Chandler said:
Jay520 said:
Chandler said:
It's because the PS3 is not BC anymore while the Wii is and the Wii U will be, so there is no need to keep the Wii going but people need to replace their defunct PS2's if they want to keep playing their old games. So which business strategy is more commendable for the consumer? I just love it when a company screws people over and the fans go "You show em Sony, wooohooo!" |
1.) Please explain to me how Sony is screwing over consumers because the PS3 isn't BC.
.2.) Your assertion that PS2's are selling because the PS3 isn't BC is flawed. The PS2 sells primarily in developing nations. Places where the PS3 isn't affordable. So even if the PS3 was BC, the PS2 sales would still be strong in poorer nations, because the PS3 has very little presence there. |
1.) It was an exaggeration. They may not exactly screwing people over with this, but it is no doubt less consumer friendly than other competitors handle this situation.
2.) I didn't say that the PS2 selling the way it does is only because of the BC isuue, but it's a factor. I myself have a defunct PS2 in my closet and a wall full of PS2 games. I know I will need to replace this PS2 WITH ANOTHER PS2. This will not be the case if my Wii breaks sometime in the future because there will be an alternative. That is all I'm saying, don't blow this out of proportion here. |
1.) Nevermind then
2.) I know you didnt say it was the only reason. But your post implied that it was a significant factor. I disagree with that because the PS2 doesn't sell significantly in regions where the PS3 is relevant. The PS3's lack of BC is actually an insignificant factor to the PS2's sales.
