Jack Tretton (SCEA CEO)- Save money by buying BOTH a 40GB PS3 and a PS2!

[GizmoGC]

Wow. He is a genius! Talk about an awesome 10 year plan. 10 Years all the way!

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/18/tretton-financial-math-new-ps3-ps2-old-ps3/
In an interview with Newsweek, Sony America CEO Jack Tretton explains why the 40GB PS3's lack of backwards compatibility with such simple math, it's hard to argue. Tretton breaks down the math all fancy like and makes intelligible that which we've been missing this whole time. The old 60GB PS3 with full BC was $600. The new 40GB PS3 with no PS2 BC is $400. By adding the cost of a PS2 at $129, the total for the two consoles is $529 ($70 less than the original 60GB price). Tretton says, "I've got two machines that do everything the same machine did a year ago at $599. So it's hard for me to see that as a negative for the consumer." That may be some fantastic spin, but at least it's not a lie. Of course, the math would be easier to swallow if the 60GB wasn't really $500, and if said consumer hadn't come to depend on the PS3's upscaling of old games.

Tretton goes on to avoid answering any questions regarding the 80GB PS3 model (now dropping to $500) and its chances of getting roped into the same clearance sale the 60GB model was. He goes on to say that the framerate issues in Madden 08 were simply due to the system's newer technology -- the same complaints heard from developers on every PlayStation system so far. Tretton concludes that "at the end of the day, the developers got up to speed, the consoles enjoyed an extremely successful long ten-year road map." With any luck, the 40GB PS3 will finally reveal the road map Sony needs for the PS3's next ten years.

[H.Cornerstone]

Wow. He is a genius! Talk about an awesome 10 year plan. 10 Years all the way!

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/18/tretton-financial-math-new-ps3-ps2-old-ps3/

I thikn we have all decided that Jack Tretton is an idiot, we don't need to post his quotes anymore.

[The Mana Knight]

People are just taking an article and blowing it way out of proportional again to spread FUD against Sony, hate on Tretton (I actually like Tretton a lot and respect the guy), and people trying to turn positive Sony news into something bad.

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.

[Purkeynator]

oh boy I get to buy memory cards and no ps2/ps1 upscaling for more money! Lets not forget the 60GB version is $500 not 600

[Vinny]

That really wasn't the smartest thing to say... but, it's expect from a moron like JT.

On the other hand, almost everybody already owns a PS2.:lol:

[Richlough]

Hey , why not buy a new HDTV with more inputs on it while your at it .
Don't forget some Blu-Ray movies .

What a great plan .

[GizmoGC]

People are just taking an article and blowing it way out of proportional again to spread FUD against Sony, hate on Tretton (I actually like Tretton a lot and respect the guy), and people trying to turn positive Sony news into something bad.

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.

You make me sick.

[Sarang01]

People are just taking an article and blowing it way out of proportional again to spread FUD against Sony, hate on Tretton (I actually like Tretton a lot and respect the guy), and people trying to turn positive Sony news into something bad.

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.

I think he's an ass. When I buy a PS3 I want bc with upscaling PERIOD though I lament the fact pretty much NO Bemani game is bc. I look forward to buying a Japanese PS3 with bc, "Venus and Braves" and other Japanese exclusive PS2 games with upscaling ftw. "Primal" and "Frequency" are the only two Western developed games that may not be available on the Japanese PS2 I would give a shit about Western devved wise. Too many Japanese developed PS2 products not over here however.

[-Never4ever-]

People are just taking an article and blowing it way out of proportional again to spread FUD against Sony, hate on Tretton (I actually like Tretton a lot and respect the guy), and people trying to turn positive Sony news into something bad.

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.

:rofl: You & Tretton have a lot in common . . .

[GizmoGC]

The Mana Knight,

http://zales.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pZALE1-3220638t240.jpg

Its beautiful! Please let us all know the official date when you two love birds set a wedding date.

[Apossum]

Great idea! I'll take it one further and save money by sticking with my PS2.

[lanzarlaluna]

OK, I'm starting to think TMK is a Sony plant. Maybe one of those "All I want for Christmas is a PSP" dudes. I'm dead serious.

[zewone]

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.
You have to be a joke account.

[GizmoGC]

OK, I'm starting to think TMK is a Sony plant. Maybe one of those "All I want for Christmas is a PSP" dudes. I'm dead serious.

