Let's say Sony does start selling PS2 games on PSN

[CtW]

The 360 also didn't originally support the entire XBox library.

The online purchases are more recent than the BC patches as far as I know. The PS3 may have supported the PS2 library originally but nobody was willing to buy it because it resulted in a higher price. That's the consumer's fault it had to be removed, not Sony's.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Cipher

[Dreadknux]

To be honest, I can see the fallout being so huge that I'm not sure what the next generation would even look like.

Really? A bunch of vocal 'hardcore' (ugh) gamers throw their toys out of their pram and that constitutes a huge industry rift?

Sony didn't 'lie' about anything. They did put BC in the PS3. We all saw it. Did you buy it? No, you whinged about the price. What can Sony do to drop the price? Lose the BC. Oh, but now all of a sudden you want BC back? But you don't want the price to be jacked up again to suit (considering the unique complexities of the PS2's GPU, to assume that Sony can put the chip in without raising the price only makes you look like an uneducated arse).

Who you gonna blame? Yourself, really. I find it laughable that the fate of the PS3 apparently rests on a feature that nobody bought into, nobody said they wanted, and now all of a sudden say they do. Buy a PS2 you indecisive prats.

I honestly don't think this is as big a deal as some people are making it out to be. So it had BC and now it doesn't. Big deal. It's business. It's cheaper as a result, you never bought it, your tough luck. Their console still works. Even without the "BC that you didn't want but now do all of a sudden", the console still does the primary job - play PS3 games. If you have some sort of moral high-ground to boycott a company because they did one thing then did another later on, then literally any and every company is up for the chop in the eyes of the consumer. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony... they're all as fallible as each other.

If it really winds you up that Sony dared to restrict your play of PS2 games and are oh-so dishonourable that they broke every last thread of trust you had in them (lol), get an Xbox 360 instead. It's no big deal.

Also

By "industry," I meant overall. Not just the publishers.

I don't recall one instance, ever, where anyone in the industry even commented about the lack of BC in the PS3. Please bear in mind that by 'industry', I mean actual developers, publishers and retail. Not amateur blogs, whiny comments on Kotaku and nerd rage on IGN's forums or whatever. Give me one documented example of where a publisher has actually lamented Sony for removing BC in the PS3, and how it hinders their development of games going forward. I'm genuinely interested.

Really, the only people that care about this is the vocal minority. I.E. You.

To be frank, the PS3 sales hike will be temporary at best, if Japan is of any indication, the most recent Media Create reports indicate a rather nasty drop. The price drop along with just one major game, I doubt will sustain any sales rise for long. The Wand will probably have the same effect, if not just simply not make a dent period.

What? Even this week, despite the sales dipping a bit, the PS3 is 2nd in the Media Create charts. Considering it's been somewhere in fourth position for the longest time, a 'nasty drop' is a rather disingenuous way of looking at it. It assumes that PS3 sales have fallen off the map. Not really the case is it? If the PS3 was replaced with the 360 in the Media Create charts, you'd likely be singing a very different tune. And considering Japan's rather meagre uptake on HD consoles, the PS3 and 360's lack of acceptance in the massmarket until now is pretty much the same difference (despite the 360 being much worse off, obviously).

That, and you forget that Final Fantasy XIII is round the corner. With a limited edition SKU. See that sucker engulf the charts once that hits.

[Silencer226]

Really? A bunch of vocal 'hardcore' (ugh) gamers throw their toys out of their pram and that constitutes a huge industry rift?

Sony didn't 'lie' about anything. They did put BC in the PS3. We all saw it. Did you buy it? No, you whinged about the price. What can Sony do to drop the price? Lose the BC. Oh, but now all of a sudden you want BC back? But you don't want the price to be jacked up again to suit (considering the unique complexities of the PS2's GPU, to assume that Sony can put the chip in without raising the price only makes you look like an uneducated arse).

Who you gonna blame? Yourself, really. I find it laughable that the fate of the PS3 apparently rests on a feature that nobody bought into, nobody said they wanted, and now all of a sudden say they do. Buy a PS2 you indecisive prats.

I honestly don't think this is as big a deal as some people are making it out to be. So it had BC and now it doesn't. Big deal. It's business. It's cheaper as a result, you never bought it, your tough luck. Their console still works. Even without the "BC that you didn't want but now do all of a sudden", the console still does the primary job - play PS3 games. If you have some sort of moral high-ground to boycott a company because they did one thing then did another later on, then literally any and every company is up for the chop in the eyes of the consumer. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony... they're all as fallible as each other.

