Will Playstation Survive Till the Next Generation?

"This console generation so far has by far been the bloodiest one, in terms of sheer fanboyism. Lines have been drawn since early and gamers have been moving back and forth crossing the line depending on their preferences. Well personally for me Playstation had been a preferred platform of choice up until 2005, when Microsoft made the all so important decision and released the Xbox 360, one full year ahead of PS3, meaning the start of healthy new competition."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
3280d ago
LtSkittles3280d ago

No way MGR, and PenisWagon in anti-ps3 article what a surprise.

ThanatosDMC3280d ago

Dont be mean to him... he's waiting for it come back from the shop.

Shadow Flare3280d ago

i think he'll turn 11 by that time

UnwanteDreamz3280d ago

What did you say? Couldn't see it cause you only got 1 bubble ; )

snipermk03280d ago

Funniest comment of the day. :P

gaffyh3280d ago

Of course PlayStation will survive till next generation. Gamecube failed miserably last gen, and here Nintendo are kicking everyone's ass. Don't underestimate Sony, they have the most first party devs and second party devs than Nintendo and MS combined.

DarkTower8053280d ago

Don't be asking him questions when you know he doesn't have enought bubbles to respond, lmao.

SL1M DADDY3280d ago

What kind of question is that? Sorry, but this article is proof that even monkeys with plant sized IQ's can write. Stuff like this is the bane of the video game industry and should be nuked.

Cenobia3280d ago

Not by the end of today he won't

CptBach3280d ago

Why do these articles get here??

sikbeta3280d ago

Turn 10 Favourite Game is not forza, he loves the new xbox franchise

fishd3280d ago


Thanks for the laugh

Take care!

presto7173280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

A fully optimized ps3 with a couple more years to go could hold its own against any console MS might rush to put out.

Maddens Raiders3280d ago

Sarcasm, did you write this? 8D

darthv723280d ago

I got allot of money riding on this horse.

dragunrising3280d ago

I hate these articles...

It doesn't matter which console is the focus, they're all stupid. Opinions are great and all, but I don't think anyone can predict the future. Unless we're talking about the "Great" Michael PatchER (sarcasm). Did anyone think the Wii would go on to sell 54 million consoles? No. That's why any similar article should never be approved in the first place.

Saaking3280d ago

WTF? IS this a joke? The pS3 just DESTROYED the 360 yet there's still doom articles? IF the PS3 isn't gonna make it then neither is the 360. After all, the PS3 HAS been selling at a FASTER RATE than the 360. If anyone isn't gonna make it's the 360.

boodybandit3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

It's just another site desperate for hits.

Persistantthug3280d ago

With Sony's Playstation history, PS1 and PS2,

I see no reason to doubt them.

jke823280d ago

so lets say that ms does what the article says releases a new console 2yrs ahead of sony now sure they have a jump on the next gen but, gamingbolt fails to look at the other side..2yrs pass and ms has their next gen console out and its been competing with the ageing ps3 (and on a side note sony would be rakeing in the money after that long with the ps3 on the market)...then sony releases ps4....2yrs after ms releases the new xbox will ms compete with the better tech that it will inevitably have..

there ya have it food for though ms looking at the now and short term while sony plays the market like a chess game...

Anon19743280d ago

First off, do multiconsole games always sell better on the 360? If so, how come often when companies like Activision, EA and Ubisoft report their revenue, the PS3 and 360 are usually neck and neck?

Article fail.

The article talks about struggling PS3 sales compared to 360 sales. The truth is the PS3 has outsold the 360 since it launched worldwide according to official numbers.

Another fail for this article.

"After all it’s all about the sales and profits in the end." The 360 hasn't made a dime yet. It's still in the hole about 3 billion.

Article fail.

"Everyone was doubtful, even the hardcorest of the PS3 fans, up until 2010" Says you.

Article fail.

"Multiplatform titles also tend to sell better on Xbox 360 mainly due to superior online service" See point about EA, Ubisoft and Activision.


The article states PS3 game sales are mediocre? Excuse me? 90% of titles never break one million sales in their entire lifetime. Are PS3 sales struggling? Maybe in this guys fantasy land.


Wow. This article is so full of fail, you actually have to wonder if the guy is lying on purpose or just that ignorant. Either way, this trash should have never been approved. Flamebait without a single valid point.

The lesson, boys and girls? Do your research before writing an opinion piece such as this.

glennc3280d ago

what i don't understand is why people feel the need to click on the BS article and then comment about how ridiculous it is even though any moron can see that without reading it. well done guys you did what they wanted you to do, weak minded fools

The Dude3280d ago


Too bad sony's 1st and 2nd party developers produce 85% of the mediocre games on the ps3.

