Why did Sony take away backwards compatibility in PS3's?

[Weaver]

Given the size of the original PS3 I bet they just stuck a whole PS2 in the damn thing.
Take the PS2 out and suddenly it shrinks!

edit (this is a joke, don't take it seriously).

No, I think I'll take it seriously - because this is actually what they did. They stuck in a PS2 mainboard, processor and such into the original PS3s with hardware compatibility, and when they removed it to save money, their software emulation wasn't up to the job.

Ha, I guess sometimes the simplest explanation IS the right one.

 

[Kagim]

...Besides its been like, what three years? Four? If you haven't bought a PS3 by now you likely don't have any PS2 games. If you do have PS2 games then you likely have a PS2 so i don't see the problem....

Let's see if I can broaden your perspective:
+PS3 controller is wireless, so that's an added convenience to have while playing PS2 games.
+People, (especially wives,) like simplicity. They'd rather have 1 console hooked up to the TV instead of 2.
+Some people just don't have the space for a 2nd console.
+Some people are like me. We never bought a PS2, but there were still a handful of games we'd really like to play, but not enough to warrant buying a PS2 for. If the PS3 had BC, that would make buying a PS3 a easier to justify since it would have more value to us.

+PS2 has wireless controllers and the wired controllers are not exactly short.
+Average TV's have multiple input jacks, you also usually have to switch from tv to console anyways, its just one more press of the input.
+The thing is the size of a PS3 game case
+It's cheaper to buy a new PS2 and a new PS3 then it cost to buy a BC PS3. My PS3 was $800CAD when i bought it and was only 60 gigs. That was the deluxe package.

Your essentially saying your willing to spend 300-400 dollars more for minor conveniences.

Just because something has all the features wanted, doesn't mean it's worth the asking price. While you do point out reasons why those features may not be that significant, I never put a dollar value on their worth. Different people will value it differently. If you have a naggy wife who harps on every little bit of "clutter" in your home theater setup, you may HIGHLY value being able to have 1 less console connected. Or maybe all your TV's AV jacks already have something connected to them, & you'd have to buy a switch box in addition to a PS2 to play. It all comes down to personal preference. Bottom line is they would increase the value of a PS3 for many people. Some, like you, couldn't care less about these features, but that doesn't mean they aren't important to other people.

When I debate buying something with a lot of features, I itemize the features & what they're worth to me. Let's say Bob, for example, is considering buying a PS3.

+He likes the idea of having a BD player, but he'd only pay $150 for one.
+Bob has a 360, so he can already play games in HD. There are only some PS3 exclusives he wants to play, so being able to play PS3 games is only worth $100 to him.
-Where he games is right next to his broadband modem, so wireless internet is of no use to him. Even if he rearranges things in the future, he owns his home, so running wire is no biggie.
-He has a PC to look at pictures on his memory sticks, so all kinds of card readers in the PS3 are also of no use to him.
+He remembers a handful of PS2 games he'd like to play, but never could. Finally being able to play them is worth $50 to him. That's also why he doesn't bother to buy a new PS2. It's not worth it to him.


So far, that's $300 of value to Bob, but since the PS3 is no longer BC, it's only $250. Bob's not going to buy a PS3 because it costs more than what he is willing to pay for those benefits. Yes, the phat PS3 did everything Bob wants, but that was even more expensive.

In short, your willing to spend $800 when you could spend $500 for small conveniences.

I don't see why you wrote so much to repeat what i had said in my post. Just say, "I am willing to pay more for minor conveniences."

And buy a PS2. Sounds like that would better suit you anyways. There less then a hundred bucks.

because unlike nintendo, sony has no idea they're doin

You mean how nintendo made the gamecube that had zero BC from the get go? Then had few to no good games, and are only still alive because they are appealing to the casual gamer and novelty crowd?

While i don't use the terms Casual Gamer or Novelty Crowd as an insult(honestly) those are the only people i see buying Wii's anymore. It's not an insult, it's not ridicule, yeah, they know there business good. They know now to stay the fuck away from games that aren't either complex flash games or Wii Fit.

 

[SmartIdiot]

You mean how nintendo made the gamecube that had zero BC from the get go? Then had few to no good games, and are only still alive because they are appealing to the casual gamer and novelty crowd?

Almost. Bear in mind Nintendo is over 130 years old. They've been in this game much longer than any of the current competitors and have always been a family friendly/oriented company. Also, few to no good games on the Gamecube? Are you mad?! I'll admit the Wii is currently a fitness machine with a lot of wasted potential (though SM Galaxy 2 is looking good) but go and have a look at the Gamecube library again, there's a tonne of great games for it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I go one of the early ones so nah.

