Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 3643502" data-attributes="member: 360">Here's the thing. The PS2 was not a great system; it was the same kind of difficult to program technological mush doomed to underperform its theoretical specs that the PS3 is.  The only time Sony really had superior hardware was with the original PlayStation. Heck, I've maintained for a while that attempting to emulate the PS2 strategy (only with an exlamation point) has been the source of most of Sony's problems with the PS3.The PS2 had a weird, massiveley parallel CPU design. So does the PS3.The PS2 was in part an attempt to popularize a new media format. So was the PS3. Except that DVD had been around in the videophile market for a few years already, and had no serious competing format.The PS2 was preceded by an absurd amount of hype claiming the console was a 'supercomputer' even though its actual capabilities (as opposed to its theoretical maximum capabilities) were no better than its year-old competitor. So was the PS3.The difference is that today Sony's competion is a Nintendo that was riding high on the DS even before the Wii launched, and a Microsoft that has been in the console business for 5 years, not a Nintendo that seemed to be on the verge of abandoning nonportables, a bankrupt Sega, and an a Microsoft that was new to the console business (and both Nintendo and MS spotted Sony a 1 year head start in the US).</blockquote>