OMG!! PS2 Article from 2000, CREEPY.. Must read!!

Out of all the PS2/PS3 comparisons I have seen so far no one has pointed out the most obvious piece of information that voids this enitre topic:

"In addition to Sega, Sony also has two 800-pound gaming gorillas breathing down its neck: Nintendo and Microsoft. Nintendo plans to release its powerful GameCube system next year. Don't downplay Nintendo's chances either. Despite having a rocky time with the N64, Nintendo has some of the most lucrative franchises in video-game history on its side (Zelda, Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, etc.) and a superb marketing machine.

The real wild card here, though, is Microsoft, which plans to release its X-Box game system next year. The Xbox will have even more powerful hardware than the PS2, and Microsoft has the marketing muscle and rapport with developers to do the PS2 real damage. Unlike Sony, Microsoft is taking great pains to make sure the X-Box is easy to make games for -- developers will also be able to easily port games from the PC to the X-Box, thus insuring a huge supply of games."

So for all of the twisting of information Sony fans are doing to save face over the PS3 disaster please just stop. The PS2's only competition on the market was the Dreamcast and most gamers and devs wanted to wait and see what Sony had to offer before jumping into that generation of gaming.

As of now there are two strong rivals on the market at the same time as Sony this gen, so all of the forgiveness gamers once had for the PS2 (lack of games, promised features, etc.etc) is now lost due to gamers having more than one choice to satisfy their gaming needs. Devs took initiative this gen and realized that going multiplat is the way to financial success, instead of waiting around for Sony a year or two while the other systems died off from lack of third-party support.

Game On....

I read the article yesterday. The best part is easily "Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play DVD movies is a huge selling point."

Classic.  

But Sony, intoxicated with success from the first PlayStation, forgot the first rule of the video-game industry: Software sells systems. If you make it hard for developers to produce good games then there's no reason for people to buy the system. This oversight has already cost Sony some goodwill -- developers are howling about how hard it is to create games for the system. In an interview with Time magazine, John Carmack, one of the developers behind such massively popular games as Doom and Quake, said that the "PS2 is definitely more powerful than Dreamcast. But it's less convenient to extract performance from it."

Thats my favourite paragraph,lol

[QUOTE="palaric8"]

The games that are being released at the same time as the system don't rise much, if at all, above games available for Sega's rival (and cheaper) Dreamcast video-game system

wow.sounds like the 360

SeanBond

It'd be great if the 360 could continue in the DC's tradition of having lots of offbeat games, but I'd prefer if this time, the system didn't quickly get discontinued. ;)

it just needs to die like the dc and all its game come to pc, the ps1 vs n64 was a much better gen than last.  when ps1 was the main platform the mass games were made for and you get far better games than when devs will make the games for 4 systems, 1 system = much better games going by history. 

wii and ps3 would be perfect

But Sony, intoxicated with success from the first PlayStation, forgot the first rule of the video-game industry: Software sells systems. If you make it hard for developers to produce good games then there's no reason for people to buy the system. This oversight has already cost Sony some goodwill -- developers are howling about how hard it is to create games for the system. In an interview with Time magazine, John Carmack, one of the developers behind such massively popular games as Doom and Quake, said that the "PS2 is definitely more powerful than Dreamcast. But it's less convenient to extract performance from it."

Thats my favourite paragraph,lol

gsx1100

Wow, that's just...surreal. You were right TC, it is creepy! 

Out of all the PS2/PS3 comparisons I have seen so far no one has pointed out the most obvious piece of information that voids this enitre topic:

"In addition to Sega, Sony also has two 800-pound gaming gorillas breathing down its neck: Nintendo and Microsoft. Nintendo plans to release its powerful GameCube system next year. Don't downplay Nintendo's chances either. Despite having a rocky time with the N64, Nintendo has some of the most lucrative franchises in video-game history on its side (Zelda, Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, etc.) and a superb marketing machine.

The real wild card here, though, is Microsoft, which plans to release its X-Box game system next year. The Xbox will have even more powerful hardware than the PS2, and Microsoft has the marketing muscle and rapport with developers to do the PS2 real damage. Unlike Sony, Microsoft is taking great pains to make sure the X-Box is easy to make games for -- developers will also be able to easily port games from the PC to the X-Box, thus insuring a huge supply of games."

So for all of the twisting of information Sony fans are doing to save face over the PS3 disaster please just stop. The PS2's only competition on the market was the Dreamcast and most gamers and devs wanted to wait and see what Sony had to offer before jumping into that generation of gaming.

