Still the best

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperShouden
  • 27 comments
  • 2,751 views
S

SuperShouden

(Banned)
Messages
7,542
Messages
SuperShouden
Sony PS2 is STILL the best selling gaming console ever with 142 million units sold. [Source]

It's been 10 years and it's still far ahead any of the current gen systems. Even the mighty DS and Wii haven't even come close.

Not only that, but when one looks at the top 20 Best selling games of all time: only two aren't Nintendo games and both are on the PS2. And Sony holds the best selling titles in 4 of the 12 genres.

Whatever Sony's did with the PS2 is what they need to do for the PS4 and do to the PS3. I think they tried to do it with the PS3, but it didn't quite work becuase the system was too expensive. However, everytime the price drops on the PS3, it causes the system's sales to jump. And with both Nintendo and MS in the red and Sony in the Black, I would think that Sony actually did get the formula right again with the PS3, the price just wasn't right.
 
Sony didn't really want to do what they did on the PS2 with the PS3. The PS3 was created from the start for the benefit of the whole company.



The PS2 also needs to die within the next two years, or I will be furious.
 
It's been around forever, I'm surprised they still release games for it.

And you've got to be kidding me, this is a sad state of affairs:

Top 20 console games of all time

2. Nintendogs (DS – 23.26 million, all five versions combined)
Click to expand...
 
Tiddy
It's been around forever, I'm surprised they still release games for it.

And you've got to be kidding me, this is a sad state of affairs:
Click to expand...

That is all five versions combined, though. Nintendo cheats like that, though.
 
One of the best gaming libraries too thanks to Sega folding and Xbox's late arrival.
I never judge somehting being the best on sales alone. That would mean the Chvey Cobalt is better than the BMW M3...........
 
PS2 probably has best games and huge library of games. I think they should now stop making PS2, games for it and try to have PS3 play all PS2 games or through PSN. They are probably going to do some PS2 HD ports which I think is great.
 
Well I just bought a new PS2, old one died a few months ago. Still enjoy lots of games (GT3, GT4, Enthusia, TRD3, TDU, even the good old Le Mans), and my kids even more, especially my son is loving the oportunity to play all those Ace Combat games again.

I think I have over 40 PS2 titles at home so to throw them all out is no option. And a new PS2 costs 80 euros now, a ridiculous price for what it offers.


EDIT - May I add also that games made for the PS2 do not rely on DLC and patching, Back in those days, if you dared to release a buggy game, or a game short on its content, you would suffer harsh consequences. Nowadays ...
 
LaBounti
One of the best gaming libraries too thanks to Sega folding and Xbox's late arrival.
I never judge somehting being the best on sales alone. That would mean the Chvey Cobalt is better than the BMW M3...........
Click to expand...

Agreed, generally it isn't wise to judge something based on sales alone, however, we're talking about the best selling console of all times. No other gaming console has ever sold as many as the PS2. While not the sole point of judging, it definitely means something.
 
Sony got so many things right with the PS2, which is why it was so successful.
Mainly that, unlike PS3, it was easy to develop games for.
Also, if you owned a PS1, then you obviously would go for the PS2. That secured sales in the tens of millions for a start.
It was also the first console that could play DVDs straight out of the box. Since standalone DVD players were still relatively expensive back then, people saw the advantage of getting a games machine AND a DVD player in one package. Much like the PS3 and it's blu-ray player.
And the fact that it simply looked so h-tech helped as well.
Put simply, with the PS4, Sony need to look back at what they did right with the PS2 and not repeat the same mistakes they made with PS3, even though the PS3 has had a turn of fortune recently.

And Hun200kmh had a good point above: consoles these days take too many design elements from PCs in that they are HDD based and rely on downloads and patches to fix/update things. For me, the constant PS3 console/game updates are a real pain. Back in the days of PS2, everything was so simple - you bought a game, you took it home, you played it instantly. No annoying "Update data for this game has been found" and another 10-20 minute wait cos PSN is so S-L-O-W.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the updates. That way a game that had a few bugs at can get rid of them. And the firmware updates allow the system to be updated to support new things, which is cool. And Xbox's updates took longer. I also LOVE PS3's HDD. Using a laptop's 2.5 inch HDD was brilliant. That way, if you want to swap out your 80GB HDD with a bigger HDD, you aren't limited to a select few. The PS2 HDD did use a standard PC HDD, but it was built specifically for the system.

I think PS3 did a lot of things right, but, like I said, I just think the price wasn't right. I mean, PS3 is now selling better than it ever has.
 
Yeah well if developer's took care with their playtesting and released games with no bugs then there would be no need for updates to fix things. Back in the days of PS1 and PS2, a game HAD to be released bug free - anything less was just sheer lazyness. It seems these days that a developer can rush a game out so it is only just playable but if there is any bugs then they can use the "a patch will be released to fix......blah de blah" excuse. Look at Fallout 3. That game was riddled with faults, but it was still playable - just. Modern Warfare 2 had to have updates to fix certain things, particularly with online play. As I said, just plain lazyness.
 
Golfman
Mainly that, unlike PS3, it was easy to develop games for.
Click to expand...
If by "easy to develop games for" you mean "so astonishingly difficult that it was dead in the water for games until the end of 2001," then yes. The PS2 was absurdly annoying to develop for when it came out, mostly because of the way it handled textures.
 
Yup PS2's early sdk's were not very good. Burnout and Burnout Revenge looks like night and day.... No one was using PS2's embedded ram the first year or so of games as they just did not know how.
 
