What is Digg?358 Comments
- truspector, on 10/29/2007, -34/+163Too bad it will only encourage people to buy 360's.
- secondwheel2, on 10/24/2007, -27/+152And I took out the breaks in my car because i wanted to go faster...
- mretx, on 10/20/2007, -9/+114and just when you think Sony is done with marketing blunders they show another ace up there sleeve.
- marcomx, on 10/24/2007, -7/+78brakes....
- toxicityj, on 10/30/2007, -11/+79all that did was encourage me to put off buying a PS3...
- KingGoonie, on 10/30/2007, -17/+82Wow... I mean wow thats like insulting themselves and potential customers at the same time...
- Ryan121, on 10/30/2007, -7/+60Sony just keep digging that hole.
- SuperBeast, on 10/20/2007, -5/+43If they want to sell more PS3 games, they should lower the price. In my opinion, $50 is the sweet spot for games. $60 is pushing it.
- dxprog, on 10/30/2007, -3/+40Just when you thought they couldn't fire another bullet into their foot, they do it again.
- notthemama, on 10/20/2007, -4/+39It's called snatching defeat from the jaws of adequacy.
- knodi, on 10/30/2007, -14/+48If only PS3 had any good games to worth buying.
- adml_shake, on 10/20/2007, -2/+33"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."
WTF, did they do this survey in house or something? - lokiworks, on 10/20/2007, -5/+32When I bought a PS2, two of the first games I bought were FF Tactics and FF IX. Thank you BC!
- Crosshare, on 10/20/2007, -1/+24I read this on CNN this morning and thought it was just them screwing up the facts and printing it to MSM. Now that I've read it off a gaming website, all I can think is that they're freakin retarded to say this publicly.
- hockey, on 10/20/2007, -9/+30I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Geico
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -8/+29Why? Can i play my ps2 games on the 360 i was encouraged to buy?
- MRintheKeys, on 10/20/2007, -4/+23Thank heavens you cleared that up for me! I thought they were removing everything out of Earth's history that occurred Before Christ.
- ashmael, on 10/20/2007, -8/+27Seriously - Sony's playstations have all been highly praised and valued for remaining backwards compatible.
- smedrick, on 10/20/2007, -4/+23Ahahaha....titles are supposed to sell the console, not the other way around
I just got the PS3 as a gift and I can't find one game I want to purchase for it yet. - suprememilo, on 10/20/2007, -2/+21Honestly when most people go to Best Buy or wherever, they see the PS3 is now $399 they may get one, most people don't look into stuff like this, especially parents buying this for their kids, its not like the new PS3 is going to have a huge red sticker on the side saying !!!!ALERT THIS ONE IS MUCH WORSE THAN THE OTHER ONE!!! to most people all they see is the $100 price difference.
- rootnik, on 10/20/2007, -2/+20Backwards capability is the one area where Sony has always undisputedly excelled over the other console manufacturers. With the problems they have had selling the ps3, why mess up one of the good things about your console? Especially if what the article states is true, that it will have very little effect on the manufacturing costs of the ps3.
I'm starting to think that Sony enjoys coming up with new ways to doom itself. - plizard, on 10/20/2007, -11/+29looks like im keeping my ps2 and mainly using 360
- ericrous, on 10/19/2007, -0/+18The older they get, the worse they look and sound.
- chocobomog, on 10/21/2007, -16/+33Why would they do that? The 360 has crappy BC (but yes, technically better than none) and there are no original Xbox games people want to buy, most of the good ones can be found for $20 on the PC. Unlike the PS2, the Xbox has been dead for some time and there is little to no demand for its games.
People will still buy 360s, and people will still buy PS3s. But no one is going to suddenly choose a 360 with terrible BC and no last gen games because the PS3 is missing PS2 compatibility. If they want the PS2 games they will buy a PS2 instead and wait for a PS3 price drop, or buy a 80 gig and get a BC that works with 80% of PS2 games (instead of 99% with the 60 gig). - notthemama, on 10/20/2007, -7/+24Actually, I have a ps2 and considered upgrading to a ps3, but since I have a lot of ps2 and ps1 games, I'd end up with 2 consoles. If I'm going to have 2 consoles, I'd rather go with the xbox or wii as my second console rather than a ps3. The xbox has a number of games I'd really like to play.
- corcad, on 10/20/2007, -7/+23I personally think they are doing this to get people to invest in the cheaper PS3 and then grab the PS2 for the BC. PS2s are probably the only way they are making profit on hardware sales. If they make 4-500 for this bundle they could potentially make more profit than with the 4-500 PS3 models.
- Elranzer, on 10/20/2007, -0/+16Was $30/$40 ever the sweet spot? Even SNES games retailed at $50, some RPGs even retailed up to $80 on launch (if you're old enough to remember the launch of Super Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger).
- ericrous, on 10/21/2007, -0/+16The 360 will play just as many PS2 games as the 40GB PS3, apparently.
- Ja50n, on 10/22/2007, -1/+16I just saved a bunch of money by switching to no car insurance.
- KloroFormd, on 10/19/2007, -2/+16Did the 15 minute call save you 15% or more on your car insurance?
- djlspider, on 10/20/2007, -3/+15What frat are you in, dog?
- rolosworld, on 10/19/2007, -7/+19for the record:
BC == Backward Compatibility - Canadianinjapan, on 10/20/2007, -15/+26I didn't want to buy a 360 but sony is doing a great job at selling it for micro$oft.
