Backwards Compatibility: Should it always be necessary?

[Spidey-Bat]

Backwards compatibility...

The idea would have been mind blowing during the first modern generation with the NES and SMS. It was obviously not worth it for the newer systems to play old games because of manufacturing costs. Correct me if I'm wrong, the PS2 was the first to be backwards compatible (I think an Atari system might have been). The Gamecube couldn't be due to the N64's cartridge.

But now we have the Wii which is fully BC, the 360's which is really an emulator for select games but it counts, and the PS3 but no more BC models are produced. I don't know about anyone else, but I have bought more games from current gen consoles than I ever did for my N64 (first console I got really into gaming). Games are more mass-produced so they stay on shelves longer, increase of second hand market, internet gives access to more deals and hard-to-find games, etc.

The problem with our current consoles is their lifespan. A 360 lasts 3 years, anymore and you're very lucky. PS3 is probably 4-6. Wii is the most durable. Considering this, should future consoles be backwards compatible with current gen games? It isn't so much an issue for older games because the consoles have a much longer lifespan. You can find an NES that works or repair it yourself. SMS, Genesis, SNES, and N64 are the same.

So I ask, is it important for future consoles to be backwards compatible with current gen games because of their life expectancy compared to previous generations? Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft will only repair them for so long. When they stop servicing them, you'll be left with a bunch of expensive coasters and a giant paper weight.

 

[uchiha_itachi]

I think its nice for companys to respect their back catalog and allow us backwards compatability. its a dumb move not to, it locks out a new audience to the older franchises like GOW, final fantasy, metal gear etc. which really could turn people off from trying out the newer realeses because they havent experienced the older games.

look at it this way. when the ps4 comes out do we wanna play god of war 3 still? you damn right we do. same goes for last gen games.

so in a word...yes

 

[SuperFerret]

Yes, as most people still want their old games to be useable. There are a few who don't, but those are the same people who tossed all their DVDs when they got a Blu-Ray player.

 

[Benstamania]

Currently? I honestly could careless. At first I was annoyed but then I asked myself how often am I going to go back and play my old PS2 games? And IF I ever felt the urge I could just go get another PS2 for 60 bucks at EB.

As for the future? Yes, it should be a must. If not the disk allow us to put in a UPC or some proof of purchase to allow us to digitally download PS3/360 games on our new system.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Currently? I honestly could careless. At first I was annoyed but then I asked myself how often am I going to go back and play my old PS2 games? And IF I ever felt the urge I could just go get another PS2 for 60 bucks at EB.

You couldn't care less. If you could care less, it means you do care. No one ever uses that right.

 

[Soapy]

As a consumer, no. It's nice to have, but it shouldn't be necessary.

From a business standpoint, also no. Why allow you to play your old physical copies when they can sell them to you again digitally?

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

Why allow you to play your old physical copies when they can sell them to you again digitally?

Because it's a good way to extend value to your new product when it's only got two good launch titles.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

They should make an effort to at least have the last gen compatible. Anything after that is unrealistic.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

As a consumer, no. It's nice to have, but it shouldn't be necessary.

From a business standpoint, also no. Why allow you to play your old physical copies when they can sell them to you again digitally?

Gamers forget the industry is a business. I dont know when they are going to realize the reason games are made is to make money.


I mean BC is nice to have, but i dont feel its necessary.

 

[Bad Superman]

Backwards compatibility was one of the reasons I love PS2. They should've kept the feature for the PS3 and released the Blu-Ray as a separate unit.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Gamers forget the industry is a business. I dont know when they are going to realize the reason games are made is to make money.


I mean BC is nice to have, but i dont feel its necessary.

So we should just be content with our current games being expensive coasters in 10 years?

 

[Benstamania]

Yes, because in 10 years we probably won't be playing our current gen games, I love FFVII.....but I find it near impossible to play now.

Just imagine how games will look/play in 10 years.

 

[KALEL114]

BC is a convenience not a necessity.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Backwards compatibility was one of the reasons I love PS2. They should've kept the feature for the PS3 and released the Blu-Ray as a separate unit.

