Beta
×

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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

PS2 the Most Played Console In 2008

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the helps-that-they-sold-140-million-of-them dept.

PlayStation (Games) 172

An anonymous reader writes "In terms of console usage, the aging PS2 still leads the competition, according to data from US research firm Nielsen. Data the company compiled between January and October 2008 shows that the PS2 commanded 31.7 percent of the total number of minutes spent playing consoles. Only 37.9 percent of play time took place on current-gen systems, with the Xbox 360 (17.2 percent) leading the Wii (13.4 percent) and the PS3 (7.3 percent). Users even spent more time playing on the original Xbox (9.7 percent) than the PS3, while Nintendo's GameCube (4.6 percent) wasn't far behind Sony's new console either." World of Warcraft once again topped the most-played PC game list by a large margin. Tetris was the top mobile game, followed by Bejeweled and Guitar Hero III.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And some of us (5, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328347)

are still playing on the old Atari 2600. :)

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328379)

I remember playing Abes's oddworld exodus on ps1, good times :)

Re:And some of us (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328473)

I'm glad I don't have a whole country full of deceitful, greedy kikes stealing all my water and land anywhere near me. Fucking Jews can't just live in peace. They have to steal other people's land. Our national economy is collapsing from the Jewbanks doing their usual Jewthing. You see, with Jews, you lose. That's how THEY win. They WIN by making YOU lose. So let's lose the Jews.

Global warming could be swiftly solved if we incinerated all of the Jews. Their ashes would be ejected into the upper atmosphere, where they would block some sunlight from hitting the earth. The economy would improve thanks to the absence of Jewish predatory lending, and it would buy us time to deal with climate change. Two birds, one stone.

Fun with Facts:
  • Isreal has a Jewish population of 5,309,000.
  • America has a Jewish population of 5,275,000.

Guess who really owns America? Hint hint, it isn't the Americans.

Re:And some of us (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328593)

The US has an illegal Mexican population of 20 million. The US has a black population of 36 million. I prefer Jews any day.

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329577)

The US has an illegal Mexican population of 20 million. The US has a black population of 36 million. I prefer Jews any day.

Funny,

the US is a country of immigrants... it is only fitting that the whites be made minorities in the end, just ask a REAL AMERICAN (Native). That's Karma baby!!!

The problem is with all of you white ass, suit wearing, money hungry whores, not any other ethnic groups.

Down with Whitey!!!

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26332647)

Your trolling sucks compared to Hitler Jr's up there. Take a lesson, son!

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330517)

Cartman has a slashdot account?

Re:And some of us (1)

SemiSpook (1382311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328471)

Now, to be fair, are you talking the original, the Sears clone, or the repackaged version?

And sadly, Stella doesn't count, although you can pretty much find the entire library online with a little digging.

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328559)

Fuck you and your shitty wood paneling. [wired.com] Colecovision forevah!

Re:And some of us (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330479)

Not sure about you, but I play my Atari VCS.

Re:And some of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26332157)

Would 2600 games on the 7800 count?

Minutes spent correlation to items (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328421)

During 2009 people have spent large amounts of time in apartments, compared to palaces.

We consider that odd, as we thought living in a palace would be more enjoyable for most of people. We aparently were wrong, people would rather live in 150m than in 5000m.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (-1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328527)

It seems that even journalists can't understand the fact that the poor outnumber the rich ($80,000USD+) nearly 30 to 1 in the USA and 200 to 1 globally.

It's the rich reality distortion field. They think they are normal and not privileged.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328619)

Sorry but what? 30 to 1 in the USA when rich is defined as $80,000+? I think you're the one living in a reality distortion field. Over a quarter of households earn more than $80,000 a year. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is always a good idea before you start posting asinine statistics that have been pulled out of the rear end.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328733)

households != people

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328785)

Then wait, do you think the average journalist pulls in over $80,000 a year? Clearly you've never worked in the field.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (3, Informative)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330293)

All I know about journalists is that they're usually somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs begin to take hold.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

D66 (452265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26332653)

All I know about journalists is that they're usually somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs begin to take hold.

Best reply ever!

