Skip Navigation
Why won't my PS2 Slim 75001 play SOME DVD's?

Alongside games, I also like to collect DVD's. Because I am a snob, I like to watch my DVD's on the good old Playstation 2 as god intended. However I have been having an issue where my PS2 will not play some of my DVD's.

At first I thought it has something to do with widescreen DVD's as usually those are the ones that don't work most of the time, but that cant be it because:

A) I can play my widescreen Sweeny Todd DVD and it works fine, albiet shrunken to fit the PS2's aspect ratio

B) The problem extends to some DVD's that are not widescreen, like my copy of Matilda which appears to be in 4:3.

My second theory is that it may have something to do with the speed the disk's are being burned at by the companies that make them. My reasoning for thinking this is that whenever I burn my own CD's or DVD's at a faster speed, my PS2 and other older devices struggle to read them; but I have no way of knowing if this is the cause.

Does anybody else know what may be causing this issue?

4
The price of retro-gaming is killing me
  • Lately I’ve been picking up old PC games from like DOS/95/98 era because those are cheap as hell considering most people consider them to be literal trash and don’t have computers to run them. I play them on a compaq laptop running windows 98 that I bought for gaming.

  • The price of retro-gaming is killing me
  • I think that scarcity of art is a rather bourgeois thing, that the more available art is to everyone the better. Video games were always art the moment someone figured out how to make two pixels move across a screen. We don’t need to prove that to anyone.

  • The price of retro-gaming is killing me
  • I like to look at my games on the shelf too. When I pick up my copy of ruby, I renember the first time I beat the Pokémon league back in elementary school. When I pick up my copy of Megaman Zero, I renember how many tries it took me just to beat the first boss and how proud I was when I finally did. The difference to me however, is that I beleive that video games deserve to be played, that they are made to be played. For as long as our consoles still run, for as long as disks can escape the slow inevitability of disk rot, they should be enjoyed and appreciated. The original experience won’t exist forever. So we should just enjoy it for as long as it is there. My PS2 just broke recently, and I’m buying the part to make that repair to it because I could just not fix it and leave it as a paperweight on my shelf, but I actually care about playing these games.

    When you shove sealed games inside a plastic display case never to be opened again, you aren’t getting the same value as someone that will play that game, because playing a game doesn’t preclude you from admiring it on your shelf.

    The gaming collection scene isn’t quite what it used to be. Now it’s people trying to flex how big their wallets are, show how many titles they can hoard like a dragon. Scarcity and the decay of old tech will inevitably lead to prices rising, but now it’s all hype and very bad speculative investments. It’s not about the actual games and being able to re-experience that anymore and I think that’s sad.

  • The price of retro-gaming is killing me

    I love retro games, I always have. Despite my childhood being the 2010's, I grew up with a gameboy color, and I would emulate GBA, GB, and even N64 games on my crappy android I had at the time.

    Because of the power of emulation I was able to grow up with classics like Silent Hill, Megaman Zero, Pokemon Crystal, Metal Gear, so on and so forth. But when I turned 16, and I was able to get my first job, I became especially interested in collecting games, games that I actually like to play. But now that i'm older and I actually have financial responsibilities, and don't even get me started on how the retro gaming market just continues to inflate, its getting to a point where its just not feasible for me to continue collecting.

    Silent Hill 3 is literally my favorite horror game ever, and I will never be able to afford a copy, or even if I did have the money to spare I could never justify the absurd price. I will never own a legitimate copy of Megaman Legends, Pokemon Platinum, Rule of Rose, or so many of these games that I really do care about and want to be able to experience on authentic hardware.

    But whats even more frustrating about it all to me are the types of collectors that want something specifically because it is rare. The type of people to buy a game and shove it in a plastic box on a shelf where it will collect dust and never be played or appreciated beyond it's box art. It is so frustrating to me because collectors of games, as opposed to people who actually want to play and appreciate these games and make memories off them and share those experiences with their friends, are driving up the market values of games to unaffordability.

    Anyways I think I am going to give up collecting games. I still have a large collection of PS2, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, MSDOS, and PS1 games, but I am done trying to get more. I might occasionally shell out a little bit on the occasional cheaper game that catches my eye, but trying to get a lot of my favorite titles is a sisiphusian endeavor.

    44
    POV: You are running an online D&D game
  • You mean I3-WM? It's the windows manager I use and it is a thing on Linux. Its a thing that requires config file editing and time to learn but its like super useful for a fast workflow and its light on system resources. It is what makes the management of all my stat blocks so easy.

