digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at arstechnica.com

Sony: PS2 the gateway drug to the PS3

arstechnica.com — Sony believes that the PS2 will only stop selling if the company stops supporting it, and that it eventually will lure more buyers to the PS3.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 6, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

218 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • c010rb1indusa, on 04/06/2009, -9/+137I Love my PS3 it's a great machine but this strategy is ass backwards

    1. If someone is buying a PS2 they either have don't have money which would reduce the chance of them picking up a $400 machine since they already just dropped $100, OR they love gaming and the PS2's HUGE library.
    Problem with this is, if you appreciate the PS2 for it's library of games, then you have to appreciate the Xbox 360 for its larger library as well even though the PS3 is more powerful. The original Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 as well...

    2. Holding on to old technology only allows your competitors to build consumer confidence and loyalty with their customers with the current technology available. So while you wait for you customers to play catchup your losing future profits. Not only that but Sony could support the PS2 by giving it second life in the PS3 which Sony originally did but has discontinued since.

    3. The PS2 library is huge and has many great games, but there are more awful games then great games and people new to video games might not know what to chose especially with the lack of buzz around last-gen games, a bigger turnoff than anything is bad games.

    Sony needs to sell its PS3 consoles at $300 and $400 with backwards compatibility with the PS2. The PS3 game library is small, but it shines with Gems and shares many great multi-platform games with the 360. The PS3 is a great machine they just need to rethink selling a console for $400 bucks more than two years after its release.
  • SirVenro, on 04/06/2009, -8/+82A $50-$100 price drop would be what lures me to buy a PS3.
  • fallingdamage, on 04/06/2009, -1/+64PS2 has become Sony's "Windows XP"
  • evilJaze, on 04/06/2009, -9/+50I don't think Sony has any idea how to sell their consoles anymore...
  • andymion, on 04/06/2009, -2/+32And new PS3s have no backwards compatibility.

    Sucks that you had two rrods, though.
  • mywhitenoise, on 04/06/2009, -4/+34Instead of dropping the price $30 for PS2, they should have dropped the price of the PS3 by $30.
    They have no idea what they're doing.
  • dxgg, on 04/06/2009, -3/+33Make all PS3 consoles backwards compatible, and you've got yourself a new customer.
  • v1c1ous, on 04/06/2009, -8/+36Ah the old sony bird call of "120million potential ps2 owners getting ready to switch over to ps3"

    NEWSFLASH SONY~

    those 120 million were mainly composed of CASUALs. Casuals go by what's the "hot" item of the generation. and those casuals determine who sells the most.

    Casuals already chose their console of choice. And that's the WII. The ball got rolling and it can't be stopped. It's apparent when sony fanboys celebrate their one month victory currently going in japan, but forget that worldwide the wii engulfes those sales in less than a week.

    Sony is fighting for the hardcore crowd. and unfortunately for them, the 360 is a contender. Sony enjoyed 2 generations of being top dog with no competition. You can't stay on top forever, and when you're knocked down, you better work hard to get back to your spot.
  • freshyill, on 04/06/2009, -8/+34Here's why I bought a 360 instead of a PS3:

    1. I had more friends with 360s, so I could play against them online and borrow games.

    2. Better exclusives. And this isn't even that big of a selling point for me. I can get 95% of the games I'd ever want to play on either console. But if there's something I want that's only on one of the two, chances are better than it's going to be on the 360.

    I'm not some huge fanboy with an undying devotion to either one. Normally, I can't stand Microsoft. I owned a PS1 and PS2 (the PS2 is still hooked up). I weighed my options and the 360 won out. I'd like a Blu-ray player, and I understand that the PS3 is pretty good as far as they go, but I'm just not ready to start investing in a new library, especially when I rarely even use DVDs. 90% of what I watch on my TV is streamed to my 360 from my Mac.
  • pinchduck, on 04/06/2009, -3/+26Idiots. They cancel BC and basically hand their market over to Microsoft. What a bunch of buffoons running the company. BC would have been an amazing form of soft vendor lock-in. Since they don't have it, why shouldn't PS2 owners check out all their options?
  • wolfing, on 04/06/2009, -4/+26If it really was a gateway, then they should have kept backwards compatibility in the PS3, making for an easy transition. Otherwise, the PS2 is as much a gateway to the PS3 as it is to the 360 or even Wii
  • icebane, on 04/06/2009, -15/+36The PS3 is amazing.. Former XBOX360 owner who had repeated ring of deaths on 2 machines.
    PS2 backward compatibility is nice, PS1 is bit more blurry but not bad. I'm playing FF7 right now.
  • LilJimmyNordin, on 04/06/2009, -12/+33I swear to you, Sony... One more ***** word out of your stupid marketing department or PR ***** and I'll sell my PS3 and every goddamned game I have. A lot of us are sick to death of your posturing and lame *****, especially in light of your consistently poor showing.
  • NeoTechni, on 04/06/2009, -6/+26Agreed. My launch PS3 plays PS2 games better than an actual PS2
  • lowtolerance, on 04/06/2009, -4/+23don't be a moron.
  • chaosblade77, on 04/06/2009, -4/+21By the time the PS2 is discontinued, they will have probably dropped the price on the PS3 by $50 or $100. Brand recognition is a powerful thing (at least to the mainstream consumer) and chances are it will hurt more than help, since the Wii has a much stronger brand, it's still the console to get. For less mainstream consumers and gamers who just haven't moved on yet, it's really difficult to anticipate what they will do.