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329145)

maybe if you were not RAGINGLY STUPID you would understand that households does not equal people.

how about you go and get a basic education and come back and join the discussion.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329197)

Heh. Personally, I'm happily living on about EUR 16k per year. USD 80k may not be gold-plated-Ferrari-driving "rich", but it sure as hell is wealthy, enough so that a PS3 is not a hugely significant expense.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330525)

It depends on where you live.

If you have to spend almost $2k/month on rent in a 1-bedroom apartment, that $80k isn't going as far as you would like. If you are married, with children, you better hope your spouse works. Even with the housing bust, in some areas you can be paying over $300k for a house in a nice neighborhood. (And I'm not talking about a McMansion, either.)

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330119)

$80,000/year defined as rich? LOL says who? I make $80,000/year, I am FAR from rich!

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329775)

It seems that even journalists can't understand the fact that the poor outnumber the rich ($80,000USD+) nearly 30 to 1 in the USA and 200 to 1 globally.

It's the rich reality distortion field. They think they are normal and not privileged.

Where do you get the idea that 80K USD is rich?

According to Senator John McCain, 250K USD isn't even rich, 250K is only "well off".

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330821)

Which is a good part of why Senator John McCain is still Senator John McCain and not President-elect John McCain.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (2, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26331955)

Well, if you're implying that the reason people played the PS2 more than current gen systems is because they're all poor, I'd say that's probably not the major cause. After all, it's not like playing games on the PS2 is free while playing them on the wii is an arm and a leg. It's cheaper yes, and the games too, but it doesn't SEEM like it's a gap that means most people can't afford it.

Of course, it does strike me that the order PS2, wii, 360, PS3 is increasing in price and decreasing in playtime, but I still think it's more related to game library, with the wii being an exception due to the controller.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328667)

I know the PS3 is expensive but, come on, a palace joke?

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (4, Insightful)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328853)

I know the PS3 is expensive but, come on, a palace joke?

I think he is referring to the PS2 vs any next generation console. Compared to all the next generation consoles the PS2 is significantly cheaper in both hardware and games. While the PS3 has dropped 33% and the 360 has a stripped down $200 box and the Wii is still $250, the price is still way higher than the previous generation in TCO.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329505)

I was actually tempted to pick up a gamecube for exactly this reason. They can be had for around fifty quid on eBay with four controllers and a handful of games, and the games are cheap too. And, since the Wii is compatible with both the games adn the controllers, I can then pick up a Wii when they come down in price.

I remember the end of the C-64 era, when you could pick up games on tape in supermarkets for around 3-5 pounds. Even inflation-adjusted, this is a lot less than games for current consoles, but fairly close to the cost of games for the previous generation.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (2, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329701)

As somebody who does mostly PC gaming, I did just this. Stopped at gamestop (oh the horror) and picked up a used game cube.

Sure, it's last weeks breakfast, but man, for somebody who doesn't really play consoles to begin with, I had a good time with Smash Bros, Zelda games, and DDR Mario Mix.

I'll probably get a WII in 4 or 5 years when the next gen comes out... that is, if they're not as scarce then as they are now.

The interesting thing I found about the old gamecube is that I spent just about $50 on the thing, which is good- but the used games were still damn close to $60 each. PC games that old either get removed from the shelf, or cost about $19.95 at your local game store. Not neccessarily a good thing.

Also- I can't imagine PS2 games being terribly cheaper than PS3 games (however I don't price them regularly, seeing as I don't own either), but it seems that a lot of the major titles (rock band, guitar hero) are being developed for both platforms. Seems game makers are not terribly interested in the piddly market for the PS3, and so there is no demand to upgrade to the PS3, because PS2 still plays a lot of new games.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330159)


The interesting thing I found about the old gamecube is that I spent just about $50 on the thing, which is good- but the used games were still damn close to $60 each.

Shop around, you can even get AAA titles like Resident Evil 4 for $25 now.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (2, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330207)

The interesting thing I found about the old gamecube is that I spent just about $50 on the thing, which is good- but the used games were still damn close to $60 each.

