Gotta admit that I didn't read the text (too long :)

I don't think it's a smart move, considering that the PS2 is the bestselling console ever and thus has an absolutely huge library. And there really isn't THAT much on the PS3 so far (no bashing, but it's just very early in the cycle, and for some genres, there's hardly a game).

But I assume Sony know that as well, so I guess it was necessary to reduce the price. European customers are said to be cheap and less brand loyal, so lowering the price has top priority.

The hate for anything sony on this site is lame.  I got what i wanted, If its not worth it then heres a simple solution dont buy it, ps your the ones foolishly bitching about things that most of you wont ever need since most wont ever purchase a PS3.

 I buy a car i want leather i pay more, simple concept is it not ? you have a cheeper version and a better more expensive one.  Neither is for everyone but thats the beauty of choice.

Sorry, but folks love the PS2. The PS3? Not so much. I had two PSPs and two PS2s at one time and I have tons of PS2 games. HOWEVER, why in the world should I be *required* to pay $500 for a system that has no games that IMHO aren't stellar OR doesn't have games that aren't ports or something that's available on the 360? And as far as the future lineup - nah, I quit buying savings bonds a while ago. I will never buy something on potential - unless it's a classic car - like a 64 Impala or a 67 Shelby Mustang GT. The PS3 is strapped with BR - and thus keeping it from having any chance of a comeback in NA. Overseas? Folks will be duped by the PS name ... but once they come to their senses, they'll quit buying it too.

Enjoy your schizo BR player that wants to play games, wants to be a TiVO and wants to be the 'cheapiest' BR player on the market.

As a potential customer - and if you check the attach thread, you can see I am serious about consoles - I would buy the PS3 if I had a few compelling reasons. For me to buy it, the PS3 will have to blow me out of the water. Right now, it's still getting pwn3d by the 360. Maybe later, and definitely a used one because BC is gone ... and I will NEVER buy a PS3 without BC. 

The writer of the article is both right and wrong. Sony could have seen to the backwards compatibility for a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Had they taken the appropriate measures. However the philosophy at Sony seems to have been one of stripping the machine rather then engineering solutions. The cost savings are more substantial then the cost of components.

The truth is no longer putting something in is much cheaper then developing an alternative. Sony actually kills many birds with one stone. They no longer pay for the original component. They no longer pay employees to install said component. They spend no money on development of an alternative. Which is more expensive in the short term. They no longer have to develop coding resources to compatibility. They even reduce system weight.

Removing the backwards compatibility responsible hardware. Actually reduces costs in many areas, and with no new development costs its almost like getting straight cash. So while a hardware alternative might cost under ten dollars. The net savings is probably far more substantial. They effectively reduce costs in so many areas by doing this.

The problem is that Sony is tinkering on the fly. Which makes cheap backwards compatibility a near impossibility. Further more Sony just does not have the time. Sure they could have done it if they had over a year to streamline the process, but they do not have that option. They had to produce a stripped down version for the holidays. That deferred the costs by a greater margin. Engineering a new hardware solution would have reduced those savings greatly.

The whole is greater then the sum of its parts. When you look at one part you ignore the fact that how that part gets there can actually be a expensive process in and of itself. The reality is that for Sony to do what the writer advocates Sony would have lost much of what it was striving to obtain. Which was cut every little cost you can.

Yes backwards compatibility is a luxury. Specifically for Sony not so much for the consumer. However it is a situation of lies within lies. The feature is not a true luxury it is a standard feature. You assume Sony is telling a lie, and then assume that your getting screwed out of quality for pennies. While that is not technically true it costs more then most appreciate. The deepest reality is that Sony could not afford to do backwards compatibility period, and make the price of the machine with the losses they could endure.

The deepest reality is this. Sony felt they needed to reach a specific price point on their console to generate sales. Which they desperately need, or forget it for this generation. They also couldn't afford to eat too much more in losses. Then they had to do it in a short time frame. The result is they ripped everything they could out of the machine. Fast, simple, cost effective. Then lie to the consumers. What is really being hidden is how seriously FUBAR their situation really is. Otherwise they would not be doing this in the first place.

Backwards compatibility is important to gamers in a general sense.

The worst part about dropping it from a SKU is the message it is sending... to gamers.

Actully i enjoy my gaming system, i enjoy its games like Resistance and Heavenly. I enjoy Warhawk which probably the most fun and diverse online game on any consele. I enjoy Motorstorm which is one of the best arcade style of road games i played in a long time. All that in about a month of PS3 ownership. And the next two months are gonna be much much better for me. To bad iam strapped for cash so i wont be able to get all the games i want.

Once agian if the PS3 does not meet your demands or expectations, dont buy it i dont care if you do, i dont care if you dont.

Its sad people on here are such sorry ass haters they will attack anyone and their system because they dont follow their believes.

Does this place have any ruels of conduct, i swear i read something that bashing systems is not allowed be it nintendos MS or sonys not that the last one is enforced all that much.  But i now do understand why this palce gets the rep that it has.

 hope the ship doesnt get the RROD, have a good trip see you when you get an RROD. 

As WoW stated, this can only be perceived as a negative course of action to the general gaming public, who are the market Sony should be most concerned about at this point. As stated before, it seems clear that this course of action has been devised to promote the PS3 as an affordable Blu-ray player to support Sony in the HD format war and not to provide any consideration for gamers, price reduction or no.

am i the only one thinking Sony remove the BC to the new SKU is to make the perception of older SKU being "more valuable". The hardware/software part should be negligible.

Remember that a product doesn't have to cost $100 to product in order to sell for $200. You can make a product that cost $1 and sell for $200 as long as there's demand for it.

I think, however, in this case, Sony is not making the right move. They've been saying how important is BC to PS3 because of the huge library of the PS2. People can fall back on the PS2 games while waiting for PS3, but now, there's nothing to fall back on.

PS3 doesn't have enough titles to be considered its marketed value. Remember, value is largely based on demand. You can make a product costing you $1000 and people wouldn't pay $500 for it if the demand is lacking. Game library increases console demand. I think you can figure the rest out.

Ok, so how could MicroSoft sell millions of the xbox360 consoles in it's first year ?