    And as bad as Sony's strategy was from the beginning with the PS3, they are making the best of it as possible. It's not like they can afford to sell the console for less since they are struggling to profit as it is. If Sony was in Microsoft or Nintendo's position making money on every console sold, that would be another story. I also don't think Sony would hesitate to drop the price if they could do it without increasing their losses, since it would improve game sales and bring in more profit in the end.
  • Charlotte_Web, on 04/06/2009, -4/+20I disagree, I think their strategy is correct.

    1) The PS3's sales are not strong enough to carry the PS division alone for Sony. Keeping the PS2 sales going keeps the PS division alive. Remember, this is a business first, and it's all about profitability. Nintendo did not get to be the biggest console maker on the planet by only selling cutting-edge technology, and if Sony can keep raking in profits from the PS2, more power to them.

    2) Technology and consumer loyalty... meh. There's very little loyalty in technology. People buy what's hot, so if Sony's PS4 absolutely blew away the next XBox, and the price was right, people would flock to it. The only loyalty that does exist is because of...

    3) Software investment. This is the whole argument for putting backwards compatibility into a console. Granted, I think that very few people revisit last-gen games because the difference in graphics is so dramatic. That may not be as true between the PS3 and the PS4, since we are already so close to photo-realism. However, there is a psychological effect here... if someone has invested a significant amount in PS2 software, then they are going to want to preserve that investment, particularly if there are one or two gems that are worth going back to.

    4) Building franchises is important. The article touches on this... If you play through the Metal Gear series on your PS2 and loved it, you are going to want to play Metal Gear on the PS3.
  • inajeep, on 04/06/2009, -4/+20Try buying a PS3 now with BC.
  • strictnein, on 04/06/2009, -10/+25That's what I want. A used PS3 from Craigslist or the douchebags at Gamestop.
  • FredFredrickson, on 04/06/2009, -2/+17It's not ass-backwards at all. They have an older machine that isn't slowing in sales, so they keep selling that, and by the time those people are finished with it, the PS3 will probably be a lot more affordable (like the PS2 is now).

    I know everyone wants the sales to happen now because that's when they count for fanboy wars, but the reality is that there is a large base of consumers out there who aren't going to buy into a new generation until much later in the game, and that is what Sony is hoping for here. Nothing wrong with that.
  • AmazingSteve, on 04/06/2009, -7/+21New headline. For the love of God!! Please buy this ***** console!!
  • danwallace, on 04/06/2009, -7/+20Sorry, but the PS3 is a great online console. The 360 has little, if any, advantages over PS3 online play, despite the fact that you have to pay for it. Your concerns are based on a myth propagated by 360 fanboys.
  • TVarmy, on 04/06/2009, -1/+14Too much success can be a bad thing. Since the Wii is selling based on being cheap and casual, its successor may end up not selling too well, either.
  • Shazbuckle, on 04/06/2009, -1/+13Ps2's been running for 9 years and it's still going very well.

    I don't see your point?
  • twiztidsinz, on 04/06/2009, -5/+17"I bought a ps3 just because I bought an original xbox and then 2 months later MS dropped support like a bomb. Didn't expect it to live forever but at least a year or two."

    So you're complaining that you bought an old game system at the end of its life and they dropped support for it after the newer system had already been out?
  • kristopherw, on 04/06/2009, -1/+13I just bought a brand new PS2 this weekend so I could keep playing my old Playstation games now that I've switched to a Wii. Thanks, Sony!
  • DarkStar3333, on 04/06/2009, -1/+12#1. I had more friends with 360s, so I could play against them online and borrow games.