If it really winds you up that Sony dared to restrict your play of PS2 games and are oh-so dishonourable that they broke every last thread of trust you had in them (lol), get an Xbox 360 instead. It's no big deal.

Also

I don't recall one instance, ever, where anyone in the industry even commented about the lack of BC in the PS3. Please bear in mind that by 'industry', I mean actual developers, publishers and retail. Not amateur blogs, whiny comments on Kotaku and nerd rage on IGN's forums or whatever. Give me one documented example of where a publisher has actually lamented Sony for removing BC in the PS3, and how it hinders their development of games going forward. I'm genuinely interested.

Really, the only people that care about this is the vocal minority. I.E. You.

What? Even this week, despite the sales dipping a bit, the PS3 is 2nd in the Media Create charts. Considering it's been somewhere in fourth position for the longest time, a 'nasty drop' is a rather disingenuous way of looking at it. It assumes that PS3 sales have fallen off the map. Not really the case is it? If the PS3 was replaced with the 360 in the Media Create charts, you'd likely be singing a very different tune. And considering Japan's rather meagre uptake on HD consoles, the PS3 and 360's lack of acceptance in the massmarket until now is pretty much the same difference (despite the 360 being much worse off, obviously).

That, and you forget that Final Fantasy XIII is round the corner. With a limited edition SKU. See that sucker engulf the charts once that hits.

Wow... Dreadknux said everything I wanted to say except much more epic. *in shock*

And that FFXIII model is going to sell like hell in Japan.

[Candescence]

What? Even this week, despite the sales dipping a bit, the PS3 is 2nd in the Media Create charts. Considering it's been somewhere in fourth position for the longest time, a 'nasty drop' is a rather disingenuous way of looking at it. It assumes that PS3 sales have fallen off the map. Not really the case is it? If the PS3 was replaced with the 360 in the Media Create charts, you'd likely be singing a very different tune. And considering Japan's rather meagre uptake on HD consoles, the PS3 and 360's lack of acceptance in the massmarket until now is pretty much the same difference (despite the 360 being much worse off, obviously).

That, and you forget that Final Fantasy XIII is round the corner. With a limited edition SKU. See that sucker engulf the charts once that hits.

To be fair, I never said it had dropped off the charts - it's still high up, but its lead has been slashed heavily in less than a month, which I think would indicate that it's going to drop even worse as time goes on. The next factor is the Wii, which just got a $50 price drop of its own (and it's working, if the 1800% increase in sales on just Amazon are of any indication (Jesus, look at it, Excitebots' sales shot up 121,050%)), and about to come out with NSMB Wii and Wii Fit Plus, both of which I imagine will utterly destroy the charts more than FF13 ever will.

Though, I didn't know FF13 was around the corner, but even then, it picked the worst possible time to release. Final Fantasy sells a LOT, no doubt, but let's be serious, The DS version of NSMB and the original Wii Fit are STILL on the charts. I highly doubt FF13 could possibly outsell and/or outlast either of their successors on the charts, and it doesn't help that both of these games are coming out FIRST. It also doesn't help that FFXIII is also on the 360, as limited an audience it has in Japan, still...

FF13 is competing with the newest 2D Mario game on a console and the successor to Wii Fit, both games not only capable of selling tons immediately, but actually staying high up on the charts for months, if not more than a year, and FF13 is coming out merely a month or two after them, no less. Even a Final Fantasy game can't compete that well.

Lastly, the Gold/Silver Pokemon remakes are already out and destroying the charts as well. Nintendo's top sellers are already coming in full force.

Edited September 28, 2009 by The Sniper

[Remy]

Though, I didn't know FF13 was around the corner, but even then, it picked the worst possible time to release. Final Fantasy sells a LOT, no doubt, but let's be serious, The DS version of NSMB and the original Wii Fit are STILL on the charts. I highly doubt FF13 could possibly outsell and/or outlast either of their successors on the charts, and it doesn't help that both of these games are coming out FIRST. It also doesn't help that FFXIII is also on the 360, as limited an audience it has in Japan, still...

What world do you live in where Final Fantasy sales are actually effected by other games?