As of now there are two strong rivals on the market at the same time as Sony this gen, so all of the forgiveness gamers once had for the PS2 (lack of games, promised features, etc.etc) is now lost due to gamers having more than one choice to satisfy their gaming needs. Devs took initiative this gen and realized that going multiplat is the way to financial success, instead of waiting around for Sony a year or two while the other systems died off from lack of third-party support.

Game On....

FatalDomain

No one is "twisting information". I doubt anyone could read that and not think that it's similar to the situation is right now with the PS3. But that's really all it is: similar. If people said, which they haven't, that the situation and conditions were exactly the same, such that the PS3 will dominate again like its predecessor, then your argument would be valid.

Woah, that is freaky. No surprise though, I remember PS2 being hated on quite a bit. PS3 hate has dropped significantly in the last few months and a lot of media attention has turned into Wii praise and Elite bashing, so it's perfect for Sony to make a bang later in the year.

"Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play DVD movies is a huge selling point."

LOL. Are they? Are they really? :lol:

That made me laugh. 

[QUOTE="FatalDomain"]

Out of all the PS2/PS3 comparisons I have seen so far no one has pointed out the most obvious piece of information that voids this enitre topic:

"In addition to Sega, Sony also has two 800-pound gaming gorillas breathing down its neck: Nintendo and Microsoft. Nintendo plans to release its powerful GameCube system next year. Don't downplay Nintendo's chances either. Despite having a rocky time with the N64, Nintendo has some of the most lucrative franchises in video-game history on its side (Zelda, Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, etc.) and a superb marketing machine.

The real wild card here, though, is Microsoft, which plans to release its X-Box game system next year. The Xbox will have even more powerful hardware than the PS2, and Microsoft has the marketing muscle and rapport with developers to do the PS2 real damage. Unlike Sony, Microsoft is taking great pains to make sure the X-Box is easy to make games for -- developers will also be able to easily port games from the PC to the X-Box, thus insuring a huge supply of games."

So for all of the twisting of information Sony fans are doing to save face over the PS3 disaster please just stop. The PS2's only competition on the market was the Dreamcast and most gamers and devs wanted to wait and see what Sony had to offer before jumping into that generation of gaming.

As of now there are two strong rivals on the market at the same time as Sony this gen, so all of the forgiveness gamers once had for the PS2 (lack of games, promised features, etc.etc) is now lost due to gamers having more than one choice to satisfy their gaming needs. Devs took initiative this gen and realized that going multiplat is the way to financial success, instead of waiting around for Sony a year or two while the other systems died off from lack of third-party support.

Game On....

Mizuke

No one is "twisting information". I doubt anyone could read that and not think that it's similar to the situation is right now with the PS3. But that's really all it is: similar. If people said, which they haven't, that the situation and conditions were exactly the same, such that the PS3 will dominate again like its predecessor, then your argument would be valid.

Of course the industry reactions would be the same for the PS2/PS3, Sony is using the exact same business model. Its not the industry reaction/comments Im talking about, its the reaction of this board that makes it seem like this is such a surprise..."ooooh its sooo creepy" kind of statements. And while noboby has come in yet with the blantant faboyism touting: "Sony did it with the PS2 and it was great, PS3 will dominate" comments, it was implied...I was just merely pointing out info (if not the most important piece of info) that lead to the PS2's success that is cloaked to those using fanboy goggles...

Game On... 

A lot of things have changed since then, there are too many varying factors now ranging from Xbox actually having a fanbase to the Wii's suprising success. The 360 also came out earlier which leads one to question how powerful a year head start can be. I dunno, I don't see history repeating itself in the respect on console will sell millions more than the others. I think the field is going to be much more evened out this gen.

 

*puts crystal ball back in pocket*

duncanvk

Agreed.  The situation appears similar on the surface, but it really isn't, and the outcome will be totally different. 

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

I didnt think anyone bought the PS2 for its DVD player. no one I know did.

But anyway it the article was written before the launch. I'm pretty sure that its press was getting better by this time and i bet it was selling better. and it also had a year to get rid of bad press. (sega was already floundering because of piracy and they were running out of money)

palaric8

all ps2 and ps1 games in south america are copies ,piracy.

thats way ps2 and ps1 won I think,piracy,it just easy to copy.

Aside from a few details, it's amazing how close that article is to the current situation!

There are obvious differences, but the similarities are huge! 

I didnt think anyone bought the PS2 for its DVD player. no one I know did.

But anyway it the article was written before the launch. I'm pretty sure that its press was getting better by this time and i bet it was selling better. and it also had a year to get rid of bad press. (sega was already floundering because of piracy and they were running out of money)

laughingman42

Actually, I bought the PS2 for it's DVD player, it was without a doubt a major selling point to the casual crowd. 

