Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 23:07:38 GMT -5
I somehow don't think bricked consoles would get you a lot of trade-in money. I mean, I traded in a perfectly fine Xbox once and got $40. You're saying if I permanently disabled it, I'd have gotten more? Well, it's so Sony could recycle the material instead of just throwing it in the garbage. I'm wondering if any console maker could release a new console with a built-in expiration date, maybe it would make the consoles cheaper since they know you would have to buy a new one after the cutoff date. Like say if they were to make the new PS4.5 with options. An expensive "forever" version, a middle price version that bricks on January 1, 2030, and a cheap one that bricks on January 1, 2025. And they would tell people in advance, so there'd be no lawsuits. And Nintendo and Microsoft could do the same thing with their new consoles.
|
|
LastCall
Crow T. Robot
Never Asked For This
Getting dark. Bring a FlashLight.
Posts: 43,268
|
Post by LastCall on Jul 30, 2016 23:13:45 GMT -5
I somehow don't think bricked consoles would get you a lot of trade-in money. I mean, I traded in a perfectly fine Xbox once and got $40. You're saying if I permanently disabled it, I'd have gotten more? Well, it's so Sony could recycle the material instead of just throwing it in the garbage. I'm wondering if any console maker could release a new console with a built-in expiration date, maybe it would make the consoles cheaper since they know you would have to buy a new one after the cutoff date. Like say if they were to make the new PS4.5 with options. An expensive "forever" version, a middle price version that bricks on January 1, 2030, and a cheap one that bricks on January 1, 2025. And they would tell people in advance, so there'd be no lawsuits. The hardware will be long outdated by the time the bricking would take place. They won't really save much on consoles that are already being sold at a loss.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Jul 30, 2016 23:32:00 GMT -5
I somehow don't think bricked consoles would get you a lot of trade-in money. I mean, I traded in a perfectly fine Xbox once and got $40. You're saying if I permanently disabled it, I'd have gotten more? Well, it's so Sony could recycle the material instead of just throwing it in the garbage. I'm wondering if any console maker could release a new console with a built-in expiration date, maybe it would make the consoles cheaper since they know you would have to buy a new one after the cutoff date. Like say if they were to make the new PS4.5 with options. An expensive "forever" version, a middle price version that bricks on January 1, 2030, and a cheap one that bricks on January 1, 2025. And they would tell people in advance, so there'd be no lawsuits. And Nintendo and Microsoft could do the same thing with their new consoles. If all the major gaming companies started making their systems obsolete on a specified date, I can safely say that my console buying days would be finished. I still play regularly on all of my original systems (going right back to the NES) and it would be a travesty if original systems were deliberately killed off.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 30, 2016 23:32:22 GMT -5
I somehow don't think bricked consoles would get you a lot of trade-in money. I mean, I traded in a perfectly fine Xbox once and got $40. You're saying if I permanently disabled it, I'd have gotten more? Well, it's so Sony could recycle the material instead of just throwing it in the garbage. I'm wondering if any console maker could release a new console with a built-in expiration date, maybe it would make the consoles cheaper since they know you would have to buy a new one after the cutoff date. Like say if they were to make the new PS4.5 with options. An expensive "forever" version, a middle price version that bricks on January 1, 2030, and a cheap one that bricks on January 1, 2025. And they would tell people in advance, so there'd be no lawsuits. Yeah, that wouldn't work at all. First, Sony would have to spend so much money to set up a trade-in promotion and they'd get very little returns from it to the point where it's not practical. Second, I don't think many people would want a game console with an expiration date. Especially nowadays, game consoles are already expensive purchases. From the console itself to games, controllers, online multiplayer subscriptions; you're buying into an ecosystem. Sure, you could set the date 10 or 15 years down the line and hope the next generation starts before millions of consoles start intentionally dying, but what if PS4's lifespan lasts 10 years? Are people going to go out and buy another expensive game console because their last expensive game console doesn't work anymore? I kinda doubt it. Also, I don't see any reasonable way of actually implementing a "planned obsoletion" strategy like this. In a world where just about every DRM scheme has been defeated, the only thing I could see not getting hacked is a physical component, and then you have to worry about false positives or hardware failures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 23:58:39 GMT -5
Maybe a better idea would be instead of bricking, maybe just refuse to let the PS3 access the Internet after January 1, 2020, so at least the continued existence of the consoles would stop being Sony's/public's problem, and the PS3s would be just like NESes, standalone systems that are no longer the responsibility of society.
As in: Go ahead and continue using the machine on your own, but the rest of the world wants nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Jul 31, 2016 0:03:30 GMT -5
What if the bricking date was put out to January 1, 2030, and instead of free, it becomes a 20% discount instead? Are you like, field testing this idea for Sony? f***ing no. Not ever. People paid for the console, they get to use it however long the machine lasts. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jul 31, 2016 0:04:56 GMT -5
I have a PS3 and a PS4. What do I get when the PS3 bricks, a pony? A tour of the Wonka factory?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 0:07:29 GMT -5
I have a PS3 and a PS4. What do I get when the PS3 bricks, a pony? A tour of the Wonka factory? Perhaps you could get any free PS4 game of your choice in that circumstance. Wouldn't that be worth it?
