Thanks for the link and the digging out, at the moment I don't have much time, my girlfriend is staying in my flat, and well RL befor VL :o). Well that not the best move, but the GS chip is 27$ but i think its ram adds 13$ as far as I know (so 40$ total)
They have stated that they removed the BC so that they could use those $ to concentrate on PS3 specific tech...this wouldn't be true if they were going to continue to support it in a higher priced SKU. The marginal cost of keeping it in the lower SKU then would only be the GS chip ($27). Here is SONY's statement from their own site.
Relevant statement: In the UK and Ireland, a Value Pack consisting of a 60GB PS3 with extensive backwards compatibility and two first party titles will be on sale at a price of €499 (£349). Remaining on sale while stocks last, the 60GB model represents outstanding value for the keen gamer wishing to upgrade to the High Definition capabilities of PS3. Once stocks are exhausted the new 40GB model will be the only one available in the SCEE territories.
Sorry, just a question, but where do you get the impression that Sony cuts the BC total? If they leave it at the 2 SKU model (40+60 gig in Europe) there will be one with BC. Have you a link to someone from Sony saying that? I think there will be a higher price SKU (+50 to +100$) that will support the PS2 with EE emulation and GS on board. Ok that just an opinion but Sony would be crazy to do otherwise. The 40 gig without it is the right move as long as there is a higher price SKU with BC.
I'm feeling sick today. I've owned every PS console since the beginning and very much looked forward to the day that I could afford/justify a PS3.
One of the MAIN reasons I would lean to PS3 is that I'd want my library of 100+ games to be playable on the new machine that I buy.
With the changes that SONY has made/will make (the backwards compatibility will eventually be gone for all models) one of the main selling points of PS3 will be gone for me when I am finally able to afford this machine.
When my PS2 gives up the ghost I'll have 100+ unplayable games unless I can still buy a PS2 new or used at that time. My plan WAS to buy a PS3 at that time but now there is less incentive to do so. When making a next gen decision I now am not emotionally tied to the PS name as much as no matter what I'll have to have two systems going and will make a decision highly influenced by price/games/online experience etc. This doesn't bode will for PS in my opinion as a next gen purchaser has one less reason to 'stick' with PS.
I've been heavily involved in blogging about the PS3 and emotionally need a break as I really feel let down by SONY. Just needed a release! Bid as you must.
Could one of your EURO or FRENCH users please see this article and comment on a: how good or bad this paper is (is it the Post or the Times?) and b: who is actually saying 16 million units shipped by March the paper or Sony EU?
Well, if you look at the E.U. launch, the price was right. That was his point. Sony rushed the PS3 out, they needed to rush it out, because there would have been already 2 player on the market. Sony had heavy supply issues at launch in the U.S. and a much to high production price. The PS3 was rushed. The production price should have been fallen by now big time. I think the 399 price point is that point they want to start. The problem was you can't be 2 years late to the party.
@Joe80, Microsoft's price cut came over a year after the product was out. Sony has now done two cuts in less than half the time...it's a bit different.
@welshbloke, I completely do not think people did not/will not buy a PS3 for the reason that it is not BC. If the 1% of people want BC more than a new system, they should just buy a PS2 and call it a day.
1
Thanks for the link and the digging out, at the moment I don't have much time, my girlfriend is staying in my flat, and well RL befor VL :o). Well that not the best move, but the GS chip is 27$ but i think its ram adds 13$ as far as I know (so 40$ total)