OMG!! When I was reading this I got wierded out lol, I mean just read this article from the year 2000 about the PS2. The simliraties are so close its scary!! Very intresting to see how people hated on the PS2 like they are with the PS3. Will history repeat it self..

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/playstation_rant/index.html

A Quick story about the PS2, read it and tell me history won't repeat itself...

 

:

 

Don't buy that PlayStation
It's overpriced and has no online access, and hardly any good games are available to play on it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jim Lynch

Oct. 27, 2000 | Whether or not Sony was sincere in its claim that a supply crisis led it to cut its initial shipments of the PlayStation2 to just 500,000 units, there's little question that the corporation was successful in the arena of hype marketing. Lines of obsessed PlayStation fans were a news staple Wednesday. But is the so-called superconsole really worth staying up all night for?

No. The PS2 is not the revolutionary device that Sony's marketing department would have you believe. Don't get me wrong; it's definitely the most powerful video-game machine on the planet right now. But that's not enough.

---

The PS2's stats are certainly impressive; it's got hardware power to burn. But so what? There's just not much software available that can take advantage of it. The games that are being released at the same time as the system don't rise much, if at all, above games available for Sega's rival (and cheaper) Dreamcast video-game system.

And don't expect a huge number of quality games anytime soon. Sony has reversed positions with Sega and stupidly released a system that is in many ways a game developer's nightmare. Sega, learning from its Saturn debacle, went out of its way to make the Dreamcast easy to develop games for. But Sony, intoxicated with success from the first PlayStation, forgot the first rule of the video-game industry: Software sells systems. If you make it hard for developers to produce good games then there's no reason for people to buy the system. This oversight has already cost Sony some goodwill -- developers are howling about how hard it is to create games for the system. In an interview with Time magazine, John Carmack, one of the developers behind such massively popular games as Doom and Quake, said that the "PS2 is definitely more powerful than Dreamcast. But it's less convenient to extract performance from it."

Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play DVD movies is a huge selling point. But true technophiles and hardcore gamers probably already have DVD drives. I'm a good case in point. I already own a Sony DVD player, so I could not care less if the $299 PS2 can play movies. I'd rather pay less and get a machine that just plays games instead.

In comparison, the Sega Dreamcast sells for $149 and has a giant library of games already available. Sega also has an online game network, Seganet. The Dreamcast comes with a built-in 56K modem and Sega will soon release a broadband (cable/DSL) adapter for it. (The PS2 does not ship with a modem.) Sega is banking on the appeal of multiplayer online gaming, even going so far as to rebate the entire cost of a Dreamcast to players who sign up for Seganet. And for the first time ever we actually have cross-platform online gaming -- Seganet lets Dreamcast players compete against PC players in games like Quake 3. Sony, on the other hand, is promising online gaming later on but currently has nothing to offer purchasers of the PS2.

In addition to Sega, Sony also has two 800-pound gaming gorillas breathing down its neck: Nintendo and Microsoft. Nintendo plans to release its powerful GameCube system next year. Don't downplay Nintendo's chances either. Despite having a rocky time with the N64, Nintendo has some of the most lucrative franchises in video-game history on its side (Zelda, Super Mario Brothers, Metroid, etc.) and a superb marketing machine.

The real wild card here, though, is Microsoft, which plans to release its X-Box game system next year. The Xbox will have even more powerful hardware than the PS2, and Microsoft has the marketing muscle and rapport with developers to do the PS2 real damage. Unlike Sony, Microsoft is taking great pains to make sure the X-Box is easy to make games for -- developers will also be able to easily port games from the PC to the X-Box, thus insuring a huge supply of games.

So should you feel bad if you can't get a PS2 right away? No way. If you wait a while you'll avoid all the lines and scuffling in stores and you'll end up with a much better selection of games. And if you wait long enough for the upcoming systems from Microsoft and Nintendo, you'll probably see a cut in the price of the PS2 as Sony tries to ward off both threats.

Hardcore gamers aren't known for their patience, but this is one occasion when playing it smart may mean not playing at all. For now.

Ahammer80

I remember the story and I do realize the complaints about PS3 are extremely similar.  All the articles claiming they were the nostradamus of the gaming industry, they all ended up completely wrong......I think it'll be the same thing this time as well as long as SOE plays their cards right.

Here is the key differences this time however:

1) Xbox was released a year after the PS2 which means Xbox was dealing with 2nd generation PS2 games while they only had launch titles.  This is flipped, PS3 was released a year after the X360 and PS3 is competing against 2nd generation X360 games.

