Strange article are the parenthesis being used properly, or is the material out of order or out of context. I am not sure, but thats why their is a question mark in the title. Can anyone confirm that he actually made the statement about forcing consumers to buy new games rather then old games. Had he actually said that I would chalk it up to the top five asanine Sony blurbs of the year.

 Anyway here is the article and link. 

According to an article carried by the Wall Street Journal, Sony has claimed a PS3 which doesn't play PlayStation 2 titles will actually drive sales.

The Journal states, "[Sony's] Mr. Tretton conceded that removing that capability [backwards compatibility], along with a few other features, isn't dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system.

"Mr. Tretton said the company's research showed that compatibility with PlayStation 2 games isn't likely to be missed by customers, who most likely already own the older system."

We'd love to see this research.

i think its an interesting strat. Sony makes a profit on the PS2 so it forces more PS2s to be sold but it also makes it so that people who buys a PS3 buys PS3 games.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119266831139662837.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Part of the article is there ... NeoGAF quoted thus:

"There's a catch to the lower price: The new $399 PlayStation model will not play games designed for the PlayStation 2, Sony's popular older game console. Mr. Tretton conceded that removing that capability, along with a few other features, isn't dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system."

Try this ... http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/10/18/sony-announces-new-40-gig-ps3-for-399-insists-ps3-remains-relevant.aspx

[Playstation CEO] Kaz Hirai said in 2006, "I think that when we ask the consumers, or the gamers to make an investment in software, that it's our responsibility to make sure that the future consoles that we bring to market, including a Playstation 3, is able to actually play all these titles that the consumers have really spent a lot of money in, and invested a lot of money into really a master library." Doesn't the removal of backwards compatibility for PS2 games from the PS3 represent a betrayal of what the Playstation brand stands for?

I guess the way I tend to look at it, N'Gai, is if I'm a consumer, and I paid $599 for the Playstation 3 when it launched, I got backwards compatibility and I got Playstation 3 technology. Today, for $399, I'm able to get all the same technology in the Playstation 3, and for $129, if I don't own a PlayStation 2, I can buy that as well at any retailer in North America. So for a total investment of $529, I've got two machines that do everything the same machine did a year ago at $599. So it's hard for me to see that as a negative for the consumer.

UPDATE: Kotaku stated that, Dodece ... and the site you listed paraphased what they said ...

http://kotaku.com/gaming/spin/jack-tretton-says-dropping-bc-wasnt-for-cost-measures-312628.php