But to be honest I think we'll see a crapload of ps2 games introduced via PSN.

 

[Kagim]

You mean how nintendo made the gamecube that had zero BC from the get go? Then had few to no good games, and are only still alive because they are appealing to the casual gamer and novelty crowd?

Almost. Bear in mind Nintendo is over 130 years old. They've been in this game much longer than any of the current competitors and have always been a family friendly/oriented company. Also, few to no good games on the Gamecube? Are you mad?! I'll admit the Wii is currently a fitness machine with a lot of wasted potential (though SM Galaxy 2 is looking good) but go and have a look at the Gamecube library again, there's a tonne of great games for it.

I won't lie, there were a number of good games on the Gamecube, however the system was kinda forgettable to me. Aside from the FF game you played with your gameboy not many games spring to mind when i think gamecube. As well they had a number of dry spells. I personally didn't like it though.

And yes, part of my ire towards nintendo is the middle finger i got when it was turned into a glorified fitness machine. I stood in front of the Wii section at my EB for half an hour and nothing at all appealed to me.

I still think the GC was kinda a misstep from the franchise. The Wii got momentum back but i feel at the cost of sacrificing a number of loyal fans, cashing in on the niche of the product rather then doing anything cool with it.

 

[CK76]

I go one of the early ones so nah.

But to be honest I think we'll see a crapload of ps2 games introduced via PSN.

I'd take Shadow of the Colossus or Okami

 

[goldenheart323]

...snip...
So far, that's $300 of value to Bob, but since the PS3 is no longer BC, it's only $250. Bob's not going to buy a PS3 because it costs more than what he is willing to pay for those benefits. Yes, the phat PS3 did everything Bob wants, but that was even more expensive.

In short, your willing to spend $800 when you could spend $500 for small conveniences.

I don't see why you wrote so much to repeat what i had said in my post. Just say, "I am willing to pay more for minor conveniences."

And buy a PS2. Sounds like that would better suit you anyways. There less then a hundred bucks.

How in the world am I saying it's worth $800 when I specifically said it's only worth $300?

One last try:
"I am willing to pay a *little* more for minor conveniences. I am NOT willing to pay a lot more for minor conveniences." Just because Sony adds features to a product doesn't mean I'll pay whatever they want for it.

I wrote all that out & used "Bob" as an example because you didn't understand what I was saying when I kept it brief. You still didn't understand what I was saying even after I spelled it out. I hope this post clarified it for you. If it hasn't, I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[Kagim]

...snip...
So far, that's $300 of value to Bob, but since the PS3 is no longer BC, it's only $250. Bob's not going to buy a PS3 because it costs more than what he is willing to pay for those benefits. Yes, the phat PS3 did everything Bob wants, but that was even more expensive.

In short, your willing to spend $800 when you could spend $500 for small conveniences.

I don't see why you wrote so much to repeat what i had said in my post. Just say, "I am willing to pay more for minor conveniences."

And buy a PS2. Sounds like that would better suit you anyways. There less then a hundred bucks.

How in the world am I saying it's worth $800 when I specifically said it's only worth $300?

One last try:
"I am willing to pay a *little* more for minor conveniences. I am NOT willing to pay a lot more for minor conveniences." Just because Sony adds features to a product doesn't mean I'll pay whatever they want for it.

I wrote all that out & used "Bob" as an example because you didn't understand what I was saying when I kept it brief. You still didn't understand what I was saying even after I spelled it out. I hope this post clarified it for you. If it hasn't, I don't know how else to explain it.

No, i understood, its just that it was so incredibly stupid i was hoping you would get irritated and just piss off.

But fine, here we go.

First off, you would never buy the system. The conditions you want are idiotic. To sell a PS3 with its full BC at $300 would result in Sony selling them at about a $300+ loss. No business in there right mind would sell a product at a massive loss so that people like you can buy four or five games. That's not exactly a good business model.

Second. All of your points are fluff and meaningless. The only one you honestly mean is "Its not worth my money because i don't like the games". The rest are padding.

Third. Your remarks had nothing to do with what I was talking about. My post stated was that people who want a PS3 and do not need BC could now buy one at a much more reasonable price. The few people who needed BC could still buy a PS2 if they wanted or needed. I am fairly certain Sony doesn't have the guy who wants to play a handful of games, likely most used as that is the only real way to get a lot of PS2 games these days, in mind as they only cost the company money.

Deciding to sell your system at a loss almost as large as the price tag, if not more than, just so the few people who are kinda sorta interested in a couple of ps2 and ps3 games is a stupid idea. That is why they didn't do it and cut BC.