2) The pricepoints were the same basically back in 2001.  Xbox may have been a little more expensive but not by much.  There certainly wasn't a $300 price difference.

3) Key third party exclusives are multiplatform now.  The old advantage of having nearly all the great games on their system only is gone.  Grandtheft is a great example.  I still believe games such as Final Fantasy hold a tremendous amount of weight in the gaming community so PS3 needs to keep games like those if they want to win again.

Those three issues change the setting.  I think people are attacking PS3 for the wrong reasons though.  PS3 IMO is the best machine overall, it's actually common sense HOWEVER the pricepoint makes it a near impossible sale to anyone who is not a SOE fanboy.  Maybe if they released the console at the same time as X360 so they could have equal software......they didn't. 

PS3 has an uphill battle and it doesn't help that a $300 price difference is dragging them back down that hill.  They need to drop the price this, which will be possible since manufacturing costs for the Cell are supposedly getting cheaper as is the cost for the Blu-Ray technology.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"]

I didnt think anyone bought the PS2 for its DVD player. no one I know did.

But anyway it the article was written before the launch. I'm pretty sure that its press was getting better by this time and i bet it was selling better. and it also had a year to get rid of bad press. (sega was already floundering because of piracy and they were running out of money)

palaric8

all ps2 and ps1 games in south america are copies ,piracy.

thats way ps2 and ps1 won I think,piracy,it just easy to copy.

Almost true. While I do think the PS One era was the era of the pirated games (my own collection of PS1 games are all pirated, We simply could not find the originals to buy here in Brazil, even now they are scarce and costs an arm, such a rare find they are). But all my PS2 games are original, they became quite easy to buy (even at a price that makes me gag...). I cant say about other countries, but its problably the same all around.

PS- The piracy conties, Im afraid, but not as strong as the earlies/mid 90's. It got way better compared to those years.

A lot of things have changed since then, there are too many varying factors now ranging from Xbox actually having a fanbase to the Wii's suprising success. The 360 also came out earlier which leads one to question how powerful a year head start can be. I dunno, I don't see history repeating itself in the respect on console will sell millions more than the others. I think the field is going to be much more evened out this gen.

 

*puts crystal ball back in pocket*

duncanvk

and that crystal ball better stay there... 

interesting read.

the differences between the ps2 and ps3 are vastly different;

1. dvd players were cheaper than the ps2 at the time of the launch.  This is what really made DVD mainstream... affordability... the ps3 nor bluray has affordability as proven by the poor ps3 sales.

2. sony's only competitor was Sega... which was at the time being poorly mismanaged and with limited monetarhy resources to compete against sony.  This time MS is the competitor with more money and resources than any other company on the planet, good management, a sound business model and key strategic decision making. 

3. The interest in the ps2's launch was WAAAAAAAAAAAY more than the interest in the ps3's launch. Fueling hype and sales.  The ps3's launch was lukewarm at best with subsequent sales dropping to a fraction of the ps2's subsequent sales.

4. the ps2 didn't have "100 million loyal customers" at their launch and still created excitement.  The ps3 has the "100 million looyal customers" yet has not penetrated 2% of their own market.  Very, very bad.....

there are some similarities but to say they're are the same isn't correct.  The diffence being, this time the ps3 really is failing...

I remember the story and I do realize the complaints about PS3 are extremely similar. All the articles claiming they were the nostradamus of the gaming industry, they all ended up completely wrong......I think it'll be the same thing this time as well as long as SOE plays their cards right.

Here is the key differences this time however:

1) Xbox was released a year after the PS2 which means Xbox was dealing with 2nd generation PS2 games while they only had launch titles. This is flipped, PS3 was released a year after the X360 and PS3 is competing against 2nd generation X360 games.

2) The pricepoints were the same basically back in 2001. Xbox may have been a little more expensive but not by much. There certainly wasn't a $300 price difference.

3) Key third party exclusives are multiplatform now. The old advantage of having nearly all the great games on their system only is gone. Grandtheft is a great example. I still believe games such as Final Fantasy hold a tremendous amount of weight in the gaming community so PS3 needs to keep games like those if they want to win again.

Those three issues change the setting. I think people are attacking PS3 for the wrong reasons though. PS3 IMO is the best machine overall, it's actually common sense HOWEVER the pricepoint makes it a near impossible sale to anyone who is not a SOE fanboy. Maybe if they released the console at the same time as X360 so they could have equal software......they didn't.

PS3 has an uphill battle and it doesn't help that a $300 price difference is dragging them back down that hill. They need to drop the price this, which will be possible since manufacturing costs for the Cell are supposedly getting cheaper as is the cost for the Blu-Ray technology.

darthogre

1) PS3 was in the same situation as PS2 with Dreamcast. So there is no flipping. It's the same thing!