I hear you. It seems that the good gamecube games are kept high in price because you can play them on the Wii. So Paper Mario isn't an 8-year-old game for an ancient console-- it's a title for a current gen system featuring the company's flagship character. So it's "expensive"

Used PS2 games are kept a bit high because the console is, as the article mentions, still quite around. Having visited a lot of EB/Gamestops over the holiday, they're average $10-$20 for the "older, not bad" games. This is probably also factoring in the fact that some people have a backwards compatible PS3, and it's possible that sometime in the future, all PS3s can become backwards compatible with the right firmware update.

Original XBox, on the other hand, is more or less an abandoned console. There's some backwards compatibility, but Microsoft seems to be going the downloadable-content route for popular older games. I was picking some really good Xbox games for less than $5 (Doom 3, most any Project Gotham game, any Silent Hill I could find), and in some cases $1 or less (Cold Fear as a prime example, Brute Force). Even though they were released at the same time as their PS2 counterparts, and often for the same price, there just isn't a current demand for the discs.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330385)

I highly recommend doing exactly that. There's a handful of games for the Cube that will give you a lot of mileage, especially with friends. You'll probably want to pick up Super Smash Brothers and Mario Party 5 for starters.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (2, Insightful)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330005)

Right on. Riding just behind current gen for consoles is the best way to do it. Everything is really cheap, and all the games have been played by lots of people, providing a solid quality filter when making selections. Today, with $100 you could get a PS2 and around 15-20 games for it. PS3 costs don't even come close.

My fiance did this; she picked up a used PS2 and now we can grab new games for a couple bucks at a GameStop. She also has an old Xbox, so I picked up KotOR 1 and 2 for $~5 each. And I am not even a real console gamer (I generally despise consoles for crappy controls).

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26331227)

I'd put a rush on the Xbox games, Gamestop's gonna stop accepting them as trade-ins soon.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26331079)

Well, you're wrong.

People can /afford/ to live in 500m, vs 5000m.

Pretty huge distinction there.

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26332671)

Are you familiar with the internet meme "facepalm"?

Re:Minutes spent correlation to items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26332557)

I don't understand. Can please make that into a car analogy?

Wow (5, Insightful)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328443)

Congratulations to Nielsen on their fully accurate statistical analysis. Particularly obtaining data for predominantly offline consoles.

Re:Wow (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328929)

"Congratulations to Nielsen on their fully accurate statistical analysis. Particularly obtaining data for predominantly offline consoles"

Remember, 87% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's ass. The use of a "fudge factor" comes into play here.

BTW, let's put it into perspective. The Wii is a lot more demanding, physically, so you're not going to have those 12-hour marathon gaming sessions on your Wii Fit (if you can find a store that has one in stock).

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330103)

The Wii is a lot more demanding, physically, so you're not going to have those 12-hour marathon gaming sessions

Personally, I find it a lot easier to relax playing 50+ hour adventure games when my two hands don't have to be within a couple of inches of one another. Also, one-handed JRPGs on SNES9x = the ultimate in lazy gaming.

Re:Wow (5, Funny)

Dadamh (1441475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330813)

I really have to say that combining the phrases "pulled out of someone's ass" and "fudge factor" makes for a really distasteful image.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329607)

Do you actually understand how Neilsen ratings are obtained, or were you looking for the +5 insightful from insecure PS3 fanboys who can't bear to see that people play their console less than the original Xbox, let alone the Xbox 360?

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330761)

Considering that Nielsen doesn't publish their exact methodology, it's not like you know any better. This was almost certainly a survey. Especially seeing as playtime as apparent to the user is not actual playtime.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26332327)

At least I know enough about how they're measured that I won't make the assumption that it's somehow related to a console's online time.

Of the two options of Neilsen's metrics (survey or set-top box), neither really makes sense to describe as influenced by the nature of some consoles to be offline only.

PS3 Can Play Games? (5, Funny)

craznar (710808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328459)

I've had one for a year as a Blu-Ray player and media centre - I never realised you could play games on it. Learn something new every day.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328537)

I thought it was a cheap linux protein bioinformatics server with an oddly nice interface, I wondered what the "play" part of the name meant.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (-1, Troll)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328599)

And I thought it was a sex box.

