Let's face it, Sony is addressing the main point that consumers are complaining about. The cost of the PS3. Why do they need 2 chips? Because the architecture is radically different. Why was the launch delayed and the initial cost so high? Because they needed to get the 2 chips to play nicely together, not because of Blu-Ray (which is the common misconception).
If cutting out the backwards compatibility will bring down the cost of the PS3, I'll gladly plug my PS2 in right beside it. It's a trade-off. Either be backwards compatible or have a lower cost? For me, the lower cost wins because lower cost means more units in the hands of the public which leads to a higher demand for games which eventually leads to more games on the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's face it, Sony is addressing the main point that consumers are complaining about. The cost of the PS3. Why do they need 2 chips? Because the architecture is radically different. Why was the launch delayed and the initial cost so high? Because they needed to get the 2 chips to play nicely together, not because of Blu-Ray (which is the common misconception).
If cutting out the backwards compatibility will bring down the cost of the PS3, I'll gladly plug my PS2 in right beside it. It's a trade-off. Either be backwards compatible or have a lower cost? For me, the lower cost wins because lower cost means more units in the hands of the public which leads to a higher demand for games which eventually leads to more games on the market.