- bahamutxd, on 10/30/2007, -6/+17People are treating this like the 40 gig is the only option. The 80 gig has the backwards compatibility. It isn't like they are taking away BC from their console across the board. I think Sony is certainly justified in taking a gamble with this. But, they certainly need the games to up the ante.
- hsoj, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11Essentially though there's no reason NOT to throw in backwards compatibility when it doesn't cost them very much to do so. This is exactly the time to do it, too, with a reduced price console. I bought a PS3 after the first price cut, and with a $150 rebate, so I'll probably end up with a 60GB with the emotion engine chip for cheaper than this 40GB non-BC version anyway. The reason I bought mine? The same two reasons everyone else buys 'em. BC and Blu-Ray. I have a ton of PS2 games on my shelf, and my PS2 is on it's last leg (I've had to crack it open 4 times now to fix the disc read errors).
Furthermore, I still love many PS1 games and since my PS2 stopped reading CD's long ago, I'm finally getting to re-play them.
Why on Earth would Sony want to deprive new consumers of a library of well over 10,000 titles? When they give up nothing, and it costs them next-to-nothing? They're out of their minds. - jthomson82, on 10/19/2007, -3/+13If they want to sell more PS3 games, they should release some that are worth buying, the line-up is still terrible compared to the 360, and even the Wii will have a better line-up in a couple of months.
- glucoseboy, on 10/19/2007, -3/+13Xbox 360 had gimped BC from the git go. It was public knowledge. What Sony is doing (and admitting publicly, which is odd) is crippling consoles and saying it is for the sole purpose of forcing people to buy PS3 games. Nothing wrong with that, it's Sony's business to market their product as they wish. However, as another poster commented, it really is shooting themselves in the foot.
- imikedaman, on 10/20/2007, -1/+11I'm just glad they're being honest about it instead of trying to cover the real reason under many layers of marketing B.S.
- GunbladeVIII, on 10/20/2007, -13/+22Eventually, when PS2 has faded away, I won't care about BC. I haven't bought a PS1 game (to play on my PS2) in years now. So eventually, no one's going to care about whether a PS3 has BC or not.
However, the one time that gamers will care is right now, during the transition period. So it boggles my mind that Sony would choose to eliminate it precisely at the time in the PS3's lifecycle where it's absolutely critical.
The PS2 has had so many great games, there's still tons that I have yet to play through, and will buy, among them Okami, Xenosaga III, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War II, and others. I probably would have paid Sony $400 to do it on a PS3, where even without buying PS3 games while I was still playing through the last great PS2 classics, I would have appreciated Blu-Ray playback and upscaling. But now, Sony won't be getting my money until I play through all of those games, which is the point at which I don't need BC anymore.
If Sony wants me to play those games on a PS2, well, that's exactly what I'll do. Quite frankly, those games are better than almost everything PS3 has to offer right now. - MiDri, on 10/19/2007, -0/+9He's relating something completely retarded to something that is equally retarded.
- smackafiyah, on 10/21/2007, -1/+10Blu-ray's far from a flop................yet anyway
- dlightle, on 10/20/2007, -3/+12Maybe, except when I get a next-in-the-generation console (PS1 -> PS2, PS2 -> PS3, etc.), I want it to fully replace the one before. I don't want to have to keep every single console around. I got rid of my PS1 because a PS2 did everything a PS1 could basically. If I have to keep a PS2 and PS3 both, I won't be too interested.
- Xandah, on 10/20/2007, -16/+24The anti-PS3 bias of Digg is pretty apparent when people say this is encouraging them to buy an Xbox 360, when the 360 has had gimped backwards compatibility from day one.
- louiedog, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8I was walking down the street the other day and there was a moving van outside of an apartment building. On the curb were a few boxes marked free. It was mostly clothing, kitchen stuff, etc. However, under a jacket I found a PS1 with a controller, mem card, and FF Tactics. Talk about awesome.
- mrdctaylor, on 10/20/2007, -1/+9For guys like me, it matters. Believe it or not, I've never owned a PS2. I was a GameCube owner and am now a Wii owner. I am considering either the 360 or the PS3 as an additional console, but NOT both. There are so many good PS2 titles out there that I never got to play, that I was considering a PS3 for that reason. Not have BC in the cheaper PS3 really pushed me toward buying a 360, because there really aren't any must-play PS3 games out right now.
- triplehelix, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8well if its that important to you, spent the extra $100 on the 60 or 80 gig model. if not, then i guess it can't be that important to you.
- walkingdogs, on 10/20/2007, -9/+17It's not an anti PS3 bias. It's that sony overpromised, underdelivered, spewed crap from their mouth and made their egos known to the world and expected the masses to spend $600 on what the masses consider to be a Video Game console. The general consumer could give a rat's ass what technology is in it. They just want a reasonable priced gaming console that actually has games for it. Sony brought it on them selves and have been playing catch up since the first day it was released.
- blackhole82, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8I guess it's a good thing I bought the 60 gig for $500 a while back after all.
- ericrous, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7All I can say is that I'm glad I got my 60GB U.S. PS3. I could've gotten 20GB more for the same price if I had waited, but it would have cost me FULL hardware backwards compatibility. Even my old PS1 games play in *MY* PS3.
- strictnein, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7You mean, it was so easy, even a caveman could do it?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 353 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is