Mr Logic3280d ago

"Everyone was doubtful, even the hardcorest of the PS3 fans, up until 2010, when games like Killzone2, Infamous and all so important Uncharted 2 were released"

Awesome... just awesome "journalism" right there.

jadenkorri3279d ago

just wow, really, god i don't even know what to say about this article let alone comment on such trash. I felt my brain melting and losing intelligence reading word after word..

Darkstorn3279d ago

The PS3 has an insane amount of momentum behind it right now. While I don't think it will ever catch up to the 360 in terms of sales, there is no doubt that the PS3 has the better games lineup at this point. Not to mention the better hardware.

hay3279d ago

Let me cite Eddie Riggs partially.

* Points at the "article" *
What's this "Motherf**king piece of sh*t"!?

Sarcasm3279d ago

"Sarcasm, did you write this? 8D "

Whoa I had nothing to do with this article. There's nothing funny about it lol

Raz3279d ago

"After all it’s all about the sales and profits in the end.."

Really? Here I thought it was about enjoying great games, and all this time I should've been focusing on the sales figures and profit margins.

Silly me.

+ Show (28) more repliesLast reply 3279d ago
gameseveryday3280d ago

Remember PS3 has blu ray and it will survive for atleast 3 years more.

Assassin Nawabi3280d ago

ya true but a will ps3 be able to compete with a next gen console? with possibly a blu-ray add on too?

josuttis3280d ago

3 more years?

The PS3 will be selling for at least another 7 years.

Not that it really matters, this idiotic and rambling garbage being passed off as game journalism is just embarrassing to read. It is mind boggling that there are people that F-ing stupid with access to a platform to spew their moronic babble.

3280d ago
StanLatMarveldotCom3280d ago

I'm convinced these GamingBolt articles are just for hits. They're so poorly written and ill conceived.

rockleex3280d ago

The PS3 sold 1.2 million in September.

No, I don't think it will survive. It is obviously the second coming of Titanic. Sinking ship. DOOMED!


sikbeta3280d ago

Who wrote this article?

Now I now who was

nycredude3280d ago

What? PS3 is next gen. The 360 is this gen. The question should be the other way around. How else can you explain a console not having built in Wifi, Blutooth and Bluray? I haven't even mention the lack of great graphics.

ABizzel13280d ago

The article isn't bad, but it really doesn't have a purpose.

Anywho the PS3 is going to be just fine. I for one was never worried about the PS3, I enjoyed it and the games on it, and that's what a GAMER should care about most. Not what their consoles maker can do to kill off the competition.

The 1 year head start helped the 360 a lot, and to I still believe it's the only reason the 360 is in the place it is now (2nd place, and RROD). If the 360 came out at the same time the PS3 and Wii did it would be in last place, but as they say it didn't.

Resistance was a great launch game, and 2007 tinkled out some hits as well (Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, Ratchet, and Uncharted). 2008 was also a good year MGS4, Resistance 2, GT5: Pro, LBP, and former 360 exclusive began making their way to the PS3 (Bioshock). And now 2009 of course Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Infamous, Demon's Souls, another Ratchet, and more 360 exclusives so I never understand why people said the PS3 didn't have any games especially when you throw in the multiplatform titles.

But to the main point yeah PS3 gamers need to buy more games, no other way around it. PS3 games like Uncharted 2 need to be hitting the 1 million week easy. But most PS3 gamers sit and fully enjoy one game until their ready to move on whereas 360 gamers hope from game to game.

Oh and if the Xbox 720 come out 2 years earlier than the PS4 then that gives the PS4 a chance to be without a doubt more powerful than the 720 just becuase technology would have evolved by then. Which brings up another debate. What will multiplatform developers do if the PS4 has twice as much RAM, and a much faster processor than the 720 due to a 2 year launch gap?

And if the Xbox 720 launches with the PS3 then the early adopters will pick up the 720 (which won't be me EVER again for any console), and the PS3 will continue to sell since it'll probably be $199 or less by then (unless the 720 comes out in 2010).

josuttis3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )


FACTUAL evidence3280d ago

That's like saying, "Will nintendo make another mario game?"

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3280d ago
gameseveryday3280d ago

I am not too sure about it. Its a good question. But may be cell processor will have upgrades too?

Assassin Nawabi3280d ago

cell processor can last long, but can its gpu too? thats a question

williamkenny3280d ago

I think that the graphics are good enough to last it a while. Unless MS pull something ridiculous out of the hat.

