Dude, practically everyone I know who has a PS2 used the backwards compatibility for at least 1 game that they played (to the full extent or otherwise), myself included. Besides, there's a massive chance that the downloaded games will be "enhanced" to work on the rev (to at least output to full 480i(/p?)), therefore, they are not the original copies of the game. The argument here is about which company handles backwards compatibility
better. There's no point in arguing the validity of physical/non-physical backwards compatibility. Besides, if I can simply pop in an older game from an older system into my new system, that is >>>> than buying and downloading.
Oh, and:
Quote:
|
If a newer software version cannot save files that can be read by the older version it is not backwards compatible with the older version, although it may provide an irreversible upgrade capability for the old files.
|
And:
Quote:
|
Many platforms rely on emulation, the simulation of an older platform in software, to achieve backward compatibility.
|
Wikipedia seems to be contradicting itself here, as it doesn't provide the fine line between computer software and software developed for video game systems and interoperability/compatible files. Sure, emulation is backwards compatibility, but do the files saved from the emulated software work with the original software?
This argument is dead, simply because there's no real way to prove either/or. Again, back on topic, I believe that Sony has handled backwards compatibility the best thus far, simply because of ease of use.
</back to superbowl>
:P