If Sony announced a $1,800 PS3 with no BC and a 10GB drive he would be saying "Amazing. Sony really knows its stuff."

[Demolition Man]

People are just taking an article and blowing it way out of proportional again to spread FUD against Sony, hate on Tretton (I actually like Tretton a lot and respect the guy), and people trying to turn positive Sony news into something bad.

This is why my blood pressure is dangerously high due to the stresses of forum posting.

So in other words its okay that one year Sony says that backwards compatability is a key essential of the Playstation brand then the next year go the cheapstake route by saying that "oh people you really should buy both a PS2 and PS3."

All Sony is doing now is just quickening the pace of digging their own grave. Hell Microsoft and Nintendo don't need to do a thing to help Sony on their own merry way since Sony is doing a perfectly good job on their own.

[GizmoGC]

More of The Mana Knights future husband...

The feature-gimped PlayStation 3 with a 40 GB hard drive is coming to North America at a reduced price, but without the ability to play PlayStation 2 games. If you thought Sony was removing the PS2 guts out of the system, saving them gobs of cash and passing the savings on to you, late adopters, maybe you should think again. According to the Wall Street Journal's paraphrasing of SCEA boss Jack Tretton, the removal of PS2 backward compatibility and other components isn't "dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing" on Sony's behemoth console.

Instead, the handicapping of the PS3 was part of an effort to "encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system." If only there were some other ways of doing that outside of ripping out the PS3's ability to play PS2 games better than an actual PS2 in so many cases.

God, I just can't think of any. Obviously having better PS3 software won't work. Nor would working more closely with third parties to help them ship their PS3 ports of Xbox 360 titles day and date, feature for feature. I'll admit... I'm stumped!

[jer7583]

No, this is not positive sony news, and tretton can stick the 40GB PS3 where the sun doesn't shine. If they weren't willing to take a $20 loss per unit and add the GS in the 40GB unit then screw them. They're in third, they should be trying harder, but their not.

The PS2 should not be $130 anymore either. Anybody could see past Tretton's spin here. He really should just keep his mouth shut.

And it's also bullshit that they haven't dropped the 60Gig price. Those things are still in huge supply. It's all positioning and marketing, they can't drop the 60 gig price and have it be between the 80 and 40 gig, because it'd pretty much force a 40 gig price drop or make it look overpriced, so they just IGNORE the 60 gig and pretend like the 40 and 80 are the only ones that exist.

Stupid, stupid stupid Sony continues to shoot themselves in the foot every time they have a chance at redemption. Why? Who makes these ass backwards decisions?

I'll get a used 60 gig with backwards compat in 2009 for $200, because Sony just lost two holidays in a row. They're the saturn of this gen if they don't do something quick. Everyone who criticized Microsoft for their Backwards Compatability efforts has nothing but crow to eat right now. Sony's not even trying to do software emulation, while Microsoft spent almost a year getting titles people wanted to work, upscaled, and online.

Gizmo's absolutely correct. Removal of BC is almost certainly because PS3 software isn't selling. They think they can force these new, low price buyers into buying software. It'll never happen.

[ramatut4001]

More of The Mana Knights future husband...

Yeah, I just saw that on Kotaku. What a great way to spin it the wrong direction, Jack. I guess that means they'll be phasing out the 80GB soon? Don't want people to miss that great PS3 library...

[nadsofed]

Maybe they'll come out with a ps3 that has a slot for te ps2 to go into.

[jer7583]

They will eventually want to remove BC from all PS3 units on the shelf. Someone inside Sony probably honestly believes the reason software isn't moving is because everyone's just buying PS2 games.. Why compete with yourself? Morons.

[The Mana Knight]

Tretton is a decent guy, but really bad at interviews (Kind of like me, lol). He has nothing to do with the reason PS2 BC was removed (It was up to SCEI and Sony Corp themselves). I think what Tretton meant was, with a cheaper PS3, this will now give those more money to buy PS3 games along with their PS3.

I hate it when people jump all over a mistake someone says, because not everyone is a perfect communicator. Now if MS were to say something dumb, everyone here would excuse it.

Here's an IGN article with Peter Dille:
IGN: There's been a lot of talk too about backwards compatibility. What's that factor into for the 40 gig?