Fishy Fingers3280d ago

The PS2s hardware specs are disgraceful in this day and age, yet here it is, still selling and producing great games. By the time the PS3 is technically inferior, it will be selling to those who dont care for such things (like the PS2 now) and a new PS4 will be released.

MNicholas3280d ago

will the Xbox division survive?

Xbox 1: 2nd in sales, mainly appeals to fans of shooters, significant net losses

Xbox 2: 3rd in sales, mainly appeals to fans of shooters, significant net losses

Xbox 3: Will there be one?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3280d ago
gameseveryday3280d ago

I have heard its GPU is inferior though, so not sure whether it will last or no.

Vicodin3280d ago

"I have heard its GPU is inferior though"

That was sarcasm...right...?

Fishy Fingers3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

The PS3 does have an ever so slightly weaker GPU than the 360. But in terms of modern tech, both are very out dated. A consoles saving grace is it's unified hardware, which developers can continue to push as it doesnt change. When you look at a consoles potential you have to look at the complete package, not component to component.

I dont want to come over all fanboy, but the 360 doesnt have a game that can come close to Uncharted or the technical prowess of Killzone 2. So you can say the 360 may have a more powerful GPU, but it obviously isn't showing it. Perhaps through development, or perhaps the overall package doesnt stack up to the Playstation.

Shadow Flare3280d ago

Looking at ps3 exclusives, they say you're wrong

3280d ago
Fishy Fingers3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

Excuse me? Are you confused, my point is while the 360 does have a slightly more powerful GPU (which it does) it hasnt been shown in it's games, because it comes down to the complete hardware package, not a single component. Not really difficult to understand.

Thanks for the polite reply though. I do enjoy conversing with N4Gs user base. I assume your upset I said something which could appear negative towards the PS3, which if read correctly, I havent.

Shadow Flare3280d ago

In all seriousness Fishy Fingers is right. Apparently 360 does have a slightly better GPU. What makes ps3 more capable of producing better graphics and physics is the Cell Processor. The cell actually handles some of the jobs the GPU does. Its because the cell is so powerful that it slaps the 360 upside its head

josuttis3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

"Are you confused, my point is while the 360 does have a slightly more powerful GPU (which it does) it hasnt been shown in it's games"

This is the stupid crap you end up spouting when you fill your head with fanboy BS that turns out to, surprise!, complete and utter garbage.

Just like there are pathetic little punks who even if you threatened to torture them to death would never admit they were completely and utterly wrong about the Dreamcast and the PS2 and are still trying to convince the world 'teh Dreamcast was just as/more powerful than teh PS2' and they 'have specs that prove it'.

The abject graphic humiliation Sony has dished out to Microsoft this gen and the hilarious if it wasn't so sad clinging to the 'teh 360 has teh better GPU' fanboy meme is a shocking example of just how powerful the mind is able to delude itself when you desperately want something to be true. Or in this case admit that you were incredibly stupid to fall for obviously absurd claims by Microsoft about 'teh 360 GPU'.

Fishy Fingers3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

Your calling me a fanboy? Ha, thats hillarious to begin with, but if I were to be a fanboy of any console it would be the PS3, which is easily my console of choice. Which I'm sure many at N4G know.

Clearly if anyone here is a fanboy it's you. There is nothing wrong with excepting the fact that theroretically the 360 does have the better GPU. The PS3 is still easily deliever the most viseral and technically impressive games and will continue to do so, because like I've had to say, 3 bloody times, a console is not the sum of a single component, it's the whole package which is important, here the PS3 has a clear edge over the 360.

I'm praising the complete processing power of the PS3 here and you still think I'm some 360 fanboy because I dare to say a single aspect of the console may be better than the PS3. Your clearly not reading and understanding my comments, just noticing a single part you dislike.

Rigmaster3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

Don't waste your time on him.

There really is some borderline mental illness with a certain segment of console owners absolutely refusing to face up to the fact that they weren't just wrong, they were laughably wrong about the relative power of the PS3 and 360.

One might try to be generous and give them that most of are clueless and can't see any piece of graphics hardware as anything but the horrible and wildly inefficient desktop computer. A modern piece of graphics hardware is obviously beyond their grasp. The same people failed to grasp the 139 million selling PS2 and for 9 years kept trying to view it as a badly designed desktop PC.