 

[goldenheart323]

No, i understood, its just that it was so incredibly stupid i was hoping you would get irritated and just piss off.

No, You don't. You still don't understand. You think you do, but you obviously don't.

"Your essentially saying your willing to spend 300-400 dollars more for minor conveniences."

Your problems started right there in your 1st reply to me. In my 1st post, I never said anything about specific dollar values, but somehow you thought I did. I'm guessing you made an assumption somewhere in there. You've come to the wrong conclusions about what I was saying from the very beginning.

I used $300 and the other numbers as an EXAMPLE to illustrate my point.

I never said what Sony should or shouldn't do, but at this point I don't see why that would stop you from thinking I did. You've done a great job of reading stuff I never posted, such as me not liking games.

Anyway, I'm done with you. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who can't read posts correctly and who's debating skills, (& I use that word loosely,) include "hoping you would get irritated and just piss off".

 

[Julianking93]

They did it to save money on parts. Eventually you will probably be able to download PS2 titles on PSN.

Oh how awesome that would be.

To finally play those hard to find games on PS3

Finally I'd get to play ICO...

 

[Marter]

They did it to save money on parts. Eventually you will probably be able to download PS2 titles on PSN.

Oh how awesome that would be.

To finally play those hard to find games on PS3

Finally I'd get to play ICO...

I hope it happens soon.

I once found a used copy of ICO. It was $50. I passed it up. Still not sure if I made the right decision.

 

[Julianking93]

They did it to save money on parts. Eventually you will probably be able to download PS2 titles on PSN.

Oh how awesome that would be.

To finally play those hard to find games on PS3

Finally I'd get to play ICO...

I hope it happens soon.

I once found a used copy of ICO. It was $50. I passed it up. Still not sure if I made the right decision.

That's about how much I saw it for at Gamestop recently.

I'm not paying that much for any used PS2 game

 

[Marter]

That's about how much I saw it for at Gamestop recently.

I'm not paying that much for any used PS2 game

That was pretty much my thought process.

 

[Kagim]

No, i understood, its just that it was so incredibly stupid i was hoping you would get irritated and just piss off.

No, You don't. You still don't understand. You think you do, but you obviously don't.

"Your essentially saying your willing to spend 300-400 dollars more for minor conveniences."

Your problems started right there in your 1st reply to me. In my 1st post, I never said anything about specific dollar values, but somehow you thought I did. I'm guessing you made an assumption somewhere in there. You've come to the wrong conclusions about what I was saying from the very beginning.

I used $300 and the other numbers as an EXAMPLE to illustrate my point.

I never said what Sony should or shouldn't do, but at this point I don't see why that would stop you from thinking I did. You've done a great job of reading stuff I never posted, such as me not liking games.

Anyway, I'm done with you. I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who can't read posts correctly and who's debating skills, (& I use that word loosely,) include "hoping you would get irritated and just piss off".

Aww, i called your bullshit so your runnin off.

Later.

 

[child of lileth]

To save money. I'm pretty sure they announced that a long time ago.

 

[goldenheart323]

Aww, i called your bullshit so your runnin off.

Later.

hahaha! That's hilarious! You're so bad at reading posts and rational debate you can't even understand that frustrating your opponent with inane and flawed reasoning doesn't mean you win.

I know I said I was done with you, but you made it too easy to not reply. Now that I know you fail at debating, I can just laugh at your posts. Thanks for amusing me tonight. I can't wait to read what you have to say next. :-D

 

[Kagim]

Aww, i called your bullshit so your runnin off.

Later.

hahaha! That's hilarious! You're so bad at reading posts and rational debate you can't even understand that frustrating your opponent with inane and flawed reasoning doesn't mean you win.

I know I said I was done with you, but you made it too easy to not reply. Now that I know you fail at debating, I can just laugh at your posts. Thanks for amusing me tonight. I can't wait to read what you have to say next. :-D

Someone wins?

 

[Always_Remain]

What are you guys talking about? There is only Playstation and Playstation 2. Sony will never make a new one either because the Playstation 2 is perfect. *cuddles with PS2*

 

[goldenheart323]

Aww, i called your bullshit so your runnin off.

Later.

hahaha! That's hilarious! You're so bad at reading posts and rational debate you can't even understand that frustrating your opponent with inane and flawed reasoning doesn't mean you win.

I know I said I was done with you, but you made it too easy to not reply. Now that I know you fail at debating, I can just laugh at your posts. Thanks for amusing me tonight. I can't wait to read what you have to say next. :-D

Someone wins?

Yes. I do. Every time I read something you wrote since I realized you can't be reasoned with. You make me smile every time.