BC or ps2, what's the difference?

[Pristine20]

Crazymann said:
The PS2 had sucky QC, 360 has really sucky QC, and now the PS3 60 GB's are dying all over the place. Mine is still holding up, but my (second) PS2 just died a couple weeks ago, and I am not about to buy a third. If my 60 dies, then I'll be liquidating my Sony library if I can't find a BC replacement.

OT - In the old days, systems were never BC, (except Atari 7800 which sucked anyway), you just expected to have to move on. The problem here is that Sony bashed MS for not having full BC and promised that "BC was a core aspect of the brand". This is why I am upset.

And, "blah blah blah newer tech breaks faster blah blah". Well, that still doesn't explain the disparity between my 2600 which has lasted 27 years and my PS2 that lasted 6 years.

As far as the "optical problems" go, no Sega or Nintendo optical system I have owned has EVER broken. Granted, I sold the Dreamcast (yes, I know, stupid), but it always worked like a champ.

I think one of the major reasons behind the disappearance of BC, despite the promises, is the removal of Ken Kutaragi from the helm of playstation. Bc was his philosophy not necessarily anyone else's. Notice how after his removal, the 60gb is quickly phased out and the 40 and 80 gb consoles are introduced. His removal begins the downward spiral of ps3 feature losses.

Kutaragi was an engineer at heart and one that seemed exceptionally proud of his work. I just cant imagine him dumbing down the ps3 if he was still at the helm. So while people have their gripes with Kutaragi for one reason or the other, there are also many reasons to appreciate the man behind PlayStation.