By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 26 March 2008
Edit Thread
FreeTalkLive said:
disolitude said:
 Sony tried something very different this generation and it has hurt their bottom line.

I'm sorry...what did Sony try that was so different from PS2.

Sony to do checklist for ps3:

1. Include latest media drive - check

2. Make an all powerful graphics processor that is hard to program for - check

3. Hype games 3 years in advance - check

 


 The PS2 was not a really powerful system with expensive tech (just like all of the other systems I mentioned).  The PS2 retailed for what, $300?  The PS3 retailed for twice as much and is considered by Sony to be very powerful.  The main companies in the videogame console war (like Sony) didn't go super expensive/powerful until Sony tried it with PS3 (and MS to a lesser degree).

If the PS3 would have retailed for $300  (or even $350) and used common tech like the DVD (as Sony did with the common DVD with PS2); then, I would agree with you. 


LOL. PS2 retailed for 449 canadian when it launched versus 499 for PS3. We know that it wasn't that powerful now. But when PS2 came out, it was marketed as gift from god. Who knows...maybe 4 years later we will all expose PS3 for being not as good as Sony claims.

Also, DVD wasn't the "common tech" at the time. PS2 was the first console to have that built in but it was a more established market at the time hence why it killed the dreamcast right away.  All sony did with PS3 is took the PS2 moto and did + 1.  I know that Microsoft did the same...but lets not give sony credit for going out of line and breaking the tradition at this point.