There's been an awful lot of discussion lately about the backwards compatibility being cut from the lower-end model of the PlayStation 3 and the forums seem to have been divided starkly into two camps. There's those who see BC as a valuable extra which, since it is done software-side, should be incorporated into every model of the PlayStation 3 and there's those who are happy to play PlayStation 2 games on the original console. Yeah, I know - it makes no sense to me either.
Like it or not though, the fact of the matter is that if you want backwards compatibility then you have to buy the more expensive model and not the streamlined 40GB version.
Oddly though, Sony is insisting that the choice to drop backwards compatibility wasn't in order to effect the manafacturing costs. In fact, it hasn't effected the costs at all and Jack Tretton, the head honcho of SCEA, has spoken to the Wall Street Journal
about why BC was really
It was part of an effort to "encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system.
Hmm. Good one, Jack. You couldn't accomplish exactly the same by actually making some more exclusive games which will have release dates closer to the present day?
Got an opinion on the PlayStation 3 or just want to accuse of us of being Xbox 360 fanboys? That's fine, do it in the forums