Showing 41 to 60 of 73
41. Posted: Sat 9th Jan 2010 22:36 GMT
I thought the PSP was fine as it was.The PSPgo seemed unnecessary. :/
just another day...
42. Posted: Sat 9th Jan 2010 23:20 GMT
the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced about this... Sony's worst mistake this generation has been keeping the PS2 alive...
With most of the PSP games being ports, or being ported to PS2, there wasn't that much of a reason for most people to get one, specially if they already had a PS2... and at the same time, PS2's presence in the shelves stopped new players and parents looking for gifts from buying a PS3... for people that didn't know the details, they had 3 Sony options with the same name and different number (one of them portable): a $150 console, a $250 portable console and a $600 console, and it looks like they all play the same games because they have the same name, which one does that people get? the cheaper!
De Puerto Rico a Los Angeles, the New York al Dirrty SouthEste guerrero latino es representa'oMuero de pie hantes de vivir arrodillaoY tu eres fake'ah, mas fake'ah que chinatown
43. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:49 GMT
the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced about this... Sony's worst mistake this generation has been keeping the PS2 alive...With most of the PSP games being ports, or being ported to PS2, there wasn't that much of a reason for most people to get one, specially if they already had a PS2... and at the same time, PS2's presence in the shelves stopped new players and parents looking for gifts from buying a PS3... for people that didn't know the details, they had 3 Sony options with the same name and different number (one of them portable): a $150 console, a $250 portable console and a $600 console, and it looks like they all play the same games because they have the same name, which one does that people get? the cheaper!
First off, only a handful of games have been ported to the PS2, and most of them were 1st-party games, like Secret Agent Clank or Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror, the latter of which I thought was more suited for consoles anyways. I highly doubt the ports would have much of an influence, although it does seem that exaggerated tales have kept less-informed potential buyers at bay.
Secondly, I don't think the PS2 has really been selling that much. It's cheaper, but it doesn't have the large amount of new games that the PS3 gets, and most non-specialty stores, which most casual audiance members that the latest models of the PS2 appeal to shop at, are more or less phasing out their PS2 selection. So unless people buy second-hand games at a specialty shop or online, which may be of questionable quality and may have to be returned. The PS2 is mostly just there enthusiasts or for people who can't afford a next-gen console, rather than as a replacement. It's in no way in direct competition with the PSP or PS3. It's just another option to appeal to a certain kind of folk.
Actually, that's the same with the PSPgo and the PSP-3000. The PSPgo wasn't meant to replaces the 3000, it's just another option - a luxury line, if you will - that provides a greater amount of convenience for a select demographic. It's not really a successor in any fashion. That's why they kept the PSP-3000 line going.
Thirdly, when was the last time you looked at the price of the Sony Consoles? 3 years ago? The PS2, PSP, and PS3 are $80, $160, and $300/$400 respectively. And who would be stupid enough to assume they all have the same games because they're all under the same brand? That's like assuming the Nintendo DS has Wii Sports on it because it's made by Nintendo.
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 00:51 by CanisWolfred
Mecha Wolf Prime
Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"
44. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:53 GMT
I meant the prices by the time the PS3 launched...
and no, not because they are of the same brand - Sony- but because they have the same name: PlayStation with a different number (one of them implies it's the Portable version of the other two). And I've heard people at malls talking about how the 3 PlayStations are the same with the same games lol, even saw someone buying a PS2 as a cheap PS3... I bet you that was one sad and mad customer lol
(and they are $225, $400 and $550 respectively here lol)
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 00:55 by DarkG
45. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:53 GMT
No systems need to go, Competition is what keeps you getting your good games on whatever system it is you like. If it wasnt for constant competition you would have half A$$ games instead of full polished games to try to sell systems.
NPD 2009 ChartWii..... 5,784,000X360.....3,460,700PS3.....2,974,500PS2.....1,466,700NDS.....7,875,400PSP.....1,841,400
Complete Worldwide Sales of Systems as of Dec 2009Wii.....56.14 MillionX360.....39 MillionPS3......27 MillionDS.....101.78 MillionPSP.....51.6 Million
Last Generation SalesPSone.....102.49 MillionN64.....32.93 MilliopnPS2....138 MillionGamecube.....21.74 Million
PS2 (Sony) is the highest selling console to this day and still selling over a Million units a year. So all your that think Sony is a complete and utter failure..... here are the number. No sytem or company for that matter is a failure and here are the numbers to prove it. Not to mention the PS3 is still not even halfway through its lifecycle and has already outsold the Gamecube and not far from N64, and there have been more PSP units sold than X360s, yeah Sony sucks huh. They should just go ahead and call it quits.