[blackherox]

FF13 is competing with the newest 2D Mario game on a console and the successor to Wii Fit, both games not only capable of selling tons immediately, but actually staying high up on the charts for months, if not more than a year, and FF13 is coming out merely a month or two after them, no less. Even a Final Fantasy game can't compete that well.

I'll disagree with you on the NSMB Wii. While I think it'll sell well, I don't think the DS versions sales patterns will be reflective on the Wii. I'd be shocked if the game quickly outsold Galaxy and Brawl lifetime. The DS has a much larger and more varied audience than the Wii.

Edited September 28, 2009 by blackherox

[Chooch]

Sony didn't 'lie' about anything. They did put BC in the PS3. We all saw it. Did you buy it? No, you whinged about the price. What can Sony do to drop the price? Lose the BC. Oh, but now all of a sudden you want BC back? But you don't want the price to be jacked up again to suit (considering the unique complexities of the PS2's GPU, to assume that Sony can put the chip in without raising the price only makes you look like an uneducated arse).

Who you gonna blame? Yourself, really. I find it laughable that the fate of the PS3 apparently rests on a feature that nobody bought into, nobody said they wanted, and now all of a sudden say they do. Buy a PS2 you indecisive prats.

This.

I don't know why anyone would have expected them to drop the price as much as they did without taking things out. It makes no sense.

That, and it seems to me like a lot of the people who are complaining about it not being in already have a PS2.

[Chris]

That, and it seems to me like a lot of the people who are complaining about it not being in already have a PS2.

I'd personally rather have one console hooked up that does it all than two or three consoles that each play their own games. It's an unnecessary tangle of wires. The Wii is an example of this; with it connected, I no longer require my GameCube be hooked up to my television, but I can still enjoy the games.

Of course the people who want it have a Ps2 - why else would they have games? Duh.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I'd personally rather have one console hooked up that does it all than two or three consoles that each play their own games. It's an unnecessary tangle of wires. The Wii is an example of this; with it connected, I no longer require my GameCube be hooked up to my television, but I can still enjoy the games.

But the people who >wanted< to play PS2 games on the PS3 had their chance in 2006/2007. But why didn't they buy it? Because of what Dreadknux said eariler, because of the price. No one was buying the $599 console. So they had no option but to remove it, along with 2 USB ports and a memory card reader. Then it was sorta affordable.

But still I don't know why everyone's against Sony because they don't have PS2 BC. It's their fault for not buying the old 60GB console in the first place, and Sony were horribly losing money.

Of course the people who want it have a Ps2 - why else would they have games? Duh.

Not really. There could be a new person in to gaming that wants to play some PS2 & PS3 games. He would have to buy a PS2 AND a PS3, which will cost like $300 altogether or buy an old 60GB PS3 model that is still selling on eBay and Amazon at a higher price.

[Chris]

But the people who >wanted< to play PS2 games on the PS3 had their chance in 2006/2007. But why didn't they buy it? Because of what Dreadknux said eariler, because of the price. No one was buying the $599 console. So they had no option but to remove it, along with 2 USB ports and a memory card reader. Then it was sorta affordable.

Do you really believe that removing the Ps2's single hardware chip, 2 USB ports, and a memory card reader, would allow Sony to reduce the cost that much? All of the above would cost them $40 maximum right now - they're splitting hairs if they're using the price as the reason.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Do you really believe that removing the Ps2's single hardware chip, 2 USB ports, and a memory card reader, would allow Sony to reduce the cost that much? All of the above would cost them $40 maximum right now - they're splitting hairs if they're using the price as the reason.

Actually...that's more than $40...a good memory card reader is like $20, 2 extra USB ports - not so sure about that one but it will cost a bit more than a 2 port, and for the single hardware chip we don't know how much it costs but it will be at a range between $20 - $50. On top of that, they would have to change the PS3's motherboard to fit in the engine.

Also, Sony wants to make profit like any >other< business. They don't want to sell their PS3s continuously near the/on a break even point.

[ShadiWulf]

This topic is full of inaccurate facts.

The reason Wii plays all gamecube games is because it uses the exact same processor and GPU arch as the Gamecube, the Wii is a overclocked gamecube, over priced too.

Sony is still LOSING money on PS3's, just not as much as they were before. I don't understand how anyone can call them greedy.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Not to mention of the PlayStation Network and how much it costs them to keep the servers up while we go on it free.

