sure MS will find a way to convince loyal fans that it doesn't matter.

3617d ago
ASSASSYN 36o3617d ago

What are you broke? $300-$400 isn't crap in 3 years or 4 years if you start saving now. Consoles are announced a year or more before they come out. Learn to save your pennies.

zer0man13617d ago

It didn't take long for MS affiliate sites to start cranking out Anti- Longevity arguments. Kaz Hirai must have really gotten under some fan boys skin. To state that longevity in a consumer product is irrelevant, is the dumbest opinion I have heard this Gen. Don Reisinger, even you don't believe that crap.

Thugbot1873617d ago

It would be stupid for them not to support the PS2 they are making money and hedging any PS3 losses with it.

ThanatosDMC3617d ago

Apparently, if you spend $300-$400 dollars on something and it breaks in less than a year or so, it's acceptable and that a consumer should just replace it himself by buying the same broken product???

Wow... spin spin spin.

fishd3617d ago

Oh sh1t,Don Riesinger is back with a vengeance

Wise_Man3617d ago

• Quality and Length of an Experiance matter, But with things changing so rapidly 10 years could be too long.

• But Chinese proverb say Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.

StayHigh3617d ago

Why would anyone buy a system that will crap out on them in the long run? I hate people who buys cheap things and don't expect it to break.The 360 system just have so many flaws within it and i think it ridicules that Microsoft can get away with it. The PS3 is future proof and got the complete package for this gen. The library of games is going to be bigger then the 360 this year because of the many great exclusive that Sony going to unleash.

thebudgetgamer3617d ago

its not about being broke thats alot of money no matter what. im still going to buy it im just saying they dont make products that last anymore before you have to upgrade. besides by then i will be out of school and hopefully have some bankroll.
i still have my 2600 and i play it every once and a while.


Nicolator3617d ago

Telling myself the truth .."I LOVE NEW STUFF".. i dont know about u guys but anything that is new i wanna have it so far its the latest gadget and does more crazy stuff i have never seen.. i do change my tv, phone and stuff like that once a new one comes out.. so will i do the same with my console.. the company's profit or gain really does not intrest me so far they give me the stuff. So to be longevity really does not mean nothing coz i know once a new xbox comes out i am getting it coz i wanna see what it can do i dont wanna wait till i have grandkids.. life is short... i dont wanna wait for a sequel to come out 5 years after the first and i dont wanna wait 10 years to see another tech upgrade gezz if i spent 600 dollars on the console i really dout it will be a big deal to do that in 5 to 6 yrs.. its a long time gezz.. how broke can one get.

Lifendz3617d ago

I didn't buy one yet because I don't see it standing the test of time as well as PS3 will.

meepmoopmeep3617d ago

i'm hoping mine works each time it turn it on.

yeah, i'm not going to get a new console every 5 years
they're expensive and imagine having to get 3 every 5 years?

i like the 10 yr plan.
if you want the latest tech be a PC gamer
oh wait...

Rhoic3617d ago

That's really ironic, because my PS2 and Xbox have crapped out on me. The disc drives do not work anymore, which is why they are replaced with the 2 beautiful younger brothers(360/PS3). But my Wii is like the bully who laughs at them and takes their lunch money and is the innocent one in the eyes of the mother.

Kushan3617d ago

Does anyone else see the Irony in stating that the 360's longevity is a problem, then immediately stating how Sony's support of the PS2 is a great thing?
The PS2 had no more longevity than the 360, there's nothing stopping Microsoft supporting the 360 for years to come and unlike the Original Xbox, a new generation isn't likely to happen any time soon so Microsoft has every reason to support it.

The Lazy One3617d ago

I could care less about a 10 year plan. I could understand longevity (or lack there of) being a problem in the 3-4 year range, but by the time you get past 5 or even into 6, any console will feel just a little bit dated compared to what's possible.

The long and short of it is, I just don't want to play games on 10 year old hardware. It's just not where the best looking/playing games are going to be consistently.