Note to moderators: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329203)

Sitcom joke.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328757)

Who is the child that modded this troll?

Yeah, enjoy your lack of good games on your 'game console' dipshit!

^-- THAT is a troll, and should be modded accordingly. Not a great troll, but a troll still.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328829)

I never realised you could play games on it. Learn something new every day.

You should check out what you're missing. The library has matured and is, well, just there. I can't keep up with the new releases I'm interested in playing at the moment. If you're on a decent screen the experience should be amazing.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330053)

I can't keep up with the new releases I'm interested in playing at the moment.

Unfortunately, not all of us are interested in generic, rehashed FPS games played with shitty controls.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330205)

Uh..hello, Little Big Planet, Valkyria, Rock Band, and Mirror's Edge!

It's still overpriced but not as much as you think!

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330477)

  • LittleBigPlanet is at best a tech demo. It plays like shit, and most of the user-created levels suck.
  • Valkyria Chronicles is a mediocre tactical RPG. What's worse is that they're pissing on the legacy of Skies of Arcadia, which was easily the best JRPG of last generation.
  • Mirror's Edge is overrated as all hell, and is available for the 360.
  • The Rock Band series is fun if not particularly unique, I enjoy playing it on my 360, PS2 and/or Wii.

Yeah, the PS3 is a waste of money as a game system. Enjoy your long load times and shitty online play!

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330671)

I can't keep up with all the games from the 90s I'm interested in playing at the moment.

Re:PS3 Can Play Games? (1)

LordHatrus (763508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329573)

You should check out what you're missing - I hear they ported Linux to it :-)

methodology (0)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328467)

Ah, so this is all based off of what, like 250 families in the US Heartland and what they chose to log in their little Nielson log books?

Re:methodology (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329281)

Hey don't knock that trailer park. They're the only thing still keeping reality TV going.

Not surprised (3, Interesting)

shrykk (747039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328487)

I'm not really surprised - the PS2 has a huge software library, plus most owners have several peripherals that still prove useful. This weekend I played some Singstar and Guitar Hero III with friends, and I'd be more likely to buy more PS2 games that use the guitar and mikes, than to buy new peripherals (extra functionality and downloadable content notwithstanding).

In fact the Singstar game we played was a brand-new copy of the recently-released Singstar ABBA, and everyone loved it.

You can pick up used PS2 games for a pittance. I remember chatting to a store assistant in a games store, saying he was still always seeing parents come in and picking up PS2s with a bunch of games for the holidays. Console and a load of games well under 100 UK pounds, for which you can't really get another console (perhaps a DS or PSP with one game).

They're still releasing new games for the PS2, a pretty clear indication that it's still alive. No-one sane would advocate playing a cut-down and graphically poor PS2 Force Unleashed, but it's clearly still economically viable to release it. Though some would say the same for the Wii version [escapistmagazine.com] . And, I don't want to arouse any fanboy ire, but I have a sneaking suspicion that similarities in graphical capabilities between the Wii and PS2 might help the economics of releasing a PS2 port... Anyway, there are a ton of PS2 games that are well worth playing - a brilliant last-generation game beats a mediocre current-gen one.

Everyone commenting on gaming stories should disclose their console preferences to discourage fanboy-ism. My TV is currently hooked up to a Wii, a PS2 and a Sega Master System.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328529)

Everyone commenting on gaming stories should disclose their console preferences to discourage fanboy-ism. My TV is currently hooked up to a Wii, a PS2 and a Sega Master System.

How exactly does listing what you own discurage fanboy posts?

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328621)

How exactly does listing what you own discurage fanboy posts?

Shhh! It doesn't. But it does give shrykk a chance to say to the world "Hey world, look how 1337 I am! I still have old consoles in my (parent's) house!"

Re:Not surprised (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328695)

Everyone commenting on gaming stories should disclose their console preferences to discourage fanboy-ism. My TV is currently hooked up to a Wii, a PS2 and a Sega Master System.

How exactly does listing what you own discurage fanboy posts?

Pffft, just the kind of comment I'd expect from an Xbox-owner.

