Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Japan, PlayStation 2 Ends a 12-Year Run

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the old-enough-for-comics dept.

Sony 146

The PlayStation 3 may have overshadowed it technically, but the PlayStation 2 has seniority. Now, the PS2 is being retired in Japan after nearly 13 years. That doesn't mean the games have stopped: "To this day, developers have continued to release games on the platform due to its enduring popularity, with the last title in Japan, Final Fantasy XI: Seekers of Adoulin, due out in March this year."

cancel ×

146 comments

Titan of its generation (and replaced too early?) (5, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418599)

Ah... the PS2. I don't think I can ever remember a console that's dominated its generation in quite the same way. I'm not just talking about unit sales (though its figures there and its lead over the Xbox and Gamecube were impressive enough), but rather about the sheer scale of the influence it exercised over gaming in general.

Back in the PS2's generation, if you were developing a console game, then unless you were being given bags and bags of money by MS or Nintendo, you had no choice but to make the PS2 your primary target. It didn't matter that it had underpowered hardware that was known for pain a pain in the arse to develop for. The Xbox and the Cube were optional. The PC (which was on a back-foot for most of that console cycle) was even more optional. The PS2 was where you had to be to get the sales. It had games from every genre represented; and often the best titles in their respective genres were for the PS2.

In many ways, it wasn't a particularly brilliant console. Its UI was butt-ugly. Cross-platform ports tended to look like a dog next to their Xbox and Cube versions (though the latter were admittedly quite uncommon). The memory cards for savegames were tiny, expensive and prone to data corruption. But it had the games, so if you were at all passionate about console gaming, you had to own one.

The funny thing is that, despite its hardware being completely obsolete, I've often felt Sony sent it to the back burner (via the PS3 launch) too soon. Both the console and its games were still selling well when the PS3 launched, with the 360 having failed to take much wind out of its sales. I do wonder what would have happened if Sony had held back the PS3 for 6-9 months, to work out some of the oddities in the hardware, let the launch price fall, get a stronger launch-lineup and maybe get proper back-compatibility into the hardware as a standard across the world. As it is, when the PS3 launched, it was too expensive for most and still suffering fierce competition from its own predecessor (some of the PS2's best games launched after the PS3, such as Personas 3 and 4). Certainly, for the first 18 months I owned my imported US 60 gig model, it spent far more time running PS2 titles than PS3 ones.

Nothing in the 360/PS3/Wii console generation has come close to replicating the PS2's dominance. The Wii got a big installed sales base early (which later stagnated, with the result that its lead, while still there, is much eroded), but never even came close to converting that into PS2-style dominance of games development. The 360 and the PS3 have more or less run neck and neck; if I remember, the 360 has a small worldwide installed base lead despite its Japan deficit, but the gap between the two isn't much more than a rounding error. And if you're developing a game these days, then unless you are being given large amounts of cash by a console manufacturer, you need to target the 360, PS3 and PC (the latter is very much back in the game), while giving consideration to the idea of a Wii-U port or a scaled down Wii version.

I wonder whether, to an extent, the PS2's dominance wasn't linked to Sony's ability to lock down what were, at the time, some of the biggest and most important franchises in the world to its console; Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo and Metal Gear Solid. Those were really the names that started shifting consoles (after what was actually a slightly lacklustre launch). These days, of course, all of the really big name franchises are cross-platform (and almost all Western, rather than Japanese). A couple of exceptions; the Nintendo first party games (not everybody's cup of tea), Forza (the 360's superior reflection of Gran Turismo) and the Halo/Gears vs Resistance/Killzone shooter pairings (where the games are essentially interchangable). But increasingly, it's cross-platform that dominates the charts (particularly when it features angry men with thick necks shouting "OSCAR MIKE" every 5 seconds).

PS. Another Final Fantasy XI expansion? My word. I stopped playing that years ago and didn't realise it was still going. It feels a bit like a relic from another world now; easy to forget it was probably the world's most successful MMO until World of Warcraft launched.

The Ignorance...It Burns (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418655)

Boggle.

"It didn't matter that it had underpowered hardware that was known for pain a pain in the arse to develop for"

LOL! What delusional and rambling fanboy post would be complete without that tired old Dreamcast era bullshit being parroted.

"As it is, when the PS3 launched, it was too expensive"

The PS3 while 200 dollars more expensive than the Xbxo 360 outsold it easily in its first year and has continued to do so every single it has been on the market.

"Sony's ability to lock down what were, at the time, some of the biggest and most important franchises in the world to its console; Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo and Metal Gear Solid"

Are you fucking serious? Gran Turismo is a Sony first party title. The Metal Gear Solid franchise was never a Sony exclusive franchise. And after the disastrous Square and Enix pairing Sony had absolutely no need or desire to waste effort or money on exclusives from them. And looking back at the garbage Square Enix has put out this gen it is obvious Sony made a wise choice.

"These days, of course, all of the really big name franchises are cross-platform"

Are you really this fucking delusional???

This gen has been absolutely DOMINATED by first party exclusive titles. Nintendo's first party titles like Wii Sports and others have crushed any and all multiplatform titles by a gigantic margin. While Sony's first party developer line up has grown significantly this gen and dwarfed Microsoft's multiplatform dominated lineup.

"Forza (the 360's superior reflection of Gran Turismo) "

LOL, just LOL...

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418693)

easy to forget it was probably the world's most successful MMO until World of Warcraft launched.

That's probably because it never even came close to that accomplishment.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (3, Informative)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418835)

And nor has much since...

WoW increasingly looks like an anomaly. Very few MMOs have managed to go over 1 million subscribers and stay there. Old Republic almost hit 2 million at launch, but fell off very, very rapidly.

Having done a bit of reading since my original post, it seems FFXI managed to stay in the 500k-750k range for years and years. It's below that point now, but then, it's extremely old now. While it may only have managed not much more than 1/20th of WoW's peak subscriber base, it seems to have done better than almost all of the other competition.

Also massively better than its own successor, FF14, which remains one of the greatest MMO cock-ups of all time.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (2)

Guppy (12314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421033)

Having done a bit of reading since my original post, it seems FFXI managed to stay in the 500k-750k range for years and years. It's below that point now, but then, it's extremely old now. While it may only have managed not much more than 1/20th of WoW's peak subscriber base, it seems to have done better than almost all of the other competition..

And ironically enough, FFXIV contributed to that drop, by drawing away players and dev resources. FFXI developed that sort of "end of game" atmosphere, as everyone expected it to be completely obsoleted by SE's new creation. At the time of FFXIV's release, quite a few friends in my linkshells (FFXI social or guild-type organizations) left to go play it. After a burst of initial enthusiasm, most found the new game disappointing and eventually quit -- but a portion of them never returned to FFXI afterwards.

In the meantime, many smaller FFXI linkshells had withered away due to the temporary drop in population. As members trickled back in (a few at a time), they came back to silent linkshell channels. They then left for greener pastures in the same gradual trickle, thus preventing their linkshells from ever re-gaining the critical mass of members needed for social interaction and in-game events.

On the other hand, the FFXIV launch disaster has caused SquareEnix to take a renewed interest in investing resources to maintain and develop content, and the FFXI population has stabilized (although at a new lower level). The upcoming expansion even adds two completely new classes (Geomancer and Rune Knight), building on the sophisticated job system that is one of FFXI's core strengths among MMOs.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419609)

Another Final Fantasy XI expansion? [..] It feels a bit like a relic from another world now; easy to forget it was probably the world's most successful MMO until World of Warcraft launched.

That's probably because it never even came close to that accomplishment.

I never played any of them, so I'm not really speaking from a position of authority. However, the MMORPG even *I* remember people going on about was Everquest. Looking back, I always got the impression that Everquest was the 800lb gorilla that dominated until the King Kong-sized WoW overshadowed even that.

Maybe as a non-game player I didn't notice FFXI because I assumed it was just a regular RPG like its predecessors, but I don't recall people going on about it anywhere near as much as "Evercrack".

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419731)

Everquest was "the game to beat" for a long time. Final Fantasy XI was the first game to beat it (in terms of subscriber numbers). In fairness, Everquest was already very old when FFXI launched.

Then WoW came along and succeeded on a different order of magnitude to anything that had come before (and, in terms of subscription MMOs, anything that's come since as well).

Getting over 500k subscribers and staying there for years seems to be incredibly difficult. Everquest managed it for a while, FFXI managed it, EVE Online seems to have managed it. Not many others have done the same.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Cito (1725214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421241)

Dark Age of Camelot was the Everquest killer and the dominate mmo before WoW.