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 00:57 by Slapshot
3DS FC: 4382-2029-8015
All my News and Reviews in One convenient place!
46. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:57 GMT
Hardware numbers don't matter that much to companies other than Nintendo... Software is where the money is, and is the one that says failure or success (And one of the main reasons PSP could be considered a failure, given the low software sales)... and current software sales of the PS2 prove that it isn't really needed....
And this is the 4th/5th year of this generation... this is when new stuff is usually announced too, and around the time previous consoles had new versions out... that the PS3 hasn't surpassed N64 sales is a shame
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 00:59 by DarkG
47. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 00:58 GMT
I meant the prices by the time the PS3 launched...(and they are $225, $400 and $550 respectively here lol)
Probably should've specified that somewhere in your post...
And why reference the launch prices anyways? And I don't think there were any PSP-to-PS2, ports at the time, and only a handful of PS2-to-PSP ports.
Edit: "Playstation" is a brand. A brand people recognize, and hopefully a brand people can trust. That's why they keep using it, because they want people to associate those products with the other consoles. Just because a few customers are uninformed that they're different products doesn't mean it was a mistake in the long run.
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 01:03 by CanisWolfred
48. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:02 GMT
PSP has several flaws, like the mediocre battery life and how it's so uncomfortable to hold, but no, it shouldn't be discontinued. PSPGo was WAAAAAY before its time though. :/
Uh oh. He's back.
49. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:02 GMT
DarkG wrote:I meant the prices by the time the PS3 launched...(and they are $225, $400 and $550 respectively here lol)Probably should've specified that somewhere in your post...And why reference the launch prices anyways? And I don't think there were any PSP-to-PS2, ports at the time, and only a handful of PS2-to-PSP ports.
I was lazy and didn't want to go into much detail, was kind of a rushed post lol... I was stating different ideas in the same paragraph, sorry for the confusion... launch prices are important because of the lackluster sales both the PS3 and PSP had at the time...
50. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:03 GMT
@DarkG..... whatever man. System sales matter, without the sytem your cant have games. Not to mention the PSP had more AAA titles released this year then the DS did and more 3rd party support. I actually did sell my first PSP because of lack of games, but with the PSone Classics being available on the PSP and the AAA titles that started back with LocoRoco, Patapon, God of War, Crisis Core, Ive been loving my PSP 2000. Look at Microsoft (that your adore), NO SYSTEM SO NO GAME SELLS. So yeah it does matter that the system sell. Cause Microsoft can even sell 1 of them.
51. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:04 GMT
No. It makes them a lot of money, which is what their goal is as a company. They should abandon the PS3, if anything.
Is it after 9PM EST? You should probably ignore the above post.
52. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:12 GMT
obviously if your system doesn't sell you can't sell the games... but if your system sells and the games don't, all the company is doing is bleeding money (look at Sony for the last couple of years)... that's why ultimately console sales doesn't matter... how come PSP is usually the best selling Sony console, yet it usually doesn't have any or just 1 or 2 games on the top 10 or 20?
(PS: God of War: Chains of Olympus isn't AAA, is mediocre at best, and made me lose interest on my recently bough PSP, luckily I found better games a week later at the airport)
53. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:13 GMT
They should abandon the PS3, a system that has sold 27 million units and is now selling more than ever and has full 3rd party support, over 125 titles sceduled to release in 2010, and is only halfway in its lifecycle. Why would they abandon it?
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 01:13 by Slapshot
54. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:18 GMT
Because of low game sales, sky-high R&D costs and failure to meet hype and expectations... if anything is to blame for Sony's money bleeding of the last couple of years that's the PS3... or better said, the Cell and Blu-Ray... and since IBM is abandoning Cell R&D, it all looks like it wasn't a wise investment (3+ years and still bleeding money)
55. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:25 GMT
DarkG wrote:I meant the prices by the time the PS3 launched...(and they are $225, $400 and $550 respectively here lol)Probably should've specified that somewhere in your post...And why reference the launch prices anyways? And I don't think there were any PSP-to-PS2, ports at the time, and only a handful of PS2-to-PSP ports.I was lazy and didn't want to go into much detail, was kind of a rushed post lol... I was stating different ideas in the same paragraph, sorry for the confusion... launch prices are important because of the lackluster sales both the PS3 and PSP had at the time...
