I know I wouldn't.
I just want to see how many people wouldn't either.
Only answer reply if you wouldn't buy it because of the lack of backwards compatability.
2007-10-16 07:17:25 · 14 answers · asked by joshuaglennrussell 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Games & Gear ➔ PlayStation
I have a 60GB PS3 and one of the reasons I bought it was for the backward compatibility. If I had the choice to buy a 360 and a 40GB PS3 with no backward compatibility I would buy the 360 as PS3 without backward compatibility would suck.
2007-10-16 08:29:07 · answer #1 · answered by Rex 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I definitely wouldn't buy the 40gb PS3. That's bullshit that the new 40gb PS3 won't be backwards compatible! I mean all the hardware is still there to do it, I wouldn't see why they would drop backwards compatibility! Sony better give a firmware update for this or someone will hack it to be backwards compatible! I hope so. The only way at this point to make this 40gb model backwards compatible is to install Linux on it and then install ePSXe and PCSX2 which are emulators for PS1 and PS2.Even if you already have a PS2, you'd still want to not have to have two separate consoles sitting on your entertainment center when one PS3 could do it all.
2007-10-16 08:35:55 · answer #2 · answered by Family Guy Fan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had PS1, then jumped over to Xbox and Xbox 360. If i was going to get a PS3 I would want to have Backwards compatibility to boost the games I can play. (I would then have an almost completely new library). If you are trying to bring over the xbox gamers, and sense you the list of games is so big of PS3 right now ;-> . The only enticement is playing all the games I missed out on. How much does it cost for Sony to add backwards compatibility? maybe $50?
The only good thing about the $40gb is maybe the other 80gb well drop.
2007-10-16 07:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't buy a PS3 at all if I hadn't snagged a 60 gig. I don't like having piles of consoles hooked up--too much clutter-- and w/ the 60 gig I have fully functional, hardware based backward compatibility with all earlier gen PS games.
If Sony had included the hardware based backward compatibility with the 80 gig system instead of trying to get cute (sneaky!) by using software emulation, and advertised it, they would have probably been in the game.
As it is, they have really turned off a lot of gamers, who tend to do a little research on the differences, being a little tech oriented to begin with, by offering the best model (the 60 gig) with a smaller hard drive.
All in all, Sony has really bungled the marketing of this product. If they want to sell units, they need to put a 160 or even a 300 gig hd in the chassis used for the 60 gig (full hardware back comp) and give it Tivo like capabilities. That is what will get people buying. Instead they are offering a stripped down compromise that most tech oriented people will think is a rip off.
Only suckers will buy a PS3 without back. compatibility. If you do your homework, you'll want to get a 60 gig before they are all sold out.
2007-10-16 08:45:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was certainly planning on using the PS3 as a bridge between my PS2 and PS3 games, just as I used my PS2 to play PS1 games early on.
However now that backwards compatibility is being dropped, and I still don't think $500 is a good buy for a PS3 that offers only slightly better graphics for PS2 games, I'll be waiting until there are more than enough PS3 games that interest me to justify its purchase. I can wait. If nothing else, I'll replace my XBox with a XBox 360, and play games there first. When (IF!) the PS3 has enough good exclusives of its own, I may consider buying one...but maybe after I buy a Wii first. The PS3 might be worth buying in 2010 or so.
2007-10-16 07:30:57 · answer #5 · answered by PoohBearPenguin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It certainly killed any chance of my buying a PS3.
I know you all are talking about how you play PS2 games on PS2. But what about in a few years when your PS2 breaks? Wouldn't you rather have your PS3 there to take care of those games, rather than spending more money to replace your PS2? Or maybe just selling your PS2 up front to help pay for your PS3?
2007-10-16 11:36:24 · answer #6 · answered by MagicianTrent 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I bought the 60GB instead. The 40BG is not useful to those of us who have a lot of PS2 games and haven't the room to keep a PS2 sitting plugged in next to it. For those of us who haven't many PS2 games or any at all, its a blessing though.
So yes, that was my reason behind not buying the 40GB.
2007-10-16 09:55:28 · answer #7 · answered by Pandagotchi 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I already have a 60GB PS3 and I have a PS2, and a Original Playstation, so backwards compatiblity wouldn't be an issue.
I would buy the 40GB PS3 even if it wasn't backwards compatible because I have the Original Playstation and PS2 to play my old games on.
2007-10-16 07:30:42 · answer #8 · answered by AdrianClay 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I've got the 60gb already...and no backwards compatability would suck...no GTA 3 or even Final Fantasy IX, X, or XII to play with when the new games get too boring...NO!!!
2007-10-16 07:23:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know, this'll sound strange, but I have PS3 to play PS3 games. If I'd wanted to play PS2 games - I would get PS2 instead.
2007-10-16 10:33:12 · answer #10 · answered by Bull Goose Loony 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