Hindsight: Why was the PS2 such a run-away success?

daroga

daroga

CAGiversary!
Feedback
95 (100%)
Just a little question I've been mulling over in my head and thought I'd see what others thought.

It's no secret that the PS2 hardware has sold, worldwide, more than double the Xbox and Gamecube combined. But why? What made it such a success? I've got a few thoughts, not which really equal that run-away success in my mind, but let's yak about it.

1. Exclusives -- This, more than anything, has to be the bulk of a reason for it. The Japanese RPG lived on the PS2 last generation. While it's not exactly my cup of tea, it is for a lot of players worldwide. Likewise, the phenomenon that was Grand Theft Auto III was exclusive to the PS2 for a long while. The Guitar Heroes as well. Even so, there's a good bit of overlap in some of those games. Sony's own exclusives, while good, are hardly system-sellers, save for maybe SotC.

All being said, though, we had hardly any 15 million + seller software wise on the system. For instance, the behemoth and potential system-seller of Guitar Hero 2 sold only 1.6 million units in 2006 (where it's launch coincided nicely with Christmas). This category may single-handedly be reason it was so successful, but it leads to a further question: why only on the PS2? Did Sony have that many agreements with other companies to publish only for them?

And we have a chicken-or-the-egg issue here. Was the PS2 so popular because of its exclusives? Or did it get its exclusives because of its popularity. The question as to "why" on the former has been asked, to the latter: how did it get so popular in the first place?

2. Rebuys -- Any system with a hardware failure rate like the PS2 has is going to get a lot of repeat buys to replace the broken system. Likewise, any system that gets a total redesign (see: DS Lite) is going to incur double dips too. I don't think this was significant enough to really account for the huge discrepancy between the systems, but it should be taken into account.

3. First come, first served -- The PS2 was on the market a full year before the other guys got their systems out. The Dreamcast hardly gave it a fight. Did a bulk of that install base kick in during that year head-start?

4. Name recognition -- While the PS3 is proving (like Nintendo had done before) that you cannot sell your system on name alone. But how much of the PS2's initial success was thanks to the PS1's own runaway success?

----
EDIT: 5. DVD Player -- In an era when DVDs were yet mainsteam, how much of a factor was the fact that the PS2 was at least a passable DVD player, and the new game system, at the same time?
----

Some other random things to consider.

1. The PS2 was by far the most underpowered system of the "big 3." It's curious to me to hear the guys talk about how much is under the hood of their new systems, while the modest PS2, especially compared to the powerhouse Xbox, outdid everyone, by far.

2. Do people buy into the hype or see through the lies? I wonder how much the empty promises Sony made with the PS2 were a factor in its success. To me it seems unlikely that "TOY STORY GRAPHICS" really sold that many systems, fulfilled or not.

Anyway, that all I've got in my random musings. Surely none of my reasons above account for the massive difference between the PS2 and the other guys, but there's no arguing that it's there.

Thoughts?
 
It was the first system to include a cheap DVD player which was a big reason at the start of the PS2's life. The brand name also held a lot of value. I still have magazines from that era which The mainstream had already shunned Nintendo for being niche and Microsoft was a non-factor with the first Xbox. The console was also the sexiest of the three, especially compared to the lunchbox Gamecube.

Also at the time, the hype for the system to do Toy Story-esque graphics was off the charts. They had all kinds of bullshit numbers and graphics which they toted as real time. This is why Nintendo looked much inferior when they announced numbers that were more realistic.


ps2demo2.jpg


http://media.ps2.ign.com/articles/072/072837/vids_1.html
 
I know I'm in the minority, but I bought mine after (a) the $130 price drop and (b) Guitar Hero was released (your #1 reason).

Another thing you might want to add to the list was backwards compatibility. At the time, it was the first major console to have such a feature, and I think that helped them big time.
 
All of those are good reasons, but the number one reason is because it was a cheap DVD player that also played games, hence the reason they're pushing the PS3's Blu ray functionality. It's a Trojan Horse to get BR into your home. Believe it or not, (and I worked at Circuit City when it launched) people held off on buying a DVD player for months until the PS2 came out, then it served double duty, which is why the casual market grew so much. With Madden being the King of all games for the casual gamer. Also, in other countries it was supposed to be even more expensive for DVD players, so when the PS2 hit it was a bargain. (Boy, that sounds familiar)
 
Ah, yes, I thought of the DVD issue (large in my mind, but escaped me when writing it) about 20 minutes after I posted. I'll tack it on.
 