2) PS2 was $100 more than the Dreamcast when it was release. Today PS3 is only $200 dollars more than 360.

3) Resident Evil: Code Veronica was the top multiplatform game back then. However exclusive were the main keypoint of both systems. As of today PS3 still has the largest list of exclusive titles. Read up on it you'll be shocked!

Your points or something to question, but again their the same as seven years ago. I knew all along PS3 was in the same situation as PS2, but the thing is lemmings are more gossip talking then hedgehogs. I think the reason is information from forums and gaming website are taking more seriously now, than  in 2000. 360 has an uphill battle my friend. You have to be silly to think otherwise. How does a 12 year veteran having an uphill battle against a 6 year player?

I remember the story and I do realize the complaints about PS3 are extremely similar. All the articles claiming they were the nostradamus of the gaming industry, they all ended up completely wrong......I think it'll be the same thing this time as well as long as SOE plays their cards right.

Here is the key differences this time however:

1) Xbox was released a year after the PS2 which means Xbox was dealing with 2nd generation PS2 games while they only had launch titles. This is flipped, PS3 was released a year after the X360 and PS3 is competing against 2nd generation X360 games.

2) The pricepoints were the same basically back in 2001. Xbox may have been a little more expensive but not by much. There certainly wasn't a $300 price difference.

3) Key third party exclusives are multiplatform now. The old advantage of having nearly all the great games on their system only is gone. Grandtheft is a great example. I still believe games such as Final Fantasy hold a tremendous amount of weight in the gaming community so PS3 needs to keep games like those if they want to win again.

Those three issues change the setting. I think people are attacking PS3 for the wrong reasons though. PS3 IMO is the best machine overall, it's actually common sense HOWEVER the pricepoint makes it a near impossible sale to anyone who is not a SOE fanboy. Maybe if they released the console at the same time as X360 so they could have equal software......they didn't.

PS3 has an uphill battle and it doesn't help that a $300 price difference is dragging them back down that hill. They need to drop the price this, which will be possible since manufacturing costs for the Cell are supposedly getting cheaper as is the cost for the Blu-Ray technology.

darthogre

interesting read.

the differences between the ps2 and ps3 are vastly different;

1. dvd players were cheaper than the ps2 at the time of the launch. This is what really made DVD mainstream... affordability... the ps3 nor bluray has affordability as proven by the poor ps3 sales.

 tango90101

DVD players and PS2 were the same price. Talk about fabricating a story. The main reason the PS2 sold was it had a DVD player on top of that it was a gaming system for the same price as a DVD player. 

 PS3 = 600$

PS3 have no game

PS3 have a bad game line-up until late 08.

PS3 didn't get the head start .

Japan isn't PS3 land , it's wii land .

PS3 is getting outsold by the 360/wii/GBA in US and is dying fast in UK , it flopped hard in france , is dead in australia . 

PS3 =/=PS2  

I like it. Not the article, which is completely irrelevant to this day and age ("bu bu but the PS2 got badmouthed and won... yeah the PSP got badmouthed and lost, and I've seen news articles as recent as April 5, 2007 talking about the dead pixel problems that still haven't been fixed from launch)

News articles are meaningless, my gut has *never* been wrong. I called the Sega CD, 32x, and Saturn failures. I predicted the PS1 victory over the N64, I called the PS2 victory last generation, and the stuggle the Xbox would have. So please, spare me. I called Gameboy over Gamegear - and you're all feeling the same thing I am - awareness. Fanboys don't have this gut instinct - if you are loyal to *any* company your gut instinct is replaced by blind devotion, which is no better than strapping yourself to the back of a train and hoping it goes where you want to go. 

It's $600. There is no possible way to ignore this. If the PS3 did what the PS2 did last generation I would say things are different. What did the PS2 do? Matched the price of the most powerful console on the market - the Xbox - drop for drop. Hmm. So, the PSP should be $399 now, and drop as needed to beat the snot out of the 360.

If Sony was doing this I'd say "Sony wins, hands down" - they'd lose a ton of money, I mean a *ton* of money, but they'd win the war.

PS3 = 600$

PS3 have no game

PS3 have a bad game line-up until late 08.

PS3 didn't get the head start .

Japan isn't PS3 land , it's wii land .

PS3 is getting outsold by the 360/wii/GBA in US and is dying fast in UK , it flopped hard in france , is dead in australia .

PS3 =/=PS2

Prid3r

I think you know more about the PS3 than your own Xbox360. Goes to show how much you care for it... 

