The PS2's success apears to be holding the PS3 back.

[Resident_Hazard]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Oyvoyvoyv said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

libellule said:
"The PS2's success apears to be holding the PS3 back.,"

No,

I dont even understand your evidence supporting your statement ...

PS2 under 200$
PS3 over 400$

PS2 is competing versus Wii and Xbox360 arcade, not PS3.

 

 The PS2 is competing against nothing. The competition only lasts within its gen. The PS2 is just raking in extra money for Sony and covering the losses that the PS3 makes. The PS2's gen is over, but they continue anyway. The PS2 earlier in the year was having solid six digit console sales. The Xbox 360 arcade is going up against the Wii's $250 console, the PS3 has yet to enter the war for the larger/frugal consumer base.

 

 No, the Ps2 is competing against X360, Wii and Ps3. If the Ps2 hadn't been, people who bought it would probably have bought Wii, X360 or Ps3, so it is competing with it.

It's gen is over. Accept it. It hurting the PS3 yes, but Sony still makes money off of it. Just call it the PS3's annoying older brother. 

 

 

 

The PS3 is still competing with the PS2.  And it will be until Sony finally drops the PS2.  The problem is that it gives Joe Shmoe consumer a choice.  That's competition.  "Why should I buy the PS3 for $500 when I can get the PS2 for $130 and that has tons and tons of games already."

It was annoying that Nintendo and Microsoft killed the GameCube and Xbox when their new systems came out, but by doing so, they made sure that consumers only had these new machines to choose from. 

I'm not saying Sony isn't making money on the PS2, because they are, but if they want the PS3 to fare better on the market, they should axe the PS2 and stop giving consumers a choice.  Ridiculous to say that the PS2 and PS3 don't compete with each other.  If they're both on the market for sale, they are definitly competing.