Why do you think Sony keeps the PS2 alive?

In case you haven't noticed, the PS2 is the only last-gen system still getting games(many of which are also on wii). The Gamecube and xbox are dead...so why is the PS2 still going so strong?!

Hmm, there are several possible reasons I can think of, but just a random thought off the top of my head for now, but probably (thanks to the expense of the PS3) a lot of the PS2 fans probably haven't made the switch, you think?

I concur it's probably the price of the PS3 which is artificially keeping the PS2 afloat at this point. But seriously though, I'm beginning to think it possible that the PS2 could rival the Atari 2600 as far as lifespan goes. If that's so, it's one of the only ones I can honestly see breaking that record. Unfortunately, the price of Blu-Ray artificially makes the PS3's quite high, which is a reason why it'd be rather suicidal for Sony to cutself off of its bread and butter (and the PSP doesn't really help much either...).

Well I saw somewhere that the PS2 was the console that was either played the most in 2008 or selled the most games (but I know it got first place)

I think it was followed by the wii

I wouldn't doubt it. The PS2 is still a more exciting system than perhaps any system that's out right now, mainly because of it's gigantic repertoire of great games. So if you're looking at it from Sony's perspective, and as Everlong pointed out, this is a rather desperate perspective, the PS2 is really their lifeline.

I just can't help but wonder why the PS3 did so much worse than the PS2...sure there's the cost, but it also doesn't have the games...at least, not like the PS2 had.

ForsakenLament 04 wrote:

I wouldn't doubt it. The PS2 is still a more exciting system than perhaps any system that's out right now, mainly because of it's gigantic repertoire of great games. So if you're looking at it from Sony's perspective, and as Everlong pointed out, this is a rather desperate perspective, the PS2 is really their lifeline.

I just can't help but wonder why the PS3 did so much worse than the PS2...sure there's the cost, but it also doesn't have the games...at least, not like the PS2 had.

I think what's hurting Sony is one of two things: the Wii's surprising hit and multiplatform releases. Let's face it: Microsoft nor Sony expected Nintendo to jump to the top this generation, especially not after the GameCube fiasco. However, when the Wii was unveilied and started selling like it was going out of style, both were faced with adaptation or trying to do the same old tried and true methods. Sony's problem, I think, was ironically from their success: arrogance. They'd won last generation, so why should they worry this one? Microsoft, on the other hand, knew the Wii at least had potential, even if they weren't sure what kind yet. They were more cautious because of the fact that they'd technically been in second twice (this and last generation). It's really a "Nintendo vs. Microsoft" thing now rather than a "Sony vs. Microsoft" one, honestly.

Like I said, the other is multiplatform stuff. Microsoft has hit a goldmine with Halo: it's fun to play online and while it might be a bit overrated, it's a fun thing to play. Sony's problem is that its struggling with getting IPs that do well. It's hit some gems with Heavenly Sword, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and the like, but it hasn't had a sustaining staple game. Resistance is apparently alright online, but it simply isn't as familiar to people as Halo is (been tried three times..) and Killzone 2 doesn't even exist yet. I think LittleBigPlanet is awesome, and that certainly works in Sony's favor, but...why get either console if most of the games are the same? Coupled with the high price, the 360 simply looks like the better deal to the average Joe.

Quote :

I think what's hurting Sony is one of two things: the Wii's surprising hit and multiplatform releases. Let's face it: Microsoft nor Sony expected Nintendo to jump to the top this generation, especially not after the GameCube fiasco. However, when the Wii was unveilied and started selling like it was going out of style, both were faced with adaptation or trying to do the same old tried and true methods. Sony's problem, I think, was ironically from their success: arrogance. They'd won last generation, so why should they worry this one? Microsoft, on the other hand, knew the Wii at least had potential, even if they weren't sure what kind yet. They were more cautious because of the fact that they'd technically been in second twice (this and last generation). It's really a "Nintendo vs. Microsoft" thing now rather than a "Sony vs. Microsoft" one, honestly.

Like I said, the other is multiplatform stuff. Microsoft has hit a goldmine with Halo: it's fun to play online and while it might be a bit overrated, it's a fun thing to play. Sony's problem is that its struggling with getting IPs that do well. It's hit some gems with Heavenly Sword, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and the like, but it hasn't had a sustaining staple game. Resistance is apparently alright online, but it simply isn't as familiar to people as Halo is (been tried three times..) and Killzone 2 doesn't even exist yet. I think LittleBigPlanet is awesome, and that certainly works in Sony's favor, but...why get either console if most of the games are the same? Coupled with the high price, the 360 simply looks like the better deal to the average Joe.

Agreed completely. As the old saying goes, once you're at the top, there's no place else to go but down. There was a level of arrogance on Sony's part, and justifiably so. They had a monumental system with a plethora of amazing games. But in the end, they were a victim of their own success. I would certainly say that they displayed a brazen attitude towards their consumer base, as they produced no PS3 without the blue ray...expecting us to empty our wallets for such a product. Hopefully the massive consumer backlash and record low sales figures will teach them a much needed lesson.

And I can't help but compare PS3 to the Gamecube. Just like the Gamecube, which was a disaster during its later years, The PS3 has few exclusives worth buying the system for, and it is suffering from an overall lack of games. It has quickly fallen to the bottom of the console war, and out of many gamers' minds, much like the GC. Perhaps Sony will learn the same lesson Nintendo had and put together something revolutionary for the next generation...the best way to learn something is to make a mistake, after all.

ForsakenLament 04 wrote:

Agreed completely. As the old saying goes, once you're at the top, there's no place else to go but down. There was a level of arrogance on Sony's part, and justifiably so. They had a monumental system with a plethora of amazing games. But in the end, they were a victim of their own success. I would certainly say that they displayed a brazen attitude towards their consumer base, as they produced no PS3 without the blue ray...expecting us to empty our wallets for such a product. Hopefully the massive consumer backlash and record low sales figures will teach them a much needed lesson.

And I can't help but compare PS3 to the Gamecube. Just like the Gamecube, which was a disaster during its later years, The PS3 has few exclusives worth buying the system for, and it is suffering from an overall lack of games. It has quickly fallen to the bottom of the console war, and out of many gamers' minds, much like the GC. Perhaps Sony will learn the same lesson Nintendo had and put together something revolutionary for the next generation...the best way to learn something is to make a mistake, after all.

Aye, I wouldn't have said that some of their arrogance wasn't justified: after all, they'd completely trumped Nintendo (they hadn't had all that much true luck as the N64 and PS1 were about even, I'd say)...quite a feat, considering this was the same company who did the giants, NES and SNES. I do agree that a Blu Ray-less PS3 would have been an optimal decision on Sony's part but...how practical, exactly? The 360 runs what are essentially HD DVDs and Sony had to compete and do them one better in some form or another. Otherwise, the two consoles would have been even more similar to one another; so Sony thought that Blu Ray was their ace in the hole...which arguably it was, considering that HD DVDs will be dead by 2009.

As for the 'PS3-GC' analogy, while somewhat apt, I think it's totally unfair. Sony has become what Sega was in its twilight days: a niche console maker, at the moment. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and for all I know, people might look back at the PS3 with fondness...after all, the Dreamcast wasn't so well received by many at first, but now I hear nothing but good about it these days if I ask someone over it. I do hope Sony will learn their lesson for the PS4 but...I can only wonder: will the same kind of arrogance born out of success on Nintendo's part lead them to make the same mistakes as Sony did in this generation? Well, time will tell for that too...