It's not really a lie unless Sony in fact knew last year that they would release a non-PS2-BC system. It's not like they were trying to play a malicious trick on gamers. In reality, they wanted BC to be a core staple of the PS3 like it was for the PS2, but market realities didn't allow them to uphold their philosophy. In order to make their system more marketable, they had to lower the price and something had to be sacrificed in order to get to that lower price. Does this sacrifice suck? Yeah, no one's gonna argue with you there. But did they intentionally screw their customers? No. In fact they lowered the price of the BC 60gb console while also introducing an even lower priced model. Basically Sony was stuck in a tough situation where they weren't making up any ground. And you know what they say when the going gets tough. I would be far more worried about the company if they were stubbornly staying the course (Bush administration, anybody?)

Actually, he's their PR guy.  He's supposed to know the official stances of the company and be a mouthpiece for that.  When he made those statements, Microsoft had imperfect backward compatibility and Sony wanted to get the word out that they would have no such problems.  Every PS3 was going to have full PS2 hardware in it, after all.

They overstated their feelings on the issue.  Money got tight and Sony needed to make the PS3 cheap.  Now their super full featured machines would lose one of its most compelling features to save a few bucks, and Sony had to jump at it.  The game here is survival, and without being at Sony and knowing every detail, we can't say whether it made sense to remove BC.  But they had better have a damn good reason.

If Sony wants this new SKU to be the only one on the market (in Europe or elsewhere), then they obviously have a good reason for it.  Perhaps it saves them a ton of money compared to the high end models.  This would be nothing short of miraculous, but it still does alienate some of their customers who believed that backward compatibility would be a cornerstone of the playstation brand.  And, yes, for many people this is a big deal.  There is no denying that.

Ultimately, I think Sony saw that their strategy was failing and they refused to let it happen to them.  They've some up with a radically different strategy -- a necessity to keep them from being relegated to 3rd place for the generation.

 Great post. It probably kill this thread.

Again, how can people say the PS2's game library doesn't matter to the PS3's success when the PS3's library is so clearly lacking for any potential consumers? Sony's abandonment of backwards compatibility is a sign of true desperation, I just hope they don't try and spin it with a Press Release about how Backwards Compatibility is so last gen.

If Ken was still there I would say it's a garauntee that they would say that but I doubt it. Then again SCEE says the darndest things!

you know how every year they have that calander about BUSHISM--they need to have a SONYISM one insted...that some funny stuff

Off-topic ... Some help, please. Where is the thread about predicting how fast Halo 3 would overtake the PS3? I forgot to comment on the thread.