PS3 General Discussion

[DuckRacer]

First of all I am not making the trip especially for it, I will be going abroad anyway. I think you just being over the top with the importing definition! Im on holiday and I will purchase one whilst im there. The duty in other countries is far less than that of the UK... I already have a quoted price of £246 pounds from Sony Style Hong Kong.... and that is all I will pay, sales tax included (HK doesn't have a high sales tax).

Besides all of this, I don't even understand why you care about what I personally do! Its simple... Its £246 there and £424 pounds here... If you happen to be going abroad anyway then the travel fair is not a factor in its cost......end of story

However if you are going abroad to especially do it then it does not make sense, AS I SAID BEFORE!

Robin

Just don't be surprised when you have to import the Japan version of a game when the Euro version won't work.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

First of all I am not making the trip especially for it, I will be going abroad anyway.

I never suggested otherwise.

I think you just being over the top with the importing definition!

I'm not the one importing a PS3 and saying I'm not. If you do not understand the concept of importing I suggest you look it up.

Im on holiday and I will purchase one whilst im there. The duty in other countries is far less than that of the UK...

While you are at it, I suggest you look up the tax laws. Duty tax is not governed by and does not go to the country you bought it in, it is governed by and goes to the country you are bringing the equipment into. When you land, by law you must declare the PS3 you bought in HK and pay an import tax on it.

Besides all of this, I don't even understand why you care about what I personally do!

I don't, and in fact if you also plan on trying to sneak your PS3 through customs I don’t care about that either. What I care about though is when someone makes public claims that are not true, like how the PS3 is twice the cost in the UK and that by buying it on holiday and bringing it back they are somehow not importing it – and then go on to defend themselves by claiming we don’t understand the situation and that we are simply making assumptions.


Hopefully this is the end of the "twice the price" and "importing" topics.

 

[Tornado]

I'm personally very worried about the way Sony worded the actual press release concerning the backwards compatability issue (particularly the "company resources looking towards the future" crap). That being said, I also look forward to the benefits that it promises, similar to the benefits promised in the XBox 360's emulation. I'm also glad that the backwards compatability stuff will not be compromised for the PS1 titles.

 

[Robin]

To Digital-Nitrate

I still don't understand why you are so hung up about the importing bit! You keep saying that what I am doing is importing... fine ok then! if it will calm you down then yes I am importing, gosh its all about the right word. So every souvenir I buy I am importing it right? and the pictures I take, I'l be importing them back over here as well. I don't go and look up British Tax Law or a definitions every time someone just casually makes a point. I am sorry if I have personally offended you, I didn't realise that exact terminology has to be used in a casual discussion thread.

When I said twice the price its roughly twice the price! If you want to argue over the £68 difference then fine! But of course its all about exactly quoting what someone is saying isn't it! Such comments wouldn't really bother me personally.

I don't want to keep littering this thread with this on going conversation, what I do and my personal views are my own business but I still have a right, within reason, to voice them here. You could have just said you don't agree with my points after my first post but no.

The European price is ridiculous and that is my point of view.

Robin

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I don't want to keep littering this thread with this on going conversation

And yet you continue to do so.

what I do and my personal views are my own business but I still have a right, within reason, to voice them here.

Absolutely, and when you, I, and everyone else makes statements that are misleading, inaccurate, exaggerated, or false, everyone has the right to correct them.

You could have just said you don't agree with my points after my first post but no.

It's not about agreeing with your points; it is about clearing up the facts... which is what I did, but instead of leaving it at that you kept responding, and then added more inaccuracies in regards to what it means to import a PS3. I also made a simple quick response to that as well to clear up that fact, and yet you continue.

I'm not addressing your opinions; I'm addressing facts... or the lack thereof.

Just so you know...

The European price is ridiculous and that is my point of view.

... is an opinion, for which many would agree.

However, the following are not opinions, they are inaccurate facts:

.........for double the price!

I am not suggesting importing

If you really must continue this, feel free to PM me directly.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Sheesh, you all act like most of your games won't work and the sky is falling. $10 says there's going to be 200 games that won't work normally like on US systems, and 98% of those games will be dippy oddball Japanese games.

Not to mention that since they're going with the emulation route, you guys will probably get your BC games in 720p/1080i with a good amount of anti-aliasing.

