I don´t understand why they didn´t port the PS2 to the 3. What a waste, I´d buy the PS3 just to play PS2 games mostly and a few from the PS3.

Noted. All good points, but the lack of innovation in this industry is appaling. AMD is almost on it's last leg, so on and so forth. I'll hold with my 'Competition is always good' theory.

Because of arrogance and greed. They think that they can do whatever they want and gamers will still worship their system.

I own the top system on the market, and any publisher who feels that exclusive content is good enough for Sony users and not for me will not get my money. You vote with your money.
And regarding the Ouya, I wonder how big a demand there will be for Android OS games in the living room. Apple I could see pulling this off, but not Android. Not enough depth of gameplay. Steambox however, interests me.

Sony learned from their mistakes the hard way this generation, still, the PS3 was a pretty good system with games and exclusives worth owning in the end.

Your previous description definitely applies to Microsoft's gaming division and DEFINITELY towards Nintendo.

I don't think it is that easy. The PS3 was sold at a loss for Sony (as most consoles are in the first few years of their life). It actually nearly bankrupted them. The money they needed game in with the licenses for games sold for the PS3.

I think it was done by Sony as a "life saving hack" to get people to buy more PS3 games. Sony has never really recovered from the PS3. Which is also why I don't think there will be a PS 4 in a way the PS 3 was the new hot shit.

If the PS3 would actually have PS2 compatibility I would even be arsed to buy one (and a TV). But currently I'm rather waiting a few more years on perfect emulation.

Sure, I think they applied what they learned from the PS3 with the Vita. Oh wait...

Of course they insisted on Blu-ray, since that early adopter strategy worked out pretty well for 'em with the PS2 and DVD. That was one of the big reasons I bought a PS2 over a Dreamcast or Gamecube, because DVD players themselves were still pretty outrageously priced. So, in THEIR view, why wouldn't it work again, especially with Microsoft's HD-DVD flopped. The big thing for why I've never purchased a PS3 though, was price. $800 for a console? Hell naw! The big reason PS2 was popular, especially in Shinjuku, which won them the Japan battle, was because of console price versus the others in the market at the time, plus it was more flexible. Dreamcast was ahead of its time in a lot of ways, but I think the biggest mistake Sega made was underestimating the popularity of the DVD format, (aside from the obvious manufacturing problems, which cost them units on the shelf during a very important season.)

As for Sony, I think their biggest problem is their apparent inability to think outside of the box, and their great ability to piss off customers. (PSN's problems, etc.) To be honest, I'm still offput by PS3 and PSN, and Sony will have a lot of work on their hands to restore my confidence in their ability to offer me an experience I feel that I "need" to have.

As for OUYA, it'll be niche. 8 million dollars in this industry really isn't that much at all, and they'll still have to fight smartphones/tablets for their piece of the market. I'm going to adopt a "wait and see" approach with it, to see what kinds of content pops up. Tbh, the only major advantage to this versus a smartphone/tablet to an actual uninformed consumer, would be the better control schemes, etc. (Tablet/phone controls for games are giant bags of dicks, for real.) At the same time though, OUYA won't have the same portability, so it'll be interesting to watch, at any rate.

lol.....they learned nothing.

Oh yeah, because Sony is certainly the only company that adopted such practices.

You should do some research before posting absurd crap like this. The exclusivity deals goes WAY back in gaming history. Heck, Nintendo has adopted the same practice on the NES/SNES. Sega had a lot of trouble getting third-party support for Master System exactly because of the unethical practices by Nintendo. Basically, Nintendo refused to license any game on the NES if it wasn't exclusive for their system. Since NES had a HUGE market share compared to the Master System, there wasn't much Sega could do. The Master System was more powerful, but they couldn't get many games on it because of Nintendo's exclusive deals.

Sega had to push a new system and do a mind-blowing marketing campaign to make the Genesis successful.

It isn't that easy. The PS1 was a huge achievement, it was bound to fail in the market, especially after so many CD-based consoles from companies with no experience in the gaming market failed (3DO, Philipps CD-i). Also, the Saturn was released a few months before the PS1 and also had 3D graphics, yet it failed.

Also, the N64 pushed 3D graphics even further, yet it couldn't be as successful as the PS1.

Sony managed to attract developers and publishers by offering better licensing deals. They were not as narrow-minded as Nintendo, who treated third-party developers like crap.

What i want to say is that the leap from 2D to 3D wasn't the decisive factor for Sony's victory with the PS1. The success of the PS2 also corroborates to the fact that this transition wasn't that important for Sony's victory in the gaming market.
Not really. The PS3 was just too expensive to produce and costed Sony a lot of money. When they finally realized that they had to cut costs down, they took PS2 compability out.

Was Microsoft being arrogant and greedy by not offering a decent backwards compability on the Xbox 360 as well? At least the first PS3 models came with full hardware backwards compability (which was later changed to software compability and then finally taken out), the Xbox 360 came with software backwards compability which sucked. Microsoft promised to constantly update backwards compability, but they stopped developing it after 1 year.

Also, Microsoft shut down Xbox Live for the first Xbox a few years ago, which means you can't play any game online there anymore, while on the PS2 there are still a few games with working servers (even SOCOM's servers were still up a few months ago, but they took it down). And even worse, Xbox Live had a monthly fee, Sony's online services didn't. It would make more sense if Sony had shut down their servers first (since they have no income to maintain servers up), but no, Microsoft did it first, and they had subscribers still playing Halo 2 online daily.

I don't think so. Like Liquid said, the DVD player was a neat feature for early adopters of the PS2. Of course nowadays DVD players are fucking cheap, but they weren't back them. Getting a DVD-player on the PS2 was a big thing back then.

Also, the PSP was pretty famous for being an amazing media player. It could run anything you threw at it with a great quality. The screen on the PSP was pretty big for a portable. The PSP was certainly the best portable media player at that time (much better than the iPod, in my opinion).

They tried the same strategy on the PS3, and i think that it was not the reason why the PS3 failed. Blu ray players were very expensive when the PS3 came out, and they still aren't that cheap. The fact that the PS3 comes with Blu ray player by default is quite a big deal. In my case, for example, the PS3 is the only Blu ray player i have.

Also, games nowadays are pretty big. The compression software used to fit stuff on the DVD for the Xbox 360 is impressive, but the huge disk space on the Blu Ray certainly gives developers better options to work with. As an example, look at how shitty the CG sections in FFXIII look in the Xbox 360 version compared to the uncompressed files running on the PS3 version.

The only difference is one is 720p and one is 1080p thats it theres no higher compression just a resolution change.
MS deactivated XBL for the old Xbox because it was limiting what they could do with the network. We still have a couple of the limitations it brought (max friendlist size for example) but much of the overheads been removed which has lowered latency..

I'm just going to expand a bit on the Saturn. The biggest reason that system failed? Devs claimed it was a nightmare to program for, Sony was easy, so in the battle of 3rd party developers, Sony whooped Sega. You could have the most powerful system in the world, but if you can't make the dev process easy and simple for companies to produce software for your system, you're gonna fail.

I think we saw that a bit with the Wii. The first party games were good, while there was a severe short fall of quality 3rd party games and exclusives for it, so after the casuals bought theirs and got bored with the system, it sat collecting dust. Now I think you can pick one up on eBay for pocket change.