is the ps2 dead? ps3? newbie here

[mkiker2089]

Okay, so as to not step all over other peoples threads I started my own. I'm a playstation noob so be kind.

Long story short, my nephew has been sitting on a PS2 for a few years now despite having a fully backwards compat ps3 with built in wireless internet. He gave it to me recently sans controller.

Longer version, So far I've put 50 bucks into it for a controller, Silent Hill 2 and Namco Muesuem. I'm starting to worry that I'm tossing money into the can though. Otherwise I just have a DS (no games on the computer).

Should I just return the games and sell the system for 30 bucks, giving me a net profit or about 15 (subtracting the controller cost) or keep it and use it as a dvd player (which it does rather poorly compared to modern players) and enjoy what games I get cheap for it?

If I don't invest in ps2 stuff which ps3 is the best bang for your buck assuming you don't need bacwards compat or even wireless internet?

When will the ps4 hit, if it's even on the way? I'd think Sony wouldn't need a new one but who knows anymore.

[mkiker2089]

One more thing. If I have psx games is there an emulator to play them on the PC?

[BrettCullum]

PS2 is dead for all intents and purposes, but nothing wrong with having a great working system. Hell, I still have an Atari 2600 which I occasionally buy games for! Yep, I said Atari 2600. I also still keep my GameCube around because it has the adapter to play Gameboy Advance games on the TV (something the Wii can not do). $50 investment isn't that much as long as you get $50 enjoyment out of it. There are some great games out there you can play, and they will be cheap cheap cheap. I say hold on to it.

[mavrach]

I say hang on to it. I have a PS3 and a PS2, and mostly keep the actual PS2 unit around because the PS3 won't play some of the PS2 games. Others here can describe which PS3's do backwards compatibility better, but the PS2 library is worth keeping, and you need the PS2 unit to completely play everything. I still alternate between both systems regularly.

No PS4 even on the horizon yet.

[TemporalWisdom]

Yep, I said Atari 2600.

Ooh, I remember that. Had one when I was like 4 or 5. Burglars broke in and took it while we were on vacation. I still have the ol' NES. Got a Sega Genesis after that. Parents got me a PS1 to stop me playing games on their PC all the time, but I didn't play it much until Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy VIII came into my life. The PS1 I gave to my sister since the PS2 was fully backwards compatible.

This isn't like asking, "Should I bother buying SD DVDs when Blu-Ray is replacing them?" That's a valid question, because excepting multiple dips, a Blu-Ray release will have everything the SD release has, and more. It all depends on whether you want to spend the money, because by any other measure Blu-Ray would be preferable. Not so PS3 games. Yes, the games are technically superior. But the vast majority of PS2 games have not and will not be released as PS3 ports. If I want to play Metal Gear Solid 3, a beautiful game, I must have a system that will play PS2 games. MGS3 is unique, therefore I cannot have that exact experience from a PS3 game.

Bottom line, if there are PS2 games that you like, it's not a waste of money.

[Gabriel Girard]

Yeah the backwards-comp issue and the price are the reason why I finally splurged for one. Games are still being made for it and it can also play PSX games (I never owned one)

[mkiker2089]

How well does the PS3 handle DVDs and Blu Ray? The PS2 doesn't have the memory feature that all modern DVD players have, and that suck. The lack of a remote hurts also.

Also does the PS2 or 3 need a cooling fan? I'm told that 360's may overheat in hot environments but no one really says so about the playstations. Fans are loud but overheating is bad also.

[Boba Fett]

For a while, I remember the PS3 being touted as one of the best consumer Blu-Ray players on the market. It's definitely light years beyond the PS2's DVD playback.

[mkiker2089]

I recently found my Nintendo, so I guess the old school gaming makes sense after all. By nintendo I mean the NES. My Atari is still alive but I think my brother has it. The Nintendo was more buggy if I recall though. You had to blow on the carts to remove the slightest bit of dust but the atari could be covered in cow poop and still play just fine. I don't think min e was an official Atari though as it was wood grain.

I'm debating still on a PS3 though. Sears usually offers deferred interest on stuff like that so if I can work out a deal I may bite.

[BrettCullum]

Yeah, I have heard about blowing on the carts of the SNES.

And yes, the Atari 2600 still works and it is pretty much the same age as me. That's scary! They built it to last. If you have a wood grain 2600 it may be worth something! They are called "WOODIES", and if it has six switches you have a collector's item on your hands. So keep it away from cow poop! The only knock off systems I know of came from Sears or no name China companies. The Sears ones were identical to the others in every way. I would never imagine I would still have one that works let alone play it now and then. But I do. I wonder if it will be around 30 years from now. I can be 60 playing that crappy version of PACMAN... ah! That's comforting.