But it is still some games. Really, don't act all self righteous. If you can't play one game, for a short time, that is still an inconveniance that shouldn't happen.

But even still, that's not close to double.

£252 x 2 = £504. £504 - £425 = £79 difference.

*snip*
It's not like the PS3's backward compatible games catalog got slashed in half.

£79 is about 2 games. That could make a huge difference to your release day enjoyment.

So much for your crying.

But it's an inconveniance that no-one else has except Europe. It could make a difference, a tiny difference, but it's not saving people anything! Okay, it may save money for teh people who buy after a few months (Like myself) but the people that buy on release day it's a pathetic reason. They're not going to care about the prices dropping in the first year.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sure it will spread to the other regions of consoles by June/July.

 

[LaBounti]

We wont know what games wont work until someone has a system to test, so why get all emotional before even knowing what games wont work? On top of that updates for games will come. Like I said its also the start of downloadable ps1 games on ps3 with the emulator. I say complain when your ps2 game doesn't work. Then you can bash Sony for trying to save money.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

I never understood why people continue to like ancient and outdated games. Why do so many people still want to play PS1 games? i dont play any games from the original playstation and i cant really understand why anyone would still want to. Especially if they have a playstation 3.

 

[Tornado]

I never understood why people continue to like ancient and outdated games. Why do so many people still want to play PS1 games? i dont play any games from the original playstation and i cant really understand why anyone would still want to. Especially if they have a playstation 3.

Nostalgia. Memories. Longevity. The ability to play games you might have missed when they first came out for cheap. A game does not have to be viewed at 1080p with Dolby 5.1 to be a good game. There is more to games than graphics, and while I am making a gross simplification, that is all the PS3 really has on the PS1.
I dunno. I've heard this alot and it makes me think that the only way to appreciate good gameplay is to start playing games at the tailend of a console generation.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Well, I do understand and respect that, but in my opinion, its somewhat pointless to play playstation 1 games, solely because there is usually a newer, better version of the same game, that is so much better. Now in the case that it is the only version of the game to come out, like say the original mario bros. 1, 2, and 3, for nintendo, well there is no better version of the exact same game, so i could understand wanting to still play those.

 

[Tornado]

but in my opinion, its somewhat pointless to play playstation 1 games, solely because there is usually a newer, better version of the same game, that is so much better.

I own Need For Speed III and IV, Lunar 1 and 2, The Italian Job, Driver 1 and 2, Ridge Racer Type 4, and the entire Spyro series. All PS1 exclusives, except for PC versions (and rudimentary Japanese-language Saturn versions). All of those choices have games that came out after in the series that are nowhere near as good.

 

[Jedi2016]

Why play PS1 games? I can sum it up in five words: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

Out of my collection, there's also Final Fantasy VII, Bushido Blade, Doom, and the first two Legacy of Kain games. And don't forget Metal Gear Solid.

Just because there are newer games in the same franchise doesn't mean the early games lose all their appeal. Especially in the case of series like LoK and MGS, where it's a continuing story. Why throw away the first few chapters just because they're old? Should I throw away all of my PS2 games now that I own a PS3? Should I say "screw it" to God of War II just because it's a "last-gen" game?

Don't get hung up on the "newer games are better" attitude. It's not always accurate.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Well, never did i say newer games are better. But I would rather play newer versions of most games, simply because the graphics are better and they dont give me headaches. Also, if i go back and play the predecessors (sp?) and they lack a feature that i like about the newer version, it just seems pointless to play it when i could have more fun playing the newer game. Its my opinion, thats all. And im not really worried about whether or not my ps3 plays my ps2 games, if i want to play them that bad, ill just use my ps2.

And, i didnt even mention anything about games that are last gen, just boring old games that have newer, better versions. I.E. Grand theft auto.

 

[LaBounti]

I started over in Blood Omen Legacy of Kain. And i'm enjoying it in upscaled 480p unlike ps1/2's original low resolution. I also one a few ps1 game. Thunder force V, Colony Wars 1 and 2, Soul Reaver! But wish i could find more ps1 games for sale since Gamestop stopped selling them.

 

[slackbladder]

Colony Wars 1 and 2

Oh I miss Colony Wars from the Playstation days. I did like them. And G-Police. I'd love to see new PS3 versions of those games!

