Reports of PS2 hardware peak are "bullshit" - Reev

[pcostabel]

The PS1 has had decent staying power, and I expect the PS2 to have more, but very soon they just don't compare to the next generation after it steals their thunder.

I'm not sure about that. The jump in graphics performance between PS and PS2 was huge. I expect PS3 to be visually much closer to PS2. Besides, PS2 graphics are good enough for most games. I think a lot of people will stick with current generation even long after the new one arrives.

 

[cthellis42]

The PS1 has had decent staying power, and I expect the PS2 to have more, but very soon they just don't compare to the next generation after it steals their thunder.

I'm not sure about that. The jump in graphics performance between PS and PS2 was huge. I expect PS3 to be visually much closer to PS2. Besides, PS2 graphics are good enough for most games. I think a lot of people will stick with current generation even long after the new one arrives.

On that note, we'll probably be surprised. The best-looking PC games from four/five years ago don't necessarily look like complete crap, but when you play the best-looking games now and make a transition back, there's usually severe shock.

PS1 involved some of the first forays into 3D console-dom and so at this point playing most games on it gives me a headache compared to what I'm used to now, but still, look at UT2004 compared to UT. EQ2 compared to EQ. It's not like 3D was "new" to PC's four years ago or anything, but from every standpoint--textures, lighting, model complexity, AI, physics, effects, you name it--we've advanced a tremendous amount, and the difference is jarring.

I always say "once you get used to something new, you never look back the same." Once my friend--who never cared about AA/AF at all and shrugged it off--picked up a new card and started inserting it everywhere he became damn near a graphics whore. Once he picked up Far Cry to stress his machine, he's not able to look at last year's FPSes quite the same.

We'll be doing that same thing next generation. Once we get used to models with however-much-times the complexity, realistic lighting techniques, physics applied everywhere, higher resolutions played progressively on the better TV's we will eventually all have ( ) or monitors...

Even by modest expectations, we still won't look back the same.

 

[wazoo]

Certainly in the first year we'll see less profit from the new machines, but they're the ones that get all the redesigning and cost-saving measures (which in PS2's case happened quite often). We're not talking about 1 year, we're looking at four.

No, I'm talking about the launch period of the next gen and for that period, next gen will lose money and ps2 will give lots of money to Sony like ps1 did in its last years.

But it will reflect what we see now on the PS1 side, just a bit mellower and extended--lots of the "same thing" and sequels. Simpler games, movie license titles, little in the way of engine improvements, few new concept games...

We are not talking about advances in games technology and games, far from it. We are talking about how much the ps2 will sell, and the demography it will sell from now is not interested in that kind of comparison.

 

[cthellis42]

No, I'm talking about the launch period of the next gen and for that period, next gen will lose money and ps2 will give lots of money to Sony like ps1 did in its last years.

For the first year, yes. What about the following years? This is how one follows trends and all--over lots of time.

We are not talking about advances in games technology and games, far from it. We are talking about how much the ps2 will sell, and the demography it will sell from now is not interested in that kind of comparison.

...which is why I'm saying that looking only at hardware sales won't give you what you need to compare. PS1 sold 50 million units in its first four years, and 50 more in the next five-and-a-half (which, btw, does show a downturn where one can locate the "sales summit" even going just by that number), but what did it represent for Sony profit-wise over each period? What about for the publishers?

Regardless of if "the demography is interested in that kind of comparison," it is what WE must do to make a full analysis of how it fits into the industry, and the judge against which we make comments like "high points" and "trends." Continued sales of the PS2 will not tell us alone what we need to know, and will not alone tell us how it's future compares to its past, nor how it would compare to the PS1's overall performance.

Can I see the PS2 selling 70 million more within the next 5-6 years? It's certainly within the bounds of reason. Can you tell me what that will represent?