PS2-PS3=same story

[CrazzyMan]

URNotE said:
If anyone remembers the ps2 launch, when it was released, it was said that it was too much money, there were no games, no online play, and the dvd player was not needed. But in the ending times of the years of PS2 (before PS3), it was said that the price was perfect, it had the best selection of games, there was online play (which was good enough for the era), and the dvd player was well liked by everyone who had one. Now we are in the age of the PS3, where it is again being said. The PS3 is too much money, there is no games, the online play sucks, and the blu-ray player is not needed. I will ask anyone who reads this post to please reply with your answer to the question: Is this not an example of history repeating itself, and do you think that the end result will be the same?

Its all up to the people to determine weather the PS3 is sucessfull. More-so them then Sony.

Think about it.

Yeah, it will be the same. Because even Sony Haters say same things as in 2000.

Sony is also under the mistaken impression that including the ability to play DVD movies is a huge selling point. But true technophiles and hardcore gamers probably already have DVD drives. I'm a good case in point. I already own a Sony DVD player, so I could not care less if the $299 PS2 can play movies. I'd rather pay less and get a machine that just plays games instead.

In comparison, the Sega Dreamcast sells for $149 and has a giant library of games already available. Sega also has an online game network, Seganet.

Oct. 27, 2000 © Sony-Hater.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/playstation_rant/index.html