I bought mine a year after it was released because 1. It had a DVD player 2. It was backward compatible and 3. It had more games I wanted (mainly MGS 2).
 
[quote name='daroga']Just a little question I've been mulling over in my head and thought I'd see what others thought.

It's no secret that the PS2 hardware has sold, worldwide, more than double the Xbox and Gamecube combined. But why? What made it such a success? I've got a few thoughts, not which really equal that run-away success in my mind, but let's yak about it.

1. Exclusives -- This, more than anything, has to be the bulk of a reason for it. The Japanese RPG lived on the PS2 last generation. While it's not exactly my cup of tea, it is for a lot of players worldwide. Likewise, the phenomenon that was Grand Theft Auto III was exclusive to the PS2 for a long while. The Guitar Heroes as well. Even so, there's a good bit of overlap in some of those games. Sony's own exclusives, while good, are hardly system-sellers, save for maybe SotC.[/quote]
Link
Gran Turismo 3 was the PS2's first system seller during the summer after the launch, selling about as many units as Halo and Halo 2 combined and doing well enough to be included in a bundle for the system. GTA III sold really well, as well, which was helped by the word of mouth campaign of the gamers. I wasn't even considering purchasing it until a cousin of mine brought it over during a Christmas party and I was amazed at the freedom to just do what you want and cause mayhem at will.

Just take a look at that list and see how well the best-selling PS2 games compared to the best-selling Xbox games, there's a large difference. Even just the first year stuff (GT3, GTAIII, FFX, MGS2) The PS2 is really indicative of what a good start can do if you can get a good series of great games going.

[quote name='daroga']All being said, though, we had hardly any 15 million + seller software wise on the system. For instance, the behemoth and potential system-seller of Guitar Hero 2 sold only 1.6 million units in 2006 (where it's launch coincided nicely with Christmas). This category may single-handedly be reason it was so successful, but it leads to a further question: why only on the PS2? Did Sony have that many agreements with other companies to publish only for them?

And we have a chicken-or-the-egg issue here. Was the PS2 so popular because of its exclusives? Or did it get its exclusives because of its popularity. The question as to "why" on the former has been asked, to the latter: how did it get so popular in the first place?[/quote]
There have been very few 15+ million sellers, but the fact that so many games of different genres are big sellers on the PS2 could point out the wide variety in audience on the PS2.

[quote name='daroga']3. First come, first served -- The PS2 was on the market a full year before the other guys got their systems out. The Dreamcast hardly gave it a fight. Did a bulk of that install base kick in during that year head-start?[/quote]
Just looking at how quickly the DC lost it's lead (US and Japan) and the huge lead that the GC (US and Japan) and Xbox (US and Japan) had to try to erase, it's easy to see how well Sony was prepared to keep their lead.

[quote name='daroga']1. The PS2 was by far the most underpowered system of the "big 3." It's curious to me to hear the guys talk about how much is under the hood of their new systems, while the modest PS2, especially compared to the powerhouse Xbox, outdid everyone, by far.[/quote]
Not when it launched. I don't think the system's "power" had much to do with anything this generation, as it was more of an issue about where the majority of games that people wanted to play were. All three system weren't really that different, which isn't the case this generation for the most part.

[quote name='daroga']2. Do people buy into the hype or see through the lies? I wonder how much the empty promises Sony made with the PS2 were a factor in its success. To me it seems unlikely that "TOY STORY GRAPHICS" really sold that many systems, fulfilled or not.[/quote]
My question is: Does stuff like this really matter when you've got great games to play. Maybe just in hindsight, but when these things are actually happening at the moment? I remember the "PS2 online will be like The Matrix!" comments and not really caring much about that. I thought that it would be cool if that came about, but regular online was the focal point even if it wasn't that big to begin with.
 
Quite honestly, while it is the "least powerful" of its generation, in my honest opinion, there's few games on its rivals that can touch it graphically.

My first HD gaming experiences were Gran Turismo 4 and Soul Calibur 3, there's nothing on GC or Xbox that even look half as good.

I bought it for all the great RPG's, every single music game [except Guitar Hero] and figthing games.
 
The PS2 makes me confident that you dont need an online strategy to do well. Concentrate on great single player experiences and wait till the leader in online gaming actually makes some money.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']
My first HD gaming experiences were Gran Turismo 4 and Soul Calibur 3, there's nothing on GC or Xbox that even look half as good.
[/QUOTE]

What the hell...?
 
