wow... ps2 outsells ps3

[MrPopo]

I've been telling people for awhile that the PS3 is the Saturn of this generation.

I've been saying that for years. There are two big differences, though. Number one, the heads of SCEA aren't blocking certain genres from being localized. Number two, Sony was the undisputed winner of last generation, while Sega left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths with the Sega CD/32x thing.

[nick944]

Yeah, to all those who bitch and moan about backwards compatibility, it's there. Just because a system is used doesn't mean the console has AIDS or is unusable. I got a 20GB off ebay for $290 shipped in January and had absolutely no problems and have loved it since. Not to mention I got it with box, manuals, and just about everything that it came with originally. Also, look at it from Sony's standpoint, if you are losing major money on a system you have two options kill it or cut costs any way possible. Now I think most people agree that we wouldn't want to see the PS3 axed, but does everyone need to get so worked up about backwards compatibility? Hell, the 360 only plays half the original xbox library and that's if you happen to have a hard drive. Sony's doing the right thing "You failed it, it didn't fail you". (Dreamcast anyone?)

[enderfall]

To put the OP in context, for one month, the PS2 outsold the PS3 simply because of the PS2 price drop. May might bring a similar number, but undoubtedly June (assuming no PS3 price drop) will rebound and PS3 will outsell the PS2 again.

And if I may indulge myself, why do people think that the PS3 is so expensive. Xbox plus 2 years of Live service, costs as much as a PS3 that gives you a Blu-Ray player and wireless out of the box...

Think about it this way, too. If you bought a launch Xbox 360 (and miraculously never got RROD), paid for live service from day one, you paid either $399 or $299 + ~ $200 (4 years of Live service). My launch, top of the line PS3, cost me $599. Same price as a top of the line launch Xbox 360 plus Live service. I got Blu-Ray a much larger HD at the time, HDMI, wireless, and uninterrupted gaming (No RROD equivalent) and didn't have to pay a dime since.

I've thought about getting an Xbox 360 on many occasions, but can not get past the cost for Live. To me, that is too expensive...

[lwcook]

To put the OP in context, for one month, the PS2 outsold the PS3 simply because of the PS2 price drop. May might bring a similar number, but undoubtedly June (assuming no PS3 price drop) will rebound and PS3 will outsell the PS2 again.

And if I may indulge myself, why do people think that the PS3 is so expensive. Xbox plus 2 years of Live service, costs as much as a PS3 that gives you a Blu-Ray player and wireless out of the box...

Think about it this way, too. If you bought a launch Xbox 360 (and miraculously never got RROD), paid for live service from day one, you paid either $399 or $299 + ~ $200 (4 years of Live service). My launch, top of the line PS3, cost me $599. Same price as a top of the line launch Xbox 360 plus Live service. I got Blu-Ray a much larger HD at the time, HDMI, wireless, and uninterrupted gaming (No RROD equivalent) and didn't have to pay a dime since.

I've thought about getting an Xbox 360 on many occasions, but can not get past the cost for Live. To me, that is too expensive...

I see this argument all the time...not really successfully though.

The problem with it is that for one, the single big price point is a mental barrier for most consumers. It doesn't matter if they get a better value because of blu-ray and wifi, or end up spending more on the xbox overall...it's hard for people to spend $499 on a single video game related purchase.

I know many people on this board have price barriers on systems/games/accessories in which they will only consider a purchase if it reaches x dollars and xx cents. A 360, by itself, is not a huge commitment when it comes to a game console.

Some people only want something that plays games. Blu-ray isn't as big as the DVD capabilities of the ps2 because not everyone has gone HD yet. The quality of the hardware should be an issue, but it's so cheap it follows the wal-mart idealogy of lower price ahead of quality.

When the PS3 finally sees a price drop, it'll definitely be more of a contender...right now it's just gaining momentum (and building a great library to boot.)

[the7k]

And if I may indulge myself, why do people think that the PS3 is so expensive. Xbox plus 2 years of Live service, costs as much as a PS3 that gives you a Blu-Ray player and wireless out of the box...

Sony is trying to make the system a 'value-added' deal. More bang for your buck.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why they will fail. People don't care about value - they care about cheap.

Xbox Live is an invisible cost. WiFi add-on is an invisible cost. The need to spend more than twice the normal amount for a larger proprietary hard-drive is an invisible cost. A cheap Blu-Ray player is an invisible cost. Battery Packs are an invisible cost. Sending your RRoD'd 360 in for a new one is an invisible cost.

No one sees these costs, and they never factor them into the price of the system. It's like how something is only $24.99 until you go pay for it and you remember there is a sales tax as well.

[enderfall]

No one sees these costs, and they never factor them into the price of the system. It's like how something is only $24.99 until you go pay for it and you remember there is a sales tax as well.

And case point #1 why we are in a recession. I can afford that $40k SUV, it's only $400 per month! Or, I can buy that $500,000 house on my $30k salary, it's only $2000 a month!

Sad but true; people are too stupid to realize what they pay for.

[lwcook]

Sad but true; people are too stupid to realize what they pay for.

Exactly. People never factor in the unexpected/invisible things. If everyone spent their money logically, then the PS3 would win for it's value alone.