 

[land sea air]

Awesome games I will definitely play on the PS3 (if they work)
Twisted Metal 1 and 2
Gran Turismo 1 and 2
NFS HP and High Stakes
Resident Evil 2 and Nemesis

newer is not always better, I do understand where you're coming from though DP, if the particular games you play have better versions out then you wouldn't need any PS compatibility, for many it is very important though

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Sheesh, you all act like most of your games won't work and the sky is falling. $10 says there's going to be 200 games that won't work normally like on US systems, and 98% of those games will be dippy oddball Japanese games.

Not to mention that since they're going with the emulation route, you guys will probably get your BC games in 720p/1080i with a good amount of anti-aliasing.

But hey, in the end, your games will all probably be backward compatible and get 720p upscaling and AA thrown in. And then we'll be singing Sony's praises and sell our PS2s and throwing a Ferrari around a track in GTHD.

It's not like the PS3's backward compatible games catalog got slashed in half.

We wont know what games wont work until someone has a system to test, so why get all emotional before even knowing what games wont work? On top of that updates for games will come. Like I said its also the start of downloadable ps1 games on ps3 with the emulator. I say complain when your ps2 game doesn't work. Then you can bash Sony for trying to save money.

All excellent posts that seem to need repeating.

I also can't help but wonder why, if BC was such an important issue in the first place, why is it that the same media types and people flaming Sony are not doing the same over the limited BC of Nintendo's Wii?

In addition the following article from Colin Campbell of Business Week does a great job of addressing this and other issues regarding the PS3:

• Sony's Got It Right

The fuss over Sony's decision to drop hardware backwards compatibility from European versions of the PS3 will fade quickly.

Some hysterical commentators are predicting an “impending firestorm”; a public backlash. The fact is, it won’t materialize. Why? Because backwards compatibility is No Big Deal; a lot of noise made by a vocal minority.

It was the right decision for Sony to make, and ought to have been made earlier. Sony will almost certainly do the same with future iterations of the console around the world.

In fact, the company told us it would drop hardware emulation way back in the summer of 2006. In June of last year, a report in Japanese technology magazine Ultra One Monthly stated that the firm would be removing the PS2 chipset from future revisions of the PS3 hardware once it completed development of a software-based emulator.

We don’t know how much Sony is saving by removing this chip but our very rough estimate is around $30 – a significant amount of money for a company in dire need of controlling losses on its hardware. Sony must find smart ways to mitigate the $200 or so it loses every time it gains a PS3 consumer.

It is becoming clearer to everyone, including Sony, that there will be no clear winner in this console generation and that the sort of luxuries associated with market dominance are not available to the company. Guaranteed hardware backwards compatibility is one of these.

Unpopular? Us?

We understand that this will not be a popular view, most especially in the forums, where there has been some concern over this decision. They make some good arguments. They point out that Sony has prospered by offering a direct line of backwards compatibility stretching way back to 1995. They argue that people unsure of staying with PlayStation brand, or switching to Xbox 360, will not be encouraged by this news. Effectively, they say, it’s a way of alienating PlayStation’s most loyal customers.

There is some truth to this argument, and doubtless a small number of consumers will switch based on this news. We realize that some people will want to go back to their fave games, having traded in their PS2 to help pay for PS3.

But on a list of ‘reasons to buy a games console,’ backwards compatibility comes pretty low down; certainly lower than quality of current and future game libraries, quality of online services, benefits such as a Blu-ray drive; price etc.

These are the areas where Sony knows it needs to pick up its game. We don't believe BC is important enough to warrant the kind of investment being asked of Sony. Neither does Sony. Thus far, no major publishers have condemned or even questioned the decision.

Hardware Tinkering

Potentially more problematic is Sony’s tinkering with its hardware, giving software makers even more of a hard life having to create their games for multiple console iterations of the same games. There is a real danger here that we will end up in a PC-like universe where software developers and publishers become blasé about releases, patching things up later with downloadable fixes.

But Sony has done this sort of thing for the past 12 years. Each hardware platform goes through mutliple iterative versions that are all compatible with each other but slightly different from a manufacturing or component perspective. Each one is cheaper and quicker to manufacture.