Dark Age of Camelot still to this day has the best pvp system out of any mmorpg

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421351)

There was no "EverQuest killer", the game is still going strong today despite the naysayers. At any time I log in and run around, there are still plenty of people around to play with, some new, some old.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421529)

You're delusional.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1, Flamebait)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418711)

The Xbox 360 has clearly been dominating this generation, just like the PS2 did.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418731)

Not to nitpick, but the 360 has the lowest sales of the 3 consoles this generation - PS3 is ever so slightly higher, and the Wii is substantially higher than both. The 360 may be dominant in the US, but all other markets buck this trend.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (3, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418867)

There's more to dominating the market than installed base - as I said in my original post, the Wii managed PS2-style sales in its early years, but never really dominated the scene.

I think the thing with the 360 and PS3 has been that, from the user's point of view, they're probably more interchangable than any other two consoles in history. Their internal architectures might be completely different, but in terms of overall performance, they come out in about the same place. In a technical sense, if a game can run on the 360, it can be made to run on the PS3 and vice-versa. Just as importantly, they've got controllers which, while different in appearance, basically have the same number and configuration of buttons. So the same game can be released for both platforms in a near-identical state.

There aren't as many exclusives as in previous generations and nor are those exclusives as likely to be "best in genre" as they have been in the past. Even developers who started out this generation tied to one manufacturer's hardware have branched out since into cross-platform (eg. Insomniac).

So whether you buy a 360 or a PS3 (or if you own both, which one you spend most time with) is likely to be influenced by some distinctly secondary factors. Do you believe in "patriotic" buying? I suspect a lot of people do, as evidenced by the PS3's advantage in Japan and the 360's in the US (while Europe remains a dead heat). Which controller do you prefer the ergonomic fit of? Which console do most of your friends own? These are much narrower factors than the essentials that set apart the Xbox and the Gamecube, the SNES and the Genesis/Megadrive and the Playstation and the N64.

I don't think this console generation has had a winner. The Wii took an early lead but squandered it (check Nintendo's financials for the last couple of years, as opposed to the specifically gaming divisions of Sony and MS). The 360 and PS3 have remained neck and neck. And the Wii-U (which feels as much a current-gen console as a next-gen one based on the time I've had with mine)... who knows?

Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (-1, Troll)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418941)

"In a technical sense, if a game can run on the 360, it can be made to run on the PS3 and vice-versa."

It is funny on a site that claims to be a hangout for people with at least a minimum of technical knowledge. Or at least working visual systems...

There never has been another console that has so absolutely crushed its competition like the PS3 has done with the Xbox 360 this gen.

In the past there were either consoles that were too far apart in time for them to be considered technical competitors or consoles that were strong in some graphical areas but were beat in others like the Genesis/SNES days.

The PS3 is the first console ever to have such a graphical dominance over its competition that there isn't a single are the PS3 doesn't crush the Xbox 360 in:

* Resolution
* Poly counts
* Lighting
* Materials
* Animation
* Physics
* Particle/Effects

There isn't a single graphical area where the Xbox 360 has been able to put out games that match the PS3 in even a single graphical area this gen. And Microsoft has had six years and an virtually unlimited budget to do so.

Games like GT5 are running at 50 percent more resolution than the 360's Forza while pushing a huge amount more polys per frame and running a lighting model far beyond.

Games like Killzone 2 are running engines that aren't even possible to run on the 360 due to the gimped 10 megs EDRAM the 360 is saddled with.

Or games like Metal Gear Solid 4 that are so large they could never ever run on the 360's smaller than last gen 6.7gig DVD format.

Or games like Uncharted that have materials that make the 360's 'graphical showcase' Gears of War look like a PS2/Xbox era title:

http://kineticninja.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html [blogspot.com]

The Xbox 360 has been so badly beaten in graphics this gen that it is the only console in history to have to resort to trying to brag about minuscule differences in crappy mulitplatform titles because its own first party exclusives are so graphically unimpressive.

So, yeah, I'm sure shitty little Call of Doody looks slightly better on your 480i TV on your 360 than on your PS3.

But outside of delusional fanboy lalaland Microsoft has had 6 years to come up with a single game that could match Sony's PS3 exclusives this gen and failed to do so.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419023)

[citation needed]

Seriously, that's a fun little fanboi rant ya got there. Shame you couldn't back any part of it.

P.S., 360 still has a larger install base than the PS3. Not by a significant margin, mind you, but it's still ahead. Either way, 30% of the market is not a failure, particularly considering that both the PS3 and 360 remain trounced by a console that everyone would agree is at least a generation, if not two, behind in terms of hardware power.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1, Troll)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419123)

"P.S., 360 still has a larger install base than the PS3. Not by a significant margin, mind you, but it's still ahead."

LOL. Let me guess...you just checked vgchartz.com to 'make sure'...

vgchartz.com - the site run by a 20 something year old Xbox fanboy who use to post fake sales numbers on the neogaf forums in a desperate attempt to make the Xbox 360 sales look larger than they really were. Who got banned for doing so and ran off and created his pathetic little fake sales website where he could make up inflated Xbox 360 sales numbers without anyone banning him.

What is so hilariously sad about vgchartz.com is the little Xbox fanboy, ioi, is so dumb that he in his desperation to inflate Xbox 360 sales that he regularly posts Xbox 360 sales numbers that are larger than the known Xbox shipment numbers. But hey! who cares that his numbers are hilariously fake and just made by him typing into his computer from his mom's house, right?

Even more pathetic for Microsoft is that even with rushing their under-powered and defective hardware out the door a year early, tens of millions in duplicate consoles sold due to the RRoD fiasco and other hardware problems, being 100-200 dollars cheaper than the PS3, they even further in their desperation to try to inflate their Xbox 360 sales numbers by being the only console maker who tries to pass off 'shipped to retailer' numbers as actual 'sold to customer' numbers.

Both Nintendo and Sony switched to reporting only actual sales to customers back in 2006 while Microsoft has refused to do so because it allows them to inflate their installed base numbers by some 2-3 million from all the unsold consoles sitting in retail warehouse and store shelves.

http://spong.com/article/19131/SCEE-Clarifies-PS3-Install-Base-Maths [spong.com]

Absolutely hilarious that all that and Microsoft still ends up in last place this gen.

But what do you expect? This is the same Microsoft who:

* Tried to claim their dead Surface tablet was 'sold out everywhere'!

* That their dead Windows Phones were the 'top selling' phone - when it was actually just one retailer for one brief bit of time that their top ten list showed the Windows Phone at the top.

If Microsoft lost this badly this gen, it is going to be even worse next gen when they no longer have the only first party developers Xbox fanboys cared about Bungie anymore and Microsoft trying to mimic Nintendo with the shitty Eye Toy ripoff called Kinect. One has to wonder if Microsoft is going to intentionally botch their hardware next gen so help pad their installed base like they unintentionally did this gen.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419191)

Again, [citation needed]. Put up or shut up, rather than just claiming that everything written anywhere by anyone was written by an "MS fanboy". Even Wiki, which you probably think is run by Balmer himself, shows that the 360 and the PS3 are effectively in a statistical heat globally. Show some real numbers, apples to apples comparisons.

When you accuse everyone else of bias it demonstrates only your bias. And perhaps research civil discourse, you come off like a 12 year old boy who still thinks that rapid-fire "curse words" is some kind of demonstration of something other than excessive immaturity. You aren't lending the slightest amount of credibility to your argument.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419381)

Latest external sources I can find show that as of September 2012, the 360 had shipped 70 million and the PS3 had shipped 70.2 million. It's a statistical dead-heat (though I don't know what sales will have been like over the Christmas just gone, the PS3 has been getting some seriously heavy advertising here in the UK).

The 360 has done that on the basis of almost no Japanese sales, so on balance, it seems to have "won" outside of Japan (and lost big in Japan). Even if there are indeed inaccuracies of "a couple of million" in the numbers, it doesn't affect the top line story.

Almost as pointless as the debate about whether the Xbox or the Gamecube secured second place last time around. From what I remember, the Xbox carried it in the end, but it really was a bit of a joke, given just how far they both were behind the PS2. This time around, at least, both PS3 and 360 have been closing the gap on the Wii quite quickly in the latter part of the cycle. The big question with the Xbox and Cube was whether either of them actually had any relevance at all; that's not the case with the 360 or PS3.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (5, Informative)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419081)

Eurogamer do some excellent "Digital Foundry" articles comparing PS3 and 360 versions of games (and where appropriate, PC and Wii-U versions as well). Let me find some links for you.

