Originally Posted by Cochise
Since it's only software compatibility, how would it save them any substantial amount of money?
My guess is that research showed no one was using it.
no, thats the first thing they looked at in regards to cost cutting.
In separate interviews today both Sony UK boss Ray Maguire and Sony Europe spokesman Nick Sharples spoke about how the 40GB PS3 lacking backwards compatibility is fine. How is it fine? Maguire tells Eurogamer that by this Christmas the PS3 will have a whopping 65 games and so they feel "there's sufficient choice in the marketplace and that we're still better off using that money that we'd put into backwards compatibility in either investing in new games or using that money to help support bringing the price down." Meanwhile, Sharples tells GameDaily, "We have made clear on many occasions that our priority is on developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility."
We really hate to do this, but we swear Sony must honestly think consumers and the press have the memories of goldfish. Let's just take it back to the PlayStation brand for two seconds. Sony's own Phil Harrison clearly and distinctly said in a 2006 interview with GamePro, "Backwards compatibility, as you know from PlayStation One and PlayStation 2, is a core value of what we believe we should offer. And access to the library of content people have created, bought for themselves, and accumulated over the years is necessary to create a format. PlayStation is a format meaning that it transcends many devices -- PSOne, PS2, and now PS3." A little over a year and "core values" go right out the window. Who needs backwards compatibility anyway when you've got 65 games to sell?
is another GREAT article regarding sonys costs and plans.