[RCBH928]

I still have a hard time believing that the general consumers are buying the ps2. Its a 2002 system for god sakes! This alone is an amazing thing for Sony.
I have a general idea that the majority of the people would like to buy something of the newest and latest, specially int he technology sector. I know ps2 got good games, but come on...

to be honest, at first I hated the ps3. I wished for it to fail, Sony was cocky , insane price, no games, and a media player that is not standard and could have failed(+no one got HDTV really), and for me one ugly and bulky design(360 is worse).

Its different today, price is lower, quality games do exist, dependable hardware(are you listening MIcrosoft?), and blu-ray is a standard thing in addition to more people did purchase HDTV add in all the online downloadable stuff.

I do not see the ps3 as a failed system like the Saturn. Its an important system for developers and they are making millions out if its exclusives(Killzone), it already sold many units equaling gamecube and xbox(original) and N64. Does that make ps3 a failed system?
It might be doing bad financially , but in the game word its already a success.

For me to make ps3 a success it should be able to have 100% backward compatibility, slimmer design, more online multiplayer, and they should really enhance the ps3 community because its not all that great now through Home or whatever.

I know most of you are upset with ps3 compared to 360 and ps2 sales surpassing ps3. But I think financially, Sony is making money of ps2 and losing on ps3. Maybe its a sound decision that the ps2 profit is what makes the ps3 alive, have you ever thought of it this way? I think in the future as the ps2 slowly dies, the ps3 would get back the BC(its funny that they added it then took it off on later consoles, its like a step backwards) .

Problem is as I see it , is that ps3 was released too early for its time. By the time ps3 is ripe with great games(which are made and more coming , unlike other consoles hint hint Nintendo) , and price is low and Home is out and its just got perfect , Microsoft and Nintendo will be up with their new consoles that unfortunately will be more powerful than the ps3's , and hence we will never see the ps3 in a stable comfortable place in the console world. It will be good way past the time frame . I really doubt it will survive 10 years like it is said(specially with low RAM it has as I hear).

For me, I know this is going to sound stupid, but if the ps3 is going to be a success, I do not think they should release a new system for the next generation. I do not see any more new technology coming on the way as online, bluray, motion controls, huge hard drives, wireless, is all built within the ps3. I know this will sound crazy, but the only thing I think will be better are graphics. SO...
I think Sony should release something like ps3 supreme , or ultimate or something like that, where it has an updated graphics capability and the games can still be played on older ps3's but in last generation graphics(hd non the less). It happens on PC's so why not on consoles?

This way Sony is going to super save. 1 it will have a longer lasting model on the market which will generate a lot more profit in more years , 2 it will save on developing costs for a new console which is expensive, and their customer base is built of a combination of last generation and current generation players so its huge!
With BC, and huge library online of ps1/2 games for $10 each, who wants to play anything else?!
Any one else thinks this is a good idea? If not , why?

Do you think that Sony should just fool the consumers and release PS4 which is really a PS3 with updated graphics but different design? But this way they will lose on all the ps3 base, and so less people to buy games, and games are where the money really comes from right? I doubt people who invested in the ps3 are going to buy a ps4 , because it was a huge investment+ the jump in graphics I hardly think would be that great (unless ps4 is going to cost like $200!)

[the7k]

Exactly. People never factor in the unexpected/invisible things. If everyone spent their money logically, then the PS3 would win for it's value alone.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Xbox 360 does have a lot of games that appeal to certain demographics. Hell, all they really need is Halo to compete (an echo of last generation). They also have a lot of Square Enix support, which isn't my bag but God knows they have a lot of rabid fans out there - and Square has historical gone with the victorious system.

to be honest, at first I hated the ps3. I wished for it to fail, Sony was cocky , insane price, no games, and a media player that is not standard and could have failed(+no one got HDTV really), and for me one ugly and bulky design(360 is worse).

Yeah, me too. In that first year of Wii vs PS3, Wii had freakin' everything and PS3 had absolutely nothing. When I got my Wii, with last gen tech and a gimmick, I was damn proud. I remember seeing a guy walk around with a PS3 and laughing at them! I really thought Wii would be a revolution for the gaming industry...

Now I see that revolution is not something I can support. After a year, the Wii gravy train slowed to a halt, and the PS3 was building steam heat. I knew, if I wanted to have fun without playing Brawl all the time (It's a great game, but variety is the spice of life), I was going to have to move on...

[Erik_Twice]

and I think if people knew they could easily buy a reverse compatible system to play their old PS2 games on, .

Welcome to Europe where you can't buy retrocompatible PS3. Also the price is much worse here as it was not 600 hundred dollars but SIX HUNDRED EURO! (That's like 800 dollars).

Also, in our wonderful PAL world games are also price translated that way. Americans pay 45 dollars per game, we pay 45 euro which is a lot more. It is harsh but we paid it. Now, while Wii games and PC games cost 45 Euro, all PS3 and Xbox360 games cost 65 Euro! (85 dollars!!). And you do not want to pay that much.

Seriously it's way too much and in the end all games you were going to play on those consoles are on PC kicking more ass at uber-cheap prices (Ex. Assasin's Creed and Fallout 3 dropped to 20 Euro in a couple of months).

Sony has fallen in the 3DO trap. "The PS3 costs a ton because it's not just a video game console but a multimedia center and also you can cook bacon on it".

I have a Wii because my little sister wanted it, if not I would have skipped this generation and stuck with PC gaming which is underrated.