Far Cry 3 [eurogamer.net]
Need for Speed: Most Wanted [eurogamer.net]
Mass Effect 3 [eurogamer.net]
Darksiders 2 [eurogamer.net]

There are lots more if you want to look.

tl;dr version - in most cases, the graphical and performance differences between PS3 and 360 "top end" games are so miniscule that you need detailed frame-by-frame comparisons to spot them. Broadly speaking, what differences do exist show the 360 having an advantage on Unreal-tech games (which is a lot of the big shooters). There are a few games which do swing heavily in favour of one platform or another (eg. Skyrim towards the 360, Final Fantasy XIII towards the PS3), but these are the exception rather than the norm and tend to reflect a developer which is much more comfortable with one set of hardware than the other.

Neither console crushes the other in performance terms in the real world. End of.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1, Informative)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419275)

We're not having a debate. There is six years of real world graphics engines running on fixed hardware. The fact that whatever brain damage you have that makes you so vehemently deny what is something that isn't just easily seem with people's own eyes but with the actual resolution, poly counts, lighting models, etc on the PS3 and the significantly weaker Xbox 360.

There are usually two groups of people who still cling to the delusion that the Xbox 360 graphics hardware is in the same league as the PS3:

1. Outright hardcore Xbox fanboys. The guys who post that 'teh Xbox version looks better' without even wasting time to look at comparison screen shots or video. Take PS3 and 360 footage/screenshots and reverse the labels and these sad fucks will proclaim the 360(actually PS3) version looks best!

2. People dumb enough to fill their head with the techno babble garbage from sites like beyond3d.com. These people spent the first couple of years before and during the start of the PS3's life listening to the PC fanboys run their mouths off with inane crap and simply refuse to let go are admit that all that garbage they filled their heads with is diametrically opposed to the reality of what their eyes are seeing.

I remember one of these sad fucks posting two screenshots from PS3 and 360 version of a game. The 360 version was full of jaggies. Yet this dunce had filled his head with so much garbage from the dumb PC 'graphics experts' that he actually was asking why the PS3 version didn't have as good anti-aliasing as the 360.

Console graphics isn't the special olympics like you apparently want it to be where 'everyone is a winner'. You design your console's graphics system and you ship it. The actual graphics engines speak for themselves.

Microsoft has had seven years to come up with a single game that can compete with a single PS3 exclusive. They failed. The Xbox 360's single claim to graphical fame were hilariously fake 5000x5000 16xAA Unreal Engine bullshots running with massively detailed models and materials running on a high end Epic developer PC that they tried to pass off as 'in game' or 'in engine':

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080404131361/egamia/images/e/e7/Gears_of_war.jpg [nocookie.net]

When in reality this is what the actual direct feed Xbox 360 graphics look like:

http://kineticninja.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html [blogspot.com]

PS3 exclusives like Uncharted make the Xbox 360's 'graphical showpiece' look like a PS2/Xbox era title.

Knock yourself out. Keep trying to convince the world the Xbox 360 was in the league as the PS3. Post some comparison shots of My Pretty Pony and how 'close the PS3 and 360' graphics look.

After all, there are still sad and pathetic Dreamcast fanboys haunting console forums still trying to convince the world the Dreamcast was just as powerful as the PS2.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (2)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419341)

So in other words, I could believe several years' archives of face-offs on multiple sites, not least Eurogamer, and the evidence of my own eyes over the last 5 years, all of which suggests that the two machines come out in broadly the same place.

Or I could believe you (and some of those anonymous coward sockpuppet posts you've also made in this thread). Given you seem to be contending for the title of "biggest asshole on slashdot" (which believe me, has some competition), I'm leaning away from that option.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (-1, Troll)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419553)

And there we have it.

You're basically just an petulant and dumb little kid.

What a perfect example of some of the latest political science studies that shows that people who have locked themselves into some belief actually cling harder to their misconceptions when faced with actual evidence.

The really inexplicable things is how the hell people like you ever were so dumb in the first place to believe the Xbox 360 was ever going to be able to compete graphically with the PS3.

The Xbox 360 was rushed out the door and obviously just thrown together in a rush to try to get the console out the door to pad out the installed base before the PS3 and Wii shipped.

The Xbox 360 was gimped with a last gen DVD drive that had usable storage that was about 1.5 gigs smaller than the PS2 and Xbox had to use. Compared to the PS3 with its 25/50 gig Blu-Ray drive.

The PS3 had an obvious massive floating point power advantage over the much weaker Xbox 360 which should have been obvious that things like physics, lighting, animation would be significantly more advanced on the PS3.

The gimped 10 megs of EDRAM in the 360 should have made it obvious to even a non-programmer that the 360 was going to be a nightmare for developers. And that games with engines like the amazing Killzone 2/3 differed shading engine that requires large render buffers would never be possible on the 360.

Or that the significantly higher pixel pushing power of the RSX in the PS3 was going to mean the PS3 would be running games at a higher resolution than the 360's weaker graphics hardware could handle.

At some point even someone with a peebrain like yours must have finally had the dim little lightbuld above their head go off and stopped trying to pretend the 360 was ever going to put out PS3 level graphics.

Instead here you are six years later still clinging to that bullshit that is filling your head and posting links to a handful so graphically mediocre titles more than half of which are nothing more than PC developer console ports.

Until the day that you can post screenshots or footage from a retail 360 game running with graphics that can match this gens top graphical console games:

* Killzone 2/3
* Uncharted 1/2/3
* Gran Turismo 5
* God of War 3

Since you can't. And since you won't ever be able to, Sit down and shut the fuck up.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (2)

Saffaya (702234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420787)

No, you shut the fuck up, since you started with the insults.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ninjagaiden2-faceoff-article [eurogamer.net]

Same game by two teams who wanted to exploit their hardware to the maximum.
The results reflect the hardware differences :
X360 displays more enemies on screen and effects.
PS3 does better lighting.

Choose your favourite, but stop the fanboy rant. We're talking about games, not visual demos.

It's Just Keeps Getting Better And Better (0)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421107)

You actually just posted a link to a fucking Xbox 360 game that was ported to PS3 as some sort of 'proof' that the 360 is able to put out PS3 level graphics?

Really???

I think I am finally seeing the sad and pathetic logic that allows people like you to lie to themselves in order to not have to face a reality they desperately don't want to deal with. In this case that the PS3, no surprise, destroyed the Xbox 360 in graphics this gen - just like every console engineer knew it would six years ago.

Ya don't get to pick and choose which game's graphics demonstrate the relative strength of two consoles. It is hilarious that you actually tried to do so.

The PS3 has Uncharted 1/2/3 - What does the Xbox 360 have of the same level?

NOTHING

No fucking surprise since the 360 is gimped by the smaller than last gen disc format that can't hold the 24 or more gigs of data for materials and geometry in the Uncharted games. Nor does the 360 have the same insane parallel floating point power in the PS3's Cell chip to run Uncharted's animations.

Instead the best the 360 can do is the 'amazing' Gears of War games that look like this:

http://kineticninja.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html [blogspot.com]

Laughably primitive lighting, jerky primitive animations, materials that look straight out of the PS2/Xbox era.

The PS3 has Killzone 2/3 - What does the 360 have that can compete?

NOTHING

Once again the massive data of materials and geometry can't fit even on 3 of the 360's gimped less than DVD sized discs. And the 360's gimped 10 megs of EDRAM can't fit the massive render buffers that advanced deffered shading engines like Killzone 2/3 run on the PS3. And this is why all the Xbox fanboys screamed that Sony was lying about Killzone 2's graphics before Sony shut them the fuck up at E3 with graphics that matched the 'impossible CGI level' graphics:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3238/killzone2comparw1.jpg [imageshack.us]

Either you post these mystery 360 games that magically make the wimpy Xbox hardware do what not a single Xbox developer has been able to for the past seven years.

Until you can do that, sit down and shut the fuck up. Your crappy little underpowered 360 got the shit kicked out of it graphically this gen. No other console has been so humiliated that it has not a single exclusive title that can be held up that is of the same level as the exclusives on its competing console.

 

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421047)

Console developer here. Curiously, what you are saying is mostly false. The reality is: either you are designing the game around PS3 hardware, or PS3 version will be far worse than 360 one.

PS3 got SPUs, and that's about it. It has less RAM, less performant GPU, and only a single hyper-threaded CPU core. Without taking SPUs into account, PS3 is essentially a castrated Xbox with 2 of its 3 cores removed and RAM halved to 256 MB (you better not touch video RAM with CPU).