    You made the right choice if that was somethng important to you, cant fault you there because I am the same way. I know 3 people with PS3's, two of them do not have a single game and the other has around 5-6. I think my XBox live friends list stands at 18 people and every single one of those is an actual real life friend.

    I enjoy the fact that I can sign in and play games with anyone on my list without any hassle. In that time we can chat and catch up, distracting us from the reality that we live several hundred (or thousand) kilometers from one another.
  • andymion, on 04/06/2009, -1/+11His icon is a penguin sitting on a ps3.
  • MWeather, on 04/06/2009, -2/+12Try gamestop. I saw a 60Gb refurbished model there a few weeks ago.
  • danwallace, on 04/06/2009, -4/+13Would you drop a system you'd already invested money into for another one, even if the other one is superior? Clearly most people wouldn't. Instead they come up with excuses to stick with their chosen system. The games thing is a myth. It might have held some weight earlier int he PS3's life-cycle, but it just doesn't any more. GOW? Halo? Fable? That's nice. We've got LBP, MGS4, Killzone2, the Resistance series, and on top of all that, we've got most of the big 360 games on the PS3 too. CoD4 is here. GTA4 is here. Can you honestly tell me that the PS3 has no games worth playing?

    Like I said, Sony's problem is marketing. People don't KNOW these things because they believe what they hear, and as evident in this thread, you hear a lot of *****.
  • burgerkinghorn, on 09/02/2009, -2/+10Add backwards compatibility for PS2 and PS1 games and then I'd be sold.
  • Smokeydabear, on 04/06/2009, -2/+10I kick myself on a daily basis for getting rid of my PS2. There are a lot of cool games that are STILL coming out for the thing that I would love to play. I don't have a so-called "next generation" gaming system. All I have is an Xbox, which has some good games. It wouldn't be bad knowing that I could get the lastest Tiger Woods and stuff like that on the system. Oh well. I might actually just break down and get a PS2.
  • cyoder, on 04/06/2009, -4/+12"I mean, come on, MS charges for XBL, there is clearly a reason why it has so many users online."

    I'm sorry, but that's hardly a fair argument. XBox/360 owners pay for Live because it is THE online service on their given console. Likewise, if PSN charged, people who play PS3 online are likely going to do the same thing: fork it over. I've never been a big online gamer (until recent months, when numerous friends picked up a PS3), but I'd have paid for online service even before I could play with my friends.

    You seem to be referring to those who own both, which I'd imagine isn't the majority. I'd also imagine far fewer of those multi-console owners purchase a particular game for both consoles, though I'm sure plenty of those choosing between the two may use online service as a deciding factory. However, while I know Live gets heaps of praise, the "you have to pay for it, so it must be better" argument isn't a valid one. If PSN charged, that wouldn't automatically make it any better than it is (maybe in the future, but not immediately).
  • BigCalhoun, on 04/06/2009, -2/+10That's all you saw, huh? And you want to question someones credibility...

    No, Microsoft lost some major cool points with me over the RROD issue. I'm on my friggin third console. However, when it stops working, I want it back, NOW. The overall experience is that compelling for me.
  • danwallace, on 04/06/2009, -4/+12Honestly, CollapseControl, if someone is having trouble with the PSN because it's not "easy" enough, do we really want them on the network? I mean, I fire up a game, choose online and go. No problems, no additional charge, my $10 bluetooth headset works like a charm, and there are considerably less pissy 12 year old racists to mute.
  • cyoder, on 04/06/2009, -0/+7Easier said than done.
  • LilJimmyNordin, on 04/06/2009, -3/+10So, you're suggesting that I... don't want to sell my PS3? Amazing, my mistruth is laid bare. What expert method of detecting falsehood did you employ against my diabolical plan to lie to the world about wanting to sell some used game equipment on a Digg comment page? You're a regular Sherlock Homeless.

    Save your "pals" and double negatives. You're not adding anything. Fanboyism and lack of education don't impress anybody.
  • MrSteamTank, on 04/06/2009, -6/+13The playstation 2 price right now is at "impulse buy" levels. I have an Xbox 360 but even I'm tempted to pick up a PS2 to play some of the classics.
  • hirschab, on 04/07/2009, -0/+7Easy there champ. You seem a little angry. Pretty sure no one is being forced to buy a PS2 then a PS3.
  • mogebier, on 04/06/2009, -5/+12And another insane idea in the long string of insane ideas from the goobers in charge at Sony.
    They don't want to improve the top-of-the-line console they have, they want to kill off the one that is still selling instead.
    Good call. Morons.
  • BigCalhoun, on 04/06/2009, -3/+10Based on what? Review scores? Spoken like a true fanboy.

