But it's the absolute worst move they could make for maintaining PS2 software sales, which is where the real money is. It also takes away the major incentive for PS2 owners to upgrade to a PS3 rather than a competitor's system. It goes directly against Tretton's two main points about the PS2.

This is baffling to me. It's like watching somebody drive into a wall. Can they honestly not know that the sole reason for the 80gb's higher sales is the BC? It has absolutely nothing to do with the hard drive, yet they're stubbornly parroting that line.


God, I wish that were the case. That would at least make sense, even if I'd still disagree. But whenever this question comes up, I point to Jack Tretton's own words: dropping BC wasn't to save costs.

Have you all lost your minds? Now that ps2 hardware is profitable, but ps3 no, they're just doing it to boost ps2 sales. Once they acheive profitablility on the ps3, they will release a bc model. They just want to make money, not lose.

Is it for definite that it wont have BC?:S

One model is a lot cheaper to manufacture and distribute.

Are they getting rid of the 80GB with BC? Are they getting rid of the 40 GB? The stream didn't work for me so I have to read the forum posts.

Bad decision. 80gb with BC for 399 = killing blow for 360. But alas, Sony fumbles again. :(

Borkachev said: Probably trying to keep PS2 sales alive. Keeping PS2 selling is helping their bottom line immensely. Instead of selling a system at a loss, sell one at a gain. But it's the absolute worst move they could make for maintaining PS2 software sales, which is where the real money is. It also takes away the major incentive for PS2 owners to upgrade to a PS3 rather than a competitor's system. It goes directly against Tretton's two main points about the PS2. This is baffling to me. It's like watching somebody drive into a wall. Can they honestly not know that the sole reason for the 80gb's higher sales is the BC? It has absolutely nothing to do with the hard drive, yet they're stubbornly parroting that line. I can't believe they don't understand that BC is the appeal of the current 80 GB model, so I wonder what the deal is. Does BC make the PS3 THAT much more expensive? God, I wish that were the case. That would at least make sense, even if I'd still disagree. But whenever this question comes up, I point to Jack Tretton's own words: dropping BC wasn't to save costs.

 

Well someone needs to tell them to hit the brakes!

Apparently they aren't listening properly to the consumer. The 80GB spurred sales because of the BC not because of space and I guess they will have to find this out the hard way. I can't believe after all this time they just don't get it. They need Kutaragi back quick!!!

They did get it, but they will release a BC model once they are making a profit on the hardware. How many times do I have to say this?

Fei-Hung said: Is it for definite that it wont have BC?:S

 

 Its 99.9% certain by the wording of the conference...This is something they'd be broadcasting, not accidently forget to announce...

Especially considering the cheap pathetic inferences they were making against microsofts technologies throughout the presentation, they're not stupid.

If they had the balls they'd be shoving them in your face, not hiding them at this point.

 

But you have no basis for that whatsoever. The fact is that nobody knows wtf they're doing, as evidenced by random business moves like this one.

Even a hint from a CEO, "Yeah, we're working on that," would put my mind at ease. We've got nothing.

I suppose it's not inconceivable that they'll release something like a 120gb backwards compatible model for Christmas. Tretton said something like "this will be our main model moving forward," which doesn't necessarily rule out others. There's no reason to think it will happen, though.