Yeah you're right actually. Especially on the Wii part, the graphics is exactly the same as the Gamecube's. >.< About the PS3 part, I was close enough. D=

[Tornado]

I like how me essentially expressing an opinion about something that I even said that I thought was a mere possibility has turned into the equivalent of "Shut the fuck up and go buy a CECHAxx."

I actually had this debate with an honest-to-god PS3 fanboy on a Sony-centric forum, and that didn't even get any more heated than "You are incorrect in your assertion because of..."

Yet here its like I stepped on a land mine. And the flurry of -Rep ratings for pretty much anyone who isn't saying "Sony roxxors" make me literally . I wanna see how far negative this post goes for having teh opinionz.

to assume that Sony can put the chip in without raising the price only makes you look like an uneducated arse).

Quote where I did this, please.

I find it laughable that the fate of the PS3 apparently rests on a feature that nobody bought into, nobody said they wanted, and now all of a sudden say they do.

First of all, loving the condescension. I'm glad I at least humour you with my uneducated ramblings.

Back to the point, when did people ever say that they didn't want BC? You keep saying that people didn't want it (rather surprising because Europe was screwed from the start over the issue), but I've never heard anyone actually say that. Was it around the time where Sony said they were removing it to lower development costs, and then turned around and said that they actually did it because they they didn't want people to have the option in the first place and that the change in costs was negligible? Or are you getting this from when Sony started saying that no one wanted the feature while raking in sales of PS1 games?

I am, however, intrigued by the assertion that because people couldn't afford to spend FIVE-HUNDRED NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS, they obviously didn't want BC.

Buy a PS2 you indecisive prats.

I've always been entertained by this kind of statement. Always.

I don't recall one instance, ever, where anyone in the industry even commented about the lack of BC in the PS3. Please bear in mind that by 'industry', I mean actual developers, publishers and retail.

I'd figure that, considering every other interview with Sony about the PS3 has at least one question about it, someone in the industry must care. I apologize if I spoke out of turn on the issue.

Really, the only people that care about this is the vocal minority. I.E. You.

Certainly something that can be proven.

Also, Sony wants to make profit like any >other< business. They don't want to sell their PS3s continuously near the/on a break even point.

Sony is still LOSING money on PS3's, just not as much as they were before. I don't understand how anyone can call them greedy.

Every penny that the PS3 has lost so far was lost on purpose. I've actually heard (though I can't substantiate it) that Sony has already written off any chance of turning a profit on the system, and even if that isn't true I doubt Sony is too worried about profit because their gamble paid off anyways.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Tornado

[blackherox]

I doubt Sony is too worried about profit because their gamble paid off anyways.

eh?

[Tornado]

Blu-ray. That's why the PS3 cost so much to develop, produce and service: Because Sony forced the issue of Blu-ray adoption so they would win the format war. I think at launch the Blu-ray drive in the system was over $200 all by itself.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Tornado

[Candescence]

Speaking of which... It reminds me, Feburary last year, InPhase Technologies was granted a joint patent with Nintendo for a flexure-based scanner for angle-based multiplexing in a holographic storage system. Or, in short, they're apparently working on a possible holographic storage format for the Wii's successor, which could easily make Blu-Ray look utterly pathetic by comparison. Granted, Nintendo's strategy has always been profitability with hardware, so it remains to be seen if such tech ends up in the next-gen Ninty console at all.

Speaking of holographic storage... Has anyone seen this? The readers will be expensive as hell, but provided that the technology actually releases, 30GB of storage for just a buck sounds rather appealing.

[Dreadknux]

I like how me essentially expressing an opinion about something that I even said that I thought was a mere possibility has turned into the equivalent of "Shut the fuck up and go buy a CECHAxx."

Way to make my post sound like an overreaction. If I remember, your post was the one that suggested that Sony would basically be unable to recover just because they might not put PS2 backwards compatibility in the PS3.

You're free to post your opinions, I'm not bashing you for that at all. It's just... how do you possibly come to the conclusion that Sony is the Sega of 1995 based on a year of crappy PR and the removal of BC? Sega got to where they were in 1995 because of three consistent hardware cockups (more if you count the seemingly endless handheld re-iterations). It just seems a little... over-reactionary. If I was wrong in coming to that conclusion then I apologise.

