sony is smart for dropping b/c in 40 gb.

this forces people to buy ps3 games and not rely on their older collection of ps2 games. money this gen is made on software! if people really need it, they can pay a premium and buy the 80 gb. perhaps at launch this was an important feature to include, but do you think a year from now anyone is going to care about a ps2 game??

it's a great strategy. personally, i sold away most of my ps2 games so i got a 40 gb. i also have a problem playing older ps2 games now because they just seem so ugly and out of date. granted i play mainly sports games and buy the new editions annually/biannually becuse i am a sports nut. anyway, the 40 gb seemed like the right choice to me... i spend enough money on gaming that i do not need to go out and buy outdated ps2 games.

anyone else agree? disagree

this forces people to buy ps3 games and not rely on their older collection of ps2 games. money this gen is made on software! if people really need it, they can pay a premium and buy the 80 gb. perhaps at launch this was an important feature to include, but do you think a year from now anyone is going to care about a ps2 game??

it's a great strategy. personally, i sold away most of my ps2 games so i got a 40 gb. i also have a problem playing older ps2 games now because they just seem so ugly and out of date. granted i play mainly sports games and buy the new editions annually/biannually becuse i am a sports nut. anyway, the 40 gb seemed like the right choice to me... i spend enough money on gaming that i do not need to go out and buy outdated ps2 games.

anyone else agree? disagree

giantyankee7

honestly after playing the ps3 to play ps2 games looks horrible and usually turns me off from playing so i dont keep them unless the game is really good so its a good option for those that dont care at a cheaper price

It is a solid business decision.

Thankfully, I am not affected by this (60GB). I still enjoy ps2 games though I do not play them as often.

to be honest...i got my ps3 since launch ...and i havnt even played ANY of my ps2 games since

Well, I find one reason not to praise Sony on this and just state the contrary. They touted this, and then remove it. Bad. They backed on their word.

And let's all be honest here, can u seriously just shut the door on so many great games? Games that kept you entertained for the last 6 years?? You guys have proven to be real gamers. Well, I don't care, I for one wasn't gonna let my PS2 games, games I spent money on, just waste.

And if you think about software sales? With the PS2 still selling, PS2 software is still gonna sell? Plus, it didn't reduce the cost for them to remove this feature anyway. So you're paying 400 bucks, and not getting a feature that didn't cost them anything to remove. And again, the PS3 is getting good games, but there are really not enough. What are you gonna do when you've played all the ones that interest you right now? I have. And I am glad I still have my PS2 games to fall back on.

And one other thing, both 360 and Wii are doing this. They're even getting money out of it. Xbox originals on Xbox live and Nintendo's history coming back to an online catalog. Had they kept the PS2 backward compatibility, they could have done the same thing they're doing with PS games, hence, more money. You guys are clearly not looking at the big picture.

And if you tell me people wouldn't buy old games online, then explain me how it has been so lucrative for Nintendo? Think, people, think!

It has to do with attach rates. Of course they still make money from PS2 games sold but that doesn't help game developpers warm up to the PS3. They drop the backward compability and new owners are forced to buy some PS3 games (if they plan to use it for gaming) which helps boost PS3 software sales and make it more enticing for developpers to put their effort into making PS3 games.

At the same time I agree that they are going back on their word and not even saving any money by removing the BC. How about a BC 40GB for $399 and one without but it comes with Heavenly Sword for $425? But that would be too confusing. Actually, I think it's fine the way it is, so long as consumers know that the 40GB doesn't include BC and the 80GB does. If they need BC they can pay more or wait, so long as they are aware of the facts.

the other reason they did this is probably becuase they also dont want early buyers to feel cheated on speanding the 599 on a system and a year later is goes to 399. So like me i feel that the 60gig is the overal best value and im not upset that its so cheap now.I have bc and the 40gig doesnt

note they also said that removing the e-chip didnt lower the cost all that much anyway, it was to keep us all happy and help themselves in the process

Well, when you are an early adopter, then you gotta be prepared for price drops anyway. It happens. Xbox, PS2 (until the slim) and GC where the same consoles trough the years, but someone who went and bought a PS2 for 300 at launch can't feel cheated for someone who bought the same system a year later for 50 bucks less. They knew it was gonna happen.

Like I said, I think removing BC isn't a good thing in the long run. It may boost sales now, but if they had ever brought a PS2 catalog online, say in two years, for 15 a pop, you know people are gonna buy them. Plus like I said, they backed on their word and only are giving out a lesser system. And like I said, why remove something that wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place if it didn't even help them reduce costs?

And lets be real, if you really wanna buy a PS3 game, you're gonna buy it no matter what. I am sure a lot of people here weren't gonna miss on Call of Duty 4 just to go and buy a bunch of PS2 games.

i also have a problem playing older ps2 games now because they just seem so ugly and out of date.

giantyankee7

I felt the same way