What makes PS3 so serious?

I own a ps2 and I always thought that people purchase systems for

the games they are familiar with. Features and functionality is all

cool, but ps2 proved you didn't need the nicest "specs" to be

ridiculously successful. It was the success of the PS that made the

Ps2 right? My theory is this, lets say the other two systems this

generation had all the games in the ps2 library. Wouldn't the

playground be around equal? Or do controllers, online play,

backwards compatibility, and memory make a significant

difference?

Seeing all the hype going into the systems (PS3/Xbox360) makes

me ask the question; aren't said systems capable of generating the

same type of power? If so why does that seem to be the main

focus? Talk about something else. I'm not here to bash, it's just my

belief that in a nutshell (regardless of the long post) Sony got

lucky. Technology is not the difficult task people seem to think it is.

It's innovation.

Mainstream titles always do well, but to the more knowledgeable

members, what happens when/if all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's,

Resident Evils and so forth are put to rest? Am I wrong for thinking

all Sony has is its sequels? Or is it the developers, who-know-

where-to-go-for-some-dough?

what makes PS3 so serious? sony was the leading competitor in the last 2 gaming console generations...with a WIDE variety of titles

Originally posted by SlimYout
I own a ps2 and I always thought that people purchase systems for

the games they are familiar with. Features and functionality is all

cool, but ps2 proved you didn't need the nicest "specs" to be

ridiculously successful. It was the success of the PS that made the

Ps2 right? My theory is this, lets say the other two systems this

generation had all the games in the ps2 library. Wouldn't the

playground be around equal? Or do controllers, online play,

backwards compatibility, and memory make a significant

difference?

Seeing all the hype going into the systems (PS3/Xbox360) makes

me ask the question; aren't said systems capable of generating the

same type of power? If so why does that seem to be the main

focus? Talk about something else. I'm not here to bash, it's just my

belief that in a nutshell (regardless of the long post) Sony got

lucky. Technology is not the difficult task people seem to think it is.

It's innovation.

Mainstream titles always do well, but to the more knowledgeable

members, what happens when/if all the MGS's, Final Fantasy's,

Resident Evils and so forth are put to rest? Am I wrong for thinking

all Sony has is its sequels? Or is it the developers, who-know-

where-to-go-for-some-dough?

But that the point. Isn't that all they deliver? Noboody wants everything to be the same because it would boring/similiar etc. Hence why Nintendo sticks to its well-known titles instead of a wider variety. Xbox is american made so they don't get too much support from Japan. All I'm saying is if you replace Sony with the other competitors, wouldn't the outcome be the same?

Originally posted by Jaro
I see that Sony and Microsoft are focusing only on graphics now and that's great and all but I'm glade that Nintendo has the balls to try something new.

you know, a lot of people can argue with that..."balls (confidence) or stupidity?"

i think sony and microsoft are just focusing on enhancing the present gen consoles...better graphics, more power=more gameplay (environments/can handle a lot of stuff) like a city in Spiderman 3 that doesnt hafto be streamed in....might be possible

Originally posted by Silverstein
you know, a lot of people can argue with that..."balls (confidence) or stupidity?"

Personally I don't frown on people not being afraid to try new things.

Coldplay are afraid, look at them. Very popular, selling well....shit music.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Personally I don't frown on people not being afraid to try new things.

Coldplay are afraid, look at them. Very popular, selling well....shit music.

-AC

ya i hate coldplay

I think the question being asked here is- why is Sony the most successful despite its lesser hardware?

For me, it all comes down to marketing, as with anything which dominates its field without a concrete reason for that state of affairs.

It shouldn't phase people that the graphics are so realistic. It should all be expected. Every single last detail that could not be achieved on current hardware should be done with ease. Yeah the controller is innovative but it might no be that user friendly. Also, isn't the main selling point of a game always its graphics over its game-play?

