By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - BC or ps2, what's the difference?

theprof00 on 06 September 2009
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Or you could have just bought another ps2, keeping the value of all the games you had, because you surely lost a lot of the value by selling them.

and then buy another one.... and another one.... then a bunch of second hand ones.....

 

 

The failure rate was not that bad. In fact, most of the problems ps2s ran into was lens motor, which occurred due to overuse of the system.

So, you can always just tighten the arm on the motor or you can buy another one.

This arm is the one thing that affected ps2s over anything else, which either gave a clicking noise, or made no noise whatsoever.

No... it was that bad. 

Sony lost MULTIPLE lawsuits because of it.

It was right up there with the 360.


Infact when polled the failure rate was well above 50% just like the 360.  Both likely overblown.  But they were the same level.

SO a guaranteed break within two years? That's a no.

failure rate does have something to do with time as well. 50% means one out of two break within a year. That's simply not true.

There were two or three shipments out of the 150M or so consoles that had problems. This is the reality:

Optical arm is wear and tear, not failure or defect. I'd like to see a graph from a well respected source showing how failure prone the ps2 was.

Me and my roommate had two ps2s, both died. Due to problems with the lens, either dust or the motor arm. Both were 6+ years old. Which would be a 15% failure rate, if those were failures. Which they are not, they are issues of wear and tear. The difference? One is based on how the console is made, and the other is based on how the console exists in my environment.

Those consoles from the shipments were defective and prone to failure. Sony was on top of it immediately. Slims were known to combust, and Sony fixed everything immediately.

You can keep lieing to youself if you want but nobody is going to dispute that the PS2 is the 2nd most unreliable console out there.

In the same way that home schooling is the second most popular way to school your children.

That would make sense if there were only 2 consoles ever.  As there aren't... and just about anyone will tell you PS2s are of questionable quality.... with the only dissenters being sony fanboys....

Or is just that a lot of people calling reliability a factor just a coincidence?

Ok, it was a bad analogy, but a good comparison in terms of the failure rates. SOME of the PS2s did have questionable quality. I know that, and already wrote it three posts back. But out of the total, those were fixed and replaced, and were continued to be replaced. MS had a limit to their fixes.

So in terms of comparing failure rates, there is a huge difference in both rates and quality assurance.



Around the Network
Crazymann on 06 September 2009

The PS2 had sucky QC, 360 has really sucky QC, and now the PS3 60 GB's are dying all over the place. Mine is still holding up, but my (second) PS2 just died a couple weeks ago, and I am not about to buy a third. If my 60 dies, then I'll be liquidating my Sony library if I can't find a BC replacement.

OT - In the old days, systems were never BC, (except Atari 7800 which sucked anyway), you just expected to have to move on. The problem here is that Sony bashed MS for not having full BC and promised that "BC was a core aspect of the brand". This is why I am upset.

And, "blah blah blah newer tech breaks faster blah blah". Well, that still doesn't explain the disparity between my 2600 which has lasted 27 years and my PS2 that lasted 6 years.

As far as the "optical problems" go, no Sega or Nintendo optical system I have owned has EVER broken. Granted, I sold the Dreamcast (yes, I know, stupid), but it always worked like a champ.



Pristine20 on 06 September 2009
Crazymann said:
The PS2 had sucky QC, 360 has really sucky QC, and now the PS3 60 GB's are dying all over the place. Mine is still holding up, but my (second) PS2 just died a couple weeks ago, and I am not about to buy a third. If my 60 dies, then I'll be liquidating my Sony library if I can't find a BC replacement.

OT - In the old days, systems were never BC, (except Atari 7800 which sucked anyway), you just expected to have to move on. The problem here is that Sony bashed MS for not having full BC and promised that "BC was a core aspect of the brand". This is why I am upset.

And, "blah blah blah newer tech breaks faster blah blah". Well, that still doesn't explain the disparity between my 2600 which has lasted 27 years and my PS2 that lasted 6 years.

As far as the "optical problems" go, no Sega or Nintendo optical system I have owned has EVER broken. Granted, I sold the Dreamcast (yes, I know, stupid), but it always worked like a champ.

I think one of the major reasons behind the disappearance of BC, despite the promises, is the removal of Ken Kutaragi from the helm of playstation. Bc was his philosophy not necessarily anyone else's. Notice how after his removal, the 60gb is quickly phased out and the 40 and 80 gb consoles are introduced. His removal begins the downward spiral of ps3 feature losses.

Kutaragi was an engineer at heart and one that seemed exceptionally proud of his work. I just cant imagine him dumbing down the ps3 if he was still at the helm. So while people have their gripes with Kutaragi for one reason or the other, there are also many reasons to appreciate the man behind PlayStation.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Crazymann on 06 September 2009

You know, that is a good point, and one that I never thought of. I wonder if we'll see full fledged BC again in that case.

I personally hope that the PS4 is architecturally similar enough to the PS3 to have compatibility (like GC to Wii), and would hope that PS2 emulation is achieved, even if on PCs, so I can keep my library.



crumas2 on 07 September 2009
Seinfeld said:
If they can't include PS2 BC, it would be great if they at least make a hardware attachment that allows you to play PS2 games on a PS3.

That way there can be less clutter around a TV, upscaled visuals, and possibly digital distribution of PS2 games.

This would be a great idea as long as the attachment was small and could use the PS3s video, audio, and controller connections.  It would likely have to be a PS2 in a very small box as bus speeds, etc., would limit very much sharing of the PS3 hardware.



Around the Network
crumas2 on 07 September 2009
Crazymann said:
The PS2 had sucky QC, 360 has really sucky QC, and now the PS3 60 GB's are dying all over the place. Mine is still holding up, but my (second) PS2 just died a couple weeks ago, and I am not about to buy a third. If my 60 dies, then I'll be liquidating my Sony library if I can't find a BC replacement.

OT - In the old days, systems were never BC, (except Atari 7800 which sucked anyway), you just expected to have to move on. The problem here is that Sony bashed MS for not having full BC and promised that "BC was a core aspect of the brand". This is why I am upset.

And, "blah blah blah newer tech breaks faster blah blah". Well, that still doesn't explain the disparity between my 2600 which has lasted 27 years and my PS2 that lasted 6 years.

As far as the "optical problems" go, no Sega or Nintendo optical system I have owned has EVER broken. Granted, I sold the Dreamcast (yes, I know, stupid), but it always worked like a champ.

Not to try and justify the terrible failure rate of PS2 optical drives, but one reason the much older consoles/computers didn't fail as often is because they had fewer moving parts and less complexity.  But that doesn't explain why some companies produce components that seem to last forever and others do not... that's primarily a factor of QC, component quality, and luck.