Sony Roolz!1!!11OnetyOneLulz!1!11

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328711)

I would think it was because if he said that sega always made the best hardware, and he loves his dreamcast (hypothetical example here), that it might mean more to some of us that he is not a raving fanboy -- he does, after all, own and regularly use systems from nintendo and sony.

It wouldn't, necessarily, discourage such "fanboys" from making their comments, but it would shed a little light on those who might otherwise be perceived as one and blown off or laughed out altogether.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328685)

Console disclosure: own all three current gen systems, and still play my PS2.

I own the 40GB non-PS2 compatible PS3, though, and so have to switch over to my PS2 to play older games. About a year ago, I purchased a number of late generation PS2 JRPGs, since I had a hankering for them and had already played those that looked interesting to me on the more modern consoles (they seem to all be coming to the 360 now). Persona 4 was recently released, I'm currently wavering on whether I should pick it up (never played the Persona games before, and I'm not sure if I'd like the game's high-school setting, being an old fogey now).

My personal time percentages would probably be:

Xbox 360: 75%
PS2: 15%
PS3: 10%
Wii: 5%
PC: 5%

Re:Not surprised (2, Informative)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328791)

And, I don't want to arouse any fanboy ire, but I have a sneaking suspicion that similarities in graphical capabilities between the Wii and PS2 might help the economics of releasing a PS2 port...

The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube. Any developer who is lazy enough to only dress up a PS2 game (considering the Xbox360 and the Wii both use DVDs - alleviating any storage space considerations) is not using the console to anywhere near it's full potential. Sure, it's not high-def (resolution equal to a DVD) or as powerful as the PS3 or 360, but it's not that far behind.

Re:Not surprised (1)

shrykk (747039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329131)

The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube. Any developer who is lazy enough to only dress up a PS2 game (considering the Xbox360 and the Wii both use DVDs - alleviating any storage space considerations) is not using the console to anywhere near it's full potential.

You're almost certainly right - but I put it to you that developers don't always exploit consoles' full potential. Take some multi-platform franchise, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, maybe the Wall-E game or something like that, and you'll see a divide between the PS3 and 360 versions and those for the Wii and PS2. Perhaps we should forget this, after all any mediocre developer can make an ugly game, but it does contribute to the general impression. Gamecube ports don't help either, I enjoyed Zelda: Twilight Princess but it didn't wow me graphically.

Look, I love my Wii, but I watch Playr on Sunday mornings and the best Wii games don't look as good as the beautiful next-gen and PC games that are coming out. Wii graphics at the moment look a lot like the graphics of the later, and best-looking PS2 games. I'm talking about a console that has been around for donkeys' years, with software houses releasing their third or fourth title for the machine - all the tricks are known.

Now, the PS2 has a DVD drive as well. The issue isn't so much storage, so much as technical limitations to the numbers of textures and polygons that can be drawn on the screen, the amount of computation available to be devoted to nice lighting algorithms, physics simulation and so forth. Power will show in the end - I dare say the Wii games coming out in two years' time will look great and make my assertions about comparability with the PS2 look ridiculous.

Still, to get back on-topic, the PS2 is 'good enough', and has some games that really deserve to be played. I'm not surprised people are still using them.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329367)

I enjoyed Zelda: Twilight Princess but it didn't wow me graphically.

Speak for yourself. Things like polycounts, texture resolution and screen resolution aside, that game was beautiful from a purely aesthetic standpoint. I'll never understand people who bitch about the Wii's graphics capabilities. To me, beauty can't be measured by specs; I'm still wowed by the graphics of some N64 and Dreamcast games, and some current-gen titles look like complete ass.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330323)

I have a Wii hooked up to a 55 inch 1080p TV. 360 and PS 3 looks good, old PS 2 games on the PS 3 look ok, but the Wii graphics are so bad I can't play it. I don't really care about the polygon count, but without AA all those jagged edges bother me. Now I am keeping the console around and I assume in a few years games will have fewer problems but for now I think the Wii was a swing and a miss.