Even so, Sony must strive to make sure its QA department is even more fastidious than usual; in truth an area where the company has generally been pretty effective. The company must offer support to developers, an area where its record is, well, patchy.

Also, the decision to release a list of emulated games after the console launches (in Europe) has done little to mitigate the negative press associated with this announcement. It’s all down to implementation, of course, but it looks too much like conspiracy to the online rabble-rousers.

Those Ninjas

But the real calculation for Sony in making this decision has been in terms of public reception, and thus far, the negative press surrounding this story has been low-level.

The costs of software emulation ‘Ninjas’ ought to be borne by the marketing and PR department because that is where the benefit lies. Someone somewhere is working hard to make games that nobody plays any more work on systems where nobody will play them, all to pacify a small number of BC Watchers. It is a waste of human effort.

Nintendo, a company that can draw on ferocious loyalty, has traditionally given very little thought to backwards compatibility, so it’s curious that the giant non-games originated firms are the ones with the hang-ups on this issue. Nintendo is now making money from reselling very old games online; individually. Nobody seems to see this as a problem, and why should they? Both Microsoft and Sony are now paying lip-service to BC; offering software emulation and online patches which they both realize will have a negligible impact on their businesses.

The idea that BC is somehow a duty for game publishers is absurd. The console games market is not a single platform system, probably never will be, and there is no compelling historical example of BC to draw on. Wii is backwardly compatible to GameCube but it's interesting how little play Nintendo has made of this benefit. Xbox 360 has sailed through its own BC controversy. And although the PlayStation 2 user base is larger, with a bigger library, it seems unlikely that success or failure rests on this factor.

Final thought – it would be fascinating to see a commercial test of consumers having to actually pay for BC. Having forked out a significant amount of income for the hardware, how many would pay an extra $30 or so to play all their PS2 games? And of those who did – probably the sort of people who actually buy warranties – how many would get their money’s worth?

Finally, if what Duck is suggesting turns out to be true, and that emulation may not only give all Euros BC games, but possibly end up with superior results over hardware BC used in the US & Japan... it would certainly make all of these rants about the European version of the PS3 rather silly at best.

I think LaBounti said it best, in that until its out, tested, and any software issues addressed, its probably much too soon to be crying wolf.

 

[FoolKiller]

I also can't help but wonder why, if BC was such an important issue in the first place, why is it that the same media types and people flaming Sony are not doing the same over the limited BC of Nintendo's Wii?

Because they don't want to blow every time they feel like a bit of nostalgia.

Actually though, I see a lot of whining about what is available for the VC and when their favorite game will, if ever, come out. I still hear about the "lackluster selection." Then when the games they loved do come out they buy them up like mad at $5-$10 a piece, despite being able to buy them all (in some cases) in a collection for $20 total. For instance every, decent game for the Genesis on the VC ($8 a piece) can be purchased all in one collection for $20 on the PS2. First, they complain and then they pay too high of a price for games available elsewhere.

The difference between Wii and PS3 is Wii users were only promised Gamecube backwards compatibility and different regions didn't get a different setup.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

How about some real IMPORTANT news. UK owners will pay less for their PS3 titles than they will for 360 titles.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6166398.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;3

So, after what, 10 games? You've saved 100 pounds? So throughout the live of the console (say, 4 years?) you buy about what, maybe 5 games a year? That's 20 games, and about 200 pounds saved. Then take into account that XBL costs money, so save on that over 4 years, and that's what, another 200 pounds saved?

Hmmm....

 

[Tornado]

I also can't help but wonder why, if BC was such an important issue in the first place, why is it that the same media types and people flaming Sony are not doing the same over the limited BC of Nintendo's Wii?

I don't see how the two can be compared. By what standard is the Wii limited in backwards compatability? I haven't heard any problems with playing Gamecube games. You can even use the original controller. And I'm sure it would have been quite a bit unfeasible to try to get the Wii to play N64 games, no matter how noble the deed. Apples and oranges.
That article also has a few rather glaring inaccuracies.

Nintendo, a company that can draw on ferocious loyalty, has traditionally given very little thought to backwards compatibility

and there is no compelling historical example of BC to draw on...
...Having forked out a significant amount of income for the hardware, how many would pay an extra $30 or so to play all their PS2 games?