Peter: The 40 gigabyte from a backwards compatibility perspective -- it'll play PS One games but we've basically removed the PS2 backwards compatibility. As I said earlier, we're looking to cost reduce the unit so everything's on the table. The research that we have, consumers like backwards compatibility. It's nice to have, but also we know it's not their primary purchase consideration; and price is a more important consideration than PS2 backwards compatibility. So, I think our position on our commitment to the PS2 gamers is such that we've been supporting the PS2 consumer and will continue to support the PS2 as a platform for ten full years. We're in the eighth year. There's 160 games coming out for PS2. So, if you're into PS2 games, we're right there with you, and there's a $129 unit that'll play them very, very well called the PS2.

Again, the ability to get the PS3 down to $399 was kind of the overarching factor there, and I think that stands in contrast to our competition where when they launched - -well, actually before they launched the 360 -- they just cut off the Xbox sales completely. Stopped making software for it. They stopped shipping the hardware. If you bought an Xbox, you're out of luck. That's not the case with the PlayStation 2. Like I said, there's a ten-year product commitment. We're still making great games for PS2, there's 160 PlayStation 2 games coming out this year, and you've got several years left in that system. We really think it's still a very exciting time to be a gamer no matter what platform you've got.http://ps3.ign.com/articles/828/828443p2.html

I agree with what he said pretty much. To an extent, I'd recommend playing PS2 games on PS2 over PS3 (even with the 60GB), because around 25-30% of the PS2 upscaled games look worse (due to being too blurry), playing PS2 games can be a pain because you have to reconnect the controllers (because the bluetooth needs to switch to PS2 hardware mode), and many accessories just don't work on PS3 (like the Guitar, getting some dance pads to work can be a pain, Taiko Drum doesn't work, etc.). But I will admit saving games on the HDD is nice. Still, there's an 80GB PS3 where the BC keeps getting bigger and bigger with every update, so if you want BC badly, buy an 80GB or hunt down a 60GB.

Also, one reason why the PS3 has fewer games has to do with many developers not bringing a PS3 version of games because PS3 was able to play most all PS2 games. Guitar Hero II. Thrillville: Off the Rails, Crash of the Titans, Warriors Orochi, etc. didn't come to PS3 due to PS2 BC. PS3 needs all the games it can get and this could force more devs to make PS3 games, due to not being able to include PS3 owners into being able to play a new PS2 game.

[dpatel]

:rofl: Sony is always so entertaining.

[GizmoGC]

Tretton is a decent guy, but really bad at interviews (Kind of like me, lol). He has nothing to do with the reason PS2 BC was removed (It was up to SCEI and Sony Corp themselves). I think what Tretton meant was, with a cheaper PS3, this will now give those more money to buy PS3 games along with their PS3.

I hate it when people jump all over a mistake someone says, because not everyone is a perfect communicator. Now if MS were to say something dumb, everyone here would excuse it.

Here's an IGN article with Peter Dille:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/828/828443p2.html

I agree with what he said pretty much. To an extent, I'd recommend playing PS2 games on PS2 over PS3 (even with the 60GB), because around 25-30% of the PS2 upscaled games look worse (due to being too blurry), playing PS2 games can be a pain because you have to reconnect the controllers (because the bluetooth needs to switch to PS2 hardware mode), and many accessories just don't work on PS3 (like the Guitar, getting some dance pads to work can be a pain, Taiko Drum doesn't work, etc.). But I will admit saving games on the HDD is nice. Still, there's an 80GB PS3 where the BC keeps getting bigger and bigger with every update, so if you want BC badly, buy an 80GB or hunt down a 60GB.

Also, one reason why the PS3 has fewer games has to do with many developers not bringing a PS3 version of games because PS3 was able to play most all PS2 games. Guitar Hero II. Thrillville: Off the Rails, Crash of the Titans, Warriors Orochi, etc. didn't come to PS3 due to PS2 BC. PS3 needs all the games it can get and this could force more devs to make PS3 games, due to not being able to include PS3 owners into being able to play a new PS2 game.

Lets just be honest. If he came out and said "To play the PS3 you need to feed it live babies every day" you would be "Sounds Good! Where can I get a dozen?"

[Blackout]

So in other words its okay that one year Sony says that backwards compatability is a key essential of the Playstation brand then the next year go the cheapstake route by saying that "oh people you really should buy both a PS2 and PS3."

All Sony is doing now is just quickening the pace of digging their own grave. Hell Microsoft and Nintendo don't need to do a thing to help Sony on their own merry way since Sony is doing a perfectly good job on their own.

