>>15910402
PS3 has a more established library of actually worthwhile titles, and easier CFW and piracy options. All PS3s can also handle PS1 (with some admitted incompatibilities), while with the 20/60gb Fat, you can use the internal PS2 chip for native PS2 compatibility as well (both as physical compatibility and loading pirated games from the HDD to the system's disc tab) rather than deal with COBRA. Though, the downside is that fats do have longevity problems on account of the amount of heat and the shitty thermal paste. If going that route, either err with caution, look for an explicit refurbished one, or look into replacing the thermal paste yourself
>>15910422
>the used PS3 will probably die on you on a few months
>Implying
Maybe if it's a fat.
>>15910473
>Loading PS2 games.
>Through USB 1.0.
1.0 is not fast enough.
>>15910628
The issue is that Sony might start trying to push through post-release censorship patches to games they now consider a problem. Already seen them try to push through a firmware update during a software update for Bloodborne, despite the firmware update option explicitly being disabled and software updates having never required being logged in/up to date firmware. I suppose having games on actual disc does provide a sort of back up if they do (and some games honestly don't see any further post release patches to begin with), but unless there's current archival of various patches, that would leave the options as play unupdated or play at full update.
>>15910661
>wait for the PS5
>Give Sony money.
I highly doubt they're going to go back to native backwards compatibility at this point. Not when they can just sell you older games you might have already bought once before (but only the ones both their publishers and Sony wish to promote).