    I know for me, I'm a die hard Sony person -- PS1 and PS2, TVs, home theater, MiniDisc players, computer peripherals, laptops, etc. I trust the Sony brand the quality associated with it. But as a gamer, the PS3 disappointed me. One or two '10' games does not make a system. It's all about value and replay.

    Battlefield: Bad Company is not the most in-depth game, but it's fun. Fallout 3 and Fable 2 is not the end-all be-all, but its nonlinear paths provide hours of gameplay. Battlestations Midway was largely seen as a mediocre game, but it's an exciting blend of strategy and action. Halo 3 is not the apex of gaming, but it offers excellent single player gameplay and huge variety when it comes to multiplayer.

    To me, that's what makes a system worth it. Am I going to play it until it craps out or is it going to just sit there and gather dust...
  • ScionX, on 04/06/2009, -2/+9You shouldn't have to look for a used PS3 for backwards compatability.
  • solid12345, on 04/06/2009, -3/+10What is ***** is how Sony makes no attempt to lure gamers with a huge PS1 and PS2 library. Half the selling point of the PS2 was it would play Playstation 1 games, even did a bit of texture filtering.

    Now they have removed backwards compatibility altogether making people scramble for used systems on ebay which puts no money in Sony's pocket, plus when they did have BC they would upscale to 1080p but do nothing to make the games look better on a modern TV, they could have at least applied some anti-aliasing to the jaggies.
  • mywhitenoise, on 04/06/2009, -5/+12What is it with you and online?
  • helwa1988, on 04/06/2009, -5/+11the bottom line is that PS3 is a failed system and Sony has to come to terms with it. PS2 doesn't sell more because of the price it sells more because of the games. PS2 library is way better than PS3.

    if sony focus on the games more then i might consider buying it.
  • cyoder, on 04/06/2009, -2/+8I haven't used Live since shortly after Halo 2 came out (on a friend's system), so I can't say myself that it only has little advantage over PSN, but I agree wholeheartedly that PSN is a fine system. Any issues I've had with it are standard issues with any online medium: lag, occasional disconnects, etc. Nothing constant or unbearable.

    I agree with CollapseControl that online co-op is a great trend, as my friends and I have been out of college for years and don't live near each other anymore, and we can spend hours just playing campaigns together against the AI (when we don't care to play against people we don't know), but the suggestion that PSN is a "mediocre" service is exaggerated. Some have exhibited similar opinion in comparison to Live, but I've met far more PS3 gamers who have no issue with it. Perhaps they, like me, just don't have that basis for comparison with Live but even so, it works well enough, regardless of what fanboys or other skeptics might claim.
  • johnomaz, on 04/06/2009, -5/+11I bought a PS3, it does have some really good games. Not many, but enough. I play COD4 on my 360, and will get Modern Warfare 2 wen it comes out for the 360 unless the PS3 manages to give me something better than the 360 will. But both have their pros and cons. The one system I wish I didn't buy was my Wii. List of good games is small, and replayability is small.
  • brainflakes, on 04/06/2009, -0/+6Table16 - Nope.

    They removed PS2 backwards compatibility to save money
  • CoD4, on 04/06/2009, -4/+10^ Protip: try craigslist
  • cyoder, on 04/06/2009, -1/+7"I have backwards compatibility on my PS3, and I can honestly tell you that I don't use it much."

    I understand that you're just talking about you, but in my case, my 60GB SKU gets plenty of use out of its BC. In fact, right now I'm replaying one PS2 game with another one lined up for when I'm done, and other than a new PS3 game I'm waiting to ship, I don't plan to buy any more until Modern Warfare 2 (and possible Max Payne 3) late this year, so I expect to be replaying a lot of PS2 titles over the course of the year, all on my PS3.

    I honestly feel that dropping software emulation of PS2 titles, regardless of what cost that might have saved (honestly, I wouldn't know, but I can't imagine it's that much) was a mistake, if not just a tact to encourage continued PS2 sales. My PS2 has been played once since I got my PS3, and that was just to play a quick LAN game with a friend. I'm one of those who's glad to only have one console hooked up in my living room, and I'd be a bit peeved if I had to replace my PS3 (for whatever reason), and hook up my PS2 just in case I want play older games (or hook it up whenever I wanted to play them).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 219 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.