I guess its just me, but I don't think this is such a huge, huge deal. Ok yeah I agree, BC would be great, and Sony shouldn't have been saying it is part of their plan..but I mean, cmon. Even if Sony had full BC and lowered the price, most of you would still be bitching anyway. I think the BC won't be a big deal once the PS3 is getting more games, but if your honestly playing more PS2 games on your PS3 than you do actual PS3 games, why the hell did you buy the thing?

[Callandor]

Lets just be honest. If he came out and said "To play the PS3 you need to feed it live babies every day" you would be "Sounds Good! Where can I get a dozen?"

That would be a modest proposal.

[YoshiFan1]

I guess this means the PS2 isn't dropping to $99, BC is important to many. Had they released the 40GB at $399 with the EE, I might have picked it up over a new PS2. Instead, I'll probably buy the PS2 instead at $129 and when I want a next gen system other than the Wii, I'll get the 360 instead of the PS3.

[orimental]

My big problem is that BC is said to cost around $27 to put in, right? But Sony is foregoing that to save money on each console, even though they're probably still selling it at a loss, right? But the new 40GB, entry-level model comes packed with Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray, which costs $44 MSRP/$30 at release. I know that it's more for promoting Blu-ray than anything, but they could do that for free by plastering images from Blu-ray films on the box.

[defiance_17]

This guy certainly talks a lot of shit for how little he has to back it up with.

The Mana Knight: I can only imagine what the response would have been if Microsoft had tried to pull this a year after the 360's launch.

[defiance_17]

My big problem is that BC is said to cost around $27 to put in, right? But Sony is foregoing that to save money on each console, even though they're probably still selling it at a loss, right? But the new 40GB, entry-level model comes packed with Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray, which costs $44 MSRP/$30 at release. I know that it's more for promoting Blu-ray than anything, but they could do that for free by plastering images from Blu-ray films on the box.
You can't really compare production costs of one thing to MSRP of another. Packing in Spider-Man 3 is probably costing Sony a couple of dollars each. And it's a pretty nasty incentive anyway--that movie was awful.

[jer7583]

not having the upscaling for PS2 games is a major negative point for the 40GB. And Sony should probably be improving that aspect of the system rather than yank it away because PS3 owners have been bad and haven't been buying PS3 games, and yank the cheaper development option away from developers because they've been bad and not porting Thrillville to the PS3.

[hostyl1]

I guess this means the PS2 isn't dropping to $99, BC is important to many. Had they released the 40GB at $399 with the EE, I might have picked it up over a new PS2. Instead, I'll probably buy the PS2 instead at $129 and when I want a next gen system other than the Wii, I'll get the 360 instead of the PS3.

Out of curiosity, why would you buy a new PS2 and a 360 and not just a 60GB or even 80GB PS3? Obviously, since you were initially considering a PS3, the 360 exclusives like Halo, Mass Effect, etc. are not *really* that pressing to you. But you seem to be advocating spending about the same amount of money (~$500 assuming you'd go for a Pro 360) anyway. Plus if you just got the PS3, you'd get blu-ray and your PS2 titles upscaled. So why go with the PS2/360 combo? Spite? Or do anticipate *another* price drop on the 360?

BTW: There are ways of further reducing the price of the PS3, for example the SonyStyle credit card deal.
*shrugs*

[SteveMcQ]

Tretton is a decent guy, but really bad at interviewsWell he is just the CEO and frontman of SCEA. I guess there really is no reason to be good at speaking to the media. Or making any sense. Like you. At least the both of you can be amusing at times.

[Snake2715]

My big problem is that BC is said to cost around $27 to put in, right? But Sony is foregoing that to save money on each console, even though they're probably still selling it at a loss, right? But the new 40GB, entry-level model comes packed with Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray, which costs $44 MSRP/$30 at release. I know that it's more for promoting Blu-ray than anything, but they could do that for free by plastering images from Blu-ray films on the box.

They wont do that because they want the BLu Ray attach rate to be higher so they can skew the numbers with the high def war.

[dallow]

Hey , why not buy a new HDTV with more inputs on it while your at it .
Don't forget some Blu-Ray movies .

What a great plan .I did.

But I was going to do that PS3 or no PS3.

