I don't know how everyone else feels about backwards compatability, but I love not having to keep switching systems. That is one of the biggest sellers in my eyes for the PS2.

DARTH GAMER

That's true, but before the PS2, nothing was backwards compatible, except maybe the later Atari systems.

Nintendo's previous competion, Sega, didn't do backwards compatibility either.

It was more difficult in the cartridge era, as they wanted to make the cartridges for the different systems look different, plus engineering comes into play.

Backwards compatibility with CD/DVD systems is much easier as all that is necessary is making sure the processor can read the old games.

I imagine every new system will feature backwards compatibility. Well, until some other form of media is used anyway.

Although it was not built it, the Genesis did have a $30 adapter to play Master System games. The option was not really popular but Sega did have the idea to give users backward compatibility. Personally I never though backward compatibility was a real selling out. If you have the old game, you probably have the old system. All it does is reduce clutter in the entertainment center which is nice to not essential.

I agree. It's just an added plus. I don't use it personally though. I've yet to play a PS1 game in my PS2. I played them all on my PS1 years ago.

I hardly have the time or money to keep up with the new releases on the PS2, Gamecube and GBA, much less to dabble in classic gaming as well.

Me. I still play PSX games on my PS2 and I plan on playing PS2 games on my PS3. Backwarks compatiblity is great. I just wonder if the PS3 will beable to play PSX games, or if I'm going to have to purchase a PSOne?

Yeah that'd be a real pity if you had to buy a 50 dollar psone

Backwards compatibility doesnt matter to me. If I have games for an old system, I most definitely must have the old system. The only way I can see it as being a great benefit to me is if the console has crappy launch titles so you're forced to get old games instead.

But if a console had crappy launch titles, why would you buy it a launch?

sorry I disagree here. they have fallen into third place in this console generation. this is a great game and they need to push this one and maybe others into the $19.99 price point to show that they also have great titles at low prices for those families thinking of buying it.

Instead they keep the price high while the PS2 has a bunch of games at lower price points driving sales of consoles.

I know people who are now going to buy a PS2 with the price drop and pick up a few of these greatest hits games. For the old price of $299 you can get the PS2 and 5 of these great games or the XBox and two games.

I agree with gcribbs. If Halo and some other games had been around $19.99-$29.99 I would have had a tougher time deciding between a PS2 and Xbox.

Future lineups didn't come into play too much, as I know the Gamecube will keep me busy for quite sometime with future releases.

And on the PS2 I could get games like Gran Turismo 3 and Maximo in the $19.99-$29.99 range now, with the expectation of games like Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Theft Auto 3, Devil May Cry, etc. dropping in price in the next 6 months to a year.

But everyone might no reason this way. I simply wanted a second system to give me more games to play when I need to fill a lull between big Gamecube releases, so the great games at cheaper prices was a big selling point for me.

So far it's worked. I borrowed FFX and that kept me busy between Resident Evil and Eternal Darkness. I haven't gotten all that far in Maximo and Gran Tursimo, so those should keep me busy until Mario Sunshine's release after finishing Eternal Darkness.