In addition, I'm sure paying $30 to have BC compatible games is very cheap and less fussy than buy another PS2 to replace the one that was probably sold to pay for the PS3.

These are the areas where Sony knows it needs to pick up its game. We don't believe BC is important enough to warrant the kind of investment being asked of Sony. Neither does Sony.

They probably shouldn't have hyped it then. In fact, they should have come out and said what they planned to do before the PS3 even launched.

Someone somewhere is working hard to make games that nobody plays any more work on systems where nobody will play them, all to pacify a small number of BC Watchers. It is a waste of human effort.

Someone somewhere wants to play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I guess they are a waste of a human being.

Wii is backwardly compatible to GameCube but it's interesting how little play Nintendo has made of this benefit.

Relavent, how?

And of those who did – probably the sort of people who actually buy warranties – how many would get their money’s worth?

I dunno. Though I am sure that if they planned on paying for it they would very easily get their money's worth. What a smartass remark.

How about some real IMPORTANT news. UK owners will pay less for their PS3 titles than they will for 360 titles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Had they done that here, the PS3 would already be ahead of the 360.

That's 20 games, and about 200 pounds saved.

And that would just about make up the difference between buying a Premium 360 and buying a PS3.
Though I get your point.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

And that would just about make up the difference between buying a Premium 360 and buying a PS3.
Though I get your point.

Well, that's the thing. I didn't even take into account XBL. And for the hardcore, like myself, who buy 10 games a year, those UK gamers could be saving a LOT of money.

That could amount to nearly 600 pounds saved in 4 years, if you take into account the costs of XBL (which I think is 50 pounds in EU?). I don't know man, while Sony may be making a few "bad" moves, they're making some really really good moves.

Really though, how many UK gamers do you think will care about BC right off of the bat when they'll have 30 brand new amazing PS3 games to play at launch? Very few, not to mention there are about 10 to 15 more games coming to the UK between launch and June. So with around 45 games total by the end of June, they'll hardly be concerned with BC.

 

[Eric.]

Do you think the the software based emulator will be included in an update? If Sony wants to push 1080i/p to everybody you would think they'd do it.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I don't see how the two can be compared.

It's about how much interest there really is in BC to begin with. Certainly there is some interest, but if there was a great deal of interest (instead of mostly nostalgic discussions on internet forums by a minority of users), than Nintendo would be designing consoles like the PS3 that can play games from all previous consoles. They do not, and no one makes any noise about it. Those that want to play older games hold on to their old Nintendo consoles and games... or more likely, they use software emulation on their PCs to play classic games.

They [Sony] probably shouldn't have hyped it [BC] then.

The hype has mostly come from outside Sony, but as it were, Sony has made the PS3 BC, and by all accounts, so will the Euro version through emulation... and possibly do a better job at it then the US & Japanese version... making all this fuss all the more bizarre.

 

[Tornado]

Well, that's the thing. I didn't even take into account XBL. And for the hardcore, like myself, who buy 10 games a year, those UK gamers could be saving a LOT of money.

You know, I was joking.

Really though, how many UK gamers do you think will care about BC right off of the bat when they'll have 30 brand new amazing PS3 games to play at launch?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that every game launched with the system will be amazing.

Very few, not to mention there are about 10 to 15 more games coming to the UK between launch and June. So with around 45 games total by the end of June, they'll hardly be concerned with BC.

You know, 45 games would cost $2,700 in this country. It would cost $3,510 in the U.K.
As LaBounti stated, until we know the scope of the blow dealt to backwards compatability, we can't even begin to predict the scope to the blow it will have on new software sales or, in more drastic terms, console sales. Thats not even taking into account that GBR is already kinda getting screwed on the console in the first place, or the idea that it is a completely different market with completely different standards.
For example, one could say that as the games are higher priced than they are in America, games sales in the U.K. may not be a fluid or frequent. Or, as the system costs so much in relation to both America and its competitors, they may expect it to have BC.

Certainly there is some interest, but if there was a great deal of interest (instead of just nostalgic discussions on internet forums by a small minority of users), than Nintendo would be designing consoles like the PS3 that can play games from all previous consoles. They do not, and no one makes any noise about it. Those that want to play older games hold on to their old Nintendo consoles and games.