But even if you look at the PS3 through their ignorant and pointless view as having a "GPU" like any old desktop computer, even then the PS3 is so totally destroying the 360 in performance in tasks the Broadband Engine for the most part isn't helping with like fill rate where the PS3 is cranking out games like GT5 that are double the rez of similar games on the 360 like Forza 3 while cranking out vastly better car geometry and lighting model.

The absolute refusal to face up to reality and just flat out admit they are wrong shows why there was the absolute foaming at the mouth hatred and fear of the Killzone 2 realtime graphics demo at E3. Sony with that one demo completely made a mockery of those stupid claims about 'which system had a better graphics card'.

rockleex3280d ago

But I can't really say the 360 has a better GPU.

Both systems' GPUs have their ups and downs. While the PS3's Cell Processor clearly beats the 360's 3 cores.

Its obvious which system is overall more powerful, especially when you consider that the Cell can do GPU tasks too.

INehalemEXI3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

This was a pretty decent article on pro's and con's of each gpu.

RSX: pushed a higher resolution , and higher detailed textures in NGS2.

Xenos: pushed more poly's , sub HD though and not as great textures but had a few more enemies on screen in NG2.

This is a good example of what the gpu's can do IMO , if you look at 1st party titles like U2 they are using cell to assist the gpu so thats unfair when looking at gpu vs gpu.

Looking at the architecture as a whole, the PS3 no doubt has proven to push the most amazing visuals IMO. RSX is no slouch , Xenos has the eDRAM but that seems to be a resolution limiter too due to the 10mb limit.

SuperM3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

josuttis you are a disgrace to the PS3 comunity, please stfu and gtfo

btw dont give hits to articles like this, just dont.

Rigmaster3280d ago

"Both systems' GPUs have their ups and downs."


Console graphics hardware isn't the Special Olympics where everyone is a winner.

There isn't a single area the PS3 doesn't absolutely outperform the 360:

Geometry/poly counts
Lighting models
and on and on and on

there isn't a SINGLE AREA, let alone an entire game, the 360 can show for the four years its been on the market that comes close to what the PS3 is putting out in its first three years. NOT ONE.

This remains the 360 and it "mighty GPU"'s graphical highpoint:


Persistantthug3280d ago

Hopefully some of you finally get it.

The PS3's GPU (550mhz) is NOT weaker than the XBOX 360's GPU (500mhz). However, the XBOX 360's GPU (called XENOS) has a few extra features that the PS3's GPU (called RSX) does not.

But if you talk about GPU power and/or Graphical capabilities, then you MUST include the CELL PROCESSOR in your discussion because unlike almost any other CPU on the market today, PC included, The CELL Processor can graphics process AND graphics render BY ITSELF.
So in a rudimentary explaination, the PS3 has 2 acting GPU's while the XBOX 360 has 1. That is why the PS3 has a higher ceiling and more technical/graphical potential than the XBOX 360.

SuperM3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

The cell processor does graphics rendering in both Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2, and probably several other PS3 exclusives. So while these games look better then anything on 360 it doesnt tell us how the GPU stacks up to the one in the 360. And yes its true that there are ups and downs with both 360 and PS3 GPUs. generally though developers will say that the 360 GPU has a slight edge. If this bothers you then you are the very definition of a fanboy.

The PS3 is shining and have by far the best games graphically. But thats mainly thanks to the cell processor and not the GPU. The PS3 doesnt have to be the best at every single little detail, as long as the complete package comes out on top. And it does. So please stfu with the whining, and the "everyone who says anything on 360 is slightly better then anything on PS3 are fanboys and totally out of their mind" attitude.

btw @ guy above me, hope you are not indicating that how many mhz the gpu has tells you how powefull it is.

3280d ago
TheBand1t3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

Dude, wow, holy crap. Chill the frigging hell out.

It's like I've walked into a bar fight between some drunk guy who misunderstood what the other was saying.

3280d ago
Persistantthug3280d ago

I hope you don't take offense to this, but you start out progressing with the known knowledge of the Cell Processor,
And then you totally revert back to the "uninformed" stage.

Why do you keep talking about the PS3's SLIGHTLY less featured GPU when you apparently know that the CELL PROCESSOR works IN CONJUNCTION with its GPU (RSX)?

It seems as if you are having a quite a bridge to cross in trying to understand and/or cope with the fact that the PS3 is NOT like traditional PC architecture and can't be compared, specifically in this case, GPU for GPU.

Once more, THE CELL PROCESSOR Graphics processes AND Graphics renders BY ITSELF, whereas, PC CPU's and XBOX 360's CPU's do not.