Golfman
Yeah well if developer's took care with their playtesting and released games with no bugs then there would be no need for updates to fix things. Back in the days of PS1 and PS2, a game HAD to be released bug free - anything less was just sheer lazyness. It seems these days that a developer can rush a game out so it is only just playable but if there is any bugs then they can use the "a patch will be released to fix......blah de blah" excuse. Look at Fallout 3. That game was riddled with faults, but it was still playable - just. Modern Warfare 2 had to have updates to fix certain things, particularly with online play. As I said, just plain lazyness.
Click to expand...

Have you ever, in the entirety of your life, developed anything from scratch and/or from an already optimized game engine?

And games for the PS1/2 were bug free? Were you being serious when you wrote that out? So many games on both consoles had bugs (many of them might I add) that the only one I can remember off-hand was GT2's completion bug. Know how that was fixed?

The game was re-released, not internally patched. There's no way you can identify every known bug because you'd never release the game to begin with. Two, bugs occur under a variety of situations (i.e. older firmware/older system compatibility, sheer coincidence, etc.) that's why titles have beta programs so as many bugs can be rectified as possible before the release date. The fact that games are released with bugs these days are of no consequence as you can simply apply an updated patch and go on about the rest of the day; all of this without having to buy the game all over again.
 
Toronado
Because it would outlast the AES as the longest-lived console. Though I made a silly mistake, and it would actually need to last for 4 more years, which I don't see happening regardless.
Click to expand...

The PS2 just happens to be selling more than the AES.:rolleyes: Shorter time period apparently. :sly:
 
GT2 had several bugs. :P Including one that prevented you from gettin 100%. ('cause they removed drag racing at the last second.) GT4 has a similar glitch in it if you do the Mission Hall events in the wrong order. And EVERY GTA GAME EVER is FULL of bugs and glitches. just go to youtube and enter "GTA glitches"
 
Last time Sony released the PlayStation before the Xbox. I'm sure if we give it another 10 years or so, the PS3 will get very close or surpass PS2 sales numbers.
 
Terronium-12
Have you ever, in the entirety of your life, developed anything from scratch and/or from an already optimized game engine?

And games for the PS1/2 were bug free? Were you being serious when you wrote that out? So many games on both consoles had bugs (many of them might I add) that the only one I can remember off-hand was GT2's completion bug. Know how that was fixed?

The game was re-released, not internally patched. There's no way you can identify every known bug because you'd never release the game to begin with. Two, bugs occur under a variety of situations (i.e. older firmware/older system compatibility, sheer coincidence, etc.) that's why titles have beta programs so as many bugs can be rectified as possible before the release date. The fact that games are released with bugs these days are of no consequence as you can simply apply an updated patch and go on about the rest of the day; all of this without having to buy the game all over again.
Click to expand...

These days when I'm paying almost £50 for a game, I EXPECT it to be able to run without any problems whatsoever. Fallout 3: GOTY edition was a joke. The main game was largely problem free, but the add-on packs? Numerous freezes, crashes and glitches that rendered it almost unplayable. Developer's have absolutely NO excuse, especially on a multi-format release. The money we pay for games, it should be optimised for EACH and EVERY platform and should take advantage of that platform's strengths. But no, all they do is take the easy, cheap, laid-back approach and simply convert it over. It's laughable, to be honest.
Saying that, one bug has plagued every single GT game that I hope they fix for GT5: on certain races, no matter how high you tune your car there is always one AI opponent that seems to outrun and get so far ahead of you it is impossible to catch. Even on multi-events where you blitzed the competition on 4 out of 5 races, but had one opponent on the last race(the one you left behind easily on the previous 4 races) shoot off and get a 10 second gap before you complete the first lap!
 
Maybe you should retire from gaming if you think every single game should perfect and bug free before it is released. Console gaming has far less patches than PC gaming. They know they can patch problems "if" they happen.

Bethesda has a reputation for buggy games. Even Morrowind had some crash bugs and glitches they never fixed. But to use Fallout 3 as your bug reference was a bad choice for the reason above.
 
Golfman
Sony got so many things right with the PS2, which is why it was so successful.
Mainly that, unlike PS3, it was easy to develop games for.
Click to expand...
PS2 wasn't easy to develop for. Its architecture is quite complex, much more than Dreamcast or Xbox. In this aspect the PS2 is similar to the PS3. The original Playstation was easy to develop for - in contrast to the Saturn.

Dreamcast was too early, had no EA support, everybody was waiting for the PS2 (thanks to marketing and the success of PS1) and SEGA did - and unfortunately still does - many things wrong. Xbox was a bit late and many were skeptical about Microsoft's entry into this market. Sony got the time and the marketing right.

They thought they could do it again with the PS3 but the delay, high price and a lot of developers working on the 360 made it very hard times for Sony.
 
Is nobody going to respond to my argument above about why games should be optimised for each and every platform they are released on? We pay almost £50 for a brand new game. At that price, we should demand they run as good as possible. When a game is released on all 4 gaming platforms (PC, Wii, PS3, 360), there should be a separate team for each one, dedicated to making sure that version of the game takes full advantage of the particular platform it is running on. After all, if the game turns out good, it sells bucketloads and the companies make millions. More than enough to make sure we should get what we pay for, whatever platform you own.

Simply converting it across is the lazy way out, and a rip-off.

To say I retire from gaming because I think that is wrong? No way. I've been a gamer since the early 80's. Hell I remember the big three from back then: C64, Spectrum, Amstrad CPC464.
And since the price of games back then were between £2-£10, it was ok for the C64 version to be better than the other two. With only a handful of people working on games, it was deemed necessary to simply convert it between the different versions.
Gaming is a far bigger, more expensive, more popular form of entertainment today than it was back then.
Am I wrong to expect so much? Anybody on my side here?
Maybe I should start a new thread on this subject...
 
Last edited:
No one response to you 'cause we're all so tired of reading you whine about everything that we just can't be bothered any more.
 

Latest Posts

Back