PS3 slim

[jfrost]

On the other hand, people keep buying PS3s to play PS1 games, that's why they haven't removed that option.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

The point of it coming with a composite cable instead of a component cable is to guarantee compatibility for 99.9% of users (excluding RF users) to be able to hook it up straight out of the box.

My 360 came with a composite/component combination cable.

Yeah, but the point is that Sony isn't Microsoft.

When your company's bleeding money all over the place like Sony was during the PS3 launch then you would have gone with the cheapest cables as standard too wouldn't you?

Also the reason as to why the PS3 didn't ship with a component cable is due to the design of the multiout on the back which supports switching from AV to RF or Component on the fly as per the PS2's multiout, but the PS3 is a machine designed to output several different resolutions only one at a time not simultaneously. This means that if Joe Gamer wants to go straight from his HDTV/HDMI to Component or AV without turning off the system or switching his resolution and cable settings down to match then he runs the risk of frying his then $500 console.

It was a decision made to both cut costs and prevent accidental failures from misuse, remember a PlayStation 3 is not an Xbox 360 and their AV Multiouts will differ greatly in design and functionality.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

On the other hand, people keep buying PS3s to play PS1 games, that's why they haven't removed that option.

Well actually all PlayStation family systems contain the original PSone processor and chipset in some shape or form as it forms the basis for the setup of all of the boards functions etc...

[MrPopo]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

Yeah, the mentality after the PS2 era as far as I've seen is that it's like a birthright for new consoles to have it.

Another good reason is to save space. I can't ever have all of my consoles hooked up at once due to how many I have, so playing PS1 on PS2 or PS2 on the PS3 is a benefit to those of us with cramped quarters.

[racketboy]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

For space, financial, and av hookup reasons.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't offered in the first place and then yanked later.

[RadarScope1]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

I agree with Racket. There was a time when having all this stuff hooked up was a badge of honor. I still want to have lots of gaming goodness available at the flick of a power switch, but if I cannot arrange them in a way that looks presentable, I consider it clutter not a collection. I'm becoming more this way as I get older.

In this day of standardized disc drives, massively powerful hardware and flexible firmware, it just seems dumb that they can't include it.

[Mozgus]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

To be fair, the Sega Master System could play the Sega SG-1000 game cards. That was backwards compatibility right there. I'm sure there are a few other examples too.

[MrPopo]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

For space, financial, and av hookup reasons.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't offered in the first place and then yanked later.

That's the crux of the matter. The PS2 had backwards compatibility and that seems to have opened the floodgates. Except the Wii is the only console this generation to always have perfect BC. The 360 has a compatibility list, and all models after the 60 GB PS3 have a compatibility list or none at all.

I guess what's really making me wonder is that people are refusing to buy a PS3 at $299 because it doesn't have PS2 BC. The majority of these people, as I understand it, already have a PS2. The advantage to PS2 BC is that you no longer have to hook up the PS2 and that you can sell the PS2 to recoup some of the money. Except, how much can you get for a standalone PS2 these days? I'm seeing the Amazon marketplace having them start at around 30-60, so figure a consumer could get 15-30 at a Gamestop (feel free to chime in ModMan) or maybe a bit more off Craigslist. That's not a large amount, and then figure the money you would have to spend on the memory card adapter if you don't want to lose your saves. And in the grand scheme of things I highly doubt that anyone who wanted to would have a hard time finding a way to keep both the PS2 and the PS3 hooked up at the same time.

In this day of standardized disc drives, massively powerful hardware and flexible firmware, it just seems dumb that they can't include it.

There's two ways to go about including BC. The first is the hardware way; you basically put the old console into the new console. I think we can all agree that this can be expensive, especially at console launch. The second is software BC, but that requires you to program a good emulator that runs on the console's hardware. I think we've all seen that the emulation for more recent systems on powerful PC hardware is not easy, which leads to things like compatibility lists, an imperfect solution. Including BC is not trivial to do.

To be fair, the Sega Master System could play the Sega SG-1000 game cards. That was backwards compatibility right there. I'm sure there are a few other examples too.

Good point, though that's far enough into the realm of obscure that from the average consumer standpoint (even most gamers) the first console BC was the PS2. And I'm obviously not counting addons like the Sega Power Base Converter.

[racketboy]

Here's something I don't get. Why are people so opposed to owning both a PS2 and a PS3? I remember that for a very long time there was no such thing as backwards compatibility (outside the realm of the Gameboy). It wasn't until the PS2 hit that the console world saw it. Have we just all been spoiled or something?

I agree with Racket. There was a time when having all this stuff hooked up was a badge of honor. I still want to have lots of gaming goodness available at the flick of a power switch, but if I cannot arrange them in a way that looks presentable, I consider it clutter not a collection. I'm becoming more this way as I get older.

In this day of standardized disc drives, massively powerful hardware and flexible firmware, it just seems dumb that they can't include it.

And it's not like we really lose that badge of honor. I don't see myself getting rid of my other consoles -- but its nice being able to draw the line somewhere.