What The PS3's library would need to be ATLEAST comparable to the ps2's

[MARCUSDJACKSON]

rf40928 said:

Xxain said:
This thread really opens my eyes futher to how little PS3 has accomplish in being anywhere near its Godly predecessor

Well, we all had PS2's.. but people never reason why .. It was sort of the perfect storm.. PS1 had already taken alot of the previous champs market share and paved the way for PS2.  the new DVD format was  100% agree'd on and established an entire year before the PS2 was released..  So PS2 was also looked at as the best value at launch.. it cost pretty much the same as a "High End" Dvd player.... Consider the more powerful PS2 also competed against a underpowered game cube.. and MS's more powerful XB 1 was launched over 1.5 years after PS2's launch, thus not only being that late, but being a new competitor MS had very little developer support.  Very few developers wanted to break loyalty and cross the line on a console with a much smaller userbase..  So PS2 had alot going for it.. 

The problem with the PS3 is Sony viewed it as the world was the same and it would sell on loyalty alone at any cost.. but bluray was not established ( although with the PS3's help it did become that way ) ... Sony made the PS3 too expensive at launch - too much money went into engineering CELL only to pair CELL with a weaker GPU - when games are mostly GPU reliant, not CPU reliant..this made little sense.  Thus developers have to take the load from the GPU with optimizations for CELL... In the end they made a console which is no more powerful ( as a whole ) then the Xbox 360.  If CELL had real and FREQUENT advantages in games then CPU makers that have more experience ( like Intel ) wouldve done CELL like CPU's a long time ago.. but Sony felt DEVELOPERS would all say we dont mind doing it the hard way, we dont mind doing extra work to tap this things power..  I feel Sony could've made alot of us old fans that had PS2's happy if they would've made the PS3 with a more contemporary CPU which could've been as powerful or more powerful ( which wouldve been cheaper ) and not cut cost in other parts of the PS3 ( like the GPU )... and still had bluray in there... Basically CELL's power is being held back by the GPU of the console..

The PS3 is still a very good console.. Sony seems to have launched the PS3 as if they were still competing in a 2 console market.. I guess since XB1 was late and thus only sold ( 20 million ?) they figured MS was no threat.. Sony and EVERYONE completely underestimated Nintendo's comeback..  When you have 3 console makers ALL selling alot of console its very hard to to get the kind of numbers the PS2 did.. Thats why the Wii is behind the PS2.. If you subtract just part of Xbox 360's sales ... say the 30 million in America.. or the 20+ million in EMEAA and add it to the PS3's sales... or add to the Wii's sales..Its a completely different picture ! ..  You'd either be looking at a PS3 with 80 million consoles worldwide or a Wii with over 100 million wordwide..I think the PS3's overpriced and botched launch has definately paved the way for things to be similar in the next generation because many of those previously loyal to the PS2 went out and bought a competitors product and many of those will do it again next gen..  I had a PS3 for awhile.. I didnt like how Sony tried to sell us the "Vibration" controller was old tech and thus it was the reason they didnt have shock at first for the PS3... Then it came out later Sony settled the lawsuit with the company that owns that technology and thus now could release Dual Shock again.. If there hadnt been such an outcry they might have never cared to settle.. I felt they thought anyone would buy whatever they put out because they were the Sony that put out PS2..

the second paragraph intrust me the most, but the third is exactly wht i was thinking, and IMO thats the aproach Nintendo is taking now.

some manufactures never learn or is it all? 

so wht console do you own now?