Also! no, the PS3 will not be very comparable to any of the next gen systems. Even the wii, drastically underpowered compared to the 360 and PS3, is still more powerful than the Xbox just 5 years later.

How many people do you think still use a 1st generation ipod, or will even own an iPhone in 10 years? Technology moves too fast for a 10 year plan.

huntsman12303617d ago

Sony never intended to keep the PS2 going for so long. Just as a reminder, you need to remember that it was after the initial returns of the PS3 were not going so well that they decided to devote over half of their manufacturing resources ($) to the PS2. So sure, they did what any good business would have done, but it wasn't intended. They were, in a matter of speaking, forced to keep the PS2 going strong. A slight misjudgment in market entry. I really believe they would have held the PS3 back a whole year or maybe even two had they known the PS2 would continue to be the main player. Then again, hindsight is always 20/20.

cherrypie3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

The Xbox 360 is vastly better place to be *relevant* 10 years (and more) from now.

Why? Xbox LIVE. XBLA. Primetime (Massive social gaming), Marketplace, Zune Pass (it *must* be under-development), Windows Media Center Extender and on and on and on.

Outside of the AAA titles, the Xbox 360 is a "target" for the connected living room. It has all the horsepower (and much more) necessary to be that Internet settop-box for years and years and years.

FFS, sell a Waggle controller and a Xbox 360 for $200 and the thing will sell like CRAZY in 2010.

The hardware is designed to be extended by add-ons and allow you to "add-value" over time.

I've got *zero* worry that I wont have an Xbox 360 in my home for many many years to come. And, I'll have a Xbox 720 on Day One. No matter when that happens.

edgeofblade3616d ago (Edited 3616d ago )

ThanatosDMC: That's bullshit.

Microsoft spent an extra $BILLION to support a three year warranty. BILLION! Odds are you will NEVER see that much money added up over your entire lifetime. That's no small change, even for Microsoft. They screwed up, but then they stood behind their console and paid for the mistake. I find it amazing how quickly people spit on that fact because it's "Micro$oft". To complain about that is like finding a hair in your soup but instead telling the health department that rats infest the kitchen. It's dishonest at best and vindictive at worst.

I would have been long gone if MS hadn't fixed my two failures and made it right. They paid through the nose to keep me playing my Xbox and failing that, they would have lost me forever.

And CherryPie, "No Matter What" isn't fair. Xbox 360 could turn south hardcore and MS washes their hands of the whole thing. I bet you wouldn't buy an Xbox 720 then.

Rhoic3616d ago

What's you're point? It's nothing compared to what money Sony has lost for the PS3.

-Sony reported that they have lost more money on the PS3 than they gained in the first 5 years of the PS2's surge. That equates to what?.. like $3.5 billion - $4 billion?

-Sony also reported that they have lost $1.1billion in 2008.

You do the math

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 3616d ago
Silellak3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

"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."

This is a pretty good point. Most people who are still buying PS2s are probably NOT hardcore gamers, and are either budget-gamers-only, or are replacing older PS2s with the newer, slimmer hardware. People more into gaming have certainly already purchased a PS2 at some point or another - it's hard to imagine anyone waiting that long.

The reason longevity DOES work in Sony's favor for the PS3 is that, if Microsoft abandons the 360 in the next year or two, 360 owners may very well think "Well, I'll get a PS3 instead of the 720, because it's cheaper and there are a lot of games I haven't already played for it. I'll get a 720 when the price is lower and there are more games." In that respect, it is important that the Microsoft keep the 360 viable well into the 720's "career" the same way Sony has done a fantastic job of keeping the PS2 active into the PS3's "career".

What it really boils down to, as it always does with gaming, is the games. Gamers follow the games, and as long as a platform is profitable enough, software companies will keep making games for it. That's why the 360 really isn't going anywhere - games for the 360 continue to top the sales charts, and even Sony admits the 360 is simply easier - and thus, cheaper - to develop for. As long as games still sell well on the 360, they will still get made. Why do companies still make games for the PS2? Because it's still profitable to do so due to the huge install base.

