Kantor said:
That's because MS and Nintendo's last gen consoles weren't very successful commercially, and were discontinued several years ago. The PS2 is still selling well, it's still getting software, and Sony doesn't want to hurt PS2 sales because they are making a loss on the PS3 and a profit on the PS2. Would you prefer if they added backwards compatibility and made it $450? Besides which, the 60GB has the highest failure rate of any model because of the Emotion Engine. The moment the PS2 is discontinued, Sony will add b/c back to the PS3. It makes sense. Sony has no duty to let you play PS2 games on your PS3. If you have PS2 games, you have a PS2. If you have no PS2 games, you don't need anything to play them on. If you want PS2 games, buy a PS2. It's that simple. Plus, you can get a Slim and PS2 for less than the price of an 80GB before GamesCom. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is stop complaining! |
Yeah, let the consumer suffer because sony failed horribly with the ps3 this generation.
And yes, because clearly people are so excited to pay $400 for 2 consoles in this economy.
OP: Many reasons...who wants 2 consoles crowding space? Wireless controllers. Less wires. Come on, if diskswapping is such a heartbreaking issue as ps3 fans make it seem...then having to deal with 2 consoles is murderous.