[dallow]

My big problem is that BC is said to cost around $27 to put in, right? But Sony is foregoing that to save money on each console, even though they're probably still selling it at a loss, right? But the new 40GB, entry-level model comes packed with Spider-Man 3 on Blu-ray, which costs $44 MSRP/$30 at release. I know that it's more for promoting Blu-ray than anything, but they could do that for free by plastering images from Blu-ray films on the box.I think you underestimate how much money BD and HD DVD make for studios at the moment.
It's almost nil.

[slidecage]

10 years?

hell i bet sony comes out with the PS4 by 2011 with no backwards support the ps3 way before 10 years

avg life of a system is what 7 before the next one hits

ps1 1995
ps2 2000
ps3 2006

none of them made it 10 years (how many of us was playing the ps1 back in 2005 LOL)

[dallow]

10 years?

hell i bet sony comes out with the PS4 by 2011 with no backwards support the ps3 way before 10 years

avg life of a system is what 7 before the next one hits

ps1 1995
ps2 2000
ps3 2006

none of them made it 10 years (how many of us was playing the ps1 back in 2005 LOL)You're supposed to stop counting the year they stop making games.

[mogamer]

They wont do that because they want the BLu Ray attach rate to be higher so they can skew the numbers with the high def war.

Sony gave away their plan when they launched the PS3 by including Talledega Nights as the pack-in. This console is all about winning the high-def wars and recouping the costs of developing Blu-Ray. If Blu-Ray becomes the standard, then the licensing fees for movies will dwarf anything games alone would bring in. Not allowing PS2 games to be played on the 40 gb PS3 and packing in yet another Blu-Ray movie tells me that nothing has changed.:roll: It's just a Blu-Ray player that can also play Blu-Ray games.

[dallow]

Sony gave away their plan when they launched the PS3 by including Talledega Nights as the pack-in. This console is all about winning the high-def wars and recouping the costs of developing Blu-Ray. If Blu-Ray becomes the standard, then the licensing fees for movies will dwarf anything games alone would bring in. Not allowing PS2 games to be played on the 40 gb PS3 and packing in yet another Blu-Ray movie tells me that nothing has changed.:roll: It's just a Blu-Ray player that can also play Blu-Ray games.Pretty damn neat.

[mogamer]

Pretty damn neat.

If you feel that selling that machine at the rate of the biggest selling Blu-Ray player then it is. But if you want to sell it at the rate of the previous Playstations, then not so.

[dallow]

If you feel that selling that machine at the rate of the biggest selling Blu-Ray player then it is. But if you want to sell it at the rate of the previous Playstations, then not so.I've no idea what you wrote.

Wait, ok, I get it now.

I think they just want to sell it to sell it.

[mogamer]

I've no idea what you wrote.

Wait, ok, I get it now.

I think they just want to sell it to sell it.

Well to be clearer, the PS3 is the best selling Blu-Ray player. But it isn't selling at the rate the previous Playstations sold at. Having more game software, even previous gen, would help to push units to gamers. Especially at the lower price point.

Maybe it's just me, but when I bought my PS2 I bought plenty of PS1 games for it since I never had a PS1. I'm sure there are people (hard to believe) that never had a PS2.

IMO, Sony is more interested in the Blu-Ray business than gaming business and their approach in packing movies instead of games shows that. They don't even have to pack a full disc game. They could just provide a PSN game or two on the hard drive.

[dallow]

Well to be clearer, the PS3 is the best selling Blu-Ray player. But it isn't selling at the rate the previous Playstations sold at. Having more game software, even previous gen, would help to push units to gamers. Especially at the lower price point.

Maybe it's just me, but when I bought my PS2 I bought plenty of PS1 games for it since I never had a PS1. I'm sure there are people (hard to believe) that never had a PS2.

IMO, Sony is more interested in the Blu-Ray business than gaming business and their approach in packing movies instead of games shows that. They don't even have to pack a full disc game. They could just provide a PSN game or two on the hard drive.I'm sorry, I didn't realize that 80GB didn't come with a packed in game.

Or that in Europe there are multiple bundles with 2 packed in games.

[jkam]

I can save even more money! I already own a PS2! What an asshat.

[dallow]

I can save even more money! I already own a PS2! What an asshat.Then get the cheaper PS3.....
Or get the one that costs $100 more to store your PS2 and just have one system hooked up.

Though I still have to keep mine around as I need it to play imports.

[mogamer]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that 80GB didn't come with a packed in game.