[J.M. Vargas]

Long story short, my nephew has been sitting on a PS2 for a few years now despite having a fully backwards compat ps3 with built in wireless internet. He gave it to me recently sans controller.

Longer version, So far I've put 50 bucks into it for a controller, Silent Hill 2 and Namco Muesuem. I'm starting to worry that I'm tossing money into the can though. Otherwise I just have a DS (no games on the computer).

If I don't invest in ps2 stuff which ps3 is the best bang for your buck assuming you don't need bacwards compat or even wireless internet?

The only fully backwards PS3 system out there are the 20GB and 60GB models released back when the system came out (which are now semi-rare and fetch used more than newer PS3 models). Through hardware the 20/60GB PS3 emulates perfectly both PS1 and PS2 software. Since then Sony has gradually gimped backwards compatibility for PS2 games on newer intinerations of the PS3; some now-discontinued 80GB PS3 models do it with software (the effectiveness of which is varied from game to game) and the one's on retail channels out now don't have it anymore. Sony wants to eventually re-sell their old games on the PSN online store, hence the gimping of backwards compatibility. Microsoft did this with XBox 360 too (backwards compatibility with older XBox games) but it was phased out gradually over years and it was never a key selling point of the machine. Sony made a big deal about the PS3's backwards compatibility before and during it's release, then (when sales plummeted) it changed its tune and dumped it as a cost-cutting measure to lower the PS3's then-exorbitant prices. If backwards compatibility isn't a concern then any PS3 on the market will do. For backwards compatibility with all PS1 and PS2 games though the original 20GB/60GB are your only (pricey) choices. I own a 60GB PS3 and it rocks. My PS2 and PS1 are dust magnets now, the PS3 emulation is a thing of beauty; upconversion through HDMI to my HDTV looks/plays phenomenal with only the slightest (and usually tolerable) lag from the 'SD to HD' upconversion.

I'd say keep your PS2 and seek out bargains on some really excellent older games that still rock today. If you dug "Silent Hill 2" you'll probably enjoy its sequels (one a few years old, the newest one released last year) or Capcom's "Resident Evil 4" (a decent port of the best-selling Gamecube/Wii game). If you enjoyed "Namco Museum" there are a ton of other compilation discs out there for PS2 that are phenomenal from Sega, Capcom, Taito (two of them, my personal favorites), Konami, etc. I personally recommend this website: http://www.videogamecritic.net. It's run by a guy that gives older games as much importance and support as newer one's, with PS2 reviews (and XBox/XBox 360 counterparts) that will be useful in pointing you out to the still-excellent PS2 games you can get to maximize your gaming bucks.

PS3 is an excellent DVD and Blu-ray player but it eats quite a bit of energy and heats up (not red-hot but hot) so I only use it for Blu-ray (it's my only Blu player), gaming or for DVD movies that need special upconverting. It'd make an excellent media centerpiece to your entertainment center if you route everything to/from it properly. PS2 DVD playback is a crapshoot which the PS3 chokes with its bare hands; it's a gigantic technological leap from one generation to the next.

[mkiker2089]

Sears has 2 (I know people there so I'm working with them on a good deal, which is tough on games but I get an employee discount and free financing). One is the new 80 gig and one is a 160 gig with a game "Drakes Fortune". The 80 is 399 the 160 is 499. It looks like the only difference is the HD size and the game. I'm not sure that 100 clams is worth it to upgrade. I've been told that swapping the HD is super easy but I don't think I want to get into that. I have no clue how much HD space I'll need though. Do games store a lot on the HD? I know that I'll want Castlevania SOTN which is about 500 megs I think. Beyond that it seems like 80 would be a gracious plenty.

Any thoughts on that.

Right now I'm still holding onto the PS2 but not investing in it yet. I always seem to buy consoles as they die so that part of my issue here. I bought the Atari when the Nintendo came out, the PSX right before the PS2 and I got a DS about a year ago and now there's the DSi. God hates me.

[mkiker2089]

Brett, My Atari is a knock I think. It looks just like the woodies but it doesn't have the atari logo. I remember my dad telling me it was a sears model but he got it at a flea market with a bunch of shovelware games. Lost Luggage springs to mind as well as one where you had to lasso some sort of cow things. Stampede I think it was called.

[mavrach]

Marshall, that's $100 difference for double the size and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. The game alone is usually $60 and is well worth that. That leaves $40 for the hard drive upgrade. I say go for it. If you plan to do a lot of downloading that space might be handy. I have the 80 GB and it's fine after a year, but I feel like it might eventually might not be enough.

[TemporalWisdom]

I got the Uncharted: Drake's Fortune bundle with my Christmas money. MGS4 takes up 4.5 gigs while DF needs just 2.5 megs. So it seems there's a lot of variation. I went ahead and spent the extra hundred for the game and the hope that I would never need to worry about space. So far I'm pretty happy.