Now, what SPUs give you: 6 fast, but pretty dumb cores that see the world through 256KB window and have to DMA data in and out. Their job is mostly helping weak RSX GPU with graphics tasks (post-processing, sometimes geometry optimizations like early culling, deferred renderer - if used, etc). Using them for generic game logic is possible, but most cross-platform engines were not designed for that and SPU utilization remains a problem even now, 6 years after the launch.

Compare the framerates of the cross-platform games, BTW.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0, Troll)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421193)

"Console developer here"

No you're not. And you're doing a really poor job trying to pretend to be one.

Your problem is went to far with your hyperbole to the point even someone who might fall for your stream of cut and pasted techno babble would know that regardless what you are saying that whatever it is it is obviously not true since PS3 games are running at higher resolutions, much larger amounts of geometry, much more detailed materials, much more advanced lighting models, and on and on.

What is funny about your attempt at pretending to be a 'console developer' is it is exactly the same silly attempt that guys like you have been making going all the way back to the Dreamcast days. PC programmers(or guys who listen to PC programmers) who don't have a clue how anything other than the archaic desktop PC architecture works and how game engines are written for it. They are frightened and completely lost by anything that isn't that sort of architecture - hence the lashing out at modern architectures like the PS2, PS3, etc.

It is fun to go back and read guys like posting the solemn and desperately hoping to be authoritative pronouncements about console hardware graphics capabilities.

Don't you guys ever get tired of being wrong?

 

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421345)

You can believe me or not, I don't care. You don't back your claims, in reality it's PS3 games that run in "640p" compared to 720p on 360 (see here [lazygamer.net] and here [computeran...ogames.com] ) or with missing post-processing [teamxbox.com] . Games I worked on had features cut on PS3 compared to 360 as well, but I won't damage the franchise by stating what it was. It is enough for me that Sony realized their mistake and is trying hard to make up for it with PS4.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421373)

is trying hard to make up for it with PS4.

(Same AC): which, by the way, will be much closer to "archaic desktop PC architecture" than PS3.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421479)

And the little kid pretending to be 'console developer' blows it by parroting a silly rumor.

Here's a hint kid. Don't try to bullshit about things people have sitting in the offices right now.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421471)

Give it a rest.

I've had to read the lame attempts of countless little kids like you over the past 15 years since the Dreamcast arrived. You're about a 2/10 compared to the rest.

You've never seen the inside of console development house.
You've never touched a real life PS3 devkit - let alone done actual work on one.
Nor will you ever.

You're just yet another boring and not very bright kid doing a poor job of pretending he's someone he isn't.

Dreamcast, Xbox, and PC fanboys have been doing the stupid shit you're trying to do for the past 15 years. Most of them a much better job than your lame attempt at pretending to be a 'console developer'. Not a single thing any of them spent so much effort on ever had the tinniest effect on the console market.

Get a life.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421687)

Haha, wow, did you seriously create multiple accounts on slashdot just so you could push your point further without looking like the same raving lunatic?

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421185)

You started off accusing a fairly balanced and objective poster of being a fanboy and then went off into raving lunatic fanboy territory yourself - You seem to have a huge amount of your ego tied into proving the PS3 'Crushes' the 360, when no one with a lick of sense really cares anymore, or ever cared in the first place. You're an extraordinary ass, as well as a child, and you need to be beaten soundly 'til you learn to share your opinion with adults in a civilized and level-headed manner.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419891)

The guys who post that 'teh Xbox version looks better' without even wasting time to look at comparison screen shots or video. Take PS3 and 360 footage/screenshots and reverse the labels and these sad fucks will proclaim the 360(actually PS3) version looks best!

Nothing new here. Apple fanbois claimed that the zero bit on the chip Apple used at the time was better than Intel and it turned out it was the Intel was the end they were praising.

Obama's geographical gaffes were attributed to Sarah Palin.

George W's superior grades were given to John Kerry.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420167)

Wow, you created an account just for posting fanboy wars from.... what, 5 years ago? I would think this was a troll, if it wasn't for the fact that I've read drivel like yours for the past 15 years. 20 if you start with magazines.

The cold, hard reality is that for all of the PS3s technical excellence, no one gives a fuck because no one can tell the difference. And with no one, I mean anyone who has better things to do than to hitch their personal self-worth to some bag of plastic, silicon and metal that is stamped with a particular brand.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (0)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420379)

Quick google of NeutronCowboy Xbox

What a surprise! The lame attempt at pretending to be a 'grown up' above silly things like 'graphics' is just another angry and bitter Xbox fanboy...

The fact that the wimpy Xbox 360 came out SEVEN years ago and you are still this angry about really is incredibly pathetic.

Nintendo came out with the Wii which wasn't much more powerful than the GameCube. Nintendo fans grumbled a bit and then quickly moved on with their lives and had a wonderful gen. Sony promised and delivered total graphical dominance and massive first party exclusives. Sony fans grumbled a bit at the price but moved on quickly and the PS3 has easily outsold the Xbox 360 every year its been on the market. And has this past year dumped the 360 into last place in worldwide sales.

What the hell is with Xbox fans? You desperately wanted to believe the poorly designed and rushed out the door 360 hardware would be able to compete with the PS3. You filled your heads with garbage that told you want you wanted to hear.

Reality vs fanboy delusions. Surprise, Reality won. The PS3 crushed the wimpy Xbox 360 so badly Xbox fans had to resort to the humiliating 'at least some multiplats look (slightly) better on teh 360'.

Honestly guy, go throw yourself at your pillow tonight in your Halo jammies and have a good cry and get it out of your system and move on. Let it be a lesson that you shouldn't let yourself fall into the trap of believing something simply because you desperately want it to be true.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421147)

The irony. It is.... overwhelming.

Re:Take The Fanboy Goggle Off (1)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421215)

LOL...that's it?

A pathetic attempt at pretending to be the 'mature and disinterested observer'.

Really?

Wouldn't have wasted my time on you if I knew you just some dumb guy.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420295)

I would argue that the 360 has more mind-share in the US--but at the same time, it's the least relevant console. Most games these days are multiplatform, and now that developers have had more time with the PS3, the PS3 ports are almost always superior. The 360 does have a few good exclusives, but those often wind up on the PC as well, which ends up getting the superior ports (Halo is a notable exception). Sony, meanwhile, has been amazingly open to a diverse range of niche titles that don't wind up anywhere else. I don't like Sony very much, but I have to give them credit for that--during the PS2 days, they were hardcore about not letting anything that seemed "old-tech" onto the platform. The PS3 also has free online. $60/year for the 360 may not be much, but that's the price of a new game, and it means that the platform is more accessible for casual multiplayers.

(Where the 360 clearly has the PS3 beat is in the system OS, even if the constant ads are annoying. This isn't too surprising, given Microsoft's origins.)

IBMs Power architecture the Titan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418811)

GameCube: 32-bit PowerPC cpu
PS3: 64-bit Power + 8 128-bit vector units
Xbox360: Triple-core 64-bit Power cpu
Wii: 32-bit PowerPC
WiiU: Triple-core 32-bit PowerPC

IBM's Power architecture when performance matters.

Re:IBMs Power architecture the Titan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419581)

More like when unit cost matters. Any modern Core based CPU will absolutely trash a PowerPC CPU.

Re:IBMs Power architecture the Titan (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419711)

In what world does cost not matter?

Re:IBMs Power architecture the Titan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42420857)

When you want the best. That is why people still buy Core i7 CPUs when Atom CPUs exist and why people still buy BMW when Hyundai exists.

Do you live in a cave or something?

Re:IBMs Power architecture the Titan (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421441)

You can always spend more. Point is, cost is just as important as performance when designing a mass-market game console. You can't have enough market share to attract developers without making the platform cost competitive.

IBMs Power architecture the Titan of performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421773)

Benchmarks from spec.org
IBM System p 570 (4.7GHz, 1 core) (1 thread)-result: 17.8{base}, 21.6{peak}
HP ProLient Bl660c (2.90GHz Xeon E5-4617, 24 cores)( 24 threads)-result: 49.6{base}, 52.9{peak}...score per core 49.6/24=2.066{base}, 2.2{peak}
Oracle SunFire X4470 M2(2.40GHz Xeon E7-4870, 40 cores)( 80 threads)-result: 33.6{base}, 36.6{peak}... score per core 33.6/40=0.48{base}, 0.915{peak}
Dell PowerEdge R900 (2.40 Xeon E7450, 24 cores)( 24 threads)- result: 227{base}, 243{peak}.. score per core 227/24=9.4{base}, 10.12{peak}

And IBM's p570 is two years old..

Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (1, Insightful)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418851)

You were joking...right?

