| jjseth said: I didn't buy a PS3 to play PS2 games. I still have my PS2 and I will use that if I want to play those games, not my PS3. Some are just doing whatever they can it seems to knock Sony when it should be good news that there is a lower cost alternative out there for those on the fence waiting to jump on a PS3. Those with a large PS2 library will still have a PS2 and if they really want to play it on a PS3, they do have the option to get one that can play PS2 games. |
Ok, maybe I'm alone but I have been very consistent on this issue ...
Back when the XBox 360 was released I (and at the time most Sony fans) were very critical of Microsoft's "poor" implementation of backwards compatibility. One of the (obvious) lessons learned from the PS2 and GBA was that a lot of people really valued the ability to play their old games on their new system, and having backwards compatibility that didn't approach 50% was unacceptable.
When the PS3 was released Backwards Compatibility was one of the few things I congratulated Sony on; it was an overpriced system but at least it included all the necessary hardware to ensure 95%+ backwards compatibility with the PS2. Sony fans also thought this was fantastic and assumed that people who didn't own a working PS2 would buy a PS3 to play God of War 2.
When Sony dropped the Emotion Engine on the PS3 I thought it was a big mistake; the chip-size was (approximately) 1/10 what it was originally and within months they could move to a 65nm process and it would fall to (approximately) 5% of the original size [read: the chip should be dirt cheap].
Now that Sony has fully dropped backwards compatibility I thought that it was insane because they weren't going to save that much money on production and were removing one of the key features of the system.
