you missed the point. Based on what Ive been reading from you, a console becomes dead once its successor is released. The PS2, as you just said was an early success. If thats the case, then why wasnt the PS1 immediately dropped? This line of thought is weakened by your admission that hte PS3 is not a success, which would reinforce why it makes sense that Sony continues to support the PS2 which is doing wellActually, the PS2 was able to outsell obsolete handhelds. So far, the PS3 and the GBA are still fighting each other for the lowest rung on the ladder.
Wait a minute. Are you actually serious?you missed the point. Based on what Ive been reading from you, a console becomes dead once its successor is released. The PS2, as you just said was an early success. If thats the case, then why wasnt the PS1 immediately dropped? This line of thought is weakened by your admission that hte PS3 is not a success, which would reinforce why it makes sense that Sony continues to support the PS2 which is doing well
um yeahWait a minute. Are you actually serious?![]()
First generation iPods can still play the latest songs. You'll be hard-pressed to get Lair running on a PS2. Therefore, it's obsolete and therefore dead.You have no concept of what a product lifecycle means so don't even try to pawn off the idea that a product is dead when a sucessor is released. Few markets work that way, hell, not even the portable music industry works that way.
Sony created the PS2 with the idea in mind that it would continue to sell, generate revenue, and be a viable development platform even after they had released the PS3. Historically, the only company to 'kill' the old console with the release of the sucessor is Microsoft with the release of the 360. Heck you can't even properly define what 'dead' means, since you seem to think something can be dead, while still being alive, however that works.
As for saying "Product lifecycle" is just Sony PR, wow, just wow.
More inane than the proposed forum split confirmed.
I think its safe to say that the PS3/360/Wii are "current gen". I think once all 3 have made the 1 year mark, that title appliesI hate that this is still "next-gen", it's almost 2008, "next-gen" is current already. Whether people are still buying the old **** is irrelevant. Buying a 92 model car doesn't make it the current model.
and you seem to lack the concept that they are takig the same approach with the PS3 as it did with the PS2 when it was launched. They arent automatically falling back on the PS2 now bc the PS3 is doing so hot. They always intended to support the PS2 for as long as 10 years. The PS3's failure or success has nothing to do with that. Go back and find articles from 7, 8 years ago, and you'll hear them talking about plans for a 10 year life. cycle, as that was their approach with the PS1 as well. They did not intend for their console to become dead when the successor was released. Maybe you expected it to be, but thats not the case for the thousands that have continued to buy and purchase PS2 games and systems since the PS3's releaseWhatsHisFace said:Okay, you people seem to lack the concept that Sony released the PS3 with intentions of it selling. Why did they make the PS3? To succeed the PS2. If they really intended to keep the PS2 going so strongly, they would have had no need to release the PS3. God of War 2 was well-along into development and would make more money on the PS2 so it wasn't a PS3 game. That is the end of the PS2 for Sony. From here on out, anything worthwhile will be on the PS3. Yeah, the PS2 is a dead system. Nice try with the whole "lifecycle" crap that's typical of Sony (4D graphics, real-time weapon change, next-generation starts when we say so, Xbox 1.5, 120 frames per second, jack into the matrix) PR.