ROFL!

+10

You think a fully backwards compatible system would have people shelling out $400 or heck even $300 for a system? Good call, here is a tip, dont go into Marketing for a career.

PS2 is making Sony money, why would they discontinue it?

Your logic is terrible.

Considering it would probably be 2010* before it gets down to $299 it would have a nice boost but not a crazy long term effect with both the 360 and Wii still considerably cheaper.  And the added value of BR keeps diminishing as standalone prices drop.  They're already below $200 at certain places this year.  By late 2009 we'll definitely have BR players at $99 price points.

*They can't do a $100 price drop next year without massive losses that would enrage shareholders and threaten to sink the games division once and for all.

That's just crazy to comprehend isn't it?  The 360 core launched at $300 and the Wii launched at $250.  We're debating if the PS3 could get down to $300 3-4 years after launch!

----

EDIT: LOL I just saw in the end of december 09 thread you theorized a possible "$100 or more" price cut in 09.  If Sony decided to cut the price more than a $100 they wouldn't just be selling the PS3 they'd be looking to sell their company off to anybody willing to buy.

1. They'll bring back the backwards compatibility when they stop the production of the PS2 sinse they need the PS2 right now to keep them from going bankrupted.

2. And of course everyone knows a price cut is impossible at the moment, why lose more money on a console that ure losing money on just so that you'll make the consumer's happy that they don't have to pay so much for it, even though you'll be losing even MORE money on that console sinse it'll be selling more at a even greater loss, it's just stupid. Sony's doing the right thing, they haven't become this huge company out of luck.

3. The PS2 may be competing with the PS3, but like I said it's making Sony money right now so there not going to get rid of it anytime soon.

Damn straight.... The PS2 lost SMALL amounts of money on HARDWARE ONLY for about 3 years. Which is why the PS division of Sony only lost money in the first year of PS2 (most of which was R&D costs of the console lumped into it's launch quarter)

The PS3 has lost immense amounts of money, and hardware wise is still losing big numbers, also without the software profits to back it up..... the only reason Sony isn't still losing $1billion per year is because the PS2 and PSP are holding them up.

Yes,  I am not denying that.  The difference here is when launching, the PS2 sold at $299 to the "enthusiasts".

When the PS3 hits $299, they are looking well beyond the 2-4 year already satisfied "enthusiasts".  They are hoping a more general audience will buy it. 

The number "299" may be the same, but the point in both machines marketing is vastly different.

(I hope I made sense there.)

@ montrealsoon

makes perfect sense, and I agree 100%

Also something that I forgot to post about. Not only was PS2 development cheaper, but sales were higher.

No it hasn't. The previous gen sold some 170 million consoles. We currently are around 80 million.

However I think most core gamers will have moved on. People that buy a PS2 now won't buy a current gen machine for quite some time. The more casual gamer will decide much later in life. This also disproportionally benefits the market leader since it will have most exposure (friends who have it etc.). The Wii will benefit extra because the grouo that buys consoles later in life is one that is very likely to not care about graphics and does care about things like Wii Sports.

Lolz haha this post is hilarious. What makes you think your smarter than some of the economists at SONY. Some fanboys are complete morons