Viewing Thread:
"PS2 questions, any help?"

Ok here's my dilemma, my Birthday is November 2nd and I want a PS2. Unfortunately though, not only do I want my Birthday money to go on a trip to London (Hurrah) but I have also heard that they are bringing out a NEW silver PS2. I don't know if this PS2 will be any better or not but I definitely don't want to buy the outdated version. Anyway as I am spending my birthday money on London it would be Christmas before I got it. Unfortunately (again) though I heard that the PS2 etc may have as little as a year or 2 left before the new generation of consoles come out. Apart from the fact I am outraged they have had such a short running time I don't want to buy a console that is going to be obsolete in a year (Even if it does mean I can play FFX and FFX-2:D). Anyway you now know the predicament I am in and would like any advice you have to offer. Should I wait for the silver one? Should I wait for the new consoles? Etc. Chances are I've made a lot of errors anyway which you can rectify heh. Thanks for the help guys.

Memorandum! wrote:
> And don't say "they continued to support if after PS2 came
> out" because there's nothing stopping them from continuing PS2
> support after the release of PS3.

Are you blind?


I would also choose an Xbox over a PS2.
*shrug*

Get an x-box... In my opinion they are better, and also many other people are starting to like the x-box because it is actually better.

P.s got a Gamecube when they came out instead, prefer PS2s now though.

1994 to 2000 is 6 years yes but i thought the PS2 was released in 2001 no? Maybe late 2000 making it about 7 years and the last game to come out for it was Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets which was what, 2002? Making it about 8 years.

1994 to 2000 = 6 years

You need to work on your basic maths.


And don't say "they continued to support if after PS2 came out" because there's nothing stopping them from continuing PS2 support after the release of PS3.

So there you go, the PS's lifespan was one year more than the PS2's. Hardly the huge difference you're making it out to be.

Besides, if you'd bought the PS2 3 years ago when it was released you wouldn't be complaining of the 'outrageous' short lifespans of consoles. Your only problem is the fact you waited so long, not that it actually has had a short lifespan.

Lets say it did come out in 1994 that's still what? A running time of around 7-8 years compared to 4-5.

Memorandum! wrote:
> The PS was 5 years old when the PS2 was released, no?
>
> It wasn't released earlier than 1995, surely.


1994 was when it came out I'm sure.

The PS was 5 years old when the PS2 was released, no?

It wasn't released earlier than 1995, surely.

PS had about what 8 years? And even when the PS2 came out they continued to sell the PS1 for another year with new games. I wouldn't be surprised if it had lasted near enough a decade. As for the PS2 I think I shall get it reasonably soon but I want to the silver one simply for aesthetic reasons. The silver one will be £20 more expensive apparently but I'm not too bothered as it comes with an extra silver controller and it'll still play FFX and FFX-2 which are the two games I want. Oh yeh and I can play DVDs in my bedroom, granted the player isn't top quality but good enough.

For a start, the silver one will only be different in colour, nothing else. No internal changes. In fact, it'll probably cost you more for essentially the same thing.

Secondly, the PS2 should have at least until 2005, but probably longer as it makes sense to milk everything out of one console before moving on to another. Then again, it will be affected by the release of other consoles.

Thirdly, I don't understand how you can be outraged at a console having such a short lifespan when it will have had one of the longest lifespans amongst consoles. What would it be in 2005....five years? Not too bad, I'd say.