Re:Not surprised (1)

cymru_slam (881440) | more than 5 years ago | (#26331149)

480p on a 1080p TV is going to be a lot of upscaling - being on a 55 inch TV is just going to make this worse - I don't get why your surprised by this. We have a 32 inch 720p TV and the Wii looks great on it - have no idea how it compares to 360 or PS3 on there as we don't have those. I don't think that your Wii will ever look better on that TV as you simply have a huge resolution mismatch. On the other hand, I am no Audio/Video-phile so someone else might know better.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26332359)

I only tried Resedent Evil 4 and Wii Sports, but the mix of jaggies and up scaling was painful. I expect the console could do anti-aliasing if they lower the polygon count, but I have yet to see it. I suspect it would work much better on a smaller screen or with a better game, but don't really feel like messing with it.

PS: Metroid Prime looked great on the Game Cube so I might want to try MP3 it with the Wii unless you have a better suggestion.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26331903)

Twilight Princess looks great on my 64-inch 1080p plasma display. Either your TV sucks, your eyesight sucks or you're doing it wrong.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330553)

next-gen

The consoles ceased to be 'next gen' when they were released. They are now the CURRENT generation.

Re:Not surprised (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330309)

The PS2 is graphically less capable than a GameCube.

Which unfortunately isn't saying much. The Game Cube did have a bit more graphics horsepower, but not by a huge margin. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the Wii uses more or less the same graphics hardware as the Game Cube.

Now I know that doesn't sound like it, but I actually am more or less a Nintendo fanboy. The only new consoles I've ever purchased are Nintendo. Game Boy, GBC, GBA, DS, Game Cube, and Wii.

Basically what this story more or less reinforces is that most people care more about how much fun a game is than how pretty it looks. Which we've already known for a while.

Re:Not surprised (2, Informative)

UserChrisCanter4 (464072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330669)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain the Wii uses more or less the same graphics hardware as the Game Cube.

You're wrong. Although the official specs on the Wii's GPU (which is actally multiple chips on the package that handle I/O and sound in addition to video) are under wraps, it is definitely more powerful. Most indications point to it being based on the same architecture to maintain backwards compatibility, but it has a substantially higher clock rate (~240 mhz vs. 162 mhz on the Gamecube).

Even if we assume that absolutely nothing else changed on the Wii graphics hardware - which is a reasonable assumption - a nearly 70% bump in clock rate is a pretty big change if we're talking about the same architecture.

PS3 Singstar plays PS2 discs now, too. (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329767)

I picked up Singstar ABBA for the PS3. With the most recent patch, it can play the old PS2 Singstar discs, and the same microphones work for it. My wife's more likely to play it when it's up in our family room than down on the PS2 in the basement. (Hey, I like hearing her sing, she's good.)

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26331381)

a huge library that I CANNOT play on my damn PS3

Re:Not surprised (1)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26331891)

Agreed. I am certainly a Nintendo fanboy, but I am one of those pushing the PS2 stat through the roof, for just the reasons you mentioned.

I own an NES with 60+ games (though ~15 are $1 total-crap-games), an N64 with ~25 games, and a PS2 with 5 PS2 and 4 PS1 games. Over the past few months I have disproportionally favored the PS2, pouring hours into Final Fantasy X, FF XII, Deus Ex, Burnout: Revenge, and the Mega Man X collection. I picked up the system used with controllers and memory cards for $40 US (it needed some cleaning to make it work, but it whirrs away just fine, now), and found of the games used at GameStops and the like.

Total price of everything I've spent on the system + accessories + game library? Maybe $100. That $100 has given me access to an amazing library of classic (remakes of Mega Man X, Final Fantasy IV, V, and VI, Deus Ex, etc.) and modern (the graphics on FF XII and Burnout: Revenge are comparable to early PS3 graphics, as long as you don't have an HDTV) games... why should I shell out three to four times that amount for a "modern" system?

Oh yeah. Halo 3. I still do long for thee, but it was not meant to be.

Is this by console or by actual game? (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328767)

I'm curious if this includes time on the actual console or if backwards compatibility is counted? If I play PS2 on PS3 or Gamecube on Wii does that go to PS2 or Gamecube?

