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

[Something Amyss]

First, the novel. An avid reader has only to go to the store and purchase his favorite authors' newest books as they are published.

Best example. Moving on to worse ones.

The radio. The listener has only to buy a radio and plug it in at a place where he gets reception. Unless something happens to the device, there is never any need to replace it so long as it still functions.

Of course, you don't own any of the content on it. Also, further iterations aren't exactly covered in terms of "backwards compatibility."

Music in general is more a decent comparison. Record companies loved what was effectively the planned obsolescence of vinyl and cassettes. They've actually invented new ways to get you to rebuy content over the years. Not to mention, MP3 players are not directly backwards compatible with older media.

The movies. A frequent patron of the movie theatre has only to transport himself to the cinema and pay for a ticket. (Obviously, it becomes a bit more complicated and costly when a film buff decides he wants to watch movies in the comfort of his own home.)

Of course, if he wants to see it twice, he gets whacked for the second time, too. He does not get to go back in to the theater for free. This model is actually similar to Sony's "Download old shit from us" model: If you want to play again, you have to pay again.

Keeping up with video games isn't as simple. First you have to buy a console. If you don't have a television (unlikely), you'll need to purchase one (preferably an expensive high-definition home entertainment hub that uses as much electricity as a refrigerator).

I like how you're going for high-end stuff here. Because this is only the sort of thing a gamer would need. Music lovers only use cheap equipment, same with videophiles. And don't forget a house. You'll need to have a house to protect your stuff (probably a million dollar mansion to keep the artificial inflation up; audiophiles listen to music in cardboard boxes).

And you'll need to buy games. You'll need to buy controllers to play them. You'll probably need a hard drive or memory card, too. And you might need special controllers for certain games. Maybe you'll need to pay to register an online account, too.

And you need friends to play with. You might need to bribe them, so factor that in. And you'll probably need to buy them their systems, so you're going broke times four (or more!!!)

Oh, did a spin-off or sequel to your favorite console game appear on a handheld system? Gosh, you'd better buy a handheld. And games for the handheld. Did your favorite video game developer release a game on a console you don't own? You'd better buy that console, too

And what of movie fans? Are they required to buy all the tie-in stuff, too? Cartoons, soundtracks, novels, toys? I'm just curious, because this seems pretty optional.

I mean, if you really MUST HAVE EVERYTHING, this might be a problem, but what genre is it not?

Well, books. And that's about it.

a new console just hit the market, and now they no longer make games in your obsolete system's format. (Remember that the film buff rarely has to choose between home video formats, and the average lifespan of a given format is 10-20 years.)

Actually, not exactly true. Industry standards are getting shorter. Meanwhile, industry standards for gaming life cycles are getting longer. Plus, consoles often have overlap (like movies)

So you'll need to buy a new console, new controllers, new games, new memory cards, spend money to download your old games onto the hard drive of your new system..."

Or you could keep your old system and enjoy those games. Voila.

Thoughts?

Howabout, instead of a hyperbolic and contrived scenario, you just say "Backwards compatibility is important to some, not important to others, and probably somewhere in the middle for most."

Look, it's all well and good to say that other formats are unable to rival the complexity here, but when you get into comparable setups you run into comparable price and comparable issues with format, compatibility, etc.

 

[Mr C]

I'm assuming the strongly anti-BC posters are either not collectors or are only on their first or second generation of consoles.

I've been playing games for 28 years. I dread the day my Megadrive breaks down and I can't play Gynoug or Hellfire because I can't find a replacement for a system that is at present 23 years old.

This will be a bigger problem for the newer systems, my MD and Neo Geo don't have moving parts. You keep saying "I have a PS2 for PS2 games", but will you in ten years after the lens has buggered up? How will you go back in the future to get your Silent Hill 2 kick? Not that god-awful HD remake I hope? What about the many great games that don't get ported to newer systems? The Immortal, Midnight Resistance, Phantasy Star 1-4, Alien Soldier and Mars Matrix. I mention these titles because they are great and there is a good chance many posters on this site are so young they have never heard of them.

BC should be considered important otherwise one day some games will sadly be lost.

 

[Joccaren]

Experience with TVs? I've owned an SD 14" as a teen. An SD 27" once married. An HD 37" 1080P since x-mas 2009.

You know what thought I put into my TV?

It's 37". It's on sale for $450. It's HD, 1080P.
That's all I needed to know.

Didn't have to research what it's compatible with, Plasma vs LED (I think it's LED) or really much of anything else. Plug the TV into the wall, take an HDMI cable, run it to the PS3, go to the right HDMI input channel and bam, done. Takes about 5 minutes to put together the first time. There is no comparison in simplicity. It is objectively easier, expert or not.

Having to look up video cards, sounds cards, programs, firewalls, physical installation, software installation, puzzling out the OS - all of these things are more complicated than consoles.

Again, I repeat that I'm not saying either one is better. Only that consoles are proven to be simpler than PC.