[quote name='sarausagi']Quite honestly, while it is the "least powerful" of its generation, in my honest opinion, there's few games on its rivals that can touch it graphically.

My first HD gaming experiences were Gran Turismo 4 and Soul Calibur 3, there's nothing on GC or Xbox that even look half as good.

I bought it for all the great RPG's, every single music game [except Guitar Hero] and figthing games.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?:whistle2:? I could understand some of the more artistic games (ICO, SotC, Okami)... but most multi-platform platform games look noticeably better on the Xbox than the PS2. Hell, I'd say RE4 (GC) and SCCT (XB) was probably best looking game of the last gen. GT4 looked amazing, yes, but if I'm not mistaken, I think the only reason they were able to pull off such graphics was because they used backdrops allowing for more polygons on the cars. I thought that GoW, FFXII, and MGS3 were much better examples of the PS2's technical capabilities (my 2 cents).

And what PS2 game is HD? I know GT4 and SC3 sure as hell don't support any HD format. I can't think of a single PS2 game that was anything above 480p.:whistle2:k I know the Xbox had some 720p games but I'm pretty sure that the Xbox was the only system that did HD games from the last gen.

I think another thing to consider is the brand followers. With the PS1 being such a HUGE success, I'm sure many people found it comforting to know that the PS2 would play their PS1 games and have the same huge backing. Also, it had every single genre covered...
 
[quote name='Vinny']

And what PS2 game is HD? I know GT4 and SC3 sure as hell don't support any HD format. I can't think of a single PS2 game that was anything above 480p.:whistle2:k I know the Xbox had some 720p games but I'm pretty sure that the Xbox was the only system that did HD games from the last gen.

[/QUOTE]

Someone can corret me if I'm wrong but GT 4 did run (and possibly the only PS2 game to do so) at a 1080i resolution, don't think Soul calibur 3 did though.
 
My random musings as a very late adopter. I only got my PS2 in late 2005 but I am glad I did.


1. Exclusives -- There were a few that I liked from the beginning, but I didn't really get interested in them until after I got my system. In hindsight there were and are great exclusives for the system and this moved units.

2. Rebuys -- I got the thin one to begin with. I'd estimate 15% of PS2 purchases were upgrades and replacements


3. First come, first served -- Nintendo really dropped the ball on this one, but even if the PS2 came out later I still think it would have been the #1 system for the below reasons in #4

4. Name recognition -- Sony had this going for them by default. Sega had burned their customers too many times in the past with the 32x, Sega CD, and Sega Saturn. Nintendo shot themselves in the foot by going cartridge only for their N64 and wasn't competitive enough with the PS1 and had no momentum. Microsoft was the new kid on the block - an unknown entity. Sony was the only video game company at the time with a positive reputation

----
EDIT: 5. DVD Player -- a PS2 wasn't much more than an early DVD player so this was a no-brainer.
----

Some other random things to consider.

1. The PS2 was by far the most underpowered system of the "big 3." Least powerful - yes but still powerful enough that this was a non factor. The gap just wasn't wide enough.


2. Do people buy into the hype or see through the lies? I was such a late adopter for the PS2 I don't know anything about this[/quote]
 
Yes, GT4 did indeed have HD resolutions (1080i for sure and I think 720p as well). It certainly wasn't hard on the eyes, either. I guess graphics are always subjective, but calling SC3 and GT4 better than anything on the Xbox or GC means I've got to think you never saw or played Wind Waker, Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden, or the Splinter Cell games.

The gap between the PS2 and the Xbox is pretty severe, especially when looking at a game properly made for both of them. Cross-platform games tended to suffer from choppied framerates even if the game (like most) was designed for the PS2 and then ported to the Xbox. A notable expection that comes to mind is Burnout 3 and Revenge. I was amazed at what Criterion was able to squeeze out of the PS2 in terms of onscreen detail and frame rate. A top-notch job.

Which is another curious thing. I wonder how, in households that had a PS2 and either a Cube or an Xbox, multiplatform games sold on the PS2. Owning an Xbox, I would never dream of picking up the PS2 version of a game becuase it was, with a rare exception or two, superior in most ways on the Xbox or GC. I know there's a thread elsewhere in the forum on this subject, so I don't want to get too off topic. The PS2, however, had the advantage of having just about any game that was multiplatofrm, while some games were PS2/Xbox only or PS2/GC only. If you owned a PS2 and only a PS2, you might not be able to get the very best version of a game, but you could likely always play it.
 