I actually had this debate with an honest-to-god PS3 fanboy on a Sony-centric forum, and that didn't even get any more heated than "You are incorrect in your assertion because of..." Yet here its like I stepped on a land mine. And the flurry of -Rep ratings for pretty much anyone who isn't saying "Sony roxxors" make me literally . I wanna see how far negative this post goes for having teh opinionz.

Again, I think it was more your bat-shit wild hypothesis and rather bizarre analysis of Sony's business that called yourself into question, not the fact you had an opinion. There were many people, in this topic and outside, that have said that Sony selling PS2 games without providing BC is a crap idea. They never really said that it would end up essentially killing their company, without providing much of a basis besides endless moaning on consumer blogs.

I'm hardly a PS3 fanboy. I'm just a fanboy of common sense.

Quote where I did this, please.

Call it a pre-emptive retort. You didn't specifically say that it could be done, but I was covering my argument with a potential counter that would have made someone look very silly indeed. Not that such a counter would have come from you, nor was I particularly addressing you with that statement. Just putting on the flame-retardant suit.

Back to the point, when did people ever say that they didn't want BC? You keep saying that people didn't want it (rather surprising because Europe was screwed from the start over the issue), but I've never heard anyone actually say that. Was it around the time where Sony said they were removing it to lower development costs, and then turned around and said that they actually did it because they they didn't want people to have the option in the first place and that the change in costs was negligible? Or are you getting this from when Sony started saying that no one wanted the feature while raking in sales of PS1 games?

I am, however, intrigued by the assertion that because people couldn't afford to spend FIVE-HUNDRED NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS, they obviously didn't want BC.

Okay, maybe I misfired on that one. Apologies. I'm running off of blog comments and GAF threads I remember in my mind, and you know that's not really a good enough backup for what I was talking about in regards to "nobody wanting BC". But my point still stands on the 'lying' thing. The fact they put it into the console is proof enough that Sony cared about BC. Just so happened that when the chips were down, something had to give. That something had to be BC. I mean, PSN BC is at least better than no BC right?

I've always been entertained by this kind of statement. Always.

Considering the number of people who complain about how PS2 games look crap when upscaled anyway, I'd have thought a lot of the people moaning about BC would be the sort of insightful gamers to want to swallow the pain of having two plugs in their wall instead of one.

I'd figure that, considering every other interview with Sony about the PS3 has at least one question about it, someone in the industry must care. I apologize if I spoke out of turn on the issue.

That's more to do with a journalist trying to address wild concerns growing on their comments page/message board. A lot of blogs and outlets try and gauge 'public' reaction (when in fact their readership doesn't really account for the entire PS3-owning population, but hey it's the best they can work with so I don't blame them) from comments and threads online, so the reason it keeps popping up in Sony interviews only proves how vocal the minority really is. I mean, it's the same with Nintendo and the moaning 'hardcore gamerzzzz' who profess that Nintendo are dead to them, despite the Wii selling like hot cakes.

Certainly something that can be proven.

Okay, I didn't mean to drag you into it, it was more your bizarre theory in the OP that made me kind of rally against you like that. But for an example for the rest of that sentence, Nintendo is all you need.

Every penny that the PS3 has lost so far was lost on purpose. I've actually heard (though I can't substantiate it) that Sony has already written off any chance of turning a profit on the system, and even if that isn't true I doubt Sony is too worried about profit because their gamble paid off anyways.

I don't know about writing off any chance of a profit, but certainly I don't think that will be the thing that could kill Sony. Consider, in the history of modern computer games since the Golden Era, Nintendo is the only company that has -not- sold consoles at a loss, and the idea that Sony going under with the PS3 is a bit overblown. It took them many years to be profitable with the PS2, and even then they weren't making a lot of return per console. The big bucks were, and continue to be, sell-through software and accessories.

[Crystal Kingfisher]

Sony still have the ego problem, I think. SOME parts of Nintendo may have a bit of an ego, but others clearly don't. All three have their PR blunders, but Sony is the worst by far this gen.

Actually, I think Nintendo is the worst this generation (except for some DS games). If they make a new console, I don't think I'm going to buy it. I'll just stick to the classic Nintendo, thank you.

I would like to see PS2 games on PSN, but emulation might not work too good, so the sales might not do too well, and like Casanova said, most people only care about trophies these days, so they'd refuse to play them unless they had trophies.

[Tornado]

Way to make my post sound like an overreaction. If I remember, your post was the one that suggested that Sony would basically be unable to recover just because they might not put PS2 backwards compatibility in the PS3.

