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

Forums - Sony - Removing Backwards Compatibility was the worst move Sony made...

Pristine20 on 09 March 2009

@OP

Console BC was invented by sony so it was a very bad move but I won't call it the worst.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
Squilliam on 09 March 2009
makingmusic476 said:
theprof00 said:
This isn't rubbish, but more of the opinion of a fan who got burned and I totally feel where you are coming from. HOWEVER,...

1. BC was already a hard sell because rumors abounded that all the BEST games were not supported. I can conjure up several links to this message being spread across the nets, and from the things I hear the public say about video games, this would have been equal to not having BC at all.

2. BC saved them money, and allowed the price drop to 400$, possibly the best move this entire gen.

3. Increased PS2 sales, which are huge margin profits, another win for Sony. If you think about it; If someone buys a PS3 AND a PS2, like a lot of people did, then Sony is pretty much making profit on hardware overall. PS2 sales would definitely not be as huge if PS3 had BC

4. None of the other consoles have BC

5. And the most important reason; The PS3 would have already failed, even if they included BC at 400$ because simply, there were and are still better games based on PS2 hardware. Imagine a world where everyone bought PS3's and a lot of those current ps3 game purchases were ps2 game purchases. Removing BC was a great way to push gamers into buying PS3 games. I'm sure someone can agree that a lot of people had ps3's ad were still buying ps2 games. Dev's would have pulled out because of sales, and we wouldn't be enjoying the large amount of unique and exclusive games we have today.

I own a 60gb launch ps3 with full hardware BC.  I definitely haven't been burned.  :P

But if my ps3 dies, however...

 

If that happens then Sony will get up from its throne of win and walk down to the basement in its palace of win and have one of the Sony minions of suckage post you a new one.

 



Tease.

sergiodaly on 09 March 2009

BC?? my one has it and i have my ps3 for one and a half years and number of ps2 discs that i use in it... one to see if BC work... i had a ps2 as 95% (at least) of ps3 owners have a ps2 or owned a ps2 at the time of ps3 purchase and most of them are now full of dust like mine. ok its very nice in theory that you all can play old games ... but if you want that. most of us has a old ps2 to run it... i pay the 600 euros for my ps3 and i think i was fair because if i want another machine that does every thing mine does i would have to spend 1000 euros or so in a PC... ps3 is doing bad in sales because high and new tec are expensive and not all people take gaming serious enough to spend such amount of money to play games and see movies...

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

stadalonematt on 09 March 2009
Pristine20 said:
@OP

Console BC was invented by sony so it was a very bad move but I won't call it the worst.

 

Atari, Sega and NEC would disagre with that.

 

Also Nintendo if you include portables.

 

Question is has anyone ever removed backwards compatability - in my opinion doing so "de-values" the system - more than not having had it from the beginnning.

 

 



Dark Chaos on 09 March 2009

I am surprised no one has said this. But IMO what made it worse was that you can't not download PS2 games from PSN like XBL for Xbox originals. Why has this not even happened yet??



Around the Network
gergroy on 09 March 2009
theprof00 said:
This isn't rubbish, but more of the opinion of a fan who got burned and I totally feel where you are coming from. HOWEVER,...

1. BC was already a hard sell because rumors abounded that all the BEST games were not supported. I can conjure up several links to this message being spread across the nets, and from the things I hear the public say about video games, this would have been equal to not having BC at all.

2. BC saved them money, and allowed the price drop to 400$, possibly the best move this entire gen.

3. Increased PS2 sales, which are huge margin profits, another win for Sony. If you think about it; If someone buys a PS3 AND a PS2, like a lot of people did, then Sony is pretty much making profit on hardware overall. PS2 sales would definitely not be as huge if PS3 had BC

4. None of the other consoles have BC

5. And the most important reason; The PS3 would have already failed, even if they included BC at 400$ because simply, there were and are still better games based on PS2 hardware. Imagine a world where everyone bought PS3's and a lot of those current ps3 game purchases were ps2 game purchases. Removing BC was a great way to push gamers into buying PS3 games. I'm sure someone can agree that a lot of people had ps3's ad were still buying ps2 games. Dev's would have pulled out because of sales, and we wouldn't be enjoying the large amount of unique and exclusive games we have today.

 

 what are you smoking crazy, ps3 is the only console without BC now.  The 360 does emulation that plays most of the original xbox library (it still might not play some of the more obscure titles) and the wii has gamecube BC built in.  Ps3 is now the lonely kid in the lunchroom not eating because he forgot to bring his lunch money!



Spankey on 09 March 2009
Dark Chaos said:
I am surprised no one has said this. But IMO what made it worse was that you can't not download PS2 games from PSN like XBL for Xbox originals. Why has this not even happened yet??

 

I think it's because most PS3's don't play PS2 games.

@Gregory

" Ps3 is now the lonely kid in the lunchroom not eating because he forgot to bring his lunch money!"

Sony had the lunch money, but they threw it in the trash earlier in the morning.



Proud Sony Rear Admiral

JoHnNyFr3sC0 on 09 March 2009

Well I got the Ps3 80 Gb MGS 4 bundle so I dont have this problem! Now Sony did make a mistake in taking BC out of the PS3 though since that made the system more appealing to Ps2 owners waiting to upgrade.

They knew that they could upgrade to a Ps3 and still have a large library of Ps2 games to play also....

I hardly play any Ps2 games anymore BUT I am catching up on old titles which I missed out on like Resident Evil 4, GOW 1 and 2, and the Original Killzone....so I find it a BIG necessity to have in your console especially if you want to play a game you might have missed for one reason or another.



Ajescent on 09 March 2009

Am I the only one who remembers that thanks to the removal of BC, the ps3 was cheaper, if it hadn't done something it would still be more expensive than it is now, Sony were damned if they don't and damned if they did.

So it kinda makes me wonder why everyone is queuing up to kick the ps3/Sony. people moaned the price was way too much so Sony listened to the consumer and tried to do something about it, now they have people are still complaining, what guys want is esscentially to have your cake and ear it, two self contradictory scenarios there.

If people had rushed enmass to buy ps3s when it had BC, the ps3 would have better numbers and you wouldn't be complaining about BC being abscent, you would be complaining about the price...less I'm mistaken people are STILL complaining about the price.

I'm not sure about you but I bought a ps3 to play ps3 games, I kept my ps2 knowing that one day I may want to play ps2 games again, if you really want to play ps2 games get a ps2. These threads are really getting old IMO.

Yes Sony screwed up going back on their word but seriously for a site so focused on sales it seems everyone is missing the bigger picture, either you execute your pride and go back on what you laughed at everyone originally (Sony regarding the BC of the other consoles) or you bow out of the race completely.

Less I'm mistaken, even after the removal of the BC resulting in a cheaper ps3, the ps3 is still more expensive than the others leaving "analysts", their dogs and every fanboy/no it all believes that the only way for the ps3 to catch up is to remove even more features, "Blu-Rayless ps3 anyone?"

I'm sorry but I don't buy this "if ps3 had ps2BC it would be hella popular" arguement because the lack of sales of the 60gig proves it.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

kramikosi on 09 March 2009

Good reason for them doing it. EVERYONE with a backwards compatible 40/60/whatever WILL get the yellow light of death, thats why they removed it.



2 reasons for 360 sales.

Cheap arcade version, wich the mom buys for the kids.

And microsoft's wallet.