The Xbox 360 is in last place in worldwide sales this gen.

An absolutely mind boggling failure for Microsoft. The Xbox 360 was suppose to be the console where Microsoft recovered from the first Xbox multi-billion dollar fiasco and finally got it right.

Instead Microsoft:

* Killed off the first Xbox leaving pissing off developers who wasted resources developing engines for the console

* Rushed the worst console hardware ever created out the door that lead to the RRoD fiasco and many other hardware failures on a scale never seen before in the console market.

* The Xbox 360 launched a year early and a year and a half early in Europe

* The Xbox 360 launch price was 200 dollars cheaper than the PS3 yet the PS3 easily outsold the Xbox 360's first year and has gone on to outsell the Xbox 360 worldwide each year it has been on the market.

* Tens of millions Xbox 360 have been sold due to Xbox owners desperately hoping each new model that is released finally fixes the RRoD, the disc scratching drives, the absurdly loud noisy operation, etc.

All of that and Microsoft still has ended up in last place this gen. In a sick bit of irony, the only bright spot this gen for Microsoft has been the RRoD in that it helped keep them out last place for a little bit longer than they should have.

What is mind boggling about Microsoft's failure in the console market is instead of rectifying the reasons they are the last place console this gen, they have been making things worse:

* They have shut down almost all of their first party developers or let them go join multiplatform publishers. The one first party studio that mattered, Bungie, they pissed off so much that they forced Microsoft to let them leave. Boggle.

* The first Xbox was big expensive PC crammed into a big ugly black box. The Xbox 360 was junk hardware with wimpy graphics that got destroyed by PS3 exclusives this gen. Yet Microsoft has done nothing to develop the internal hardware design and manufacturing capabilities that would allow them to compete with Sony.

Instead Microsoft has bizarrely tried, and failed, to turn the Xbox 360 into a Wii like device by buying a company that created an Sony EyeToy clone.

Even more mind boggling is that even after six years on the market the Xbox's division is still either bleeding cash or just barely breaking even. And that is including all the other profitable products and services in the same division. The 50 or whatever the price Microsoft forces Xbox owners to pay them to be allowed to play online games should be generating many hundreds of millions of dollars a year in pure profits. The losses on the Xbox 360 have to be so large that even those extra hundreds of millions in profit each year can barely cover the losses on the Xbox 360 hardware.

Dumping the ten year long Xbox fiasco is going to be day one for whatever CEO finally comes in to clean up the mess Ballmer has created with garbage products like Bing, Xbox, Windows Phone, etc.

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418973)

You must be living in a different world, like Japan.

Games are designed first and foremost for the Xbox 360, and PC and PS3 versions, when they happen, are outsourced sub-par ports.
Games released on multiple platforms usually have a better experience on the Xbox 360, especially graphics.

There are also many games which get DLC on Xbox 360 first. There are even some multi-platform games that only get DLC on the Xbox 360 version.

While the PS3 remains the best console for japanese games, the Xbox 360 is a much better console for western audiences. The Wii did sell better, but who is still playing their Wii? The console was just a gimmick.

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (0)

dma_packet (2804603) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419051)

"Games released on multiple platforms usually have a better experience on the Xbox 360, especially graphics."

One has to wonder how it can be that when your console has been beaten so badly in graphics that you have to resort to 'teh multiplats' that you don't just throw in the towel and move on with your life and accept that whatever garbage you filled you head with about the relative power of your console and its competition was exactly that...garbage.

Xbox fans were so butt hurt about the PS3 curbstomping their wimpy little Xbox 360 in graphics this gen that their Xbox buddies at sites like gametrailers.com resorted to:

* Intentionally hooking up the PS3's video with the wrong settings so they could pretend the graphics were 'washed out'

* Intentionally using higher jpg compression for screen captures on the PS3 so the image quality would drastically suffer and look like the screen was filled with jaggies and aritifacts

* Outright intentionally doctoring PS3 screenshots and then getting caught and laughing about it in their forums

Pathetic but not really surprising. There are still hardcore Dreamcast fans who over a decade later still lurk in online forums trying to convince the world that the PS2 didn't really graphically kick the shit out of their precious Dreamcast. And that they have hardware specs that 'prove' the Dreamcast is superior to the PS2.

I'm sure there will be Xbox fanboys a decade from now doing the same with fighting a futile battle trying to convince the rest of the world that their own eyes are deceiving them and that the Xbox 360 really was able to put out graphics in the same league as the PS3.

"While the PS3 remains the best console for japanese games, the Xbox 360 is a much better console for western audiences. "

LOL, so sadly pathetic...

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419725)

Raging psuedo ps3 fanboi, calm yourself. In homes with both Xbox 360 & PS3 that I know of, its the Xbox360 that gets get played more often. Isn't Halo exclusive to the Xbox? That's not the only reason.

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420395)

Graphics quality have little to do with the power of the hardware. It's how much time the devs spent optimizing for a particular console that defines how good the game looks.

Unlike you I don't really like a particular console. I just care about having a device to play games and have a good time.

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (1)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420459)

"Graphics quality have little to do with the power of the hardware. It's how much time the devs spent optimizing for a particular console that defines how good the game looks."

I don't know how anyone could possibly write something so inane.

Why would you post something so obviously untrue?

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420613)

Because it is true..
Most computers or game consoles are so complicated to program that to tap the full power of the processor needs a lot of development time.

Re:Xbox 360 Is In Last Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419167)

You sonyggers sure are in denial about the failstation failing so hard that it destroyed sony. The failstation3 lost more money than the preceding two generations made, trying to keep up with the juggernaught xbox.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418815)

"It's UI was butt ugly"

What UI? The delete memory card screen? The PS2 didn't really have an UI.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418907)

I do wonder what would have happened if Sony had held back the PS3 for 6-9 months, to work out some of the oddities in the hardware, let the launch price fall, get a stronger launch-lineup and maybe get proper back-compatibility into the hardware as a standard across the world.

Possibly, something entirely unrelated to the console market - HD-DVD may have become the de facto standard for high-def media. Upgrading their console platform was only one reason Sony launched the PS3 - the other was to get a player for their proprietary high-def format in the lounge room of as many consumers as possible. Remember, at launch, the PS3 was the most cost-effective BluRay player on the market, due to console subsidies.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419093)

Hah, so very true. I remember how close I came to buying the HD-DVD addon for the 360, before remembering the old-adage that console peripherals never really take off. On that basis, it was clear that even if the 360 sold the PS3, the PS3's inclusion of blu-ray as standard was going to carry that format over the line.

And yes, my parents bought a PS3 to go with their new HD-TV, not because they wanted to play games on it, but because it was indeed the cheapest blu-ray player around.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420527)

Also, other consoles already would have had a 1 year lead on the next-gen platform; which would have made it much harder for the PS3 to take a stand.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418929)

It didn't matter that it had underpowered hardware that was known for pain a pain in the arse to develop for

It mattered a whole hell of a lot. It threw developers back to the days of the (S)NES, where you had to develop your own development tools to actually create something that is usable. The video RAM limitation alone was a massive drawback to development, so much so, I can name two studios that eventually folded because development time targeting the PS2 was insurmountable with a small shop.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419083)

Best writer on games on Slashdot: RogueyWon

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419219)

As nice the game catalog for the PS2 was. I certainly don't miss the hardware problems one bit. I lost track of how many PS2s I got in to recalibrate the shitty laser because the plastic casing just couldn't take the heat generated by the console and deformed it's shape. Or how many PS2 network and HDD adapters I had to replace capacitors on because Sony used parts that were not rated for the type of punishment the console put it through. Or all the loose control and memory card slots that had to be re-soldered, which ultimately the problem goes away with a line of hot glue over the pins. It was a box loaded with problems.

I do really miss the great RPG and Action games of the PS2 era. Everything had nice vibrant colors that really fit the fantasy worlds that were defacto standard for those genres at the time. All of these newer games have such a drab color palette that it makes me feel depressed if I play them for too long.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419393)

I was always lucky on the PS2 hardware front, for the most part. Had a "fat" UK model for several years which got very heavy use, which was later joined by a "slim" US model. Neither had any internal hardware failures. What did get irritating, however, was memory card corruption. I remember losing a Final Fantasy X save with about 70 hours of play-time on it to that. Not amusing.

I actually had worse luck with the Gamecube, where I had two of them fail on me, despite the fact they got much more limited use. One of them, admittedly, wasn't 100% the console's fault. I'd taken it home when visiting the family for Christmas and a cousin's young child had been a bit too... enthusiastic... opening up that little flippy lid on the top, snapping it off (though those lids were absurdly fragile). On the other unit, the disc drive just suddenly refused to read anything.