Just because Sony says the PS3 will last 10 years doesn't mean the PS4 won't come out before then. As the PS2 as shown, predecessor consoles can last a long time into the "next generation".

DJ3617d ago

Easier doesn't equate to cheaper production costs. You can have a more complicated process that actually ends up being cheaper. And the fact that we're talking about videogames makes such assumptions even harder to swallow since art assets eat up most of a game developer's budget.

And with programming, the difficulty of setting up a game engine is more dependent on what the developer needs that engine to do, not what platform it's running on.

chaosatom3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

I mean it is costly comparatively, but a reliable console makes a lot of consumer happy and last a lot longer so people don't have to buy a console 2 times or something.

I think it would be really hard for 360 to be active during 720 carrer, especially if Ms is talking about 360 lasting a lot longer than the orginal xbox.

Hardware problem, and warrantities will make it harder to maintain. Plus people are not going to be upgrading to 720 if ps3 is cheap. So Microsoft would need to make 720 around the same price as the ps3, so that would take time. And also deveoplers are not going to update to 720 because it's already costing them a fourtune to make a game.

I think they would need to phase 360 out as much as possible, because 720 won't last long with high price tag compartively.

FredFredrickson3617d ago

If Microsoft learned anything this generation, it's that putting out the most advanced hardware at the highest price just doesn't cut it anymore.

Sheikh Yerbouti3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

Agreed. I don't think longevity is intrinsic to the console itself, nor does being superior technologically matter. Yet longevity will be a huge factor of each consoles success.

Microsoft controlled the industry as PS3 entered. Having that head start on Sony gave the software giant more games to attract users. Sony will be in the same position if a new XBox comes out in 2012 like some are suggesting. Building up a stable of first party games and third party exclusives now is essential to ensuring this. I think Sony is aware of this, but have had only moderate success.

Regardless of your allegiances, you have to admit Microsoft is god-awful as a hardware manufacturer. So I expect their next console to be only marginally better than the PS3 at best. They won't move as many units as the 360; however, forward compatibility may be Microsoft's answer to this. Any new console will already have a massive catalog of games that are virtually new experiences on the new console.

That being said, longevity may not ultimatley matter because so many have had to buy a new 360 every few months due to RROD. They're used to it. LOL!

P.S. What percentage of 360 sales are replacements for malfunctioned units? I doubt even Greenberg knows!!

The Lazy One3617d ago

The most important being first release, original cost of the system, and EASE OF DEVELOPMENT.

Someone else said it somewhere in here, but making a system easy to develop on and easy to port to is huge. It's the difference between making your game multi-platform and explaining to a business executive why you can't do it on your release schedule.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3617d ago
Darkseider3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

Longevity to me matters. I like the fact that Sony has thought ahead and produced a piece of technology that can withstand the test of time like its' siblings the PS1 and PS2. Both those consoles gave me countless years of enjoyment without a stutter or complaint. It's also nice not having to buy a new console every 5 or so years. Not to mention that throughout the cycle of all PS consoles the games have improved to the point of some being unbelievable, I.E. GoW 1&2, SotC, GT4, etc... Now with Killzone 2 starting to show what the PS3 is truly capable of and knowing that it has just tapped the potential for this console I can look forward to even greater games coming along throughout the PS3s lifespan.

On the flipside I don't know if MS can pull off the same with the XBox 360 with its' limited optical storage and inability to swap HDs, etc... I can't say that the XBox 360 is maxed as of yet as I am sure there are some software tricks and clever coding that can yet squeeze some more power from it. In saying that I also don't believe that whatever can be further squeezed out of the XBox 360 will not give it a 10 year lifespan either. Unfortunately, this combined with the known hardware reliability problems is what is stopping me from purchasing one. I know I am missing out on some great games but I cannot justify the purchase knowing this.

