0
As we all know, Sony removed Backwards compatibility from it's PS3's. The initial reason given was that the cost of including the hardware for PS2 compatability was too expensive. They then moved to emulation, but removed that as well. I remember talking to a Sony rep back in 2008 who had it from up the ladder that Sony had removed BC because of 1)cost and 2) lack of interest in the feature from users.
Of course, as late as December, Sony's North American President basically said that BC was off the table because their research showed that PS3 library has matured and gamers really aren't interested in last generation games any more. I'd love to know who he was talking to. Honestly, I think the reasons are more business related than that. Jack Tretton was quoted in 2007 as saying BC was removed because it discouraged games from buying new games. I think the 2007 quote is pretty much the reason. Thing is, the game environment is a lot different now than in 2007.
The PS2 is clearly near the end of its life but it still sells like crazy in the US. The economic situation the country is in makes it attractive due to it's library and price. I forsee Sony selling them though the end of the year, simply because well, they ARE still selling them and at this point, they're cheap to make. Once the PS2 is near it's last months, or even before it is, however, I see all sorts of good reasons why Sony should include PS2 BC.
PS2 BC provides a great selling point to entice new consumers to buy a PS3 over other platforms.
1) It gives current PS2 owners incentive to buy a ps3 over competing systems as their current games will work on it, presumably with the graphic improvements emulation could provide.
2) It gives potential PS2 customers a reason to spend more to buy a PS3 instead of a PS2 or perhaps a Wii.
3) It provides current competing system owners a reason to invest in a PS3 as BC would, as mentioned before, expand the library significantly.
4) It expands the PS3 game library by almost 2000 games. Frankly, the PS3 library is still pretty small, whereas the PS2 library is massive.
5) It provides opportunity for additional revenues with downloadable games akin to the PS1 titles already available. This is a MAJOR MAJOR money making opportunity for Sony.
While PS2 BC is certainly not a killer AP, I can't see how having it would in any way hurt Sony at this point. I see it as a good business move. Perhaps Sony really does think PS2 BC would hurt new game sales. Myself, I doubt it. The PS2 is old. The graphics are old. Sure, people will buy old PS2 games if the PS3 has BC, but that doesn't mean that those purchases won't be matched by new games as well. I mean, the more PS3's Sony sells, the more games will be bought, especially with the growth of online game buying things like the PS store offer.
Of course, given Sony's record, I wouldn't be surprised if they set up a system where you'd be able to play PS2 games on the ps3 only if you bought the games again on the Playstation store. That would just make me lose a gasket though, as would it a lot of gamers.
I'm curious to know what others think about Sony's repeated refusal to listen to the multitude clamoring for BC. I'm looking for inciteful thoughts on the matter. What am I missing?
Edited by Lendorien, Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:16 AM.
