Sony Expects Most PS2 Users to Move onto PS3

[Standby]

It amazes me in these debates how it always comes down to the people who prefer PS3's criticizing the 360 over things such as exclusives, price, processing power etc, yet never back it up with an kind of evidence.
For me it has gone PS1->PS2->PSP->360 with the inclusion of PC gaming for the past 7 or 8 years.
I used to be a massive Sony fanboy and had every intention of upgrading to the PS3, however, it was when i was able to experience both consoles it was clear that in all honesty, the 260 is the better, cheaper console.
The PS3 may have better spec's, but as anyone who's played GTA 4 on both consoles knows, it doesn't make a single difference in terms of graphics or loading times, and this can be said for many other games aswell.
Exclusives? So far the 360 has Halo (not the greatest of exams but the online is pretty good) GoW 1+2, Bioshock, Rock Band (it is yet to be released here in the UK for the PS3). As for the PS3, wel you've already lost the new Final Fantasy as an exclusive. The only two that come to immediate mind are Haze (a game which my PS3 fanboy friend shouts down as rubbish) and MGS4 which i've been able to play myself thanks to a friend lending me his PS3 (which, from a fans point of view, having played all previous MGS games, was a massive letdown from a story point of view). And also, please stop going on about Blu-Ray, i do not know a single person, even those with PS3's who would spend 20 quid on a Blu-ray disc, when they can buy DVD for half the price.

If this seemed anything close to a rant it was not my intention, all i'm trying to say is that the assumption that just because people owned a PS2 does by no means guaruntee they'll purchase a PS3, as it certainly didn't in my case, and in many others.

 

[Radelaide]

I hear in Australia these consoles are around 1,000 dollars. Ridiculous.

It's come down a lot in price, but it's still more expensive then a 360. And frankly, the only thing PS3 really marketed itself on was blu-ray and it's really unstable. It bricked my mates PS3 in less then a week.

And PS3 games cost a huge amount of money. How do Sony expect their PS2 base to switch to PS3 while it's so hugely unaffordable.

And Vatossan, you're the pot calling the kettle black. If we're such fanboys why get yourself banned defending the PS3. You're more then a fanboy then us. Get over it.

 

[Jumplion]

And PS3 games cost a huge amount of money. How do Sony expect their PS2 base to switch to PS3 while it's so hugely unaffordable.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arn't the PS3 and 360 games both equal in price? Or is it different in Australia (assuming you live down there)?

And hey, i made the switch from the PS2 to PS3. Wasn't the PS2 originally, like, $300? Though i was young at the time, i wouldn't be surprised if people said the exact same thing about the PS2 in the begining like they said about the PS3 right now.

 

[brenflood]

I think a lot of people will buy the ps3 around the time Sony starts talking about the ps4.
By then, there will be a decent library of games, ps2 compatibility will be better, and there will be a good deal of affordable game titles.
For me, the issue with the PS3 isn't the lack of exclusives, it's the lack of affordable titles. In the US, you can pick up a crap ton of Xbox 360 games (plenty of which are excellent games) for around $20 at your local Gamestop, but There are about 4 ps3 titles that sell for under $20 used. One is Beowulf, and the rest are the most our of date sports titles.
I love my Ps3, but I only have three games for it, and odds are I'm not going to buy another game for quite a while. It's not that no game sparks my interest, but rather no game seems awesome enough for me to drop $60 on it.

@Jumplion
Even in the US, PS3 and Xbox 360 game prices are not equal. Sure, New games on both consoles are all $60 unless there's a peripheral or a collectors edition, but most used Xbox 360 games go down in price quite quickly while even the crappiest of PS3 titles (except for Beowulf) stay above the $50 mark on the used rack.

 

[Radelaide]

And PS3 games cost a huge amount of money. How do Sony expect their PS2 base to switch to PS3 while it's so hugely unaffordable.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but arn't the PS3 and 360 games both equal in price? Or is it different in Australia (assuming you live down there)?

And hey, i made the switch from the PS2 to PS3. Wasn't the PS2 originally, like, $300? Though i was young at the time, i wouldn't be surprised if people said the exact same thing about the PS2 in the begining like they said about the PS3 right now.

I do indeed live in The Land Down Under. =] Gaming is pricey here depending on your poison.

 

[PEWPEWGreenLaser]

... XBOX 360 with a much better online system?

I still have yet to meet a single person that can actually give me some sort of explanation as to why the 360's online system is "better" than PSN. Is it the gamer score that allows you to instantly measure e-peen? Other than that, I can't really think of much that separates the two.