SuperM, you cannot discuss the PS3 GPU without discussing the CELL do so would show ignorance of the technology or disingenuous motives.

You trying to compare GPU for GPU, is equivalent to articles comparing them back in 2005 and 2006 when no one knew what the Cell Processor could do. Clearly you know better now, so I don't understand your point or reasoning here.

INehalemEXI3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

I played both and can see that for NGS2 there where a lot of redundant poly's removed , the game runs smoother you got more content etc. They may of exaggerated on the # of enemy's but otherwise it's pretty decent analysis of the gpu's pro's/con's though the article does seem to slant to 360's side I admit.

3280d ago
frostypants3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

Good lord, people.

Look...technically, the 360 has the slightly more powerful GPU. This is an engineering FACT. It is not a point that is open to subjective reasoning. It is a (again, SLIGHTLY) more powerful piece of hardware than the PS3's GPU. Period. End of story. It's a numbers game, and it wins.

However, as has been pointed out, good PS3 developers have learned to offload a lot of graphics processing onto the Cell (i.e. the main processor) because it is more than powerful enough to do so, drastically easing the burden on the GPU. The original PS3 specs, in fact, called for TWO Cell processors, one of which would actually be used as the fulltime GPU, rather than utilizing a traditional GPU chipset. Assuming proper development, the Cell absolutely dusts the 360's PowerPC main processor in raw power.

The net result is that the total package of the PS3, i.e. the GPU PLUS the main processor, is simply capable of pushing more 1s and 0s than the 360. End of story.

Edit: Disagree with what? It's fact. Find proof of otherwise.

A lot of what some people assume is being handled by the RSX is likely being made possible by the Cell either handling it directly, or freeing up the RSX enough so it can. The 360's CPU isn't powerful enough to take on as much burden. In short, the Cell can viably act as its own GPU. It could even be implemented as a dedicated GPU.

psiom3280d ago

I really don't see the point in having a purely academic argument about which console as the most power when looking at the numbers on paper.

The only thing that really matters is what gets done and released.

There absolutely no two ways about it - the PS3's first party games having been running rings around the 360's top offerings in terms of graphics.

You can argue all you want about potential, but it's a fact that the PS3 has better graphics -THAT ACTUALLY EXIST-. It's just the way it is.

josuttis3280d ago

"Good lord, people.

Look...technically, the 360 has the slightly more powerful GPU. This is an engineering FACT. It is not a point that is open to subjective reasoning. It is a (again, SLIGHTLY) more powerful piece of hardware than the PS3's GPU. Period. End of story. It's a numbers game, and it wins. "

My god. Can't stop laughing. It's like watching some little kid whose favorite sports team just got knocked out in a series sweep SCREAMING AND CRYING about how it doesn't change the FACT THAT THEIR LOSING TEAM IS STILL THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!


Someone get the damn straight jackets out. This isn't console fanboyism it is mental illness.

frostypants, honestly guy, go run to your bed and have a good cry. Kick and scream until you get it out of your system and move on with your life. No one cares what brain damage leads someone like to sit around in forums spewing the crap you just did.

Eventually people will stop being amused by people like you and just start banning you out of pity like they do old hardcore Dreamcast fans who still think they are going to convince the world of the TRUE POWER of the Dreamcast's graphics hardware superiority over the PS2. IT'S A FACT!!!!!!

On the one hand you do have to be amazed with the damage control meme about 'the poor liddle RSX being 'helped out' by the Cell'. It is a valiant effort to avoid having to admit everything you ever claimed about the relative power of the PS3 and 360 was a farce. Might have actually gotten somewhere if it wasn't for the fact that the PS3's rendering system and the way engines are written is almost identical to the way the most popular console of all time, the PS2's.

In short, frostypants, get a life. Google a guy that goes by Lazy8s to see what people like you turn out like. Honestly do you really want to be the pathetic guy sitting around in gaming forums still spouting garbage about THE TRUE SPECS OF THE PS3 AND 360!!!

frostypants3280d ago (Edited 3280d ago )

@0.7: Edit: just realized you're pro-360.

Dude...point to a single 360 game that is graphically approaching any 1st party PS3 release in the last 2 years...

It's not open to debate, son.

"the way engines are written is almost identical to the [PS2]"

No. Fail.

EDIT #2: Wait...are you arguing FOR the ps3? I have no idea where you're even coming from...

Sarcasm3280d ago

I thought the RSX specs were never released? So how can anyone really argue which GPU is stronger than the other if you only knows the specs of the 360 GPU?

All in all it really doesn't matter, the games speak for themselves.