Sony's Biggest Mistake is still not fixed

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]So you think having the PS2 and PS3 run the same games would make more money?lundy86_4

I'm saying it's not possible to know whether or not keeping the PS2 on the market with a lack of BC for the PS3 makes more or less money for Sony. Hence why I called it a hypothesis.

I'm failing to understand the confusion, nor why we are still debating this point.

[QUOTE="Miroku32"]Why add BC if they can sell old games in HD with trophy support? likeabrick

cuz whats the point of buying the game digitally, when you have it already.

its a sleezy move. you shouldn't have to buy the same game twice

Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatablecarlisledavid79

It better be possible to know for Sony. Lol. Or otherwise their moves are just coin tosses. The correct answer is no. Having PS2 with its own price/games and PS3 with its own price/games will make more money. Really to Sony their BC add-on is $99.

LOXO7

That's not what I was saying, and that's more than implied within the context of our conversation.

Please provide proof as to your assertions, and also take into account costs of manufacturing, overhead for manufacturing each system etc, etc.

[QUOTE="carlisledavid79"]Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatableDJ_Magneto

[QUOTE="DJ_Magneto"][QUOTE="carlisledavid79"]Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatableJavy03

[QUOTE="carlisledavid79"]Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatableDJ_Magneto

I used to care a lot more about BC, but now that the PS2 games in my collection are becoming increasingly distant memories, and they are starting to re-release HD versions of PS2 games, it's not much of an issue. Really, the only reason I keep my old 60GB around is so I can play the MGS games, and since they announced Snake Eater on 3DS, I'm not even sure I need that anymore. BC is a lot more important when a console first hits the shelves, imo. donalbane

By reading the comments, I guess some people will be fine if the PS4 didn't have PS3 BC. That's pretty crazy to me. Whether it's full or minimal, I think BC should be a standard for a new gaming system Having BC is an advantage in my opinion.

my 60 gig launch rocks and all but tbo it only mattered for the 1st couple of years while the library was thin.

if i was a new ps3 buyer i prolly would not care anymore.

Ah, fine, call me on that. But when most people have concerns about PS3 backwards compatibility, 99% of the time, they are referring to PS2 BC.DJ_Magneto

True, but the point most people are making is that obviously BC isn't that important because people ignore the BC the PS3 currently has and when it supported PS2 games people didn't care. They wanted any feature under the sun to be removed so they could get a cheaper PS3 and when PS2 BC was dropped and the price dropped to 300 the PS3's sales took off and still are. Then Sony creates these HD remix which are so far iseasy money and a big hit with consumers.

People will always complain and you can't make everyone happy but PS2 BC is way past it's relevance stage.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

It better be possible to know for Sony. Lol. Or otherwise their moves are just coin tosses. The correct answer is no. Having PS2 with its own price/games and PS3 with its own price/games will make more money. Really to Sony their BC add-on is $99.

lundy86_4

That's not what I was saying, and that's more than implied within the context of our conversation.

Please provide proof as to your assertions, and also take into account costs of manufacturing, overhead for manufacturing each system etc, etc.

By reading the comments, I guess some people will be fine if the PS4 didn't have PS3 BC. That's pretty crazy to me. Whether it's full or minimal, I think BC should be a standard for a new gaming system Having BC is an advantage in my opinion.

gago-gago

I don't know how much they are saving when taking out the emulation program. And neither do you. If it's more than $99 a system then you might be on to something. But if its not... Sony. makes. more. money. with. PS2. games. being. played. only. by. the. PS2. system.

LOXO7

I was talking about the removal of the *hardware* BC. Removing software naturally would do little to reduce costs.

Explain your assertion please. Are you stating that removing PS3 BC's furthers the need for people to buy PS2's, and thus Sony makes more money? That is the point I am debating against -- though I called your original hypothesis a valid one. I asked you simply to prove that Sony makes more money by keeping the PS2 and PS3 on the market, rather than removing the PS2 from the market (or taking away the need to buy new PS2's) and keeping BC in the PS3. It's difficult to know if they would make more mone, due to going beyond the PS2 production costs, and into things such as overhead with running the facility and paying the workers/bills etc.

I don't know how much they are saving when taking out the emulation program. And neither do you. If it's more than $99 a system then you might be on to something. But if its not... Sony. makes. more. money. with. PS2. games. being. played. only. by. the. PS2. system.

