ps3

[izembo]

because they did research and found most people were keeping their ps2's anyways and would rather have a $100 cheaper system. it's not a bad idea in any way.

[Day]

Yeah then what happens when the PS2 dies? Gah, that's shit. Good thing I read about this before I bought one. Also if its just emulation to run the PS2 games, how is it costing 100 bucks? I would have thought the price drop was less HD space.

[Krandor]

Since I already own a PS2, I just got an 40 GB PS3 when I picked one up last week (Thank you tax return). If there are specific PS2 games someone wants to play on the PS3, they should find a compatibility list, since alot of games out of the mainstream (I know Star Ocean 3 has some serious issues) will have problems with the software emulation.

[Darus Grey]

The only games I've seen be horrible with the 80GB version is the NIS/ATLUS games(Ar Tonelico is a big offender)

Work fine on the 60/20 version though. If PS2 compatibility is a must for you, I'd just buy a used 60/20 and be done with it. Everything else is a poor compromise.

[izembo]

Yeah then what happens when the PS2 dies? Gah, that's shit. Good thing I read about this before I bought one. Also if its just emulation to run the PS2 games, how is it costing 100 bucks? I would have thought the price drop was less HD space.

there is a ps2 graphics chip in them, only the processes are emulated. yes, it isnt a $100 straight cost to have the ps2 in there, but the ps2 included model was $100 more. they really only had to cut the price to maybe $459? but i think you'd rather have a $399 system wouldnt you?

[Demosthenes]

I want one with all the bells and whistles I don't care about HDD size, I can stick my own hdd in it.

[izembo]

find a used 60gb then

[Day]

I'd be more likely to pay 450 for one that pays PS2 games than I am to pay 400 for one that doesn't. Hence my confusion on their market strategy.

[Cyn]

You're willing to pay more... what's wrong with their strategy?

[Day]

Cause now I'm not buying shit.

[izembo]

I'd be more likely to pay 450 for one that pays PS2 games than I am to pay 400 for one that doesn't. Hence my confusion on their market strategy.

you'd pay 500 for one that does. if you want to pay 400 you get one that doesnt, all the ones that do are 500+, and theres an 80gig coming that has some backwards compatability again. their strategy makes perfect sense.

[Demosthenes]

I'd be more likely to pay 450 for one that pays PS2 games than I am to pay 400 for one that doesn't. Hence my confusion on their market strategy.

you'd pay 500 for one that does. if you want to pay 400 you get one that doesnt, all the ones that do are 500+, and theres an 80gig coming that has some backwards compatability again. their strategy makes perfect sense.

What strategy? Their inability to standardize the shit they put out?

[Day]

What do you guys work for Sony or something?

You don't think it's bullshit that all previous models have backwards compatability, (even the first 20gig release) then they come out with a 40 gig version that doesn't and it the only model ever produced that doesn't? Hey at least they kept the chrome trim though!

If I'm paying 400+ bucks for any system, it better damn well be able to play the past games, or I'm not buying anything, and I'm not going to pay $100 to be able to keep playing my older games.

That's why their marketing fails, because I can promise you I'm not the only one that thinks like this.

[Krye]

"If I can't play my old games for cheap, I won't play them at all!"

If it's such an important issue for you, then why wouldn't you be willing to spend a little extra?

[Day]

It's not that important for me. I'm just not going to buy a PS3 anyway now, cause that kind of shit is just retarded. It's just the principal of the whole thing. Why remove one of the main fucking features of the console?

Try to relate this to a DVD player company that comes out with a new line of DVD players, that are awesome and guess what they play old DVD's too, but wait, shit, they cost too much to make, shit, lets remove some features, umm, shit, lets take away the ability to play any dvds made before 2007, lower the price just a little and see if anyone still buys it. "Guys, wtf they aren't buying it!"

In the end I dont really care, I'm bored at work and felt like bitching about what a stupid move that was for them. Not that the whole PS3 thing has gone that great for Sony anyway...

[izembo]

buy a ps2 seperate if you care so much about the old games, its pretty much the difference.

really the majority of people don't care, so unfortunately while they aren't catering to you, they are to the greater majority. price was the major issue, not backwards compatability.

You really think the PS3 is still doing that bad anymore? It's outselling the 360 in a lot of places.

[Turambar]

It's not that important for me. I'm just not going to buy a PS3 anyway now, cause that kind of shit is just retarded. It's just the principal of the whole thing. Why remove one of the main fucking features of the console?

Try to relate this to a DVD player company that comes out with a new line of DVD players, that are awesome and guess what they play old DVD's too, but wait, shit, they cost too much to make, shit, lets remove some features, umm, shit, lets take away the ability to play any dvds made before 2007, lower the price just a little and see if anyone still buys it. "Guys, wtf they aren't buying it!"

In the end I dont really care, I'm bored at work and felt like bitching about what a stupid move that was for them. Not that the whole PS3 thing has gone that great for Sony anyway...

Your DVD comparison is wrong, because both devices are still DVD players. The PS3 on the other hand, is NOT a PS2. It would be a more accurate analogy to consider a DVD player that can also play tapes vs. a DVD player that cannot.

[Day]

The PS2 is outselling the PS3 in some places too...

[izembo]

apples <> oranges

the ps3 is not the ps2. they arent comparable. people will always buy cheaper shit.

[Vaspinne]

The PS2 is outselling the PS3 in some places too...

This doesn't necessarily mean the PS3 is not selling well. Last month, Sony sold 10% more PS3's then Microsoft sold 360's. And even if the PS2 is outselling the PS3 in some regions, that just goes to show how great the PS2 was and still is. So many people already have a PS2 and so many people are now buying it that selling a PS3 without PS2 backwards compatibility really isn't a major issue for Sony. Add to that the PSP selling strong now too, and will be selling even stronger with games like God of War and Crisis Core coming out. ( February sales numbers for yea. Of course, Nintendo is dominating by about 200k in console sales, but Sony actually managed to outsell Nintendo in January. Total sales, yes, still very very trumped. Easily. That can't be argued against. But you also can't argue against Sony's increasing sales numbers as of the last couple months).

There have been plenty of opportunities for people who wanted the BC with the PS3 to go out and buy one. On top of that, there will be more opportunities coming up. The PS3 and PS2 are 2 separate consoles. And really, the PS3 has so many god damn features already with more being added every month that being able to play PS2 games really isn't as big as you make it out to be. PS2's cost $130 or so for a new one, playing $100 more for it on the PS3 doesn't seem that unreasonable. Not to mention you get a Blu-ray player too, and one of the cheapest Blu-ray players on the market at that, that also has a web browser, free online play, and the capability to play PS1 games, movie files, music files and access stored photos anywhere on the globe if you have a PSP and an internet connection.

As lame and cliche as this sounds, your stigma against Sony and the PS3 is so 2007. The only thing that the PS3 really needs at this point is a stronger library of games, which it's getting a strong boost in this year.

Edit: I'll clarify the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to say the PS3 or Sony in general is the best ever out there. Lets face it, they have made some pretty questionable and in a few cases, retarded decisions in the past. I'm just trying to say that they're doing no where near as shitty as everyone is making them out to be doing.

Edit2: Oh hey, look at that.