Backwards Compatibility: Should it always be necessary?

[SuperFerret]

That's one of the games I want to play again. Katamari Damacy is another.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

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.

So if a gamer buys a console with backwards compatability they won't buy new games? My favorite feature of the Wii was the virtual console because it allowed me to get rid of my SNES, N64 and GameCube, freed up a good amount of shelf space, confusion with which AV channel to use and slots on my power strip. Backwards compatability just makes sense, you can play both the new games and old on the same system. It was a decided factor in me buying a PS2 and 360, being able to play the new games along with older games on the original Playstation and X-Box that I never got to experience, games I bought new by the way, not used at GameStop.

 

[Addendum]

I have an xbox and a 360. However, I've spent more time playing the last gen system than the current gen one.

 

[Matt]

Yes, it should be. I don't want to have to pay to download games I've already bought and have when a system can be BC.

 

[Matt]

I have an xbox and a 360. However, I've spent more time playing the last gen system than the current gen one.

I do as well and I think its just because as far as games go, this gen has been fairly underwhelming.

 

[Havok83]

Should it? No. Its a nice addition though when it is there

Yes, it should be. I don't want to have to pay to download games I've already bought and have when a system can be BC.

simple solution. Dont get rid of the system that plays the game. No one is making you redownload games

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

Its MUCH easier to have previous generations compatible. Older generations usually run on emulationa nd the reason why thats possible is bc emulators need to run on systems much more powerful in order to work smoothly. Generally the generation right before a new console is too powerful to work with emulation, and that tends to force companies to include hardwarde from the old system in the new one, driving the price up. That was the situation with the PS3. Its why when it got rid of the PS2 BC, it kept PS1, bc that one is run compltely on software emulation

 

[Bad Superman]

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.

I agree. I got no problems with its accomplishments. What I wish they did was to make the blu-ray drive as a separate piece of hardware and leave the backwards compatibility feature for the game console. This way you could still play your old games that may not get a new version on the PS3 or later gen consoles.

 

[Bathead]

All I can say is it may not be necessary but it sure can be a selling point for the manufacturer. BC is the primary reason I bought a used PS3 at Gamestop rather than a new one. There were still a number of older PS1+2 games I wanted to play that I couldn't have without it. I currently have quite a few older games, because there are a limited number of PS3 titles I'm interested in as the PS3 doesn't have a whole lot of decent RPG's (my main gaming interest) out yet.

 

[Bathead]

I agree. I got no problems with its accomplishments. What I wish they did was to make the blu-ray drive as a separate piece of hardware and leave the backwards compatibility feature for the game console. This way you could still play your old games that may not get a new version on the PS3 or later gen consoles.

Well, you can do both on the older discontinued models (like the one I have) so I see no reason you couldn't do both on current models. Most likely it's a cost cutting measure more than anything else.

 

[Havok83]

Well, you can do both on the older discontinued models (like the one I have) so I see no reason you couldn't do both on current models. Most likely it's a cost cutting measure more than anything else.

thats exactly why. The older models had PS2 chips inside, and removing them allowed Sony to reduce the price, which was a bigger priority than keeping them in and keeping the PS3 expensive. At this point the PS3 is selling relatively well and has a larger more diverse library that PS2 BC isnt reall much of a big deal anymore. Of course peopl still ***** about it, but the bottom line is sales are now up. I think the # of people who wont buy a PS3 bc of PS2 BC is extremely low

 

[Fading]

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.

Couldn't disagree more with Blu-ray being seperate. We're seeing more and more developers complaining about the 360's DVD drive holding back development. If anything Sony was smart and looking far ahead because they got a jump start on Blu-ray being a standard drive (which I'm sure it will be on the PS4 as well). By the time the PS4 comes around the Blu-ray drive cost will be way down, and if they didn't put it on the PS3 HD-DVD could possibly have become the standard. On top of that, if they had a Blu-ray version and DVD version, then games wouldn't come on Blu-ray's, meaning all the FFXIII's, Uncharted 2's, and so on would have compressed far more and lost some of that beautiful graphic luster and sound. If PS2 emulation is a deal breaker ppl had a few years to get a 60 or 80GB PS3, plus all PS3's still play PS1's (and there's a rumor of PS2 games coming to the PSN from a leaked memo anyway).




As for backwards compatibility, I think it should continue to be standard for the previous gen atleast, but I don't think it's necessary even if it's a nice feature. I sold my PS2 earlier than I should have, and missed out on the GOW's, RE 4's, and FFXII's. If I hadn't had got an 80GB I wouldn't have been able to play some of the games I missed. However, I wouldn't mind the dropping of the really old games. As much as I like PS1 classics coming out, some of the games are getting really dated. I'm not a huge graphics ****e, but I find PS1 games like FF7 more painful to the eyes than NES games like Super Mario 3 (realize that might sound odd). There's been ample time to play PS1 games, and still time to mess with PS1 classics on the PS3, I wouldn't mind them dumping PS1 emulation and focusing on PS2 and PS3 emulation next gen instead. Tho I have np with them keeping both, just mean I'd rather they focus on emulating the more recent consoles first.

