With all the industry analysts extolling the reasons you should not buy a PS3, I thought it might be interesting to take a look back at what the pundits thought of the PS2.
It took a little searching, but I found this. Basically, Salon cites some reasons that there's no reason to buy a PS2. If you've been following the news around the PS3 lately, this should sound familiar. Just to list a few…
-The PS2, although powerful, is not revolutionary.
-The PS2 games are not impressive, in fact, the Dreamcast games are better.
-The PS2 is too hard to develop for compared to other systems, and as such, will always lack games.
-Including a DVD player is overkill.
-The N64 and XBox are right around the corner, and both more promising.
Doesn't all that sound familiar? In fact, it's all the same reasons I'm being given for not buying a PS3. We all see how the PS2 turned out, as it's STILL the best selling console on the market. What are the chances that history will repeat itself.
Yes, he is seriously claiming the PS2's and PS3's histories mirror eachother! And then uses them as a basis for claiming the PS3's future success!
Manure. That's all I can see. The guy wasn't thinking during that whole diatribe, and regardless of what he thinks, the PS2 was more than the PS3 when it came out (still is in my mind). Decent hardware that is afforable along with great support make a console. Not supercomputers with huge price tags and ever smaller numbers of developers tagging along.
- The PS3 costs twice as much as the PS2 did at launch
- The PS2 launched a year ahead of the Gamecube and Xbox. The PS3 launched a year AFTER the xbox 360 and 2 days before the Wii.
- Sony had exclusive contracts with third party developers who helped build the original Playstation's success. Said developers have gone multi-platform.
Now let's look at some similarities:
- Both systems were hyped because they included a 'revolutionary new type of processor' that ended up doing fuck-all for the games themselves.
- Both launch run-ups used pre-rendered demos that were claimed to be in-game or real-time.
- Both systems had rushed and untested drive technology which lead to excessive loading times on launch titles when compared to other systems.
skyman8081 wrote: were claimed to be in-game or real-time.
- Both systems had rushed and untested drive technology which lead to excessive loading times on launch titles when compared to other systems.
However, the PS2's drive used the same standard that the competitors eventually did (XBox used DVDs and GameCube used modified mini-DVDs), and even was movie standard.
The PS3 uses one that no other game system uses (sounds like Dreamcast) and is COMPETING as a movie format.
It's true that the PS2 has a very poor launch line-up.
But by this time I'm pretty sure that they had a number of good games out.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Plus, the PS2 had out-of-the-box backwards compatibility with PS titles. There may have been some artifacts; it did still work though.
Very well infact. The botched backwards compatibility of the PAL PS3s was one of the main things that turned me right off.
Ditto. The only game I can see myself needing a PS3 for is MGS4, unless it comes to Xbox 360 sometime later and the PS3 doesn't come down in price or get anything else worth buying one for.
Otherwise, they just don't have the support the PS2 had which made it an easy choice.
Over emphasis on graphical processing? Heavy reliance upon digital downloading service? Numerous breakdowns and defective products? Massive fucking price tags? Hmm, I could swear i've heard these claims made recently.