Not just because of that. More on that in a second.

You're free to post your opinions, I'm not bashing you for that at all. It's just... how do you possibly come to the conclusion that Sony is the Sega of 1995 based on a year of crappy PR and the removal of BC?

3 years of crappy, arrogant and occasionally-contradictory PR (and, a couple of times, PR that essentially came out and said "Fuck you for wanting that feature that we removed"). Sony's bungling of the PSP Go (which isn't entirely their fault, admittedly) certainly hasn't helped, either. The replacement of a feature that Sony has said no one wants for a cost could be the breaking point, but not the sole reason. If I came off as sounding like I thought only BC would sink the brand, than I apologize.

Again, I think it was more your bat-shit wild hypothesis and rather bizarre analysis of Sony's business that called yourself into question, not the fact you had an opinion. There were many people, in this topic and outside, that have said that Sony selling PS2 games without providing BC is a crap idea. They never really said that it would end up essentially killing their company, without providing much of a basis besides endless moaning on consumer blogs.

My point was more the "Burn the Witch" mentality running around everyone who didn't vehemently disagree with me rather than any of the reasons presented against my reasoning. This has seemingly un-occurred since I've been gone, so whatevs.

Regardless, I admit that I don't have any factual evidence to back this up; and indeed Nintendo in particular dicks their customers around once a week in ways worse than this could be even if Sony were as mean-spirited as possible over the whole thing. But I just don't see Sony getting away with it like Nintendo does. They've been, for one, the internet's whipping boy ever since FIVE-HUNDRED NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS happened. And at the same time they have spent the past three months trying to reinvent the image of the Playstation brand, so I think even a shred of "mid-2006 Sony" could cause the backlash to be that much stronger.

Call it a pre-emptive retort. You didn't specifically say that it could be done, but I was covering my argument with a potential counter that would have made someone look very silly indeed. Not that such a counter would have come from you, nor was I particularly addressing you with that statement. Just putting on the flame-retardant suit.

I would happily buy a PS3 Slim to complement my CECHAxx if they offered a 2nd SKU with BC added for an extra $100. I know many IRL that would do the same, and considering that the CECHExx was outselling the CECHGxx when they were being sold concurrently (at least in America), its a wonder they took it out in the first place. Strictly speaking, there isn't a point to the previous 160Gb console and the upcoming 250Gb Slim other than profit padding (or, if you want, loss-lessening), and I would be pretty surprised if the sales numbers didn't support that.

That something had to be BC. I mean, PSN BC is at least better than no BC right?

That really depends on how they would implement it.

Considering the number of people who complain about how PS2 games look crap when upscaled anyway

First of all, I apologize for the nastiness of that reply. Got a little heated, there.

Anyways, I, personally, do not understand that argument. At worst many of the PS2 games don't look any worse than they do on normal PS2 hardware (the exception being games that offer progressive scan if you choose to upscale instead of using the P-scan option), but there are games I have played on the system that look amazing when upscaled on an HDTV. Furthermore, it is better to have the games scale with the PS3 then to let the crappy scalers built into most HDTVs do it (as would be done if a PS2 was hooked up normally), and at the very best case there would be no difference.

Okay, I didn't mean to drag you into it, it was more your bizarre theory in the OP that made me kind of rally against you like that. But for an example for the rest of that sentence, Nintendo is all you need.

Nintendo is also different from Sony, and the Wii itself is like an anti-PS3; so perhaps I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I don't know about writing off any chance of a profit, but certainly I don't think that will be the thing that could kill Sony.

You misunderstand my point. Sony may have written off any chances of the games division making any money this generation, but they did so knowing that Blu-ray sales would more than make up the difference in profit for the company as a whole.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Tornado

[Phos]

Relatively few people who play video games actually read about them that much on the internet.

[Tornado]

Relatively few people who play video games actually read about them that much on the internet.

Maybe at the beginning of last generation.

[Jix Hedgehog]

It would be a good thing.

The PS2 has got to the point where its not uncommon to have 1 - 2 per household.

This way they can sell even more games to the low number of players who bought a PS3 but never a PS2

[Dobkeratops]

Regarding PS2 sellables on PS3, I know for certain one thing and one thing only: that I'd buy that Wild Arms 1 Remake from the US Store if they ever put it up. You know, that one game which never got to Europe *shakes fist*