| happydolphin said: The most important part of your post is the second, because we know that the DVD wasn't particularly cutting edge, it was just incredibly more practical. And yeah, bringing that to the masses was largely thanks to the PS2, I agree. The increase in video and audio quality was important, but not as important as people put emphasis on video and audio quality today (a bit crazily if I may say so). The point he was making was that the PS2 was a neat console for its time, it brought media playback and all. I mentioned as a reply Netflix, but you're both right to say that media capability is now considered de facto, whereas in the PS2's time, it wasn't. So I concede the point. |
Looking at these points, the PS2 wasn't as cutting edge as PS3 was at launch time. DVD wasn't so expensive and advanced as Blu-Ray was in 2006 and the praphics tech in PS3 was more advanced comparing with other devices in the same time frame. So PS2 wasn't cutting edge (your point is correct), it had a balanced set of technological features. PS3 would be cutting edge. And by the look of things, a balanced set is much more successful than cutting edge devices.