You missed my point. Its apples and oranges simply because of the media in question. The PS3 only needs to have a special chip to allow hardware-based BC. The Blu-Ray drive can (correct me if I'm wrong) read the actual media easily enough. This does not apply to Nintendo, and I can guarantee it would cost far more to do hardware emulation than it would to do software emulation for Nintendo than it does for Sony.


And, without care of starting controversy, I find it terribly ironic and quite saddening in relation to the general sentiment to this news; especilly considering how much the people on this forum, and in this thread in particular, completely and utterly chewed out the XBox 360 and Peter Moore for saying essentially the same thing, yet when Sony says it it is alright.

 

[livemusic]

In addition, I'm sure paying $30 to have BC compatible games is very cheap and less fussy than buy another PS2 to replace the one that was probably sold to pay for the PS3.

But that's the point. How many Game Gear and Genesis owners had those adapters? A small percentage I'm sure.

So why make this extra cost a standard on the console when most of its users wouldn't buy it if they were sold separately?

 

[Tornado]

But that's the point. How many Game Gear and Genesis owners had those adapters? A small percentage I'm sure.

And to your question I ask a similar question: How does that percentage carry any significance in this case?
13 million people owned the Master System. I'm sure 90% of those sales came from Brazil.
29 million owned the Mega Drive.
Mega Drive sales were more than double those of the Master System, yet Sega still released the Power Base Converter. And the Power Base converter was simply an adaptor, as no SMS parts were in it. So Sega, despite lackluster sales for the SMS, still saw it fit to include all of the parts for the SMS inside the Sega Genesis by design, despite the fact that it was clear at the beginning that everything would be an uphill battle. Even if only a third of the people who owned Mega Drives bought Power Base Converters, that is still nearly the entire populance of Master System owners, and is sure as hell the entire popluance not in Brazil. The fact that the actual percentage may be small, or that Sega charged extra for the Power Base Converter, is irrelavent in this comparison.
In retrospect, 102 million people bought Playstations.
115 million people owned Playstation 2's.
If everyone who bought a PS1 bought a PS2, than everyone who owned a PS1 could still play their games. The same fact applies to the PS3. Everyone who bought a PS1 or 2 that buys a PS3 can still play their games.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

You missed my point. Its apples and oranges simply because of the media in question. The PS3 only needs to have a special chip to allow hardware-based BC. The Blu-Ray drive can (correct me if I'm wrong) read the actual media easily enough. This does not apply to Nintendo, and I can guarantee it would cost far more to do hardware emulation than it would to do software emulation for Nintendo than it does for Sony.

I addressed your point, but you seem to be avoiding mine.

The point was very few ever complain about the lack of BC with most of Nintendo's previous releases. In addition, "if" BC was so important, Nintendo would have designed this and other consoles to always be backward compatible. They could have, they didn't. They could have done it with the Wii as well through emulation and downloading software. The point though is that the market for BC is obviously very small.

However the point that you keep avoiding is why all the fuss anyway? By all appearances the Euro version of the PS3 is BC, and perhaps will perform better than the US & Japanese version.

Only time will tell.

 

[Tornado]

The point was very few ever complain about the lack of BC with most of Nintendo's previous releases. In addition, "if" BC was so important, Nintendo would have designed this and other consoles to always be backward compatible. They could have, they didn't.

BC didn't become big until the PS2, and it is pretty common knowledge that that was the case; so why ask such a question?

They could have done it with the Wii as well through emulation and downloading software.

For all intents and purposes, they do do that with the Wii, including with non-Nintendo systems; so either you are in fact still missing my point, or I'm still missing yours

However the point that you keep avoiding is why all the fuss anyway? By all appearances the Euro version of the PS3 is BC, and perhaps will perform better than the US & Japanese version.

You wanna know why?

Rather than concentrate on PS2 backwards compatibility, in the future, company resources will be increasingly focused on developing new games and entertainment features exclusively for PS3, truly taking advantage of this exciting technology.

That's why. That is nearly a ver batim quote of what Peter Moore (there is that irony again) said two year ago. And look at the hurdles that the 360 is still in with XBox BC.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

The point is there is very little evidence that BC is a deal breaking feature for any console, and more importantly it makes a lot more sense to wait until the Euro PS3 is released, and for the emulation to be tested before crying fowl.