This time around, I've had a Wii fail on me (dead out of the box) and a 360 RROD on me. The 360 died following a firmware update just a few days out of the 3 year extended warrenty, so I wasn't best pleased (though in fairness, I'd been meaning to trade up to a later model with a larger HDD).

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419431)

TL;DR (just another thread about console cretinitis disease apparently destroying pc gaming lol)

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420377)

...

The funny thing is that, despite its hardware being completely obsolete, I've often felt Sony sent it to the back burner (via the PS3 launch) too soon. Both the console and its games were still selling well when the PS3 launched, with the 360 having failed to take much wind out of its sales.../p>

That is funny thing to say. Because Sony was the only one selling games for the previous generation system when the new systems came out. Did MS still support the original Xbox? Fuck no. Yet Sony still had new games coming out for the PS2 long after the PS3 was released. In fact, for being a "back burner" they just finally stopped making PS2, did MS still make Xboxes 5 years ago? No? So why is the back burner so bad when they have a new product? At least they were keeping it warm, not forgetting it like MS Did.

I do remember Nintendo making some Gamecube games will after the Wii was released, like Zelda was made for both systems (i think, could be wrong). But that was a case of developing it at the end of the Gamecube cycle and that the Gamecube is very very very similiar to the Wii.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420573)

You obviously were not around for the Atari 2600. The influence of the 2600 dwarfed the PS2. It defined a generation in a way that Sony could only dream their console could. For a time, the name Atari was literally synonymous with game console. Even the competitors like ColecoVision would frequently be referred to as a Coleco brand Atari.

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421641)

PS2 slimline's flaw is that its ribbon cable for the laser assembly can rise a bit and cause scratches in the disc when the laser moves and the cable contacts the disc. Aside from that--and make no mistake that is a huge design flaw even if it can be fixed--PS2 was and still is a great system.

Several PS2 ports came from PC games. It also had a very large library of shooter, action, platform and puzzle games. Dualshock controllers last for years before malfunction (although still not as durable as Sega Genesis controllers which last over a decade and still don't malfunction). Don't forget that the PS2 also supports DVD playback and can even decode DTS.

One of the main questions I have when I see PS3, Wii, WiiU, XBox 360: yes, okay, but where are the games that actually interest me?

Re:Titan of its generation (and replaced too early (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421823)

I pretty much agree with most of your post, despite being more of an Xbox 1 over PS2 gamer (my first consoles and coming from PC, I liked the more PC-centric stuff on the Xbox)

That being said, I now love my PS3, so many good games for it and more importantly so many good exclusive games for it, often unique ones to boot.

I'm curious if you'd agree (and suspect so) that the PS3 and 360 are about to also be retired too early. The replacements for both systems are heavily rumoured to come out next year before Xmas and I'm not sure they are needed yet. The law of diminishing returns has the PS3 and 360's best games still (in my opinion) looking really quite good (See: Uncharted 2/3, Journey, Halo 4 and so on) these are quality graphics on 6 year old systems. I personally don't think we need those new consoles for at least 24 months.
Since I wasn't a hardcore console player last gen (I got in mid way and was new to consoles in general) the PS2 doesn't hold as much memories for me - but the PS3 is definitely the best console I've ever owned. Very happy with it.

Due? March this year? (2)

Bizzeh (851225) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418621)

It was either released in march this year, or it is due to be released march next year, as we are currently in december

not game (4, Informative)

musikit (716987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418649)

to be fair FFXI: seekers of adoulin is an expansion to the FFXI game released close to 7 years ago now. it is not a full game and can not be played seperately without buying the original title from 7 years ago.

Re:not game (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418873)

to be fair FFXI: seekers of adoulin is an expansion to the FFXI game released close to 7 years ago now. it is not a full game and can not be played seperately without buying the original title from 7 years ago.

So then it requires a HDD? Do most FF fans in Japan have HDDs in their PS2s?

Re:not game (1)

musikit (716987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418979)

yes requires the HDD. i moved here after the ps3 generation started so dont know how popular ps2 hdds are. wii u seemed to sell pretty decently. donno how US sales went.

Re:not game (2)

ninlilizi (2759613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419165)

I've got a european hdd bearing PS2.
You can still find the componets to HDD enable a ps2 on the typical high street.
But there mostly an accessory for HDLoader users and the like. There are no HDD capable games over here. So its the exclusive domain of pirates and more hardcore users who don't want their laser/games to wear out prematurely. The softwares out there to make torrenting game iso's and dumping straight onto the PS2 across the network without any futzing around. So it's a 'just works' solution that's made piracy on the platform as itunes/steam simple.

Re:not game (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419211)

wii u seemed to sell pretty decently. donno how US sales went.

I don't know either, but the only mention of it I've even heard since the launch is a woman who works in my bank who didn't know if it would even play Wii games. (I stayed out of it, I don't want to get too friendly with the bank employees, as some of them are excessively nosy as it is. The dark side of the local credit union.)

Re:not game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419247)

Wii U is sold out pretty much everywhere. No idea how many sales that translates to but it seems to be doing well.

Re:not game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42420965)

Is it? I just checked Gamestop, Target, Fry's, Newegg and Amazon. They all have them in stock.

This year?.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418657)

More liek 2013.

Another technology ends its life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418713)

Again we have another technology that ends its life without releasing any support for all the people who bought and own a PS2 only the released software is the only software that these devices can use with no more to be developed. What kind of support should they make? Simple release the dev sdk and codes to make disks for the PS2 now that they have no more financial interest in the device.

March of this ... (2)

ModernGeek (601932) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418717)

March of this year has already passed. I believe that they mean March 2013, which would be March of next year.

Re:March of this ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418849)

It was due March 2012, but had to be postponed because of the time requirements of putting in sufficiently huge boobies.

I love the PS2... (1)

ikaruga (2725453) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418745)

... but it's way beyond the time to let it go. I remember back in 2006~7 when all the good games(at least here in Japan) were still being released for the PS2 while the PS3 was left to gather dust.
Now sony only needs to kill the PSP too, as it is cannibalizing all the sales the vita could have and as well as dividing developers (some are scratching their game's vita versions in favor of the PSP and others are developing for both).
Sony should learn that no risk no return. Apple kills successful products all the time in favor of better versions(ipod classic -> iDevices; macbook -> macbook air). If sony wants to be the Japanese Apple they could learn a thing or two.

Re:I love the PS2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418925)

Yes time to let it go in favor of Always online DRM, 'Finished in 2 hour' Games and forced to play Multiplayer. Paid patches (DLC), let alone actual Patching, unheard of for Console games and something that was suppose to be PC only.

I guess nobody even remembers the whole point of consoles? No patching and tiny saves. I suggest stop calling them Consoles, for they are only PC Boxes now. Even worse, Walled in garden PCs.

But the trend is moving away from Consoles and to Mobile gaming, so no worries, all bad things must come to an end.

Re:I love the PS2... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419825)

I agree. However, planned obsolescence is rarely what's best for the consumer. If we want games to be treated as an artistic medium, as I believe they can be, then we have to stop with the bullshit "end of life" -- If a developer wants to make a game for the PS1, NES, C64, x86 DOS or any other platform then they should be able to. Should people be able to port, say, Cavestory to run on an SNES? I think so. The difference between the consoles and PC platforms is that you can still publish software for the computers, but these latest generations of consoles require blessing from the manufacturers in order to release games for them. Should a painter have to seek permission to create works on rice paper or bamboo scrolls -- and should they be denied simply because cloth canvas is now available? I don't think so. These latest generation of gaming devices have also seen much litigation in the way of emulators and cracking down on Homebrew (un blessed) software development. Nintendo shutting down 3rd party DS carts that allow loading home made games, Sony suing a reverse engineer after they took away the ability to run your own software, Microsoft pushing system update after update to patch their OS against homebrew and also preventing the sale of mod chips on copyright grounds.