[QUOTE="Prid3r"]

PS3 = 600$

PS3 have no game

PS3 have a bad game line-up until late 08.

PS3 didn't get the head start .

Japan isn't PS3 land , it's wii land .

PS3 is getting outsold by the 360/wii/GBA in US and is dying fast in UK , it flopped hard in france , is dead in australia .

PS3 =/=PS2

shungokustasu

I think you know more about the PS3 than your own Xbox360. Goes to show how much you care for it...

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

interesting read.

the differences between the ps2 and ps3 are vastly different;

1. dvd players were cheaper than the ps2 at the time of the launch. This is what really made DVD mainstream... affordability... the ps3 nor bluray has affordability as proven by the poor ps3 sales.

 shungokustasu

DVD players and PS2 were the same price. Talk about fabricating a story. The main reason the PS2 sold was it had a DVD player on top of that it was a gaming system for the same price as a DVD player. 

wrong.  the ps2 launced at $299 USD while DVD players were selling at Walmart and Best Buy for under $200...

you really need to know your history before posting again...;)

ps.. and the MAIN reason the ps2 sold so well was sony's constant "BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE" marketting campaign as the ps2's launch library was pretty weak...

I met a girl through myspace that had 47 friends and I have 38. When you add 47, you get 11! When you add 38 you get 11! OMG!! We should be married!!! See? I can read too much into something as well. You are all foolish for thinking this means anything.Titan_of_NYC

Horrible attempt at damage control. The similarities are there and I wouldn't be surprised if this gen ended up like last one.

It's interesting that John Carmack hasn't change a bit.

In an interview with Time magazine, John Carmack, one of the developers behind such massively popular games as Doom and Quake, said that the "PS2 is definitely more powerful than Dreamcast. But it's less convenient to extract performance from it."

KotakuSummary: Carmack says the PS3 is technically a more powerful rig than the 360, but that power is off-set by being a pain in the ass to program for. Which might explain why the PS3 games on show at E3 looked no better than the 360 games being developed one year in to the game's life cycle.

 PS3 = 600$   Yep.

PS3 have no game  Its your opinion, if the games that are out/are comming dont interest you is a thing, but that they exist and interest someone is another.

PS3 have a bad game line-up until late 08.   Once again, its your opinion.

PS3 didn't get the head start . Yep.

Japan isn't PS3 land , it's wii land . Yep, but its not over yet, and it shows, for the greatest franchises there are still with Sony.

PS3 is getting outsold by the 360/wii/GBA in US and is dying fast in UK , it flopped hard in france , is dead in australia . Almost right. Dying fast in UK is wrong (82% drop in sales? From 165k to aprox. 26k per week isnt dying, and its obvious that it would drop in sales...)X360 is even less than that, well Im not sure, but neither are you. France...not sure either, but it seens it sold well enough. Australia..it beaten all records and its dead there...yeah.. right. 

PS3 =/=PS2 Yep, it sure is.

Prid3r

Well, what more can I say? The TC post some similarities and we have the fanboy wars running rampant once again. PS3 is doing fine, away from the amazing sales from the Wii, beating X360 in the same time period (and now its outselling it worldwide, thanks to its oh so poor sales in Japan...who would think that selling only 70-80k units per months would be so important heh?), and the games are coming. I wont call you a fanboy, but your opinion shows great bias, and thats Ok by me, but they are mostly your opinion, and not facts.

[QUOTE="ZeldaMaster32"]I approve of this thread. It's like a modern day article.:oAhammer80

OMG DUDE I know, isnt it crazy!! I mean my god just look at the simliarties between the dreamcast/PS2 war and the 360/ps3 war!! Man I really got creeped out reading that

LUK OIZMGZ??!?!?!?! WAUURUIIRD?!

but seriously, editorials are all over the places stating lots of things.  

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

I remember the story and I do realize the complaints about PS3 are extremely similar. All the articles claiming they were the nostradamus of the gaming industry, they all ended up completely wrong......I think it'll be the same thing this time as well as long as SOE plays their cards right.

Here is the key differences this time however:

1) Xbox was released a year after the PS2 which means Xbox was dealing with 2nd generation PS2 games while they only had launch titles. This is flipped, PS3 was released a year after the X360 and PS3 is competing against 2nd generation X360 games.

2) The pricepoints were the same basically back in 2001. Xbox may have been a little more expensive but not by much. There certainly wasn't a $300 price difference.

3) Key third party exclusives are multiplatform now. The old advantage of having nearly all the great games on their system only is gone. Grandtheft is a great example. I still believe games such as Final Fantasy hold a tremendous amount of weight in the gaming community so PS3 needs to keep games like those if they want to win again.