By experience I meant you've used them a lot more than I likely have. There are TVs in my house, but I haven't touched the remote for one in about 4 years now, and before that it was a once a month thing. That is my experience in TVs as my family is too busy watching crap on them most of the time, so I just don't bother.

How I upgrade my PC:
Nvidia GeForce #X is my card, Nvidia Geforce #Y is on Sale. Is #X < #Y?
If yes, purchase.
Pull out old GPU, plug in new GPU, wait for it to install Drivers.

You don't really need to look up video cards. If the # after GTX or Radeon is larger than the one you have, odds are its better. Priority for numbers comes as second and third numbers, then the first, which is the only slightly odd thing about it, but even that can be simplified further by adding the half thought of "Is #Y > #Z60". Then you plug it in, wait for it to install drivers, and it works. I've done close to 20 GPU swaps today testing out an old GPU I think has finally died, running it through several rigs in different PCI-E ports and such. Doing so took me about an hour. 5 minute installation for me thanks to my experience with PCs - I just know what to do.

Sound cards you don't look up unless you're doing professional audio that requires them - they're built into the Motherboard otherwise.

Programs, Firewalls, Physical Installation, and Software installation is all stuff I, and my friends who actually own the consoles, have had to worry about on consoles too. Programs are the same as Software installation, and you do it on a console for faster load speeds. Firewalls I don't bother with on the PC, my family and my friend's family's servers have them, but that blocks not only my PC traffic, but all traffic - including what comes from the console. Physical installation I find easier, not having to carry a large TV in, or not having to swap around controllers and such when you plug a new console in.

I've got no clue about puzzling out an OS. That is literally a step by step guided setup where it walks you through what to do.

Is there RAM and CPU and such to worry about?
Sure, if you're building a new computer. Assuming you've got a reasonably modern PC though, the CPU and RAM will be fine, its only the GPU you need to change, and building a whole new rig will only really happen for fun with enthusiasts, or if you've got a really old rig where everything is outdated [I'm talking 8+ years old]. That eliminates all the hassle of compatibility, as they just plug into any old PCI-E slot on any old Motherboard. You can easily ignore a lot of what is in your computer, just the same as you can ignore slim/normal/lite/W.E console specializations, and harddrive sizes, and TV resolutions and all that jazz. If you have experience with a PC, it is quite easy to just look at something and go "Yeah, that'll work".

I'd also stop using Objectively, as its not true. In some situations for some people a Console is easier to set up, in others a PC is easier to set up. It all depends on the circumstances as to which is simpler. A guy with a modern PC but no TV or console, and a small room would have a much simpler time upgrading his PC than getting a console, whilst a guy with a TV and a really old PC would have an easier time getting a console than upgrading his PC. A guy with neither could have issues with both dependent on how and where he lives. You could assume that said person in example has an infinite budget, infinite room in his house, every store he could ever need around him, unlimited strength for easy lifting and perfect dexterity for fine movements, and nothing to do with either platform, but really what's the point of using an impossible situation? It doesn't prove any points, and its impossible to tell which would come out on top there anyway, assuming 0 knowledge of either subject said person would have no idea what to do for either.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

snip

If you'd read the beginning of the post clearly, you'd have noticed that I didn't write the hyperbolic contrived scenario; I was quoting someone else, and yes, I just admitted that it is hyperbolic and contrived.

Even so, it got me thinking about why I think backwards compatibility is important. That is all.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

especially if you're not well-versed in the world of PC building/upgrading and have to pay someone else to do it for you.

Boohoo, my store charges 20 bucks for that service.

Yah i didn't get the part where you said PC gaming isn't as complicated as console gaming. It's objectively the other way around. When you consider that almost everyone has a TV, it can be eliminated from the equation.

In 4 TV sets I tried my 360 on, the image absolutely sucked to the point of not being able to read text. 3 were old tvs and another was a Sony Bravia. Some 720p model, I don't know the model.

I can choose parts for a new computer but I don't know how to choose a TV that will let me read the goddamn subtitles. You think it's subjectively more complicated. It's not a factual argument, I don't know much about computers but I simply don't understand TVs.

Of course I'm making a subjective statement. I'm guessing you're one of those "He didn't preface his opinion with 'in my opinion,' so he's trying to pass off his opinion as fact!" types.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

Wish it was that simple. Both analog and HD suck. Hard.

50Hz cuts the image. 60Hz is damn near unplayable.

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)./quote]

Yeah, because it's so hard to keep track of how much RAM you have, what CPU you have and what graphics card you have (3 components) that there are tools that test the computer for you and tell you if you can run a game or not.

Anyway, that is totally unrelated to my problem and only proves the subjective nature of this argument.

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...

Even more unrelated.

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

I'm a typical consumer and I have never met anyone who can explain what the hell is my problem with TVs.

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.

It hasn't been plug and play for me. So yes, subjective.

Also, I have connected my PC to older TVs. CRT is crystal clear and much better than the Sony Bravia with the 360 on.