Sony has DLC, Microsoft has DLC. Sony has movies, Microsoft will have movies. Microsoft has achievements, Sony has trophies. Sony has Home, Microsoft has Miis. PSN is FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. XBL costs money just to have access to all the content.

So...? What's the difference? How is 360 better?

On the cost thing: people often mistake cost for value. PS3 is a better value, 360 costs less. There is a difference. I think Sony's big problem right now is that the American economy is in the shitter, so cost will win out over value for most consumers (game catalog notwithstanding, even then, that gap is closing and will continue as developers get more familiar with the PS3 as a platform.)

You can also sort of think about the 360 and the PS3 in terms of vacations. The 360 is basically like a stay at a Best Western. It does all the stuff a modern game console should do. If you want all the flashy shit you have to pay (and boy do you ever have to pay...) The PS3 is more like a stay at an all-inclusive resort. You can has EVERYTHING for one standard price (I'm not even going to approach the multiple sku argument, because it's ridiculous.)

In general, I think Kaz is right. PS2 owners will predominantly transition to the PS3. In my funny little world view, however, there are a couple prerequisites for that happening:

1. 1st Party titles need to blow the tits off of the competition. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you don't build it, they won't come. Sony is close, but they still need a Halo killer.

2. Backwards compatibility MUST return. The reason so many people transition so easily to the PS2 (from PSX) was initially because their old game library didn't suddenly become obsolete, which at the time was an amazing concept in console video gaming. This is also one of those things that added an immense amount of value to the PS3.

One thing that Sony has that Microsoft doesn't (to my knowledge) is console MMOs in the pipeline. While a lot of people might not care about MMOs in general, the fact remains that on the NPD PC Sales Charts, World of Warcraft (Base game, Burning Cruisade, and Battle Chest) are all in the top 10. MMOs make money. Bags and bags and bags covered in dollar signs and filled with greenbacks. The only question is, can an MMO move a console? We'll see next year for sure, I suppose. Sony has three highly anticipated MMO exclusives headed for PS3: The Agency, DC Universe Online, and Free Realms.

::EDIT:: Also, PS3 can only be helped by the slow (but steady) upturn in market share for Blu-Ray. HDTVs are moving faster than ever and users are buying more HD content than ever (both sides agree on that!) PS3 is still the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market and is constantly up-to-date with the latest BD profiles. 360 offers no (viable, haha HD-DVD) HD option outside of the XBL store. But that's another value argument, so feel free to disregard.

tl;dr - This generation is far from won. Both sides have things going for them. Let's talk again in 2010 and see where things have gone.

 

[brenflood]

2. Backwards compatibility MUST return. The reason so many people transition so easily to the PS2 (from PSX) was initially because their old game library didn't suddenly become obsolete, which at the time was an amazing concept in console video gaming. This is also one of those things that added an immense amount of value to the PS3.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, but the Atari 7800 came out in the early 1980s, and it was able to play Atari 2600 games. So, Backwards compatibility was hardly a revolutionary idea. Still, Sony implemented it quite well. I remember that my copy of Megaman X5 ran better on the Ps2 than it did on the PSX because the PS2's disc drive was better at reading my scratched up disc.

I'm a bit confused. Do European PS3s lack backwards compatibility entirely? I have the US 80 gig ps3 and most of my 42 ps2 games run just fine. I am aware that the 40gb model doesn't have any backwards compatibility. So far I've only had two issues. First, Gran Turismo 4 has some weird graphical artifact in one of the tops corners of the screen. Second, Shadow Heart: Covenant freezes pretty much whenever it feels like it and then unfreezes about 30 seconds later. Also, it locks up if you try to play the lottery.

 

[Jumplion]

@PEWPEWGreenLaser:

The irony with the people who say "You get what you pay for!" about XBL is that if you get what you pay for then the PS3 is the better system. I find that deliciously ironic.

And in turn the whole "You get what you pay for!" saying is completely contradictory to itself because if you get what you pay for then everyone would be paying for the higher priced laptop that's really skinny and has 2 USB ports and slightly faster connetion instead of the moderately priced laptop that's slightly fatter but has 6 USB ports with moderate connection. Juging by the USB ports, the moderately priced laptop is the better value.

And if the saying were true, then Sony would have priced the PS3 at $1200 or even $2400 because you "get what you pay for!".

Infact, the PS3 is even cheaper than most cameras, TVs (all kinds), PCs, and other electronic devices and it can do/store everything i've just mentioned in some way (Photo's, video?, Web browser) so you pay for less to get the better deal (IMHO)

You get what you pay for, but you want the better deal and what's worth your money.