I asked myself a question.

When Sony did remove the BC from the PS3, didn't they hope people both buy more PS3 (price cut) and more PS2?

Considering the PS2 is a highly profitable hardware for Sony while the PS3 is not (or was not yet), don't you think it could have been a good move?

The PS2 still sold 1.3M last month when the PS3 sold 2.2M...

I still think they should have kept a more expensive SKU with BC, for those who really wanted it though.

Just a thought...

The reason they did it is to cut costs, but keeping BC on the premium model would have made sense

699€ vs nowdays 449€?
Enough reason?
And ps2 is what 120€ so if you want one you can easily buy one.

449?

120?



I'm in Europe and our prices are 399 for the PS3 (379 sometimes, depending on the promotion) and not even 100 for the PS2

 I'm from europe as well,Finland,and we have those prices.Some shops sell PS2 at 140e,but mos tof them 129.

449 is lowest I have seen.

At the time Sony did this, the PS3's main source of good games was the PS2. They did it to try and push developers off of the PS2 platform.

There were two main reasons for Sony to drop the BC; to cut costs down and to boost PS3 software sales, so that people would play PS3 games with it, instead of just use it to upscale PS2 games.

@papflesje: We have 22% sales tax and own importer, which cuts its own share.

@Simulacrum: Last time i took a notion, PS2 was 169 (or 159?) and the Singstar bundle being the only option available (in comparision, 360 Arcade 189 with 2 games).

Don't talk crap. You can get even here PS3 399€ from several places. Use mbnet hintaseuranta.

It's one of the reasons i haven't got a PS3 yet. There's still about 3-4 games i want for PS2 this year and i'll get a PS3 end of the year or when God of war3 comes out. It will probably be cheaper by then.

@KillerMan: Could you point out some examples, outside special offers and a retailer that doesn't import the consoles by themselves.
There's a difference between standard pricing and special offers.