Those three issues change the setting. I think people are attacking PS3 for the wrong reasons though. PS3 IMO is the best machine overall, it's actually common sense HOWEVER the pricepoint makes it a near impossible sale to anyone who is not a SOE fanboy. Maybe if they released the console at the same time as X360 so they could have equal software......they didn't.

PS3 has an uphill battle and it doesn't help that a $300 price difference is dragging them back down that hill. They need to drop the price this, which will be possible since manufacturing costs for the Cell are supposedly getting cheaper as is the cost for the Blu-Ray technology.

Squall_Griver

1. Microsoft is not Sega. Sega was on life support when the PS2 came out. It only took a stiff breeze to take that out, and that allowed Sony to switch positions before the XBox launch. Microsoft is financially strong and can endure the long haul, like they did last gen. Not only that, they already have notably strong titles like Gears of War before the PS3 can serious get out of the gate. The 360 already has several million-plus-sellers. How many can Sony claim?

2. You didn't just lose Devil May Cry. There's also Assassins Creed, Virtua Fighter, and let's not forget Grand Theft Auto, one of the linchpins of the PS2's success last gen. And for what's left in the exclusives department, Microsoft is developing answers to them like the Mistwalker RPGs, Forza 2 and PGR4.

[QUOTE="Solid-CELL"]LOLZ at playing online with 56K :lol:palaric8

Well, 56k worked pretty much perfectly for Phantasy Star Online, which was amazing back then. My first ever online gaming experience was with PSO.

It's actually true because I remember many articles like these around the time the PS2 launched. Everyone was behind the Dreamcast........sainraja

notice it says playstation rant for a reason ;)

Two big differences, the sales of the PS2 were much stronger than the PS3 at this point in its life, plus it was a year early when compared to Nintendo and MSaxt113

A lot of things have changed since then, there are too many varying factors now ranging from Xbox actually having a fanbase to the Wii's suprising success. The 360 also came out earlier which leads one to question how powerful a year head start can be. I dunno, I don't see history repeating itself in the respect on console will sell millions more than the others. I think the field is going to be much more evened out this gen.

 

*puts crystal ball back in pocket* 

duncanvk

Couldn't have said it beter:)

The competition is a lot stronger this time around.

thats the only negative article i've ever seen on the ps2 when it came out.  ps2 was touted as the big thing by everyone, except this guy.  not to mention, its one guy's opinion as opposed to the actual problems the ps3 has had in articles.

"No. The PS2 is not the revolutionary device that Sony's marketing department would have you believe."
-absolute fact.

2. You didn't just lose Devil May Cry. There's also Assassins Creed, Virtua Fighter, and let's not forget Grand Theft Auto, one of the linchpins of the PS2's success last gen. And for what's left in the exclusives department, Microsoft is developing answers to them like the Mistwalker RPGs, Forza 2 and PGR4.

[QUOTE="Titan_of_NYC"]I met a girl through myspace that had 47 friends and I have 38. When you add 47, you get 11! When you add 38 you get 11! OMG!! We should be married!!! See? I can read too much into something as well. You are all foolish for thinking this means anything.Ragnarok1051

Horrible attempt at damage control. The similarities are there and I wouldn't be surprised if this gen ended up like last one.

I wouldn't be surprised either. Consoles always come in for bashing at launch due to lack of software. This time in two years I expect PS3 will probably be leading sales in Japan, Europe and North America. With 360 and Wii fighting for second place.

Do ont under estimate the power of games like FFXIII to sell systems in Japan, and MGS4 to shift the console everywhere else. If these games go multiplatform it's goodnight PS3, but until that time Sony are still looking very strong for the long term, even without a price drop.

I own a Wii, 360 and am just looking for a good reason to buy a PS3 now, I'm still waiting but once I know for sure that games like FFXIII, MGS4 are staying exclusive I will get one.

[QUOTE="darthogre"]

I remember the story and I do realize the complaints about PS3 are extremely similar. All the articles claiming they were the nostradamus of the gaming industry, they all ended up completely wrong......I think it'll be the same thing this time as well as long as SOE plays their cards right.

Here is the key differences this time however:

1) Xbox was released a year after the PS2 which means Xbox was dealing with 2nd generation PS2 games while they only had launch titles. This is flipped, PS3 was released a year after the X360 and PS3 is competing against 2nd generation X360 games.

2) The pricepoints were the same basically back in 2001. Xbox may have been a little more expensive but not by much. There certainly wasn't a $300 price difference.