Turning off parts of the games also needs to stop. When Microsoft disabled the Halo2 matchmaking service I was a bit pissed off, because I knew how that service worked. Here was a game that merely needed to know the IPs of the folks I wanted to play with -- They could have disabled bungie.net BS, that wouldn't have affected gameplay, but it didn't matter which game I inserted it would have consumed the same matchmaking bandwidth, so disabling Halo2's multiplayer pissed me off. One day, on the 360, I joined a party-chat with my brother, "Still pining for her I see" he said over XBL chat after seeing the Halo2 icon near my name on the friends list. "Shut up, you're playing it too," I said after checking his in game status, "Too bad MS is a dick so we can't play on XBL." Do you see why we were angry? We're paying for an online service that refuses to work because a new shiny is out. Here our two game consoles know each other's IPs -- We're directly chatting with each other (verify via wireshark), our consoles each know we're both playing the same damn game, and yet we have no option to play the game with each other on XBL. "The VPN is up if you want to play some one on one over a LAN", I say. "I wouldn't miss it!", my sibling says, "--wait, yes I would... Let's Play!" And just like that we've tricked the Xboxes into thinking they're on the same local area network, so we can play "online"... That was two years ago. We've both stopped paying for XBL. Due to BS like Project $10, and the advent of always-online DRM I'm boycotting most Publishers and services. All of our friends are in the same boat. We play PC games now and chat over VOIP, if we want to enjoy some older games we play via system link. XBL and PSOnline are worthless -- They serve the DRM God who hates all, even games. "You'll not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." so we went somewhere else.

As someone who collects and plays games for fun, inspiration, nostalgia, research, and art, I think that saying, "The last game for $PLATFORM will be ..." is disgusting. Why I've recently done some work in ASM on a side scrolling shooter game using DOS era 80x25x16c text 'graphics' + PC speakers as the complimentary game installed with the new OS I'm writing. I loved that old medium, it was the 1st I wrote code to, so I want to give it one last hurrah with today's CPU speeds before it's phased out by 64bit and UEFI. Current x86 systems still boot into 16bit protected mode, thus the bootable game will still run on the metal sans emulator on a lot of hardware. I'd love to one day be able to do the same for the 360 or PS3, but that's not (legally) possible with their DRM. To you it may just be hardware, that gets old and is deprecated. To me these are my artistic mediums your end of lifting. The world would be a better place without restrictive licensing. Imagine no photographs of paintings, or reproductions, or restorations -- instead: All Rights Reserved. That would end a rich history of art, we shouldn't let the same happen in games. Before anyone pipes up about copyright being limited so it doesn't hurt art: I may be able to run my old CP/M programs in an emulator in 100+ years, but what about PS2/3 and Xbox/360 games? Acrylic on Canvas lasts longer than a copyright term if well kept, but not the hardware or disks that make up today's digital arts.

TL;DR: Many artists became famous posthumously! So, as a game dev: Screw consoles. I want my art to last as long as possible, not wither and die.

A Console Developer Looks Back (5, Informative)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418757)

I remember the excitement in the company when the first PS2 devkit arrived and were placed in a locked room. Only a few top engineers in the company had access to the room. People would come and stare through the glass at the devkit demos running on the screens and standing around chatting with the guys working on the PS2 hardware. And I remember the engineers holding mini seminars in one of the conference rooms diagramming out the amazing PS2 hardware architecture and how engines will be written for the hardware.

Sony did an absolutely amazing job with the PS2 hardware design. It was a system that much resembles some finely tuned race car that has had every single bit of wasted weight trimmed from it and setup so the driver can do one single thing, drive fast. Looking back at the PS2 code for our games it is wonderful to look at just how small and straightforward the PS2 engine code is. Pack as much data into DMA packets down to the point where not a single bit is wasted. None of the wasteful lines and lines of setup code one has to go through when writing engines for a desktop PC(or a desktop PC in console case like the Xbox).

It is no surprise Sony was able to keep the PS2 hardware viable for almost 13 years. Unmatched console hardware design and manufacturing prowess mixed with the best developer support and tools.

And Sony treats developers better than anyone else. They've always had the mindset of tell us what you need and well make it happen. Nintendo has always been too focused on their own first party titles and have always had an underlying attitude of 'we don't really need anyone but ourselves'. And Microsoft...I don't know where to being with how bad they are with supporting developers. The fact that they managed to piss off their sole important first party developer Bungie so much that they forced Microsoft to let them leave the company is a good an indication as any of just how bad Microsoft is with supporting developers.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42418885)

Sony did an absolutely amazing job with the PS2 hardware design

It's absolutely amazing that Sony decided to use the cell, but it's even more amazing that there's still people like you who think it was a good decision. Multiplatform games always look better on Xbox than on PS2, because the PS2 is such a bitch and keeping the hardware fully utilized is virtually impossible, and it's an achievement only ever reached by a small handful of titles.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (1)

darkHanzz (2579493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419075)

He's talking about PS2, you're talking about the PS3

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419201)

He's talking about PS2, you're talking about the PS3

Whoops! Wrong rant, and what's hilarious is that I didn't C&P, I just have deep structures for these rants now. The PS2 was equally retarded. They took two 64-bit MIPS cores with 128-bit data types and a 32-bit MIPS core with 64-bit data types and glued them together in such a way that it was a total nightmare to keep both vector units (VU0 and VU1, weren't they?) busy, especially because in their infinite wisdom they made them asymmetrical.

This always brings me to what's hilarious about the PS3 in light of the PS2: game developers bitched up and down about how hard it was to keep the two units of the PS2 busy all the time, and then what did they do? They made a new console which was supposed to have eight units (one was disabled before release to improve yields, which were very poor originally) which the developers had to figure out how to occupy. By contrast, the Xbox had a single well-known processor that people had been figuring out how to optimize around for ages, and the Xbox 360 has three symmetric cores which by the time they came out were old hat as people had been working with PowerPC for ages. And of course, we all know that Nintendo learned well the lesson of SNES vs. Genesis, where it was likewise easier to wring the full power out of the hardware, and consequently you had more of the money-attracting picture-perfect (or at least nearly so) arcade ports on the Genesis. The N64 had one simple CPU and one GPU to worry about, likewise everything they've released since.

But in order to see what makes this truly hilarious you have to go back to the beginning of Sony's involvement in the console wars, the Playstation. Developers embraced it over the Saturn because of its simplicity. The Playstation had support for hardware transparency, and just one CPU. If you were a master programmer you could emulate transparency by using one of the two symmetrical CPUs inside the Saturn, but then your "twice as powerful" console was no more powerful than the Playstation, in effect, and certainly not worth another hundred dollars on top of the three hundred that the Playstation cost at the time. So Sony's decision not only to make the PS2 complex and arcane but also to make the same mistake again with the PS3 is not only inexplicable but downright laughable. Many people actively hate Microsoft with a passion normally reserved for ex-mates and when the PS3 was released Sony hadn't yet committed its most public offenses against its customers, so they were a shoo-in. Then they wanted six hundred of your dollars to play games that were sometimes inferior and certainly no better in the early days. Microsoft wouldn't even be in this game any more if Sony weren't resting on their laurels.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (4, Informative)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419413)

I don't even know what the hell that rambling wall of text is supposed be.

Our company being one of the largest developers/publishers working on the original Playstation our engineers worked directly with Sony on the design of the PS2(and the PS3). The PS2 was our dream console.

It is such an elegant machine. It was able to put out graphics that were just as good for all but a few areas like multipass rendering and AA as the Xbox while easily surpassing it in areas like frame buffer effects(one of the major reasons the Xbox couldn't handle the Metal Gear port from the PS2 without bogging down) and physics calculations for animation thanks to the insane floating point power in the PS2. And all this while the manufacturing cost of the PS2 was roughly half that of the Xbox 360.

It really is bizarre to read someone who has never worked on a real console game spew a bunch of techno babble.

The PS2 and PS3 are almost identical hardware designs that are almost perfectly designed to maximize graphical power with the absolute minimum hardware costs. The only exception being the Blu-Ray drive which was very new tech compared to the PS2 more mature and cheaper drive tech.

It really is strange to hear desktop PC game programmers cry about how the PS2/PS3 isn't exactly like their desktop PC and how they can't just dump their code designed for a completely(and massively inefficient) architecture like the standard x86 desktop PC is.

The main engine starts off on the EE/PPU. Does basic setup. Loads tasks into the VUs/SPUs. The heavy lifting tasks on the VUs/SPUs start firing away asynchronously while the main engine continues along with the less computationally heavy game code. As data in the VUs/SPUs become ready for rendering, that data is DMAed over to the GS/RSX.

Over time you continue to maximize the parallelism going on and get to the point where all three parts of the PS2/PS3 are cranking away at their respective tasks. Thanks to the bus architecture of the PS2/PS3 this happens with a minimal amount of bus contention slowing the system down. It is always funny to hear some PC programmer or someone on the Net parroting them crying about the split bus architecture and how they can't just dump everything into one big block of memory.

