Who else thinks Sony needs to kill the PS2?

[Final-Fan]

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

Final-Fan said:

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

mike_intellivision said:
The PS2 gives Sony something to combat the Xbox Arcade and the Wii.
It really is stuck with a non-BC $400 Blu-Ray player/game unit in the eyes of someone looking for low-cost game recreation. Plus the catalog of games available -- both new and used -- means that people will continue to be interested in the system long after it is gone.

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- I wonder how many people are buying PS2 units to protect their game investment since there is no PS3 BC?

Thats Sony's fault for making that investment, not Nintendo nor Microsofts business. The PS2 helps but at the same time is preventing future sales numbers that the PS3 could've actually had. At some point you have to cut off the frugal gamers where they stand. Microsoft did this, Nintendo did this, but Sony always has a problem with it. This is probably why Sony has the delusion that they can beat the Wii in the long run by keeping the PS3 selling for 10 years. Sony needs to learn that when the competition sacks their system the war is over. The PS3 will need over 15 Million consoles to catch up to the Wii. Delusion has served Sony's sanity, but the question is, for how long?

This post is pretty confusing to me, but I think you're saying (among other things) that Sony should follow MS's and Nintendo's examples and kill off its last-gen system.  This is in my opinion a grievous misunderstanding of the facts. 

Nintendo stopped selling Gamecubes for the simple reason that nobody was buying them anymore.  This is what it has always done with its old systems.  Microsoft, on the other hand, did cut off the Xbox before it died a natural death (or so I've heard) because the hardware was still a huge money sink (as opposed to ALL other systems' end-of-gen profitability) and the company also wanted to capitalize as much as possible on the 360's status as the sole next-gen system. 

What I'm trying to say is that Nintendo stopped making the NES for the mass market sometime around 1995, the year before the system AFTER its successor released. (Source)  It stopped making them entirely in 2003.  It's perfectly natural for console makers to ride the beast until it's dead.  And the PS2 is not yet dead.  Not even close.

First of all the true exclusives for the PS2 have dwindled down. The multiplats are the only things left and those are the same games that are stopping people from moving up to a hd console. The Gamecube and original Xbox could've continued, but they decided to let the system rest because it was over. Before the Xbox died it was selling a two game bundle and the gamecube sold pretty well. The Gamecubes top selling games still top the PS3's top selling games. The Wii was something good to pull Nintendo out of the trenches, because the Wii tapped totally new market of consumers. Both consoles brands MS and Nintendo knew that they had to start from square one fresh, with a new game plan. Watch...When the Wii is finished, Nintendo will cut it off, Microsoft will cut off the 360 and Sony will keep selling the PS3. It's just how they've always been. This time...it's really hurting the PS3. The PS2 era can be overlooked because even though the PSX was selling during that era the PS2 had amazing backwards compatibility and had already taken over the majority market share. The PS3 is extremely different. It's going to take a year to drop price to $299, so they need all the help they can get.

Your argument is completely unsupported.  All you have to show me is the losers of a single generation, and the evidence you claim isn't even backed up by the facts.  Gamecube selling well, you say?  Well, compared to what?  It was discontinued in early 2007, and its holiday 2006 sales had been abysmal -- not even cracking 80k/week, or hardly more than a quarter of the previous year's peak.  I doubt it was due to shortages, but if you can dig up sources to that effect I will consider the possibility. 

Then you try to ignore the PREVIOUS generation.  The PSone was finally discontinued in 2006, by the way.  (The N64, being one of the generation's losers as well as having harder and more expensive to produce cartridge games, was discontinued in 2002.  The Saturn was killed off prematurely in NA in 1998, and in Japan in 2000, due to boneheaded strategy on Sega's part.)

The SNES was not discontinued until 2003.*  Its competitor, the Genesis AKA Mega Drive, is a more complicated case.  Due to MORE boneheaded Sega strategy, it was discontinued by them in 1996, but then the rights were sold to Majesco who reanimated the corpse and zombie-Genesis sold for quite some time more.  Furthermore, Tec Toy has been selling in in Brazil from 1990 TO THIS VERY DAY!!!  PS2 ain't got nothin' on this. 

*You'll notice that this is a year AFTER the N64.  What does that suggest about the relationship between generations of console versus the relative success and popularity of consoles?

The NES, as I said, continued to be sold on a limited basis until 2003, having been on the mass market until circa 1995. 
I think most of us know how long the Neo-Geo lasted, but then again that's a special case. 
The Master System was (is?) one of those Brazilian zombies, I think. 

The Atari 2600, having been released in 1977, was not "retired" until 1992, having outlived its successor, the Atari 5200 (1982-1984) and dying at the same time as the 5200's successor, the Atari 7800 (1986-1992). 

In short, S.T.A.G.E., you are entitled to your opinion of what the smart move for Sony is, but you must recognize the fact that it is NOT the usual thing for video game companies to do.  And many of these systems were not backwards compatible either.  "It's just how they've always been"?  It's me who should be saying that, not you.  Actually, I have been. 

(Note:  Many thanks to Wikipedia and Google, the casual "researcher"'s best friends.)