I just had a big response to Dean's statement that the PAL PS3 had "no" backward compatibility, when he goes and corrects himself:
I’m just starting to shake my head. Sony has announced that its PlayStation 3 consoles for the European market won’t be backward compatible with the PlayStation 2 or the PlayStation. (OK let me fix that: will be less backward compatible with the PS 2; PS 1 games compatible).-- Sony’s Latest Black Eye: No (ok ok a fix: Less) Backward Compatibility In Europe.
People seriously need to stop freaking out - especially to the point of wildly misreporting the facts. Reading the press on this and announcing the PS3 has dropped all BC is about as bad as assuming the PlayStation 3 wouldn't play Blu-Ray movies (from the top 10 worst). There is simply a huge gap between zero and some unknown number. It's like I tell the guys who write the specs ... you have to appreciate that the difference between infinitiy and any number might be a problem.
The exact impact on this has yet to be determined - however, Sony has said they hope to have at least 1,000 PS2 titles working for the PS3 when it launches in European. The official Xbox site lists like 300 titles compatible with the 360 - and I've certainly never read Dean complain about the 360's BC strategy. Dean goes on to complain that some equestrian requires rumble, and hence doesn't work on the PS3 and (by his logic) that means another undetermined amount of titles won't run on the PS3.
I've stated many times that backwards compatibility is a huge selling point for me across any of the current gen consoles. Dean's stated that for him - it's not a big deal. If I'm willing to wait for the actual compatibility lists to hit - I think he can do the same.
tagged: game, gaming