Before I post the article, let's get just a quick summary of the mockery that is PS3 backwards compatibility. Remember when the PS3 came out? It had PS2 hardware (the overhyped bit called the Emotion Engine, I believe) built into the PS3 hardware so that it could play PS1 and PS2 games. Great, eh? Except it didn't work. A countless array of games had problems of varying severities. Still, most of the games worked well enough, and it was certainly a better ratio than the 360 BC, so people didn't complain TOO much...
So then more recently, Sony cut the 60 GB model in favor of an 80 GB for the same price. One of the reasons they were able to sell it at such a price was that they removed the PS2 hardware, and put emulation software in its place. Not a great fix, but I haven't heard many complaints about it.
But on to the present. Now Sony is releasing a much cheaper 40 GB model to replace the previous 20 GB. Only one problem -- they're dropping BC altogether. Now, this is rather puzzling. Why would they drop it? There's no expense to it at all, since it's done entirely with PS3 hardware using an emulator. So what logic could there possibly be in dropping it? Sony logic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
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.
|
GamerNode: PlayStation 3 Video Game News - The real reason for no BC on the 40GB PS3?