I figured. Remember, this is a forum, not a chatroom. There's no need to rush your posts. If you don't have time, wait until you do. The thread will still be there. Making your point more clear is far more important.
I guess you'd have a point - I could see the PS2 hurting the initial sales of the PS3, since the PS2 was cheaper, but if anything it just slowed it down a bit, since obviously the PS3 is still going and its current sales have increased. Again, I wouldn't say it was really a mistake to keep their most successful platform to date going. It helps to increase consumer confidence, since obviously if you've had a PS2 for many years and you can still get games for it, you've definitely gotten your money's worth, and hopefully the PS3 and PSP will have equally long lifespans.
Not to mention they already had a precident for it - they sold PSOnes at least a year or two into the PS2's lifespan. Heck, I got mine in 2001, after some of my neighbors and friends had already gotten the PS2, which we couldn't afford at the time. Did selling PSOnes while they were trying to promote the PS2 hurt the PS2's sales in the long run? Obviously not.
EDIT: Poor game sales? Wut? Sources plz.
Edited on Sun 10th January, 2010 @ 01:27 by CanisWolfred
56. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:32 GMT
I can garuantee they havent lost near as much money as Microsoft did on having to ship to and from over 50 Percent of their customers and fix their systems at their expense, and for some more than once. We had 2 360s, First died 2 times and the one we got now has died once already and Microsoft paid all three bills. Sony has stated that they ARE making money on the PS3 systems now with the launch of the Slim, and guess what buddy....... the games are selling too and Sony is making lots of money on the system now, and it was all planned to be this way from the start, they said that multiple times over and over at the launch of the PS3. I know two of my brothers have sold their XBOX for PS3s (so not buying Microsoft games anymore) and several of my friends have done the same thing because of system failures. Microsoft is a great company, but so is Sony, they take risk and always have. They have balls, that is why they are the only company that has stood up to Nintendo Handheld market and actually took some of their buisness and still making money on it years later. PS2 is the most successful home console EVER and PS3 they took some of that money and took a major risk and its starting to pay off. In 2-3 years time, its going to be Sony laughing at all everyone who says they should drop out of the market. Honestly man, you would think Microsoft pays you to play their games your such a fanboy.
57. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:36 GMT
Don't turn this into a console war arguement, please. Stick to the topic, which is about the PSP and its success/failure. For once I would like a non-nintendo console discussion thread to not get locked because people got off track.
That goes for you, DarkG. I know you're tempted.
58. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:43 GMT
Actually that does relate to PSP. Sonys console. I have respect for Sony for trying to come out with a handheld against Nintendo. It was literally a suicide mission to try to compete with the big N in the handheld market. Nintendo does that better than anyone ever and prob ever will in the future. I have respect for Developers, Publisher, Creators, Artist, Musicians, etc that goes into making games and all three Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all have things that they all do exceptionally well and all have their flaws as well. It really pisses me off when people rant on the internet against companies because they are a fanboy of one of them. Play the game and have fun, that is all that matters. These companies that HUGE risk to make games, that we play and enjoy. If you dont like them dont play them, if you dont like the company, dont buy their product and at least have some respect for them and not make topics/threads that say "Sony SHOULD Abandon PSP". Just dont buy one and get over it.
59. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:44 GMT
Don't worry Mickeymac, I was replying to another thread while you two posted lol
Something I didn't make clear before: PSP's main antagonist has been it's owners, most of which aren't gamers, but undesirable pirates... I remember once reading Capcom's interest of making remakes of all Megaman games for PSP if their first attempts succeeded... a lot of people played them, but only a few of us have actually bought at least one of them... when your console is one of the best sellers and your games aren't you have to worry... even more, when your underperforming home console is doing better...
60. Posted: Sun 10th Jan 2010 01:51 GMT
@DarkG..... I have a lot of respect for all the consoles. I know you love bashing the PS3 and its not going to stop and I dont care to stop you. Could care less, cause honestly, all it does is make me want to play the 360 even less than I already do. Its mainly the Live Users that I hate so much when playing online, yeah there there on PS3 but dont seem as bad. Dreamcast sold like crap and died really quickly, BUT to this day Power Stone, Soul Calibur, Panzer Dragoon, Shenmue, Bangai-O have fans that swear the system and games were the best of all time. Its a dang shame for SEGA for all the hard work and time and effort they put into it to only loose so much for whatever reason, not to mention the devs of the games on the system.