A VERY INTERESTING READ.
I myself totally agree with the points put forward.
Post your thoughts.
Leb_4u2onr
While there is no doubt the PS3 has a number of hurdles to overcome that the PS2 didn't...the article is BS. It is clearly the working of a casual who can't tell the difference between rumours and actual facts. It is no different from many clueless casuals on this forum who hear all the constantly repeated rumours, believe them to be truth, them form their opinion based purely on BS.
Allow me to explain.
1) He says it was a good thing the PS2 launched a year before the GC. What about the Xbox? What about the fact that the PS2 launched AFTER the Dreamcast which many claim is one of the best consoles ever made (if not for SEGAs financial troubles). Why does launching before the GC, a console made by a company Sony already crushed the previous gen and instantly less appealing as many referred to it as a fisher price toy and a purse?
2) He says the headstart expanded the PS2 lifespan longer than the ususal five years? WHAT? I think it had more to do with the massive sales, masse library of games, overwhelming popularity of the console AND the manufacturing issues that delayed the PS3's launch. The PS2 is still holding its own against current consoles on a regular basis. Is that purely because of the headstart also?
3) "Normally, launching a game console outside of that five-year cycle spelled disaster". Again I ask WTF? The PS1 launched in 1995. The PS2 launched in 2000. HOw can anybody with even the simplest of mathematical knowledge, look at that and say the PS2 launched OUTSIDE the typical five year cycle. If anything, it was GC and Xbox that launched outside the cycle. And Xbox did okay. So again I find it hilarious that he ignores the Xbox which blows apart his whole theory.
4) "Sony managed to make it work, but it wasn't by virtue of their games". Oh Really? I had a PS2 at launch and have been saying for 7 years now that this is the biggest myth of all time. The PS2 launched with 3 AAA titles and roughly a dozen AA titles (according to GS of course). Out of the GC, Xbox, 360, Wii, and PS3...only the original Xbox had similar level of titles at launch. People who say the PS2 had no good games for a year clearly never HAD one during that year or they are simply casuals. I say that because the ONLY thing the PS2 lacked that first year was an extremely over-hyped, over advertised game that attracts the bandwagon jumpers more than actual gamers. Not that the PS2 needed the help at the time since it was selling out world wide. PLUS the PS2 was the first console to offer complete backwards compatibility. So people who did adopt early could still pick up PS1 releases they wanted.
5) "Sony was taking a significant loss on the hardware". This is another rumour people have come to accept as myth. Yes, Sony like most companies sold the PS2 at a loss. However, it wasn't a significant loss as, when they released that quarters numbers, Sony stated that most of that 'significant loss" was caused by a major currency fluctuation between the chinese and American dollars. NOT because the console was selling way below the cost to make it. SECOND, they told shareholders that if they were able to meet the demand for the console at launch, they would have been making a profit immediately. Instead it took Sony almost a year (one whole year...omg) for the PS2 to start showing as "in the black" on the financials. Considering people also tend to spread the myth of the crappy launch with no games...how could Sony profit so quickly that first year if they were selling at such a "significant loss"?
6) No "wow" factor. I fail to see how the PS2 was such a "wow" machine when the DC was out FIRST and had amazing looking titles right from the get-go. The PS2 hype wasn't driven because of some insane graphical leap that put the competition to shame. No...it was because a hundred million people loved the PS1. NOT because there was some massive noticeable difference between the PS2 and DC. Again, this is an example of the article writer ignoring reality...or in this case the DC.
What I say is fact and the reality of the PS brands history. His main point is correct, the PS3 has a number of issues the PS2 didn't have. He names the price, the lack of exclusives, etc. But other than that, for a 4 paragraph article, it is filled with a MASSIVE amount of errors and misinformation. The only conclusion I could draw is that he is clueless about console history and just another casual who didn't research the FACTS when it was so much easier to just listen to the persistent rumours.
Log in to comment