Or that in Europe there are multiple bundles with 2 packed in games.

We aren't talking about the 80 gb or European versions. Nice try though.

[dallow]

We aren't talking about the 80 gb or European versions. Nice try though.Haha, so it doesn't matter that other PS3 skus come with games.

Nice.

Hey, 60GB systems currently don't come with a BD movie or games.
They don't care about either now!

[dallow]

Hmm, my launch PS2 didn't come with a game either.....

Curse you SONY!!!!

[TC]

This shit is funny!

[mogamer]

Hmm, my launch PS2 didn't come with a game either.....

Curse you SONY!!!!

Guess what the PS2 was BC with the PS1 and had the same launch price as the PS1. Sony didn't have to remove anything from the PS2 to raise sales either.

The point I'm making, which you're trying your best to avoid, is that the PS3 is selling the worst of the three consoles and it needs to do something to raise sales. If they were really concerned about selling it as a game system first and Blu-Ray player second, then they need to make it more attractive to gamers. Lowering the price of entry and not removing BC would do that.

From what I've read, the PS3 is a great Blu-Ray player, but Sony is limiting their market for the PS3 by not concentrating on selling it as a gaming system.

[PyroGamer]

This was in jest, right?

[dallow]

Guess what the PS2 was BC with the PS1 and had the same launch price as the PS1. Sony didn't have to remove anything from the PS2 to raise sales either.

The point I'm making, which you're trying your best to avoid, is that the PS3 is selling the worst of the three consoles and it needs to do something to raise sales. If they were really concerned about selling it as a game system first and Blu-Ray player second, then they need to make it more attractive to gamers. Lowering the price of entry and not removing BC would do that.

From what I've read, the PS3 is a great Blu-Ray player, but Sony is limiting their market for the PS3 by not concentrating on selling it as a gaming system.Wait a minute, you're telling me the PS3 isn't selling as well as the other two consoles out?

I think you overestimate how many people want the PS3 for $399 vs the amount who care about playing their PS2 games (when they probably already own one)

I've never heard once, when I was in retail, had anyone ever mention they wanted a 360 because it was 'kinda' BC.

This new price point is going to bring in a bunch more people than it will turn away.

[mogamer]

Wait a minute, you're telling me the PS3 isn't selling as well as the other two consoles out?

I think you overestimate how many people want the PS3 for $399 vs the amount who care about playing their PS2 games (when they probably already own one)

I've never heard once, when I was in retail, had anyone ever mention they wanted a 360 because it was 'kinda' BC.

This new price point is going to bring in a bunch more people than it will turn away.

Maybe for you BC isn't a selling point, but I sure have taken advantage of it with both my PS2 and X360. Most people only have limited room to hook things up to their TV. I'm sure Sony will sell more PS3's at this lower price point. But much of the buzz I'm reading at some AV sites is that there is another cheaper Blu-Ray player out there, not that Sony can compete better against the X360.

[dallow]

Maybe for you BC isn't a selling point, but I sure have taken advantage of it with both my PS2 and X360. Most people only have limited room to hook things up to their TV. I'm sure Sony will sell more PS3's at this lower price point. But much of the buzz I'm reading at some AV sites is that there is another cheaper Blu-Ray player out there, not that Sony can compete better against the X360.

But much of the buzz I'm reading at some AV sites is that there is another cheaper Blu-Ray player out there, not that Sony can compete better against the X360.

reading at some AV sites is that there is another cheaper Blu-Ray player out there

AV sites

I understand.
You are correct.






EDIT: I should add that BC is a selling point for me. I'd never buy the version without it. I only take out my old PS2 when I need to play an import.
Personally, I think it's stupid Sony took it out. But as I've said, it won't hurt them nearly as much as it'll help them.

[Reality's Fringe]

I wonder if a lot of these corporate guys even know what their company actually DOES? It seems they can't have much of an idea as they keep saying the most circular, specious, and implausible crap outside of the political arena.

Internets: "Mr. Tretton, many are concerned that Sony doesn't even know what it is anymore"

Tretton: "Even I don't know what we are anymore.... ha ha, I'm just kidding. What are we, like some kind of bus or something?"

*+ points if you know what that references*

Edit - as a side note, does anyone remember when people were making those jokes about the Wii and duct-taping gamecubes together? 'Maybe someone should photoshop a PS2 strapped to a Blue-Ray player LAWLZ.