Re:Is this by console or by actual game? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328801)

It's self reported statistics. Which means that if the kids don't record their time playing a game the parents might record it themselves. Knowing this, I'm surprised we don't have more kids listed as playing "Atari".

Re:Is this by console or by actual game? (2, Informative)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328961)

I believe this is by console. I participated in a part of the survey by phone and the questions were directed towards hardware and not software.

Number of games vs consoles vs time spent (2, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328773)

Translation : people spend the most time on the console they've got the most games for.

Would have been interesting if they tried to correlate the number of games owned per console vs. the time spent on each console, and see what the difference is between generations (i.e. if you have 10 Xbox 1 games and 10 Xbox 360 games you'll probably spend more time on the Xbox 360, but how much longer?)

Re:Number of games vs consoles vs time spent (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329331)

Not sure if I buy that. I have something like 50 SNES games and 40 N64 games, but only 15 DS games, but I play my DS more than anything. I think the translation is that people play newer systems more, but that they take a few years to reach the point where enough gamers have them to play.

Re:Number of games vs consoles vs time spent (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330317)

You are comparing apples to oranges. The DS has a different form factor and resource requirements.

You can easily take the DS anywhere you want and, (especially important in a multi-person household), you don't need to tie-up the TV to use it.

Re:Number of games vs consoles vs time spent (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330449)

You'd be more likely to buy it if you had read the whole post rather than just the first line. Read the last sentence.

In other news (3, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328823)

Scientists were shocked to discovered that when PS3 was released all PS2 consoles around the worlds did not spontaneously explode!

Maybe Sony should build them less sturdy? I mean who ever heard of electronic device that can lasts for 5, hell 10 years!

Re:In other news (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329943)

Scientists were shocked to discovered that when PS3 was released all PS2 consoles around the worlds did not spontaneously explode!

I think the surprise is that penetration of the new consoles into the market is not greater. Since there's surprise, this probably means that the uptake of new systems is moving more slowly than with previous generations. I think this will be shown as a product of extremely expensive consoles, a dysfunctional economy with increased job insecurity, and the sheer penetration of the PS2, the best-selling console ever. Lots of people are able to justify putting off the upgrades because it's "good enough" and there's still a large library of games out there they likely have not played.

This is similar to Microsoft's position where Vista simply doesn't offer a compelling reason for people to upgrade -- in the case of the current-gen consoles, they are demonstrably better than the previous generation but not enough so to convince people to get up off their wallets.

Re:In other news (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330561)

As a PSone owner, I attempted to buy a PS2 on it's US launch on Oct 26 2000, but couldn't get one due to the shortages, I finally was able to find one in stores in March 2001.

As a PS2 owner I did not attempt to get a PS3 on launch day. Not that I didn't want one, but considering the game library and the price, I wasn't in a rush, the PS2 was good enough. I finally got a PS3 last July. Sony needs to get more RPG's on the PS3, then all those PS2 RPG fans will have a reason to get PS3's.

Re:In other news (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330313)

Early model PS2's the 10001's and 30001's, are prone to DRE's (Disc Read Errors) after a few years, the bane of any PS2 owner. Later model PS2's are the sturdy ones, the 50001's and 70001's.

Not that surprising (2, Interesting)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328959)

Considering how well it sells:
PS2: 140 million
Wii: 45 million
360: 27 million
PS3: 19 million

As of 2006, it was still the best selling console. I don't know about the last two years but I'm guessing it isn't doing too badly.

That's Amazing! (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329053)

I thought IBM discontinued the PS/2 15 years ago. It's amazing people are still using them.

Re:That's Amazing! (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329543)

I thought IBM discontinued the PS/2 15 years ago.

That joke was old by the time the GameCube came out in the fourth quarter of 2001.

and the language is ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26329071)

I wonder what (natural) language was this survey written/asked in ?

surely China, who now has more online users than the USofA - just for a comparison, or other Asian countries might not always have the English skills to answer a survey "from US research firm Nielsen"...

when will people realise that "US stats" do not mean "world stats" ?!?

cheers

PS2 has biggest library of games (1)

mikeabbott420 (744514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329291)

Two things

PS2 users are more likely to have a bigger library of games because they're are more of them, they are cheaper and there has been more time to accumulate them.

people with more time than money (esp kids) are relatively more likely to be PS2 users
people with more money than time are relatively more likely to have newer consoles

this doesn't seem like a strange result to me.

you guys are lame (1)

bigplrbear (1179259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329589)

Sega Dreamcast is what it's all about!