Everyone makes strong points. Getting to Doom's response your saying that there is no concrete reason for it. Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore, the games, considerably the best controller, the success of its predecessor, and I could be wrong, but people who consider the ps2 to be unmatched and have no flaws.

Playstation has yet to change its controller design.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Everyone makes strong points. Getting to Doom's response your saying that there is no concrete reason for it. Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore, the games, considerably the best controller, the success of its predecessor, and I could be wrong, but people who consider the ps2 to be unmatched and have no flaws.

very well said. although i consider xbox to be a big competitor against sony for the current gen, and the next...i also think a lot of people target sony vs microsoft.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Well, I have some theories, but purchasing ps2's multiple times after cleaning and repairs don't work anymore

If anything this backs up what I was saying. Controller and games being the best is subjective. Least reliable hardware isn't.

It's always marketing, as with anything that is the most popular in an oligopolistic market.

Damn right Silverstein. People always ***** an moan and say Nintendo is for Goo Goo Gah Gahs, Waaaaaahhhhh (SMACK). If you don't like it don't buy it. It pretty much seems be all about Sony vs Microsoft. Understandably, we are more mature gamers. But do people even play games to have fun. Or is it, "THE PINKY FACTOR?" You know pinky from cartoon show who was impressed by everything. But yeah Sony truly acknowledges Microsoft much more. That being said what do you guys/gals thinks is going to be the main selling point in the upcoming gen?

New words are nice Victor. Your up to times. Oligopolistic, can you give a brief definition?

Originally posted by SlimYout
New words are nice Victor. Your up to times. Oligopolistic, can you give a brief definition?

A market consisting of a few big forces, where the actions of any of them will affect the others.

Thanks. Good to learn a new big word. One which I can impress people with.

Originally posted by Jaro
I see that Sony and Microsoft are focusing only on graphics now and that's great and all but I'm glade that Nintendo has the balls to try something new.

I say the massive library, games that appeal to all ages, options, and controls appeals to sony fans.

C-Master love the heads exploding. Anyway when you say options, you mean backwards compatibility, dvd, etc? And out of the things you listed, which two contributed most to Sony's winning of the race

Hm. I hate arguing from ignorance, so I'll just stick to what i know about the last gen systems.

Nintendo didn't come out swinging, but I think it's easily a great system. I loved the NES, and SNES was easily the best system and selection of games. N64 had some good titles, but was primitive. GameCube I think is a very capable system (I mean, it sports an ATI Radeon chipset and plays games like the RE series which rival games on Xbox) The controller seemed awkward at first, but I don't mind it... much.

PSII is the cheapest system out. Breaks easier than a glass toothpick, and that controller is "comfortable" for some, but the analog blows worse than the GC controller and the buttons seem to have gotten worse from the PS. Sure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But the PS II controllers are archaic and continuing them would be moronic. And secondly, PS II has a lot of games, but face it- a lot of them aren't worth using as coasters. And any game on the PS would look and play ten times better on either GC or XBox.

Now, the MIcrosoft monster... I like the Xbox, but then again in the beginning I was the only one I knew who did. It's still a solid system with the best specs on the market for consoles, and a built in hard drive that's nigh-impossible to fill up.

If PS III is gonna be stale and just like an upgraded PS II, the company is gonna eat itself alive. Third party support or no, you need a flexible system that stands up to routine abuse, since all these baby boomers are buying their kids expensive video game consoles, and the older crowd drinks and smokes all the damn time. Backwards compatibility works, if you're cramped for space or have a tendency to break your old systems or sell them for drugs. But seriously, Sony needs to grow some balls itself and make a game besides Crash Bandicoot. Nintendo is infamous for classic games, and Microsoft is no slouch either. And considering that Microsoft bought both Bungie and Rare (Assuming Rare actually makes another game. They sure do like to sit on their hands) plus the success of Halo II, they are a big hitter with a large bank account behind them. And Nintendo has buried bigger competitors than Sony.

I personally wouldn't invest in a PS III, end of rant.