Ayepecks Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 If anything, continuing to sell and support the PS2 *Especially with brand new games* LONG AFTER the PS3 has been out, most likely has harmed the PS3 more then if they dropped all PS2 support after the PS3 release. Taking us hardcores out the equation... Why should the normal consumer or casual gamer consider buying a PS3 when the PS2 has the following advantages: Is MUCH cheaper. (PS3 launch: PS2s were about $150 vs the PS3's $600. Now: $120 vs $300) Has a GREAT library of games Is still receiving support in the form of warranties, still being produced AND new games are being released Games are much cheaper in comparison, even new titles PS3 lacks BC (Not counting some of the older models) Has harmed the PS3? How on earth?! The Playstation 2 sales do not cannibalize PS3 sales. You seem to be of the mindset that if no new games were released for the PS2 that everyone who owned one and not a PS3 would immediately go out and buy a PS3. I don't think this is even remotely the case, as people who haven't bought a PS3 (or 360) are doing so not because they're still able to buy new games, but because the price is simply too great for them. That's what I know is the case for the few people who I know that don't currently own a current-generation console. If they dropped PS2 support immediately after release, it would've harmed Sony far more. People would've seen that as a sign of "oh, Sony's not going to support a console that was the best-selling ever? How quickly are they going to stop supporting the PS3 if I buy it?" Like I said, companies support aging products not because they want to, but because it builds goodwill among their consumer base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 I had a nice long post... But, know what? I'm not even going to bother. I'm done with you. Good day, Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 I had a nice long post... But, know what? I'm not even going to bother. I'm done with you. Good day, Sir. Because we have a disagreement and I don't see your side? Listen, I don't understand what you're saying as I fail to see how supporting the PS2 has hurt the PS3 in any way, shape or form. If you can tell me how it has, be my guest. But don't get all upset because I post a response disagreeing with you. None of your posts have been long yet, so maybe that would help explain your point. Either way, doesn't matter to me. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 If anything, continuing to sell and support the PS2 *Especially with brand new games* LONG AFTER the PS3 has been out, most likely has harmed the PS3 more then if they dropped all PS2 support after the PS3 release. Taking us hardcores out the equation... Why should the normal consumer or casual gamer consider buying a PS3 when the PS2 has the following advantages: Is MUCH cheaper. (PS3 launch: PS2s were about $150 vs the PS3's $600. Now: $120 vs $300) Has a GREAT library of games Is still receiving support in the form of warranties, still being produced AND new games are being released Games are much cheaper in comparison, even new titles PS3 lacks BC (Not counting some of the older models) It was $300 at launch for the PS2, not $150. The PS2 did not harm the PS3 because they continued supporting it, due to the fact they were completely different consoles. That's like saying the PSP is harming PS3 sales because you can play games on the go and you can't wait the PS3. Or selling the PS1 along side the PS2 harmed the PS2 sales. Ayepecks, explained it well also. Sony would look like Nintendo and Microsoft if they killed off PS2 support and that would do more harm to the image that they created back then, having 10 year console life spans. Sony Computer Entertainment was also only really making money off of the PS2, even with the PSP and PS3 released. The PSP was not really generating a lot of sales and the PS3 they were losing a lot of money. The PS3, just this month, is barely starting to generate a little profit from every PS3 sale. Why kill off a huge chuck of income? Anyways, I don't see a PS4 (it won't be called a PS4) or XBOX 3 being released for more than 2 years time. It was too costly this generation for both Microsoft and Sony and they need to squeeze out every penny they can make from these consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodan Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 It was $300 at launch for the PS2, not $150. Nono, I wasn't referring to the PS2's price at launch. I was referring to its price at the time of the PS3 release, and the price between the PS3 and PS2 as of now. The PS2 did not harm the PS3 because they continued supporting it, due to the fact they were completely different consoles. That's like saying the PSP is harming PS3 sales because you can play games on the go and you can't wait the PS3. Or selling the PS1 along side the PS2 harmed the PS2 sales. Us hardcores are, for a fact, a bit of a niche market now. We're willing to buy the latest and greatest just BECAUSE it's the latest and greatest. If you're a casual gamer, you're going to go "safe". Why invest in a $300 PS3 with a limited library(In comparison to the PS2 I mean), when you can buy a $120 PS2 that is still being supported with new games, valid warranties (Which don't really mean **** to Sony), AND you have a massive catalog of games? Or, you would buy a Wii and some shovelware >.> My point is: Price is a major factor. By the time the PS2 came out, the PS1 was kind of going stagnent. So no, that wouldn't harm PS2 sales. The PS3, just this month, is barely starting to generate a little profit from every PS3 sale. Why kill off a huge chuck of income? On some occasions, the PS2 has outsold the PS3 at times :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 MMO's are like the final frontier for consoles, but who knows, it could happen. i for one have no problem with greater convergence, i think the similarities between the 360 and the PC are the root cause of my transition into a primarily console gamer, whereas before it was always computer/PC first, console second. i don't think keeping the PS2 on the market hurt PS3 sales, if anything it makes the PS3 seem more lucrative and impressive. i think MSFT made a mistake discontinuing the orig Xbox so soon after the 360 came out, but they don't seem to regret it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tech Star Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Well all in all, if Sony thought that the PS2 was hurting the PS3 sales, they would have killed it off by now. Since they have not, then it hasn't really hurt the PS3 sales as much as we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts