Backwards compatibility is important, here's why...

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm a fan of backwards compatibility, but honestly, I'm a little tired of people exaggerating the cost of gaming. I already have a TV, the hard drive comes in the console, account registration is often free (although for Xbox they have to pay for online, so there's that), generally controllers come with the console, not everyone buys games that require their own controllers, and actual sequels (as opposed to spin-offs) generally stay on the same platforms as their predecessors rather than go to handheld.

It's certainly more expensive, but I've seen analyses where they consider the cost of a gaming chair and stuff like that. By that token, you could include a home entertainment system with surround sound and whatnot as part of watching movies, and replacement remote controls, and VCR upgrades, and a lounge.

P.S. Yeah, actually controllers are a bit of a ***** when they stop working and you have to get a new one. But that's after a year or something.

 

[gigastar]

One of the main reasons that backwards compatibility has been removed is so that companies (especially Sony) can cash in by producing HD versions of classic titles.

Not to mention the sheer effort it requires to optimise a system to run 15 year old pieces of software.

Also consider that Microsoft was the first to cut backwards compatibility, where are all thier HD rereleases?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Backwards comparability isn't important

You want to play old games?

Get an old console.

Simple as that.

A PS3 has a requirement to be able to play PS3 games. If you expect it to play PS2 games, then you need to redo first grade because you cant seem to count.

The original one could though, and what about those that have the old console break down? They become harder to find over time, and it's not actually that hard for them to do backwards compatibility, I hope the next Xbox does it because I have tonnes of 360 games.

And to flick it off as not important is just stupid, some people have favorites from different generations, what's wrong with them wanting to be able to play them still.

It doesn't matter. The CD's break down as well.

And no there is nothing wrong with them wanting something. However the market didn't want it enough. That you want it isn't going to make them restart the production of playstations is it now? They are going to need a few million people who want it. And want it more than the next generation.

Now just a bit of correction here. It can be hard making backwards compatibility. To shrug it "Its not that hard" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding for the subject matter.

If you want to keep playing you older games, then keep your older generation platform. The next generation isn't made with the idea of play last generation games.

I'm completely honest here when I say I have never had a CD break down on me, unless you treat them like crap, they can last a very very long time.

I get it about the marketing thing later on in the consoles life, that's why I never pitched that as part of my point.

But it can't be THAT hard if they have done so before, I'm sorry. But the have proved it is possible and even marketed it that way when the PS3 was released, at least over here anyway. Lack of launch titles meant you could still play your old ones with backwards compatibility, it was good for the business early on at the least.

I do have my older consoles, but I'm just defending those that were unfortunate enough to have their PS2 or launch model PS3 break down like mine did.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

Having played since the SNES days and having bought every Nintendo console since then plus others like Xbox 360, PS2 and Dreamcast I start to accumulate a lot of clutter.

With Wii U not having GC compatibility, I'll have my Wii hooked up to a SDTV for GC games and 4:3 Wii games (like Resident Evil) as well as Virtual Console. This one is justified because of the differences in TV displays.

Handhelds are a lot more practical, while I liked GBA compatibility in DS, it's best to play on a regular GBA SP or GB Micro because of the 1:1 display, and since it doesn't occupy much space it's alright to have it around.

Now I don't have any systems prior to the Gamecube hooked up (and that one has been replaced with a Wii for the same purpose), partly because I don't like too much stuff hooked up and there's not enough on the N64 that justifies hooking it up, and older systems suffer from battery saving systems so I'd rather play them in VC form.

If PS4 doesn't play PS2 games it's BS in my opinion. It'll be powerful enough and it all goes on the same disc slot.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

Now, keeping up with PC gaming isn't quite as complicated, but one does have to build a gaming rig and upgrade it every once in a while,

Sorry, I had to stop you there...
But, um, it's not less complicated than simple to use consoles. It's WAY more complicated. You just kinda glossed over the complicated parts... Video cards, compatibility, Operating systems, firewalls, and anything else that is entailed in PC gaming is a series of headaches for those who just want to plug in and play, like consoles offer.

I'm not saying one is better than the other here, so don't misunderstand.

He's right in that once you build your computer it's not to hard to keep up, you only need to update a few components once every few years, you DO need to have a basic understanding of components, but not much more.

That said... I upgraded my graphics card today and it took a good amount of time, I had to find out what expansion slots were on my motherboard, then find a video card that was affordable. It sounds straightforward but factoring in cost it took me a few hours. Ended on a GeForce GTX 650, moved my old 550 Ti to another slot, using it for PhysX. Then had to wipe my old driver set, install a new set etc etc. It took a good chunk of time to upgrade this single component.

As opposed to... I walked into Walmart and bought a new PS3. Simple...

I have no idea where I was going with this... kinda lost it during the typing.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I am going to go through the technical things here.

Understand that the backwards compatibility comes with a cost on the PS3. While the PS1 is fairly Easy to emulate the Ps2 is a completely kettle of fish and was a major part in the early versions price point. In other words the console was more expensive because of it. And when push comes to shove people didn't want it enough to pay for it. However the whole key point here is "Emulation". That is a lot harder than you think. Using one piece of hardware to mimic another piece of hardware.

You need to understand that this isn't free. This costs more to make happen than people are willing to pay. They dont want it enough.

Now had you said Nintendo Wii then this would have been a lot easier. The Wii was more or less just 2x gamecube chips so it was just a situation of only using half of it when playing gamecube games. In other words. Not an emulation

Okay, but what I don't get, is that if the tech for the PS2 to be on the PS3 if really old, why does it cost that much? When it comes to computer parts, if somethings a year old, the prices are slashed usually more than half.

 

[Twilight_guy]

As a programmer, I know what a huge pain it is to preserve old tech and code. I'd like to see backward comparability but I also know how much of a mess it can become in some situations.

 

[Ryotknife]

Backwards comparability isn't important

You want to play old games?

Get an old console.

Simple as that.

A PS3 has a requirement to be able to play PS3 games. If you expect it to play PS2 games, then you need to redo first grade because you cant seem to count.

The original one could though, and what about those that have the old console break down? They become harder to find over time, and it's not actually that hard for them to do backwards compatibility, I hope the next Xbox does it because I have tonnes of 360 games.

And to flick it off as not important is just stupid, some people have favorites from different generations, what's wrong with them wanting to be able to play them still.

It doesn't matter. The CD's break down as well.

And no there is nothing wrong with them wanting something. However the market didn't want it enough. That you want it isn't going to make them restart the production of playstations is it now? They are going to need a few million people who want it. And want it more than the next generation.

Now just a bit of correction here. It can be hard making backwards compatibility. To shrug it "Its not that hard" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding for the subject matter.

If you want to keep playing you older games, then keep your older generation platform. The next generation isn't made with the idea of play last generation games.

backwards compatability was the number 1 aspect gamers wanted in a console by a large margin, it was also the very same aspect that they KNEW would never make it in because those companies want to milk as much money as possible (not to mention kinda a pain in the rear)

 

[GloatingSwine]

Backwards Compatibility is most important in the transitional period after a new console launches.

It greatly increases the library of titles and convenience for users, if they buy the NewToy, and can immediately move all of their gaming to it from the OldToy they have less clutter in the living room, and they can more easily justify the cost of buying the NewToy because of the fact that it works with their existing library.

It also means that the NewToy isn't competing with the OldToy. Third party publishers can shift their support over to the NewToy more wholeheartedly because their games for the OldToy aren't being consigned to the dustbin.

After a few years, in the middle days of the console cycle, it's not really important. The market has moved fully to the NewToy, so there's much less incentive to continue supporting the OldToy.

Then, right at the end of the cycle, we've discovered, a new type of backwards compatibility takes over because you can actually sell the games for the OldToy directly on the NewToy, with minor upgrades, and people will buy them.

 

[TehCookie]

That's just ridiculous. You purposely avoided watching movies at home, but when you're arguing backwards compatibility you can only watch old movies at home. You can't even watching movies released earlier in the year at theater. However if you're watching them at home you have to buy a TV and a DVD player for that, and remoats because they don't come with your DVD player in your logic (what kind of business sold a console without a harddrive or controller, unless your buying from a pawn shop). Oh and you need to pay for Netflix for online streaming. Also if you want to play some movies you need to buy a special 3DTV with special glasses to watch it. What's that? You want to watch movies on the go? Well then I guess you also have to buy a portable DVD player.

 

[zehydra]

"First you have to buy a console"

I do know that you also mentioned PC gaming, but I would never ever consider a gaming console the first option.

Chances are, if you (or your family) can afford a high-end gaming system, then you can afford a decent computer. The idea that you need to buy a an Alienware or some "gaming rig" to play video games on your computer is preposterous. Granted, when choosing or designing a computer you will need to think of what is important if you plan on using it for gaming, such as a good graphics card, but it is not as expensive nor as complicated as turning your machine into a so-called "gaming rig".

Backwards compatibility really does not make much sense in terms of consoles (where it might with PCs), because unlike PCs, consoles are non-upgradable. What I mean is that you cannot simply upgrade an individual console's graphics card to match the graphical power of the next gen.

If you could manually upgrade parts of your console to keep up with modern gens, then what fundamentally would be the difference between it and a PC anyhow?

 

[Olas]

What I don't understand is why nothing is backwards compatible more than one generation. The WiiU will play Wii games, but not gamecube games, so I'll have to keep my Wii just to play gamecube games.

Stupid.

 

[Joccaren]

Sigh...
Really?

It's either SD or HD. Plug in, use game that says "Xbox360" and you are set to go. If you have a PS3, use the games that come in cases marked PS3, and you are set to go.

PC uses so many different components and usually games have requirements posted on the box which reads to the layman like stereo instructions (so to speak). Just because you have a PC, it doesn't mean you can run every game. Just because you have a high end PC, it doesn't mean it will run older games. You have to know what part does what, what program to use, what video/ sound cards are needed, ram, etc...

A typical consumer does not know that information, sadly enough.

The benefit of the console is, as the previous poster said , that it is objectively easier.
That's always been their main draw - plug 'n play.

PS. If you can get a computer to run on an old SD TV (like you were doing with the HD console) the subtitles will look fuzzy as well.

Finding an appropriate TV aside, my point was that a TV is just simply less to work with. Getting subtitles is one thing; getting a graphics card that can render a new game, getting more RAM, and upgrading an operating system when needed, these are just a few examples of things that are needed to worry about for PC gaming. While you may be more familiar with computers than TVs, it doesn't nullify the fact that there's a whole lot more to a computer than a TV, especially when it comes to gaming. So yah, i'll still stand by that one could objectively say computers are more complex than TVs, specifically on a hardware level.

captcha: "teh inter webs". When did you get so goddamn awesome, Captcha?

This is all a matter of experience. A console is not inherently easier to use than a PC.

First time I used a console, I had no clue what was going on. I turned on my TV, and rather than the game I wanted to play, I saw a TV station instead. So I changed channels a bit, and nothing got my game up. It wasn't until my friend came over and told me I had to switch the TVs input that I actually got it working.
That is a true story, I have no clue how to handle a TV, whilst a PC is extremely user friendly in that department. Type your password where it says "Password" and username where it says "Username", then hit the button next to them and it loads. Click on something, and it loads. No having to screw around with inputs, there's only one plug where your monitor's cable will go, and that's something you have to do when setting up a console with a TV anyway.

As for its HD or its SD, its that simple with graphics cards too. Its DX9, or DX10, or DX11. 3 things instead of 2. Incredible.

This time last year I had no clue at all on PC parts. I knew how to plug them in, as that really is child's play - there's only one type of slot that any given part/cable can plug into, and any of said slots will usually do [And if it doesn't you just swap it to another of said slots]. I had no clue on part compatability though, or what good cards were. Hell, I thought i9s existed. I decided to design my own rig from scratch. Within 2 hours I was done, everything compatible and I went on to build that rig later that year. That's how hard the barrier to entry for this stuff is. Easy.

My strategy at the start? Higher numbers = better.
For compatability: If the CPU, Motherboard and RAM have the same random numbers in their description, they will work together. Check Google to be sure.
And that was it. With just that I managed to put together a PC, and I figured that out all on my own [Yes I want a medal goddamn it!].

Anything to do with TVs however, I've always got my Dad or Grandfather to do. I have no clue where all the cables go, no clue what settings to put it on, no clue where to plug in the components, originally had no clue how to swap between inputs, didn't know if LCD was better than Plasma or the new LED screens. I had no clue what the hell all this HDMI, VGA, DVi and crap was, and when I see this:

Panasonic VIERA TC-P65VT50 65-Inch 1080p Full HD 3D Plasma TV

I still think the numbers are entirely arbitrary, with no pattern to them at all [The TC-P65VT50 anyway, 1080p computers have taught me about thanks to resolution settings, and 65 inch is obvious measurement of size, which I'll assume is horizontal].
I have no time to measure how much space I have to fit in a 40 inch TV, or if I need a smaller one.

To you, all this probably seems basic. You have experience with TVs. With none, instead relying on my PC for all my entertainment needs, I have no clue what this thing is on about. My guess on this thing?
You don't pay attention to the TC-P65T50, and probably half the other stuff and just judge picture quality in stores [Which from a guy I know who works in a TV store nearby isn't the best way to do things, as according to him they play around with the settings to make the expensive TVs look better than the cheaper ones, though IDK if that's just his store or not], or read reviews online, which you can do the same thing with PC parts. Read review online, ask people what a good part is, ask in store what a good part is, or look at benchmarks [The equivalent of picture quality IMO] for the default part.


Either way though, I find most of this discussion rather pointless when talking about how easy/hard it is to upgrade something. That is entirely subjective, and in general when testing which is faster, texting or telegraphing [actually done], you don't get two completely unskilled people in both to find out, you get two experts and see who gets it done faster.

Expert console person, expert PC person, I'd say they're probably about the same in terms of difficulty. Need to upgrade console? Go to store, buy a new one, plug it in, set up the new controllers and other peripherals. Need to upgrade a PC? Got to store, buy Graphics card, unplug old one, plug in new one, install new drivers.

In both cases the person upgrading knows exactly what they're looking for and what they're doing as they know what is going on in that field. Once you know that, its not too complicated to do either.

 

[Vault101]

Really?

It's either SD or HD. Plug in, use game that says "Xbox360" and you are set to go. If you have a PS3, use the games that come in cases marked PS3, and you are set to go.

PC uses so many different components and usually games have requirements posted on the box which reads to the layman like stereo instructions (so to speak). Just because you have a PC, it doesn't mean you can run every game. Just because you have a high end PC, it doesn't mean it will run older games. You have to know what part does what, what program to use, what video/ sound cards are needed, ram, etc...

A typical consumer does not know that information, sadly enough.

The benefit of the console is, as the previous poster said , that it is objectively easier.
That's always been their main draw - plug 'n play.

PS. If you can get a computer to run on an old SD TV (like you were doing with the HD console) the subtitles will look fuzzy as well.

I dont think its as hard as people make it out to be....now ganted I can understand the apeal of wanting to be 99% sure the thing is going to work rather than 80%

even for a tech spaz like me it didn't take long to look at the numbers on the back of the box and the specs on my computer and be able to say "yep...I'm good to go"

as for backwards compatibility...yes running older games can be a pain/impossible..however stuff like GOG is quite popular...

and for everything else there's google

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I wouldn't care so much about BC if they re-released previous great games for the newer generations. I mean, both Battlefront games were downright amazing, but there hasn't been talk of re-releasing them with better graphics. Hell, that's something I would actually pay money for rather than this year's newest variation of Call of Duty.