3) Key third party exclusives are multiplatform now. The old advantage of having nearly all the great games on their system only is gone. Grandtheft is a great example. I still believe games such as Final Fantasy hold a tremendous amount of weight in the gaming community so PS3 needs to keep games like those if they want to win again.

Those three issues change the setting. I think people are attacking PS3 for the wrong reasons though. PS3 IMO is the best machine overall, it's actually common sense HOWEVER the pricepoint makes it a near impossible sale to anyone who is not a SOE fanboy. Maybe if they released the console at the same time as X360 so they could have equal software......they didn't.

PS3 has an uphill battle and it doesn't help that a $300 price difference is dragging them back down that hill. They need to drop the price this, which will be possible since manufacturing costs for the Cell are supposedly getting cheaper as is the cost for the Blu-Ray technology.

shungokustasu

1) PS3 was in the same situation as PS2 with Dreamcast. So there is no flipping. It's the same thing!

2) PS2 was $100 more than the Dreamcast when it was release. Today PS3 is only $200 dollars more than 360.

3) Resident Evil: Code Veronica was the top multiplatform game back then. However exclusive were the main keypoint of both systems. As of today PS3 still has the largest list of exclusive titles. Read up on it you'll be shocked!

Your points or something to question, but again their the same as seven years ago. I knew all along PS3 was in the same situation as PS2, but the thing is lemmings are more gossip talking then hedgehogs. I think the reason is information from forums and gaming website are taking more seriously now, than  in 2000. 360 has an uphill battle my friend. You have to be silly to think otherwise. How does a 12 year veteran having an uphill battle against a 6 year player?

So instead of looking at my arguements with Xbox you decide to go the route of Sega?   You are comparing the Sega company to Microsoft?  Why would you even dream of comparing Sega Dreamcast to X360?  Do you honestly think PS3 is going to put Microsoft out of business?????  Are you really that nieve?  Do you need me to spell it out for you or is it now obvious?

Sega Dreamcast was a POS and had no chance, I remember the day they said they would be a software only company and their was a collective cheer in the retail market.  Dreamcast support vanished the moment Xbox was announced.  Hell I don't even remember dreamcast, that's how bad your argument is lol. 

I think all of you misunderstand the name of the game.  It's not to sale to your fanboys and claim victory, you have to reach out past your base fans to win the war.  Sega had absolutely no chance, not with Xbox coming into the fight.  The battle was always with Xbox, not Sega.  I started going to E3 around 2000/2001 for my company, I can't remember seeing a single Dreamcast game during that time.  Shouldn't that tell you something?  I do remember Xbox being introduced for the first time and the multiple problems (LOL) they had with system crashes/hangups/freezing ect....  But it was obvious the only competition PS2 was going to get was from the Xbox (although I had high hopes at the time for GC, was a big disapointment.....releasing scooby doo 1-9 wasn't my idea of a great way to sale a system)

[QUOTE="Titan_of_NYC"]I met a girl through myspace that had 47 friends and I have 38. When you add 47, you get 11! When you add 38 you get 11! OMG!! We should be married!!! See? I can read too much into something as well. You are all foolish for thinking this means anything.Ragnarok1051

Horrible attempt at damage control. The similarities are there and I wouldn't be surprised if this gen ended up like last one.

I'm sorry I can not agree with you on this one.  The DVD was very very popular at the time the PS2 came out and secondly the blu-ray is no where and I mean no where near where the DVD was back in 2000 as far as popularity.

Its really scary simular , Nintendo had his flagship already out and it was highly succesfull , it kept selling out month after month , MS already launched , had a good userbase to start with , was almost 10 Million consoles ahead and sold out the first 5 months after its launch period , the PS 2 Launched and did not sell out at all , even in Japan it found not much love .......... oooh wait !

:lol:  :roll:

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="tango90101"]

interesting read.

the differences between the ps2 and ps3 are vastly different;

1. dvd players were cheaper than the ps2 at the time of the launch. This is what really made DVD mainstream... affordability... the ps3 nor bluray has affordability as proven by the poor ps3 sales.

 tango90101

DVD players and PS2 were the same price. Talk about fabricating a story. The main reason the PS2 sold was it had a DVD player on top of that it was a gaming system for the same price as a DVD player. 

wrong.  the ps2 launced at $299 USD while DVD players were selling at Walmart and Best Buy for under $200...

you really need to know your history before posting again...;)

ps.. and the MAIN reason the ps2 sold so well was sony's constant "BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE" marketting campaign as the ps2's launch library was pretty weak...

The average price for a DVD plaayer were the same as a PS2. Being on of the people who bought the PS2 because of this fact proves you wrong.