The blu-ray drive on the PS3 is the reason why blu-ray has handedly defeated HD DVD and made the format an overall success, which is what Sony wanted.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

So we should just be content with our current games being expensive coasters in 10 years?

Pretty much. What tech do you really keep around once a new tech takes its place? I mean it kind of sucks but look at it from their point of view.

As a publisher/developer i dont want you playing those 10 year old games, i want you playing the game i just spent millions of dollars making in hopes ill make a profit from it.

How is that not hard to understand? Its no different than any other business.

 

[Jick]

Is it important or should be necessary?
I don't know, but I played my PS1 games so many times in my PS2 that I can't even count. It's always good to have backward compatibility.

Some of my friends had to sell their previous console to buy a new one. BC always come in handy in these kind of situation.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Pretty much. What tech do you really keep around once a new tech takes its place? I mean it kind of sucks but look at it from their point of view.

As a publisher/developer i dont want you playing those 10 year old games, i want you playing the game i just spent millions of dollars making in hopes ill make a profit from it.

How is that not hard to understand? Its no different than any other business.

Except it's not absolute as you're making it out to be. I have a lot of N64 and Gamecube games. But I still buy and play current gen games (and a lot at that). The PS2 and Wii are backwards compatible and two of the best selling consoles ever. Did people not buy PS2 games because they could play their PS1 games?

 

[Benstamania]

.....Just keep your old consoles?

 

[Jick]

.....Just keep your old consoles?

Like I said, some of my friends had to sell their previous console to be able to afford a new one. BC always come in handy in these kind of situation.

 

[TheBlueRogue]

.....Just keep your old consoles?

But you know...sometimes it stops working?

There are tons of ps1 games I would love to keep playing as well as some dreamcast games. The best thing anyone could do is try to find an emulator.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I still have a Dreamcast. I bought it a few years ago to finally try and play Shenmue. Never finished it because I've always found newer games I wanted to play more. So I'm kind of thinking at this point that backwards compatibility is a nice feature but definitely not necessary. There are great games in every gen, but once I've hit next-gen graphics and control schemes, it makes going back to play earlier games really awkward. I mean, I loved Goldeneye at the time, but playing it again, its control scheme is just awkward and the graphics are just muddy splotches to my eyes now. Personally, I'd prefer to see the console developers focus on getting the best out of their current systems rather than spend time trying to shoehorn backwards compatibility in. Leave that for emulators and remakes.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Except it's not absolute as you're making it out to be. I have a lot of N64 and Gamecube games. But I still buy and play current gen games (and a lot at that). The PS2 and Wii are backwards compatible and two of the best selling consoles ever. Did people not buy PS2 games because they could play their PS1 games?

You are forgetting a few things, the most important being money, again why gamers forget this element baffles me. Why are Sony's new consoles not backwards compatible? I guarantee you its not because they didn't feel like adding it, its a money issue. They either dont want you playing old games and focusing on new games(this is basically the line Sony gave), or the cost of adding BC is too great to see a return profit. BC is not important to the masses, the group that these companies want as customers, so why spend the time, money and effort to cater to the minority. None of this is difficult to understand.

Personally i can count the number of times that iv used my 360 or PS3 for an old game on one hand. As others have said, BC is nice, but not necessary.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Your point on money is conjecture. The Wii and 360 are BC and have the best sales of the current gen. The PS2 was BC and was the best selling system of the previous gen (and I believe it still is the best selling system ever).

You point to Sony's business model, but they're in the worst position financially out of all 3 companies. The costs of the BC components was a reason they scrapped it to produce the less expensive Slim; which they're still losing money off of ($18 now. Small, but add it up plus the $37 they were losing per unit before and it's a lot).

 

[SuperFerret]

It's always good business to keep your customers happy. Backwards compatibility can do that.

I'm thinking of going and buying a PS2. There's still a lot of games that I want to play that're on there.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I kept my PS2. I should replay Shadow of the Colossus sometime, actually.