PS3 got the shaft (2, Interesting)

Jahf (21968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329741)

I've got a 360 (admittedly only because work wanted me to have it for a demo) and a PS3. I bought the PS3 for BluRay but I find myself playing on it more and more.

I have played on the 360 a good bit, but I find it is loud and I like having controllers on the PS3 that are rechargeable without buying more stuff. I also find that, oddly, the PS3 controller works better for me. I thought the 360 controller was better at first due to the way it seemed to fit my hands better. But it is heavier and the battery pack is attached in a way that cramps my fingers.

I also like the networking options on the PS3 better.

Overall I think the PS3 is a great box that never caught on. This past holiday season I noticed that the 360 and Wii had more than 2x the shelf space for accessories. And Rock Band 2 took a month longer to come out on the PS3 than the 360. So it is no wonder that the PS3 is essentially dying out. You can't sell people what they can't find.

I will definitely be sad if the PS3 goes into "unsupported land" as soon as it seems to be. But it will still be useful both as a BluRay and as a large-screen linux box (which I've found pretty darned handy) for some time to come.

My gf has a Wii that we played alot over Christmas and it has alot of family-style gaming capability. However they weren't games I'd pick to play solo. Hopefully someone in the "4th gen" realizes there is a market for both family-style/kid games AND a console with more potential as a media and networking hub.

Re:PS3 got the shaft (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330321)

Overall I think the PS3 is a great box that never caught on

Yup. Maybe it still will, as the graphics start to get better than the 360 and developers have an easier time working with it, but the window for that is closing.

For my purposes it's a really good fit. It's more expensive to start, but it's all-inclusive (no extra $100 for wifi, etc.) and there's no ongoing costs like XBox Live. It plays media well, Blu-ray is nice (for F/X heavy movies), on a nice big screen (and with the keypad) it's actually a pretty good web browser, etc. I bumped mine from 40GB to 80GB essentially for free, as I had a laptop SATA drive laying around. And I haven't had any disc scratches or RROD-style issues.

And then it plays games, too. My kids and I have been having a lot of fun with LittleBigPlanet in particular, and there's already more levels out there than anyone could ever play.

Why spend $60 when you can spend $10? (1)

ACAx1985 (989265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330079)

There's so many GREAT older gen (such as PS2) games that I've never played.. and I've played quite a few PS2 games. Why spend $60 on a new game (in addition to $300 on a new system) when I can get great games for $10-$20 on the PS2?

Missing handheld consoles (1)

forged (206127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26330595)

Would be interesting to see just how much the NDS is trouncing the PSP. Just in this household me & my wife own one each; my in-laws have 2 more; and virtually in every home with teens that we visited last summer, there was 1 for every 2 kids on average or possibly more.

Backwards Compatability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330775)

The thing I don't understand is why Sony killed the PS2 backwards compatibility in the the PS3. I know the reason they give -- cost. But to me it seems like a really stupid move. I bet with these results, they are probably thinking it too. At least I hope they are. I don't want another box cluttering up my living room (Wii, DVD/VCR, PS2, XBOX, cable box). I still play many of my PS2 games. I'm not planning to buy a PS3 until they return the PS2 capabilities (which would allow for a 1 for 1 swap) or until finally decide I want a blu-ray player (DVDs are still working fine for me).

Weird that (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26330921)

The PS2 is a weak hardware, hard to code for, and it has the most absolutely GODAWFUL controllers. How come this piece of shit was so successful?!

Nielsen ratings are always a good laugh (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26331177)

Especially when they try to claim, with a straight face, that anything other than WoW has more playtime/players than Counter-strike and CS:S.

What i'd really like to see is a real count of WoW's actual individuals online at a given moment and not how many ACCOUNTS they have active at a given moment.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?