By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dgm6780 said:
crumas2 said:
 

Why should I have to have two consoles just to keep my fantastic library of PS2 games (that I still enjoy playing)? Sony is really shooting themselves in the foot. It smacks of a move of desperation to get costs down... or perhaps they've decided that the PS3's future is really just a Blu-ray player that can play a few games. Stinks.


If you have a fantastic library of PS2 games you are still playing, dont you already have a PS2???????

But you want to pay more then necessary to get a PS3???

 

Just want to save shelf space instead of save $100? and the wireless controller thing was silly, you can get wireless controllers for the

PS2 you know

 

 


The PS2 was pretty much the most successful console of all time, in my opinion.  One of the best things I liked about it was one of Sony's core values... BC with the PS1.  I was able to have just one console in my living room and we sold the PS1 to a friend for cheap.

Sony put BC hardware in the PS3, but is now scrambling to remove it.  Because it wasn't an important or powerful feature?  No.  Because they're way behind the sales curve this generation, their library of games keeps falling further behind, and they're desperate to appease the games publishers who are beating them about the head and shoulders to get the installed base higher ASAP so they can make money on their games.  Sony shouldn't have released the PS3 with everything but the kitchen sink, but their arrogance wouldn't let them admit that $600 was too high for a console.  Now they're scrambling to bail water from the sinking ship...   but if they throw the oars overboard in their haste to lighten the load, then they're going to be in trouble when they get the leaks plugged.

And I didn't mention anything about wireless controllers.  I have wireless controllers for my PS2.