[quote name='daroga']Which is another curious thing. I wonder how, in households that had a PS2 and either a Cube or an Xbox, multiplatform games sold on the PS2. Owning an Xbox, I would never dream of picking up the PS2 version of a game becuase it was, with a rare exception or two, superior in most ways on the Xbox or GC. I know there's a thread elsewhere in the forum on this subject, so I don't want to get too off topic. The PS2, however, had the advantage of having just about any game that was multiplatofrm, while some games were PS2/Xbox only or PS2/GC only. If you owned a PS2 and only a PS2, you might not be able to get the very best version of a game, but you could likely always play it.[/quote]

I'd venture to say price. It's alot easier to find deals on PS2 games then either of the other platforms (I think even popular non-PS2 games like Halo were selling for a near-retail price long after they had released)
 
Hindsight: Why was the PS2 such a run-away success?


Speaking from a personal standpoint only:

--It was my first DVD player. I should've gotten a sticker for it with a simply-drawn teddy bear that said "My First DVD Player".

--I had a PS1, and the thought of that sort of library looking twice as good really appealed to me. Playing those PS1 games on it was a draw, too.

--As a 9/9/99 Launch Day owner, I realized less than a year in that the Dreamcast wasn't going to come to a good end.

--It came before the 'cube and the Xbox, and I didn't have the patience to wait for either of them, and I didn't have the money to get either one within their 'launch window' in addition to it.

--With only the FPS genre as its weakness, the PS2 still has the best and most diversified library of any console, ever. I just don't want to hear otherwise.

--I bought it in a time where Sony wasn't putting one foot in mouth while using the other to kick The Gamer in the nuts. Ah, those were the days!
 
Brand. PS1 was king.

Perfect timing - storage. DVD was cheap enough and the demand wave hit right when the PS2 launched. (Compare that with BD/HD, too expensive & not much demand)

Safe choice for developers. The PS2 dominated in Japan which made it the go to platform for Japanese developers. It was the safest bet for all developers from day one. This is where the Gamecube & Dreamcast never sealed a spot.

Perfect timing - head start. Huge advantage in games, just like the XBOX 360 has now.

GTA3. Made the PS2 the console to own. Expanded market beyond 'gamers'.

Cheap. Sony could sell a million $600 rocks with the PS3 logo. Can they sell a $600 console to the masses? No. A big part of the PS2's success is that its price came down under, especially when it was under $200. The price of the console scaled nice....it didn't have a HD or any components/licenses that limited price cuts (like the original XBOX or PS3).
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The PS2 makes me confident that you dont need an online strategy to do well. Concentrate on great single player experiences and wait till the leader in online gaming actually makes some money.[/quote]
Maybe not back then you didn't. I honestly can't see a future console that doesn't support some kind of online capability do anywhere near as well as the PS2 did.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Maybe not back then you didn't. I honestly can't see a future console that doesn't support some kind of online capability do anywhere near as well as the PS2 did.[/QUOTE]

You're wasting your sentences talking to the guy who hates online gaming and thinks HDTV's are stupid... it's like talking to a brick wall.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Maybe not back then you didn't. I honestly can't see a future console that doesn't support some kind of online capability do anywhere near as well as the PS2 did.[/quote]Yeah, by the time Xbox Live hit, the PS2's install base was already pretty massive, so the presense of a unified onlien system or lack thereof was a nonissue last gen I think.

That being said, I don't think any system, regardless of how powerful its processor, spacious its discs, robust its online service, or innovative in its control is going to do the PS2 kind of numbers... or at least PS2 percentage leads over the rest of the pack. Things are too expensive and too different from each other this time to really dominate.

You can't really discredit online gaming, though. Even if it's not your cup of tea (like for me, though we'll see once I get into Gears of War and actuall juice up my Live account to Gold), it's a pretty important factor for a lot of gamers.
 
It was probably the most hyped system ever, and it delivered in a big way in practically every genre, plus some new ones (at least after it was out a few months).

It was not only my first DVD player but also the first one in our home, so the timing was perfect on that.