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 31, 2016 0:10:09 GMT -5
Slightly related, it pisses me off when developers don't update things for the PS3 as it's "a decade old". Example: Payday 2. It's an average game that becomes great when you play online. Sadly, it crashes half the time and locks up the PS3. Whilst I can understand not producing new content for the game on the system, at least make the existing game f***ing work properly. It's still being sold on the PS Store, so there's no excuse for it being borderline unplayable.
|
|
Rave
El Dandy
Perpetually Bored
Posts: 8,154
|
Post by Rave on Jul 31, 2016 0:23:09 GMT -5
There's some kinda weird vendetta against PS3s going on in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jul 31, 2016 0:29:28 GMT -5
I have a PS3 and a PS4. What do I get when the PS3 bricks, a pony? A tour of the Wonka factory? Perhaps you could get any free PS4 game of your choice in that circumstance. Wouldn't that be worth it? Nope. I paid a few hundred bucks for the system and you're offering a $60 value to kill it. Not to add to harshness of the thread, but you really don't seem to have a great grasp of consumer relations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 0:59:25 GMT -5
Nope. I paid a few hundred bucks for the system and you're offering a $60 value to kill it. Not to add to harshness of the thread, but you really don't seem to have a great grasp of consumer relations. But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. Weird thing is, I was expecting a massive flood of PS3s on the used market then the PS4 was released.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Jul 31, 2016 1:03:34 GMT -5
Nope. I paid a few hundred bucks for the system and you're offering a $60 value to kill it. Not to add to harshness of the thread, but you really don't seem to have a great grasp of consumer relations. But the system is only worth about $60 now, isn't it? Maybe less. When I last checked, new PS3s were going for around £160 here in the UK which is just over $200.
|
|
The Yes Man
Unicron
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by The Yes Man on Jul 31, 2016 1:04:22 GMT -5
I have a PS3 and a PS4. What do I get when the PS3 bricks, a pony? A tour of the Wonka factory? Perhaps you could get any free PS4 game of your choice in that circumstance. Wouldn't that be worth it? A free $60 game to replace the console that in total with games, controllers, etc. cost me probably well over $1000? No. No deal. Plus, the idea of never being able to play Red Dead Redemption again terrifies me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 1:12:07 GMT -5
Ah. In that case, they'd have to set the brick date to 2035 or 2040, if applicable.
In the meantime, they could cut Internet access from the PS3 starting in 2018 or 2020 instead, to help people ease off the system.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jul 31, 2016 1:16:04 GMT -5
I have a crazy idea. What if instead of this, Sony did an update that didn't brick or limit the functionality of the PS3 at all?
Go for it in the comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 1:17:43 GMT -5
I have a crazy idea. What if instead of this, Sony did an update that didn't brick or limit the functionality of the PS3 at all? Go for it in the comments. But then Sony would have a similar problem like Microsoft did with Windows XP.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jul 31, 2016 1:25:15 GMT -5
I have a crazy idea. What if instead of this, Sony did an update that didn't brick or limit the functionality of the PS3 at all? Go for it in the comments. But then Sony would have a similar problem like Microsoft did with Windows XP. I don't know anything about that, and I'll give you the benefit of doubt, because I don't want to look it up. I'll just say if a company need to make their prior product models literally obsolete in order to sell the new one, they need a better business model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 1:41:29 GMT -5
I don't know anything about that, and I'll give you the benefit of doubt, because I don't want to look it up. I'll just say if a company need to make their prior product models literally obsolete in order to sell the new one, they need a better business model. Basically, from Windows 3.x to 98 SE, Microsoft generally had no problem convincing people to keep getting the newest version. Then XP comes out in 2001. Normally a new version of Windows came out every 3 years, so the public wasn't really stuck/ingrained with a particular version. However, this time, it takes 5 years to make Vista, and Vista sucked really bad. By the time Windows 7 came out in 2009, XP had 8 years to basically be ingrained in the public's general usage, and would be harder to let go than any other Windows version in history. Microsoft already guaranteed to support XP until April 8, 2014, so people have an additional 5 years to get comfortable with the old Windows from late 2001. Then the day finally hits, and the public is stuck with a then 12+ year old Windows that is too old, yet too hard to abandon. The danger is, the longer the PS3 goes, the more people will be invested in it, and the harder it will be to get rid of it once it is too old. This would be Sony's chance to jump ahead of the curve while there's still time. If people are still using the PS3 when the PS5 (and maybe even PS6) comes out, then that's 3/4 concurrent generations that Sony has to support/public has to deal with. It's not like consoles in the 80s/90s, which existed on their own merit and weren't dependent on the future. This is a more interconnected console world.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 31, 2016 1:45:07 GMT -5
I just got a PS3 last year. As a dude in my late thirties, I probably won't get a new system for a long time, maybe ever. So no, they shouldn't screw over consumers who have bought their product to get them to buy more. That's like Mr. Burns blocking the sun level of shitty ideas.
|
|