What's The Real Appeal of the PS3 At This Point?

Post by **Saraph** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:09 am

I want a PS3 because it can be my new computer. Yay!

Post by **metaleggman** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:11 am

Well, supposedly Sony will be using the console for like 10 years, so it could be a long term purchase. Then again, I dono how many of em will actually last ten years

Post by **Mozgus** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:55 am

metaleggman wrote:Well, supposedly Sony will be using the console for like 10 years, so it could be a long term purchase. Then again, I dono how many of em will actually last ten years

Sony says a lot of things.

Post by **Indy_aka_Rex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Mozgus wrote:
metaleggman wrote:Well, supposedly Sony will be using the console for like 10 years, so it could be a long term purchase. Then again, I dono how many of em will actually last ten years
Sony says a lot of things.

They don't have to though... they've done the same with PS1, and they'll do the same for PS2. If the past is any indication - we may see the same for PS3.

Post by **Mozgus** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:05 pm

Indy_aka_Rex wrote:They don't have to though... they've done the same with PS1, and they'll do the same for PS2. If the past is any indication - we may see the same for PS3.

1995-2001 is not 10 years. And PS2 is not going to last until 2011.

Post by **Indy_aka_Rex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:08 pm

Mozgus wrote:
Indy_aka_Rex wrote:They don't have to though... they've done the same with PS1, and they'll do the same for PS2. If the past is any indication - we may see the same for PS3.
1995-2001 is not 10 years. And PS2 is not going to last until 2011.

Umm, actually 1995-2004. That's how long developers supported PS1 - that's close to 10 years to me. Not to mention - Sony produced PS1's until 2k5.

Post by **Mozgus** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:49 pm

Indy_aka_Rex wrote:Umm, actually 1995-2004. That's how long developers supported PS1 - that's close to 10 years to me. Not to mention - Sony produced PS1's until 2k5.

EA and that's about it. I don't consider that "alive". I don't play the annual sports games. The system died for the most part in 2001.

The Gamecube died near the start of this year, but just because it's getting some movie licensed games, are you going to say it's alive?

The Sega Genesis just got a translated RPG. Are you going to say that the Genesis has been alive for the past decade?

The Dreamcast gets a new game every 9 months or so. I also consider it a dead console. Doesn't mean I don't still play it.

You need to draw the line somewhere, man.

Post by **Indy_aka_Rex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Mozgus wrote:
Indy_aka_Rex wrote:Umm, actually 1995-2004. That's how long developers supported PS1 - that's close to 10 years to me. Not to mention - Sony produced PS1's until 2k5.
EA and that's about it. I don't consider that "alive". I don't play the annual sports games. The system died for the most part in 2001.

And Square (FF:Origins came out in 2k3), and Take Two, and Ubi Soft - and Konami.

They all published either budget titles (mostly T2 and Ubi) or actual releases, like Square's FF: Origins which came out in 2k3.

PS2 still has 2 years left in it.

EDIT: And actually - the Gamecube hasn't died yet. It dies post Twilight Princess, because for all intents and purposes GC has had an active year (and so has XB). Despite not having many high profile titles - it's still had plenty of releases.

Post by **Mozgus** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:27 pm

Indy_aka_Rex wrote:And Square (FF:Origins came out in 2k3), and Take Two, and Ubi Soft - and Konami.

They all published either budget titles (mostly T2 and Ubi) or actual releases, like Square's FF: Origins which came out in 2k3.

PS2 still has 2 years left in it.

EDIT: And actually - the Gamecube hasn't died yet. It dies post Twilight Princess, because for all intents and purposes GC has had an active year (and so has XB). Despite not having many high profile titles - it's still had plenty of releases.

Have you actually played FF Origins? It's pretty terrible. It's got some appeal on the GBA for being portable, but it's way too simplistic for a console RPG.

This is all subjective from here on out. All I'm saying is when a console is getting nothing but super cheap inferior ports, and other extremely low budget, three month development titles, I just don't consider it alive anymore.

Also, the PS1 had the advantage of the PS2's nearly flawless backwards compatibility, much like the DS with the GBA. The earlier system has a slightly extended life due to this. Unfortunately, we've all see the reports of PS3's terrible backwards compatibility with the majority of the games. I don't think the PS2 will see much of an extension, due to this.

Edit: Also forgot to mention that the PSOne was a major help in extending it's life. At the time, you could get a super small PSOne with a fantastic official Sony LCD screen attachment, all for much less than the price of a PS2. That compelled a lot of people, including myself, to stick with the PS1 library for a few more years. It sure was a mistake, now that I look back.

Post by **Indy_aka_Rex** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:41 pm

Mozgus wrote:
Indy_aka_Rex wrote:And Square (FF:Origins came out in 2k3), and Take Two, and Ubi Soft - and Konami.

They all published either budget titles (mostly T2 and Ubi) or actual releases, like Square's FF: Origins which came out in 2k3.

PS2 still has 2 years left in it.

EDIT: And actually - the Gamecube hasn't died yet. It dies post Twilight Princess, because for all intents and purposes GC has had an active year (and so has XB). Despite not having many high profile titles - it's still had plenty of releases.
Have you actually played FF Origins? It's pretty terrible. It's got some appeal on the GBA for being portable, but it's way too simplistic for a console RPG.

This is all subjective from here on out. All I'm saying is when a console is getting nothing but super cheap inferior ports, and other extremely low budget, three month development titles, I just don't consider it alive anymore.

Also, the PS1 had the advantage of the PS2's nearly flawless backwards compatibility, much like the DS with the GBA. The earlier system has a slightly extended life due to this. Unfortunately, we've all see the reports of PS3's terrible backwards compatibility with the majority of the games. I don't think the PS2 will see much of an extension, due to this.

Edit: Also forgot to mention that the PSOne was a major help in extending it's life. At the time, you could get a super small PSOne with a fantastic official Sony LCD screen attachment, all for much less than the price of a PS2. That compelled a lot of people, including myself, to stick with the PS1 library for a few more years. It sure was a mistake, now that I look back.

I didn't think we were arguing quality Mozgus. I wasn't talking quality - I was talking releases. FF Origins is Square's last high profile PS1 release, and PS1 had a steady stream of release titles post-2k/2k1.

And - uhmm.. I'd like to know how 200 titles (most of which you can play, however with choppy sound) out of 7,000+ constitutes as "terrible".