LOXO7

Why, if PS3 having PS2 BC would increase software sales of PS2 gameswhich is whereSony/MS/Nintendo get most of their money wouldn't it be safe to say that Sony would make more money WITH the PS3 and PS2 playing PS2 games. Right now Sony makes more money reselling you HD versions of your PS2 games and when BC was cut most likely it saved them some money on parts (for the chip BC) and labor (for the software emulation maintenance).

[QUOTE="carlisledavid79"]Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatableDJ_Magneto

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

It better be possible to know for Sony. Lol. Or otherwise their moves are just coin tosses. The correct answer is no. Having PS2 with its own price/games and PS3 with its own price/games will make more money. Really to Sony their BC add-on is $99.

LOXO7

That's not what I was saying, and that's more than implied within the context of our conversation.

Please provide proof as to your assertions, and also take into account costs of manufacturing, overhead for manufacturing each system etc, etc.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

I don't know how much they are saving when taking out the emulation program. And neither do you. If it's more than $99 a system then you might be on to something. But if its not... Sony. makes. more. money. with. PS2. games. being. played. only. by. the. PS2. system.

lundy86_4

I was talking about the removal of the *hardware* BC. Removing software naturally would do little to reduce costs.

Explain your assertion please. Are you stating that removing PS3 BC's furthers the need for people to buy PS2's, and thus Sony makes more money? That is the point I am debating against -- though I called your original hypothesis a valid one. I asked you simply to prove that Sony makes more money by keeping the PS2 and PS3 on the market, rather than removing the PS2 from the market (or taking away the need to buy new PS2's) and keeping BC in the PS3. It's difficult to know if they would make more mone, due to going beyond the PS2 production costs, and into things such as overhead with running the facility and paying the workers/bills etc.

They gave the original ones BC. If the PS3 launched for $200-$300, then it would have much higher overall sales, I think their biggest mistake was pricing.

I bought a PS3 to play current gen games

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

I don't know how much they are saving when taking out the emulation program. And neither do you. If it's more than $99 a system then you might be on to something. But if its not... Sony. makes. more. money. with. PS2. games. being. played. only. by. the. PS2. system.

LOXO7

I was talking about the removal of the *hardware* BC. Removing software naturally would do little to reduce costs.

Explain your assertion please. Are you stating that removing PS3 BC's furthers the need for people to buy PS2's, and thus Sony makes more money? That is the point I am debating against -- though I called your original hypothesis a valid one. I asked you simply to prove that Sony makes more money by keeping the PS2 and PS3 on the market, rather than removing the PS2 from the market (or taking away the need to buy new PS2's) and keeping BC in the PS3. It's difficult to know if they would make more mone, due to going beyond the PS2 production costs, and into things such as overhead with running the facility and paying the workers/bills etc.

What am I taking too far? All these are factors in production costs. The article specifies that they would start using the less expensive option (software BC), which kind of indicates a move to reduce the cost of PS3 reduction.

I'm afraid i'm having trouble following your points. They seem fairly incoherent.

[QUOTE="DJ_Magneto"][QUOTE="carlisledavid79"]Every single PS3 on the market is backwards compatableianuilliam

PS2 is still doing well, so the company has a good reason to keep at it. It's not like the Xbox has much in its library for backwards compatibility. Heck, I'm still waiting for Conker: Live and Reloaded to be made backwards compatible.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

I don't know how much they are saving when taking out the emulation program. And neither do you. If it's more than $99 a system then you might be on to something. But if its not... Sony. makes. more. money. with. PS2. games. being. played. only. by. the. PS2. system.

Javy03

Why, if PS3 having PS2 BC would increase software sales of PS2 gameswhich is whereSony/MS/Nintendo get most of their money wouldn't it be safe to say that Sony would make more money WITH the PS3 and PS2 playing PS2 games. Right now Sony makes more money reselling you HD versions of your PS2 games and when BC was cut most likely it saved them some money on parts (for the chip BC) and labor (for the software emulation maintenance).

PS2 is still doing well, so the company has a good reason to keep at it. It's not like the Xbox has much in its library for backwards compatibility. Heck, I'm still waiting for Conker: Live and Reloaded to be made backwards compatible.

D00nut

[QUOTE="D00nut"]

PS2 is still doing well, so the company has a good reason to keep at it. It's not like the Xbox has much in its library for backwards compatibility. Heck, I'm still waiting for Conker: Live and Reloaded to be made backwards compatible.

MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="D00nut"]

PS2 is still doing well, so the company has a good reason to keep at it. It's not like the Xbox has much in its library for backwards compatibility. Heck, I'm still waiting for Conker: Live and Reloaded to be made backwards compatible.

D00nut

i like all the playstations, but besides the $599 no dualshock 3 launch, and bunch of dissapointments like haze and lair, the worst mistake they ever did was not give the PS3 backward compatability. If they did, then I think Sony still mightve been in 1st place. just bad marketing, I could've made saved sony millions if I was a marketing managerlikeabrick

The PS3 didhave BC. The PS2 BC was removed so they could lower cost of production and lower price of the console.

The PS3 had Backwards compatibility... and it's something I use frequently.

If BC was important to you, you would have bought a PS3 when it was released.

This thread is the biggest mistake. And Sony's biggest mistake was not releasing the PS3 at the same time as the 360 and pricing it the same as the 360.

This thread is the biggest mistake. And Sony's biggest mistake was not releasing the PS3 at the same time as the 360 and pricing it the same as the 360.

clr84651

The PS3 arguably didn't have any "must own" games until 2008. Releasing it any earlier would've made things worse.

i like all the playstations, but besides the $599 no dualshock 3 launch, and bunch of dissapointments like haze and lair, the worst mistake they ever did was not give the PS3 backward compatability. If they did, then I think Sony still mightve been in 1st place. just bad marketing, I could've made saved sony millions if I was a marketing managerlikeabrick

360 doesn't have perfect backwards compatibility either. luckily I got myself an 80gb MGS4 bundle model on midnight release so I've still be able to enjoy playing them on my PS3 with the PS/PS2 HD upscaler :] I actually use it quite often. Still have a huge backlog of ps2 games. Just recently rebeat ICO, SOTC, Zone of the Enders: the 2nd runner, and have quite a few of the final fantasys/Shin Megami Tensei games I have to beat.

It came with BC, in fact one of its biggest touting points was that it had near full BC while the 360 had very limited BC. Even now you can find a 60gb PS3 if you look and it has BC.

You know what's the last game I played on my PS3? I played Manhunt.

Jeez, SW topics that are misinformed aren't too new, but this thread sets a new low bar. Its also the 2nd time I've said this today, sadly.

The PS3 had BC, and for quite a while. It was removed to drive down the costs of the console.

lundy86_4

I think people dont care about BC at this point. Bc was popular early on when the console lacked games but it's not really needed now.MFDOOM1983

Sony removed BC when they realized they can make a profit re-selling the games on PSN. It was a business decision, not a mistake.

It came with BC, in fact one of its biggest touting points was that it had near full BC while the 360 had very limited BC. Even now you can find a 60gb PS3 if you look and it has BC.

You know what's the last game I played on my PS3? I played Manhunt.

Jeez, SW topics that are misinformed aren't too new, but this thread sets a new low bar. Its also the 2nd time I've said this today, sadly.

SPYDER0416

Dude! Did you use a USB headset with Manhunt? Was that cool, or what?

I wish games from this gen did what PS2 SOCOM and Manhunt did. :(

[QUOTE="clr84651"]

This thread is the biggest mistake. And Sony's biggest mistake was not releasing the PS3 at the same time as the 360 and pricing it the same as the 360.

Lionheart08

The PS3 arguably didn't have any "must own" games until 2008. Releasing it any earlier would've made things worse.

sony knows what theyre doing and they see the future. bc is so last gen its time to move forward. but i hope sony will add bc to psn+ subscribers to those who really wants it that bad. hardly anyone wants bc for the ps3 anymore and i hope there wont be ps3 bc in the ps4

sony knows what theyre doing and they see the future. bc is so last gen its time to move forward. but i hope sony will add bc to psn+ subscribers to those who really wants it that bad. hardly anyone wants bc for the ps3 anymore and i hope there wont be ps3 bc in the ps4

_SWAG_

How can you quantify "hardly anyone" within that statement?

[QUOTE="_SWAG_"]

(...)hardly anyone wants bc for the ps3 anymore and i hope there wont be ps3 bc in the ps4

lundy86_4

How can you quantify "hardly anyone" within that statement?

(...)If you check the most wanted features on Sony website a few weeks back, BC was one of the top wanted features. themyth01

The PS3 had BC, and for quite a while. It was removed to drive down the costs of the console.

Where have you been?

lundy86_4