 

[Fading]

I do as well and I think its just because as far as games go, this gen has been fairly underwhelming.

I know it's all in an individuals taste, but IMO it's the opposite. While I still think PS1 was the best generation for RPG's (can't beat the Suikoden's, FF 7-9, Xenogears, Chrono Cross, Legend of Dragoon, and so on), I think past that the current gen is putting out some of the best gaming experiences period. I don't know whether it's nostalgia and rose tinted glasses finally wearing off on me, but I really think gaming's just going into a different league (not just talking about graphics either).

Uncharted 1&2 are so ridiculously superior to Tomb Raider it's hard to compare them (especially in the story telling and overally presentation). Oblivion tops console western RPG's like the summoner IMO. Assassin's Creed 2 beats the Prince of Persia games in fun, and adventure. I can't think of a dungeon crawler that touched Demon's Souls in atmosphere, controls, or pure addictive nature. I like Valkyria Chronicles better than FF Tactics. It's also hard to think of anything quite like LBP (guess RPG Maker comes closest). Plus others like Zelda and Mario are still seeing releases.

What I mean by all of that is that when I think back to most older games, I can think of a current gen game that's atleast somewhat similar that I feel tops it. Plus I didn't even mention what this gen has done for pushing multiplayer console gaming. I do think creativity has suffered some this gen compared to older gens, but some of that can be attributed to rising game development costs and developers being afraid to take a chance on offbeat titles.

It's all in taste tho. I have np with someone thinking this gen is lacking in titles, just wanted to voice that as this gen goes on I think it keeps getting better and better.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I would like the next xbox console to be BC considering the 360 will prob. red ring by then.

 

[Punisher Rising]

I think BC by now is something every new console should be. There was absolutely no excuse to me for the new PS3 models to not be BC with PS2 games. For me, BC makes the newest console at the time something of multiple game consoles in one (the older PS3s were basically all three PS systems in one, plus having the added bonus of also being able to play CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays). For me, BC would make me feel like I got my money's worth even more with a new console purchase and especially if I didn't previously own one of the previous consoles (I didn't own a GameCube nor an X-Box during the previous generation).

 

[Jericho]

I'm going to say no, mainly because I imagine that by the time we get to the next generation we will be looking at a revision in gaming in how you interact with and control the game. Those old hand held controller games will be more than a little out-dated. BC becomes a hinderance at some point and for most...little more than a few minutes of nostalgia before hitting eject from boredom. I enjoyed those old games, but it's hard to go back an enjoy them when you've been exposed to far more advanced design.

Frankly, a lot of you are suffering from the usual syndrome you see in people as they age. They get stuck on a period and complain as the world moves on without them.

Enjoy your games now. Like Pac Man, they will become relics that offer little more than a trip down memory lane that quickly turns into boredom when reality hits.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I'm going to say no, mainly because I imagine that by the time we get to the next generation we will be looking at a revision in gaming in how you interact with and control the game. Those old hand held controller games will be more than a little out-dated. BC becomes a hinderance at some point and for most...little more than a few minutes of nostalgia before hitting eject from boredom. I enjoyed those old games, but it's hard to go back an enjoy them when you've been exposed to far more advanced design.

Frankly, a lot of you are suffering from the usual syndrome you see in people as they age. They get stuck on a period and complain as the world moves on without them.

Enjoy your games now. Like Pac Man, they will become relics that offer little more than a trip down memory lane that quickly turns into boredom when reality hits.

You know people still download and play these older games through stuff like XBLA, WiiWare, and PSN, right? Not everyone has to have advanced graphics or ability to swing their arms or jump up and down to have fun with games. Just because someone can still enjoy those games without the shiny graphics and gimmicks doesn't mean they are somehow getting lost in the times; it means they're not vein enough to realize that the old does not simply get swept away when there's something new, and they are not obligated to automatically dismiss something because of its age.

 

[Slick]

I'm still pissed they didn't make the Warriors game Backwards Compatible.

 

[Bad Superman]

Couldn't disagree more with Blu-ray being seperate. We're seeing more and more developers complaining about the 360's DVD drive holding back development. If anything Sony was smart and looking far ahead because they got a jump start on Blu-ray being a standard drive (which I'm sure it will be on the PS4 as well). By the time the PS4 comes around the Blu-ray drive cost will be way down, and if they didn't put it on the PS3 HD-DVD could possibly have become the standard. On top of that, if they had a Blu-ray version and DVD version, then games wouldn't come on Blu-ray's, meaning all the FFXIII's, Uncharted 2's, and so on would have compressed far more and lost some of that beautiful graphic luster and sound. If PS2 emulation is a deal breaker ppl had a few years to get a 60 or 80GB PS3, plus all PS3's still play PS1's (and there's a rumor of PS2 games coming to the PSN from a leaked memo anyway).