  • POV: You are running an online D&D game

    Using the I3 tiling windows manager, pair that with a dual monitor setup and it really makes running dnd and doing other work so much better

    26
    my thoughts after using arch as my first distro

    I’ve been daily driving arch Linux as my main distro for quite a while now, as a replacement for windows 11 (I refuse to use windows 11 for longer than it takes to download a Linux iso and format it into a usb). Installing it on my laptop wasnt my first time ever using it, but it was my first time really getting into any Linux distro beyond the Arch install that I did on a VM on my old desktop forever ago.

    I’ve heard a lot of people say that arch is like super hard, but honestly after actually learning it I disagree. I think its difficulty is overstated. Of course it took getting used to, and I definitely had problems, but once I changed my outlook on how to handle problems (for one reading the wiki instead of going on forums) I found solutions much faster, and within a week of using it, I was already using the terminal for most tasks, to the point of it probably being excessive (for example when I tried hyprland I would launch programs that I didn’t have hot keys for with “example & disown ; exit”, instead of just using dmenu which I did have installed.

    While browsing forums for solutions before my whole shift in how I approach problems, I noticed people being quite rude to beginners, telling them to run commands that would brick their installs (thank god I didn’t fall for that) and outright telling people to give up on Arch just because people would ask beginner questions on forums. I understand how it can be annoying to have to listen to the same beginner questions all the time, but I think we should just be POLITELY telling people to use the wiki and maybe some some wiki page related to their problem, instead of just being douchebags. It’s a bad mindset to treat beginners like that because we all started somewhere.

    Ultimately while Arch does have a great community there are a couple of bad eggs in there. I also think the overhyping of how difficult arch is and how some people actually do think they are unironicaly better than the ubuntnoobs is a very bad thing, and I have seen it dissuade people I know who I think would love arch from even trying it.

    I tried several windows managers, such as XFCE, KDE Plasma, Gnome, i3, and Hyprland. I think KDE looks nice and all but it uses too many system resources compared to XFCE to justify it for me (I don’t actually have resource problems but it bothers the optimiser in me), Gnome feels like a shitty tablet to me, i3 was great and I really enjoyed how lightweight and efficient it was to use (until I broke my config file), hyprland was heavenly to use (until I broke that Config file too) despite my slight annoyance over how it uses more resources than i3 (which makes sense all things considered). Right now I’m using XFCE as my main which I really enjoy. I got it looking very nice looking and it runs very well on my computer. I actually do prefer the tiling windows managers so I think I will experiment more with Hyprland and i3 before I fully settle on that.

    As for other Distros, I did try out others after the fact on other computers. I installed mint on a laptop I had bought for my little sister, and honestly going from arch to having to use that to troubleshoot it for her, I found it to be inferior from the perspective of my personal tastes. When I experimented more with it on my old desktop, I found it to be bloated and it had a lot of programs I just didn’t need. I had the same issue with Ubuntu. I also tried putting Debian on my old desktop which so far I quite like much more than Ubuntu and Mint. I still prefer arch though as I think it has many advantages to Debian such as Pacman, the AUR, the amazing wiki, it’s fast updates, and the real sense I get that I’m building my system from the ground up. So I think I will continue to stick with arch as my main distro.

    Would I reccomend arch to other Linux noobs as their first distro? Absolutely yes, but only if you are a specific type of person. If you just hate how bad Microsoft is , how bad windows 11 is, and you’re just looking for a simple out of the box alternative that works well, I would say use like Ubuntu or mint or something. But if you are a person who really likes technology, who wants to get good with computers, who really wants to understand linux, who enjoys tinkering, who enjoys solving problems (which the amount of problems arch has is overstated anyway), then I would say absolutely use arch as your first distro, but please read the wiki before you go to stack exchange or something lol. As a side note, I would discourage using an install script because I think that the install process for arch is a tutorial that will teach you a lot of skills and habits that will prepare you to handle problems you might have while using arch.

    With that, thanks for reading my long rant, what do you all think?

    Edit: reworded some things, improved grammar and sentence structure

    17
    I finally deleted windows on every computer I own
  • not dual booting, they are running on completely different computers. But my main problem is a program called Hamachi not working correctly. I use it for "lan"-gaming with friends on games with dead servers.

  • I finally deleted windows on every computer I own

    A while ago I installed Arch on my new laptop, as an alternative to windows. I managed to get everything i needed to work on arch work with the exception of some programs that do have debian support. So, I deleted windows from my old desktop, and I am installing Debian on that. In other words I will now be daily driving Arch and Debian on two different computers. I have escaped the windows hell.

    18
    InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SH
    sharpiewater @lemmy.world
    Posts 5
    Comments 17