The PS2 continued some great series (MGS and Final Fantasy, etc.). It improved on others in a big way (GTA for sure, most sports games). It also introduced a ton of new series (Devil May Cry, Ratchet and Clank, etc.) to keep things fresh. They kept the controller pretty much the same as the PS1 which people were used to. It pretty much continued the PS1 which was a huge success itself, so the PS2 couldn't not succeed. $300 seemed kind of expensive then but looks like a bargain now. Almost all of the niche peripheral games have come out for PS2 as well, DDR, Time Crisis, Guitar Hero, EyeToy, etc. while the other consoles have not had much in the way of these types of games.

The PS2 has obviously had a second wind of success because it has by the far the biggest library of good games. I'd say there's at least 100 games I would consider good and most can be found for under $20 now, if not under $10. I don't think the PS2's faulty hardware had much to do with its success. They fixed many of them for free, and my original console worked for about 4 years before they exchanged it for free because I was getting DNAS errors for some online games. They even threw in a free controller with the refurbished system I got (which has worked flawlessly to this day).
 
Well, here's my 2 cents on this.

The PS2 was destined to be the winner because there was really no competition.

The dreamcast was dead. The Sega CD and 32X helped to kill the Saturn, that didn't launch very well, and never recovered (charging $400 at launch was very expensive at the time). All this led to very weary customers. Those who were only going to buy one weren't going to jump at the Dreamcast, even as it did so many things right).

Nintendo is (and was) a great company, but they aren't going for all the customers and the mass market. They have their market of gamers that they cater too. They release a few great games a year. The N64 was a great system with great games, but if you want to game continulously, you can't live on that.

All the PS2 had to do was not screw up. They sold their system to the masses, but quickly (once the early adopters got their system) started releasing solid games and packed in the great GT3 in with the system. This kept people happy, and since the PSX was the destination for games, this just made sense. It was this early dominance and expectations that got many early games as exclusives (GTA3, MGS2, FFX), and this then became a vicious cycle.

I think the Xbox could have competed, but even with a decent launch, there was a lot of waiting and seeing. They produced and survived, but by the time the masses got comfortable with them, they were way too far behind, and once the vicious cycle got out.

Really, this could have continued into thid generation, but I think you have the perfect storm of things going against Sony.

1) Microsoft launched first, and produced solid hits that many gamers want to play. It also doesn't hurt that they have a great online service that is second to none with Xbox Live.

2) Casual gamers are a huge part of the market, and it was a matter of time that an innovative company would reach out to them. Nintendo decided to give it a shot with the Wii. If the Wii gets this market, there is a chance that they are competing to be the number 1 console this generation.

3) Sony priced them self out of their core market. Having a DVD player was cool (and may have held people from getting a DVD player and putting that towards a PS2, but at the end of the day, that didn't sell it). Blue Ray is cool too, but not when your forced to pay for it. If the PS3 is $400, it's selling like hot cakes and the Blue Ray is the coolest thing ever. When you launch at $600, you are forcing people to buy something they don't want, and it makes them angry. In the past, they may have been able to get away with it. But, not this generation.
 
Interesting topic. It's nice to see a discussion like this not devolve into a flame war, and instead feature so many balanced and cogent posts.

I bought my PS2 on launch day (and have still never had so much as a single disc read error) for 3 main reasons:

1) The DVD player. The PS2 was still the only DVD player I owned two years after I bought it.

2) The backward compatibility. I never owned a PS1, so I figured right out of the gate I had a huge library of great games to experience for the first time. Looking back now, the only PS1 game that ever spent time in my PS2 was Ape Escape. Oh, and one of the Crash Bandicoot games, which I bought for my son.

3) I believed the hype. I remember the tech demos of the rubber ducks floating in a tub and being all jazzed about how amazing the water looked, and thinking we really would be seeing the promised "Toy Story graphics" in that generation. :oops:

I think those three factors contributed a great deal to their early success, and the huge and varied library, and having the biggest stable of AAA exclusives is what helped it stretch it's lead later in the console's life. Over the last few years, anyone choosing between a PS2, XBox, and GC was making their decision based primarily on which games they wanted to play.
 
Name recognition -- I don't consider myself a branded consumer, but I was very happy with the PS1 and didn't see any reason why the PS2 wouldn't be just as successful. They weren't first to market, but nobody thought the Dreamcast would bury the PS2. That gave the PS2 the time it needed to develop without worrying about competition.

Backward compatibility -- helped seal the deal. Both its existence and its implementation.