As for backwards compatibility, I think it should continue to be standard for the previous gen atleast, but I don't think it's necessary even if it's a nice feature. I sold my PS2 earlier than I should have, and missed out on the GOW's, RE 4's, and FFXII's. If I hadn't had got an 80GB I wouldn't have been able to play some of the games I missed. However, I wouldn't mind the dropping of the really old games. As much as I like PS1 classics coming out, some of the games are getting really dated. I'm not a huge graphics ****e, but I find PS1 games like FF7 more painful to the eyes than NES games like Super Mario 3 (realize that might sound odd). There's been ample time to play PS1 games, and still time to mess with PS1 classics on the PS3, I wouldn't mind them dumping PS1 emulation and focusing on PS2 and PS3 emulation next gen instead. Tho I have np with them keeping both, just mean I'd rather they focus on emulating the more recent consoles first.

1- It wasn't that accessible since the price tag was around $600.

2- I agree.

 

[Havok83]

There's been ample time to play PS1 games, and still time to mess with PS1 classics on the PS3, I wouldn't mind them dumping PS1 emulation and focusing on PS2 and PS3 emulation next gen instead. Tho I have np with them keeping both, just mean I'd rather they focus on emulating the more recent consoles first.

they arent focusing on PS1 emulation. The reason why its in the PS3 is bc they can. It takes little effort to implement it as its simple software emulation which they have near perfected. Implementing it is of little to no extra cost to Sony and it doesnt complicate or burden the PS3. Why would they take it out? Its not on the same level as PS2 bc as of right now, they dont have a working software emulatetr for that. Im sure they will with their next console so it'll be a nonissue. Whether the next system has PS3 emulation will depend on what chips they have in it bc I doubt it will run on software emulation.

 

[Jericho]

You know people still download and play these older games through stuff like XBLA, WiiWare, and PSN, right? Not everyone has to have advanced graphics or ability to swing their arms or jump up and down to have fun with games. Just because someone can still enjoy those games without the shiny graphics and gimmicks doesn't mean they are somehow getting lost in the times; it means they're not vein enough to realize that the old does not simply get swept away when there's something new, and they are not obligated to automatically dismiss something because of its age.

Let me put it this way..... why should console developers be worried about whether Halo 2 will be playable on their new system which uses no handheld controller or 2D TV output or perhaps any TV output at all?

It's not about shiny graphics and gimmicks, it's about changing what gameplay is......moving forward. The last generation was able to serve up support for the previous generation games because it was still the same basic interface.

I highly doubt that is going to be the case with the next generation. With the next gen we are definitely going to be addressing the fact it's just not much fun to have to control a camera angle with your thumb in a 3D virtual world when you should be able to just use your eyes. Handheld controllers are going to be phased out. That doesn't mean you will have to jump around in every game, but it does mean that in order to support those old games, they have to create a console within a console to emulate the old one.

 

[Havok83]

Let me put it this way..... why should console developers be worried about whether Halo 2 will be playable on their new system which uses no handheld controller or 2D TV output or perhaps any TV output at all?

It's not about shiny graphics and gimmicks, it's about changing what gameplay is......moving forward. The last generation was able to serve up support for the previous generation games because it was still the same basic interface.

I highly doubt that is going to be the case with the next generation. With the next gen we are definitely going to be addressing the fact it's just not much fun to have to control a camera angle with your thumb in a 3D virtual world when you should be able to just use your eyes. Handheld controllers are going to be phased out. That doesn't mean you will have to jump around in every game, but it does mean that in order to support those old games, they have to create a console within a console to emulate the old one.

If you think that any console in the near future wont have support for controllers, you are fooling yourself

 

[Tron Bonne]

If you think that any console in the near future wont have support for controllers, you are fooling yourself

Exactly. Handheld controllers may very well be one their way out at some point, but it's going to be awhile before they are totally and completely phased out. Even then, I doubt controller support will be entirely dropped. There will be a market and people who still have desire to play older games, just as there is now

 

[Hush]

I guess since I got an 80 Gig BC model all is well in my home. It was the main reason I hunted for that system. Looking back on it now though, I think about how the only games that I have replayed from the PS2 era is GOW 1&2 which are both on Blu-Ray and Kingdom Hearts 1,2 and COM. I mean it makes very little sense for the PS# to even be BC right now, Sony wants to make PS3 games a success not have to constantly go back to PS2. I work at a Gamestop and let me tell you everyone that comes in to get a PS3 asks if it is BC and I say no and they STILL buy it. I say look at it this way its time to upgrade. You get rechargable controllers, wire-less internet capabilities, free online play and scratch proof disks. Do you really want to play your PS2 games now?

 

[Havok83]

Exactly. Handheld controllers may very well be one their way out at some point, but it's going to be awhile before they are totally and completely phased out. Even then, I doubt controller support will be entirely dropped. There will be a market and people who still have desire to play older games, just as there is now

exactly. These consoles are also media playerss. Do people expect there to be no controllers and instead operate DVDs and movies by waving their hands in the air? That alone will keep a physical controller alive

 

[SuperFerret]

When the day comes that there aren't any controllers for video games anymore, I'll no longer play them, provided that I'm still playing them at that point anyway.