I've been thinking that instead of getting both systems the day of their respective launches it would be wiser to get the Revolution at the end of 2006, and then get the PS3 in the summer of 2007. Which means not getting either of them at launch.
The first and most important reason is that the PS2 has PLENTY of life left. There are way too many big name games coming out in 2006 for it. It would be stupid to sacrifice not getting games like Final Fantasy XII, Mortal Kombat Armageddon, Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus, Tourist Trophy, Black, Tomb Raider Legend, Kingdom Hearts 2 (I hate this one though), The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (GC), and a gajillion other games coming out just to move on to the next gen. It's better to wait until the current generation slows down. But right now the current gen is at its peak.
Sony and Nintendo were right, Microsoft jumped the gun. They kickstarted the next generation way too early (same mistake Sega did with the Dreamcast). Next gen systems should always be released when the current generation of systems run out of steam and not a minute earlier.
I remember when the Dreamcast was released the current gen systems, PSX and N64, still had plenty of big name games coming out (Final Fantasy 8 and 9, Perfect Dark, etc.). The Dreamcast was released at a time when the current generation still had big games to look foward to. The Playstation 2 was then launched after the current gen started going downhill. Then, a year later, the GameCube and Xbox released. But by then the current gen was already dead, which meant that most people were already moving to the PS2. So in conclusion the Dreamcast released too early, the GC and Xbox released too late, and the PS2 released at the perfect time. That's what lead Sony to their 2nd victory.
But now for this generation we have a billionaire corporation called Microsoft. Now... to become one of the biggest corporations in the world you need smart entrepreneurs leading it. So i'm scratching my head as to what the **** were the people at Microsoft thinking by releasing the Xbox 360 so incredibly early. It will sell great in the launch period no doubt about that, but so did the Dreamcast and yet it failed to appeal to the masses (and yes I know about the finacial problems Sega had that MS doesn't). Only the hardcore got the Dreamcast just like the hardcore are the only ones that have purchased the 360 (note: by hardcore I mean non-casual gamers).
Now, returning to my comments on the first paragraph, the reason for getting Revolution first is because of a number of things: First off Nintendo has a good track record with the quality of first year hardware (unlike Sony). They also have the retro games downloads service which provides plenty of value for a newly released system (makes the wait for the release of new Revo games easier). Also, the Revo games are completely different from current gen games, meaning you can play whatever's left to play on the PS2 + the new Revo games without having to sacrifice one of the two generations (because PS2 and Rev are very different experiences and can co-exist; then once the PS2 runs out of steam it's PS3 + Rev). And finally the PS3 is 2-4 times more expensive than the Revo once you get everthing you need for it (console, accessories, hdtv, sound system, etc.), so by getting it later you give more life to the PS2, more time to save money for PS3, and a better linup of games (remember that PS3 games will take a long time to develop; so you're not getting MGS4, RE5, DMC4, GT5, GTA4, Final Fantasy VII, and many other legendary games/series anywhere near launch).
But don't misunderstand me.... the Playstation 3 is the superior system.
:wink:
Log in to comment