First come, first serve -- certainly helped. It helped diversify the game pool even in the early days. There was a drought, of course, but quite soon after there were a lot of games, and even a lot of cheap games. This helps sell systems, too, as people see that they can get games reasonably.

Power -- The PS2 may be the most underpowered, but when it was released it was the most powerful. XBOX was widely derided before it came out and a lot of people adopted a "wait and see" attitude towards it.

Now it's quaint to think about, but at the time, going from PS1 to PS2 was a really big deal.

The Dreamcast was there, but I remembered when I bought my Dreamcast on launch day that there was a good likelihood that it would fail. Sega had burned so many bridges. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that many people skipped the Dreamcast in favor of the PS2.

As for the Gamecube, I knew it was a foregone conclusion I would get one. So it didn't factor into the decision to get a PS2 at all. And neither one was so expensive that owning both seemed like a big deal. That brings me to:

Cost/features -- $299 was a lot, but it included DVD at a time when many people didn't already have one. It wasn't so much more than the game consoles of the day, though, that it seemed excessive. It was exactly the right price point, and it made it seem like you were getting both a game console and a DVD player for less than it would cost to buy 2 separate things. People can be talked into paying more if it seems like a relative bargain.

The Hype -- I ignored it. I don't care what they say, what's important is the games. I still don't listen to the hype now. When a machine catches my interest, there's usually a good reason -- software that I just gotta play, or technical leaps and bounds, or great potential.

At the time, people were ready for the next generation. Sony came in at the right time, with the right machine, at the right price point. They managed to avoid major mistakes and supplied a machine and software base that looked like it would be a secure choice for years to come.

Microsoft had an uphill battle going in, and Nintendo just dropped the ball.
 
1. DVd player

2. Brand Name

3. Headstart


The PLaystation brand was popularized by the PS1. That carried over in consumer's minds and developer's minds.


I never bought a PS2 back then, but I sure did think about it because it was also a DVD player. The headstart helped a bit, but I think it wouldn't have mattered much. The GC was doomed relatively speaking and the Xbox was just getting off the ground.

Of course games always help too. GT3 and GTA were big sellers here.
 
For Me
1. I had the PSX and it was great.
2. The controller. At the time sports games dominated my collection, and the Playstation controller is the best for sports games IMO.
3. RPGs. I considered Xbox to be more of the FPS system, while GC is the 'party' system. While PS2 had the RPGs (Japanese ones I guess)
 
[quote name='Roufuss']You're wasting your sentences talking to the guy who hates online gaming and thinks HDTV's are stupid... it's like talking to a brick wall.[/QUOTE]


he also never carries out an argument, but maybe we should all be more like him in that way :lol:


anyway, for me:

--the situation: I took a break from gaming for the last few years of the PS1's life and the first year or so of the PS2's life. I had heard a little about the Xbox and Gamecube, but everyone was all about the PS2 and the recently released GTA3. It wasn't even a decision-- I had to have a PS2.

--Games: VF4, RE:CV, Onimusha 1 + 2, DMC1, FFX, MGS2, and GTA3 were all killer apps that pushed the envelope far past anything I'd seen prior the moment I bought a PS2. We take beautiful 3D games for granted, but hell, even if those games didn't have "Toy Story" graphics, they had mind-blowing graphics at the time, imo.

--and it was a DVD player. a very big deal at the time.
 
I wish I could really understand why it was a run away hit, I was disappointed at launch with it(a friend bought one), prefer soul calibur and crazy taxi on Dreamcast over anything PS2 had for the longest time. I bought xbox and gamecube about 2 years after launch. I did buy a used ps2 late 2005 for God of War.
 
Another oft-forgotten reason is a steady flow of C and B titiles in between the AAA releases. That's one thing that the PS2 had over both the XBOX and GameCube for the lifetime of the console.
 
great games, wide selection of games and game types, exclusive games , competitively priced hardware and games and backwards compatibility. it was and is the system of choice for many adult gamers and young gamers alike. and even during the slow spots in gaming seasosn there were always tons of games you could get to tide you over. even now the thing is still selling like hotcakes and its easily got another year or so left in its life not to mention how many of us are taking the time to collect the games we love and always wanted but didnt have time to get or an inclination to pay full price for.
 
[quote name='DeaconKnowledge']Another oft-forgotten reason is a steady flow of C and B titiles in between the AAA releases. That's one thing that the PS2 had over both the XBOX and GameCube for the lifetime of the console.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but I barely have time for the AAA releases. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top