Silellak3617d ago

An interesting thing to keep in mind:

Best tech != Most longevity.

The PS1 and PS2 were not the most technologically advanced console of their generation, but they did last the longest. Why? Because of the games. Gamers follow the games, and in turn, software companies make games for the platform(s) with the most potential profit. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

I'm not saying that this means the PS3 won't last 10 years, but just to remember that having superior technology does not guarantee longevity.

DJ3617d ago

As was the PS2. And it's because of this that Sony saw a lot of developers flock to their systems. PS1 games looked/performed better than most N64 and Saturn games, just as PS2 games looked/performed better than most Dreamcast, Gamecube, and Xbox games.

PS1 was a polygon beast, and PS2 had incredible system throughput since it was triple-core. Sony won those two generations because of how much work they put into the hardware, as well as the strong relationships they created with 3rd party developers.

pumpkinpunker3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

What the heck are you talking about? The PS2's power paled in comparison to the Xbox. Part of the reason was that the Xbox came out years later, another part of the reason is that MS knows how to build a better console. Hence the reason the PS3 is in dead last right now. But stop living in the past anyways. Think about today: PS3 = fail.

I have both consoles and nothing on the PS2 even competes with what came out for the Xbox in it's last couple years. Halo 2 would not be possible on the PS2. hence the reason it was so crazily popular and pretty much helped destroy Sony as major gaming force. Sony isn't desperate for a PS3 blockbuster these days for no reason.


Sony's first two years were approximately the same as the X360's -- 20 million sold. Problem is that in it's first year Sony sold approximately 14 million consoles, in it's second year Sony sold 6 million. You do the math. Sony is actually selling less and less worldwide. They had their worst holiday season in 2008. Not good at all.

Personally, I think that going from first to worst in one console generation is failure. Having the most successful console one year and having the least successful the next is epic failure.

no-spin3617d ago

You know you are right about the PS2 lack of power. I got the original Xbox for Halo and Ninja Gaiden. great games that were not possible on the PS2.
but you are wrong about PS3 = failure.
the PS3 is a success in its own right. its first two years are better than 360 first two, even with the fierce competition and higher price tag.
Next time dont be a troll and realize that the PS3 is successful. 3rd place, yes, but its growing and making profit. Good for business you know.

DJ3617d ago

Capable of complex shader effects like bump mapping; what also worked against it was the small size of its RAM (32 MB). But for stuff like AI, physics, animation, and particle effects it was a powerhouse. A big problem that Kojima's MGS team encountered when developing for Xbox was that they had to either reduce or eliminate a lot of CPU-intensive tasks, though were able to boost texture resolution due to the increased memory pool.

kingnick3617d ago

Since when did being the most complicated equal being the most advanced? The N64 was clearly better than the PS1 in many areas and the GameCube and Xbox were superior to the PS2 in graphics by a fair margin.

Well designed hardware empowers developers to make great software.

GoW cost $10 million to make and sold millions, last I read Killzone 2 cost around $40 million to make and I doubt it is going to outsell GoW 4 to 1.

ROI matters to developers and I have no doubt the Xbox 360 will always have an advantage in that area. Continued developer support + inexpensive base hardware means the 360 will be around for a fair while.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3617d ago
Spike473617d ago

Not to mention Sony knows how to make future proof consoles.

thebudgetgamer3617d ago

go for the long haul. idont want to buy one the get the rug swept from under my feet like last time


Nathan Drake3617d ago

Are you serious?

*Sees source is CNET*

Ah,never mind,for a second there I thought I was reading a piece not written by an attention seeking fanboy.

pippoppow3617d ago (Edited 3617d ago )

MS sure has alot of friends(affiliates) in the U.S. One just has to do some homework to find out what media outlets have ties to MS. Cnet is just one of many. Their reasons for posting this article are obvious.