Is it too late to buy a PS2?


Recommended Posts

Hey,

I've been thinking about buying a Playstation 2 with my Christmas money because I want to get NHL 2004 and play it online and I want WWE Smackdown! Here comes the Pain. Would it be wise to buy this system even though its over 3 years old and PS3 is a year or so around the corner? I already own a Gamecube but Nintendo kills me with the lack of Online gaming for it.

What you all think? So far all the people I've asked said go for it but I'm still looking for some more opinions.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/126454-is-it-too-late-to-buy-a-ps2/
Share on other sites

the xbox is better than the ps2 in all respects, but the games are what really matter if you talk to most people (assuming they aren't extremely biased). go with the system that has the most games you like. personally, i started out with ps2 and then later got an xbox because the games have better graphics, the xbox supports more (HDTV, 5.1 surround sound, broadband-only internet games). i hardly play my ps2 anymore :whistle:

i'm gonna get xbox live soon, and it's supposed to be awesome, i can't wait :D

xbox live is in no way 'better' then ps2 online play. it could be said its the other way around since you have to pay a monthy fee for xbox live. the only add-on price for the ps2 would be the network adapter. but if your buying a new p s2 they come bundled with it. i own all 3 current consoles and i play my ps2 way more then the other 2. (and i actually like my gamecube alot more then the xcrate)

ps3 wont be coming out for ATLEAST a year. get a ps2. you wont regret it

xbox live is in no way 'better' then ps2 online play. it could be said its the other way around since you have to pay a monthy fee for xbox live. the only add-on price for the ps2 would be the network adapter. but if your buying a new p s2 they come bundled with it. i own all 3 current consoles and i play my ps2 way more then the other 2. (and i actually like my gamecube alot more then the xcrate)

ps3 wont be coming out for ATLEAST a year. get a ps2. you wont regret it

:blink: ok... here's my logic:

most games that have a monthly fee cost about 5-10 US dollars a month, right? xbox live costs $50 per year, which is $4.166 per month, less than a single game normally costs. and that includes as many games as you want, unlimited hours, etc... not to mention voice communication between games, scoreboards, etc. read this if you want to see more about xbox live:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/about/Featu...-GTDBReview.htm

I say get a PS2. The PS2 has a huge library of great games (mainly because it's been around so long) and there are still a lot more games coming out for it. The Xbox is a nice system as well with quite a few great games but of all the new systems I play the PS2 the most (followed by the GC and then the Xbox). But the PS3 will still be a while down the road (isn't is estimated at 2005?) so you will still get a lot of time to use the PS2. As for online play I would agree the Xbox beats the PS2 except for the fact you have to pay a yearly fee to get online. Maybe I'm just to used to computer games (all the online games I play on the computer are free) having no subscription, or maybe it's just becasue I'm a cheap son of a ***** but I don't like paying for online game services (although I have to say with Xbox Live you get a lot of bang for your buck). But on the other flip of the coin there are a lot more online Xbox games then PS2 games (at least to my knowlege). Guess it all depends on the kind of games you want to play.

If you want the most out of your money, then go for the xbox. I know that NHL 2004 is out on xbox, but Im not sure if smackdown is or if it is just a PS2 exclusive, someone else might be able to tell you that...

And if you want online play, xbox live is IMO best out between xbox and PS2.

If you want the most out of your money, then go for the xbox. I know that NHL 2004 is out on xbox, but Im not sure if smackdown is or if it is just a PS2 exclusive, someone else might be able to tell you that...

And if you want online play, xbox live is IMO best out between xbox and PS2.

Well, PS2 is free online if you get the network adapter pack... not to mention Madden 04 online... and SOCOM 2

Well, seeing as how he's mainly interested in playing NHL2004 online, the only route is to go the PS2 as EA Sports doesn't support XBox Live. Also, I'm pretty sure that Smackdown game is only on PS2 but I could be wrong.

There'r probably a load of games he could play on the XBox online but the key factor is... is he interested in any of them? If it's only EA games then the PS2 is your only choice.

Go with the Xbox, its live has alot of people, I was looking at how many people were online on PS2 and was amazed to see just about 50-100 in comparison to the 5,000 on live every day. Xbox is farusperiror and you get more stuff for you rmoney and ps2 dosent have any decent exclsuives for ps2 apart from gt4 but we have pgr2 and rsc2 so :p. Just get the Xbox, ps2 is outdated

If you wanna play EA Sports games online, then you're only option is the PS2. If you like the Need For Speed series, then Hot Pursuit 2 for the PS2 (now a Greatest Hits title) is the original, and the Xbox version is merely a port and is lacking in quality. I'm not sure, but I think NFS:Underground is online-capable only on the PS2. Your best option is to get the new PS2 online pack which includes the new SCPH-50001 model PS2, the network adapter, and ATV Off-Road Fury 2 for only $199.99.

Besides, only the PS2 has the Gran Turismo series! AFAIK, the Xbox does not have any force feedback support for racing games. The PS2 has a new wheel from Logitech that has a 900-degree turing radius, just like a real steering wheel.

2709.jpg

It used to be "all about the games", but with all the games coming out for pretty much the PS2 and Xbox, I'd say to look at the titles you want to play, and work from there.

Personally, I'd go for the Xbox. Kick-ass online support, kick-ass graphics, kick-ass sound. I bought a component-input 20" TV today for my kids for $179 so there's no excuse to not get at LEAST decent video from a console nowadays, and the Xbox has built-in, real-time Dolby Digital 5.1

So unless you're going to play Final Fantasy X, I'd say get the Xbox.

but if your buying a new p s2 they come bundled with it

I don't know this for a fact, but don't the BUNDLED systems have the OLD PS2 rev, and the standalone boxes with the yellow "+" in the lower right hand corner the NEWER rev machines?

I bought a "Yellow Plus" box for my kids the other day and it is in fact the newer rev (iLink gone, DVD+/-RW support, IR remote).

Mike

Edited by Starman

IMO Xbox would be better if you're more open minded about games and like to play multiplayer games online. However, if you're a Square Enix/RPG fan like me, get the PS2, you won't regret it! (I'm getting on this week, FF time!! :D)

Final Fantasy X, X-2, XI, XII, Kingdom Hearts, Kingdom Hearts 2 ... need I say more? *drool*

Edit: Remember, good graphics won't necessarily make a bad game better, so don't weigh graphics that heavily, since the difference isn't that big when you compare quality games from PS2 and Xbox.

Edited by Monkeh

i've been lookin into buyin a console for the longest time... and i wanted the same titles as you (hockey for online playy.. and wrestling cause there aer no wrestling games for pc (that are decent.. don't say wwe raw is decent.. it's a terrible port.. anyway i haven't seen any of the ea games out ofr xbox/.. although i maybe wrong.. i see games like nhl rivals 2004.. but not just nhl 2004... as for wrestling games it looks like xbox gets the WWE Raw side of things and PS2 gets the WWE Smackdown side.. xbox's newest: raw 2 ... ps2's newest: smackdown! here comes the pain.. despite always wanting an xbox more thena ps2 i decided to go for a ps2 instead... cause first person shoother like halo.. half life and the doom games we're ones i did NOT want to be playing on a console... those games i will get for my computer instead.. now knowing that with a ps2 i dont have to pay online fees is just great too.. i got offered a stand alone ps2 yesterday for $100 CDN (like $76 US).. with no controller.. but still.. after i do buy one i'll be saing myself over $100 which i can put towards nhl 2004 and smackdown... :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!