That amazing design by Sony is the PS2 was able to put out graphics that were so close to a machine that came out a year later and had components that cost roughly twice as much.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419737)

The PS3 hardware was clearly a mistake. Or rather it was miscalculation. They originally planned not to need a GPU because Cell was supposed to have enough FP power to do the 3D graphics all by itself but that turned out not to be the case. So they had to rush to NVIDIA and slap a GPU in there. With its own dedicated memory. The result was a very expensive console. Cell itself had a massive die size and probably only got cheap enough to build after two shrinks. Programming the Cell was a nightmare for a long time. Whole new CS research had to be done to exploit its capabilities. Today you can run OpenCL on it but it used to be the case that you had to write dedicated code for things to work properly. Most people who were doing console ports just did not bother.

The PS2 was a great design though.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (5, Insightful)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419831)

"They originally planned not to need a GPU because Cell was supposed to have enough FP power to do the 3D graphics all by itself but that turned out not to be the case."

Please stop parroting crap from the Beyond3D forums.

Our company is large enough to have had access to the PS3 hardware designs at a very early stage and were in a dialog with Sony engineers about the design. At no time did the PS3 have any other design than what is in the shipping hardware today. The only things that were to be determined were clockspeeds, number of SPUs, etc.

Not only is that stupid lie started on the Beyond3D forums false, it doesn't even make sense. The PS2 and PS3 have almost identical hardware designs. That is the feedback we console developers gave to Sony - we want a PS2 taken to the next level. Which is exactly what the PS3 was and is.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421403)

The PC is far from "massively inefficient" architecture. It just requires a different approach than what is required by the hardware in each console. Any programmer that can't adapt to a platform is a shitty programmer in my book. Part of writing good code is learning how the platform will execute that code, and keeping such things in consideration. Platforms like the PS2 and PS3 force you to work that way because they are less forgiving. Sadly a PC, especially Windows PCs, are so forgiving that a coder and seriously fuck up and get away with it.

Re:A Console Developer Looks Back (1)

Argerich (2804589) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421581)

Yes, desktop PC are massively inefficient compared to a modern graphics architecture like the one in the PS3.

You have gimped processor with pathetic floating point performance thanks the horrendous Intel x86 chips that should have been done away with years and years ago. The performance is so bad relative to more modern computing hardware that the hottest programming area in PC development is going through the tedious and wasteful effort of trying to shoehorn heavy computational task across the main bus to the GPU.

The GPU is sitting across a relatively slow bus that is managed by a software driver that the programmer has no control of. Hence why GPUs on PC are constantly having to ramp up the onboard memory because the last thing you want to be doing in a PC game engine is streaming large amounts of data from the CPU side to the GPU side. And why PC programmers have such trouble writing a modern graphics engine where all data is streamed just in time over highspeed asynchronous buses like in the PS3. Instead they try to treat the hardware just like the archaic desktop PC where you are effectively forced to dump the majority of your working set of data into the big expensive and inefficiency GPU memory so you are bogged down by the slow main bus and unpredictable CPU to GPU bus driver.

That's just an unavoidable reality of commodity hardware that no single entity is in charge of. And hardware that needs to function from simple dumb terminal for checking email all the way up to the highest end games. The tradeoff is a huge amount of waste and inefficiency and extra cost for the same graphical performance relative to console hardware.

well hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418861)

now the cashcow dries up for rambus, and they can fade irrelevantly into the night, never to be seen nor heard from again.

Another damned Final Fantasy game? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42418879)

Really? They're still pumping out Final Fantasy games for the PS2? And it's an "expansion?"

Holy shit, when will they let that shit FUCKING DIE?! I mean, hasn't the series been widely acknowledged as "complete crap" ever since it moved off the Super Nintendo?

How many are they up to now, anyway? I know someone posted a list of Final Fantasy games and its expansions and it came out to something like nearly 50 different rehashes of the same goddamned game. That beats out things like Madden and Mario!

Re:Another damned Final Fantasy game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421563)

Hey! Retard! Yeah, you!

It's a fucking MMO. They still have hundreds of thousands of players making them money.

Even the widely acknowledged "complete crap" series has been selling millions of copies of each main game right up to the very latest.

A new number on a Final Fantasy game is a completely new game, and a completely new experiment in its own genre. Madden and Mario are stagnant rehashes of their own genre. The "complete crap" series has only been punished by Western-focused fanbois for trying to be innovative and different, while they happily cling to their next update to CoD or Madden or Mario.

Could Sony then please let us install (1)

northar (2801909) | about a year and a half ago | (#42419333)

...whatever we want to on it. There's Linux and homebrew stuff, that can run on this old hardware, but the newer ( just a couple of years:)) firmwares won't allow it without modchips.

Thankfully we have PCSX2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42419957)

PCSX2 is servicable for playing most titles, and even in most cases at better visual quality than the PS2 itself.

Re:Thankfully we have PCSX2 (1)

Black LED (1957016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421099)

I played through Shadow of the Colossus in PCSX2 and at maximum settings it almost looks like a modern game.

FFXI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42420005)

I heard that Square is making an expansion for Final Fantasy XI but I forgot the name. Thanks to Slashdot, I found the name. Pretty cool that Final Fantasy XI: Seekers of Adoulin will be available for the Sony PlayStation 2 in Japan. In the United States of America, Final Fantasy XI will run on Windows and the XBox 360, not the PS2.

I remember that the original FFXI game came out in 2003 or 2004. Wow, that is about 8 or 9 years ago.

Thanks Sony for the PS2, I hacked mine. (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42420551)

Granted the Dreamcast (I am not one of those fan boys who says it's more powerful then the PS2) was the first machine I learned about "hacking" on, which was basicly learning to make boot disks so I could boot up copies of games/homebrew. The PS2 was the first gaming console that gave me a harddrive to do it with.

Granted I didn't get my first PS2 till about 6 months before the PS3 came out. I was mostly a PC gamer at that point, but of course, had all the various consoles up till the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube came out. So I got this PS2 from a friend, with the 10gb harddrive in it. And I have the internet, which I embarked on my hacking quest. I got my hands on a Action Replay disk and a usb stick that came with it. This was enough to get the needed programs to run, but not enough to play backups, as I had to make a hook (used an old credit card, worked great) to unlock the DVD drive so i could swap in a backup to play.

Eventually I discovered the Harddrive loaders, and then, Free MCBoot came out and well, nothing has been easier then playing whatever I want on my PS2. Dragon Quest VIII is a RPG that is worth it, in my opinion. Can't get it anywhere else. In fact, I have over 150gb of PS2 RPG's I downloaded.

Sad note, my PS2 killed another harddrive, 3rd one so far, so I think it's controller is bad, now I have to find another one. Sucks.

I've taken other PS2 apart to fix them, i've built many a PS2 system for people to game on in the last 3 years.

Just one thing I never ever understood. Why didn't anyone use firewire connection to hook up a pc to a PS2?

Anyways, love my PS2, and as soon as I get a new network/harddrive controller, it's going back up on my computer desk, next to my Commodore 1902 monitor.

Going to have to say, the Logitech made the best wireless gamepad for the PS2, solid, vibrates, not too big, not too small. one of my favorite gamepads still.

ps2 was not that bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42421011)

The ps2's textures were detailed and sharp compared to gamecubes colorful graphics but with blurry textures. Look at metal gear solid 3, gran turismo 4, god of war 2 etc... which all have excellent looking graphics. When it came down to games it was the ps2 that won hands down. I think the disagreements with nvidia and the discontinuation of nvidia gpu for the xbox brought the console to an end.

PS2 Software Library (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421333)

I don't know about you guys, but my PS2 is still hooked up and ready to go, and I have two shelves full of PS2 titles. What if the laser goes in my PS2, is all that software suddenly worthless? I know about PCSX2 but that is not a 100% solution, and I don't want to think about the legality of BIOS and disc images that you haven't dumped yourself. I think it's a shame that soon you cannot buy a brand-new PS2 anymore, just to protect your investment in game titles.

Re:PS2 Software Library (1)

iampiti (1059688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42421639)

This is one of the bad thing of consoles: When the machine dies the games are pretty much dead.
Exceptions:
  • Next gen console compatible with last gen: Not always and not always perfect since sometimes it's software based emulation
  • Some titles released on newer consoles: Only some of them, and usually you have to pay for the games again (even if at a reduced rate)
  • Emulators: Best option, even then compatibility it's not perfect and for the newer consoles there will probably be workable emulators

The PC is not perfect either, but thanks to digital download services (Steam, gog.com, ...) not property of the console owner and programs like Dosbox you can run on a modern PC games very old, and in any case, much more not-this-gen games than on consoles. In any case, great software not being runnable anymore is a big shame.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...