The Ghost of RubangB said: PS3 has a smaller game library than the PS2, so more people are willing to try out a critically acclaimed sequel of a franchise they haven't played before. Also because of this, MGS4 has less competition than MGS3 did, so it's easier for it to rise to the top. And since MGS4 was on a newer system maybe people who only played 1 or 2 of the earlier games wanted to see how MGS would be done differently with more powerful hardware and graphics. |
I agree with this. Especially the 1st point. But I think the biggest factor, and something that amazingly seems to get overlooked a hell of alot is that ps2 was LAST GENERATION in which the video game industry although big and growing wasn't as big as it is now. Gaming has been growing at an alarming pace since it's beginnings. Quite simply games just sell more now than they ever did before. This is more evident in game sales particularly than it is in Hardware/console sales. That's why the argument of comparing PS3 sale's to PS2's sales at the same point in their respective lifetimes to justify PS3's poor performance bothers me so much. First of all, they are to different systems with different technological aspects and different manufacturing costs. Even if it sold the exact same as the ps2 and we dont take into account industry growth, the ps3 has to sell at a hire rate to make money. That brings us to the profit margin of the respective consoles which of course is also very different and ps3's magin is much higher. So same numbers don't equal same sales from a money/profit standpoint. But more importantly, 3 million copies of a game sold in 2002 is not the same as 3 million copies sold in 2009. In 2002, 3 million copies was generally an astonoshing number. Nowadays, it's impressive, but not overly so, as even some new IPs this gen have hit that mark, something that was unheard of a decade ago.