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.

My point is that it's damn near impossible to familiarize yourself with TVs unless you're an aficionado or an electronics engineer or something.

I need a graphics card? I ask around. Probably I'll get an answer. I need to install RAM? I either flip those white paddles or just pay someone to do it for me.

I need to upgrade my OS? I can pay someone else to do it. Or just click the installer for it to start.

I need to know how to make my TV let me play without hurting my eyes. Nobody. knows.

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?

Okay. If I want to know the specifications on my computer, I run "dxdiag".

How do you check the hardware that is on your TV set?

 

[ElPatron]

Yah i didn't get the part where you said PC gaming isn't as complicated as console gaming. It's objectively the other way around. When you consider that almost everyone has a TV, it can be eliminated from the equation.

Of course I'm making a subjective statement.

My work here is done.

I'm guessing you're one of those "He didn't preface his opinion with 'in my opinion,' so he's trying to pass off his opinion as fact!" types.

You didn't have to be a jerk to me. What the hell did I do to you?

 

[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)

What you have done here is take "Your opinion" and mistaken it for "The opinion of the market". It is not the number one aspect when they realized they had to pay more for the functionality. Who would have thought? Developing a competent system for emulation previus hardware would be costly? Oh yeah.... everyone did.

actually, there were quite a few polls waay back in the day which is where i read it. It is not really a coincedence that most of the revered console systems are also backwards compatible (not to mention i can easily argue that you are guilty of the same thing).

I would actually pay more for backwards compatibility (so long as its reasonable), but that is niether here nor there. I do not like the idea that my PS2 titles have a finite date due to diminishing supplies of PS2 consoles. Hell, some PS2 titles are more expensive right now than they were when first retailed.

I know backwards compatibility will never happen, and i made peace with it somewhat for the PS2 era. BUT, I am concerned for the next few generations. every new generation of consoles last a shorter amount of time before breaking. My PS2, if maintained, can last for quite awhile (10-ish years). PS3? honestly i will consider myself lucky if it lasts for 5. that goes double for the 360. next generation will probably last 3-4 years if you are lucky. the one after that maybe 2-3 years and so on.

I view backwards compatibility like cruise control in cars. Not essential, but really nice to have.

honestly im more concerned about the rumored anti used games systems in the new generation of consoles. PC gaming is looking better and better.

 

[hermes]

Simply put, backwards compatibility is less of an issue the more into the life of the console you are on. If the PS3 weren't BC at the beginning of their life, it would have sold considerably worst because it wouldn't have many decent games to play in it. By the time Sony removed that feature, it had a decent sized library to be worthy.

If a console is not BC, I won't even consider for during the first couple years...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

For me its an added value that's worth half the price of the console, just for all the saved space. Its also a good thing to have if you have a shortage of "new" games. There is no real downside unless your a zombie gamer who never keeps anything more than a few months.

 

[Monster_user]

I'm assuming the strongly anti-BC posters are either not collectors or are only on their first or second generation of consoles...

...BC should be considered important otherwise one day some games will sadly be lost.

Or they have a better insight into what it takes to develop backwards compatibility, or are already struggling with the cost of a luxury.

The more accurate the backwards compatibility, the more costly it is.

For various good reasons consoles rarely use chips compatible with previous generations. Even if they did, the software is completely different. As an individual who writes scripts, I can speak with experience on the difficulty in maintaining backwards, or cross-platform compatibility. As the demand drops off, you have to stop supporting previous platforms, and something will break eventually. Software is not "perfected" yet, so it changes dramatically over time. Heck, hardware isn't perfected yet.

The Generation immediately preceding the current one is the most problematic. The resources that are required are far to great to emulate on the current hardware. Hardware chips that are compatible are far too expensive to include at the console's target price, and still be able to buy new chips that provide next-gen level graphics. Then you've got different peripherals, different media, different controllers, different screen dimensions, etc. Stuff like "Rumble Packs", or "Memory Cards", or "Dial-Up connections", or portable version adapters, or glitches/exploits that became features.

Hardware as old as your Megadrive can be replicated using software, without loosing the speed of running the games on real hardware. To do this requires programmers, who require money. That money is not a lot for the programmers, but it is a lot for the developers @ $40k+ per developer, per year. Once the code is written, it is still not finished. Inevitably something will break, and repairs will have to be made. The code needs to be maintained. Your not buying a piece of hardware, you have to keep a team on staff to maintain compatibility software, which costs a lot of money. Finally, as recently demonstrated, licensing issues come into play. Companies usually do not want to place nice, and release their classics at affordable prices, or even allow music, player names, characters, or logos, etc. to be resold in any fashion.

The alternative is to let the fans do all of the work, if that wasn't illegal.

Developing a competent system for emulation previus hardware would be costly? Oh yeah.... everyone did.

Now we wait to see if the market will support it on the next generation of hardware, or if the cost was not worth it. It isn't a one-time investment, they are going to have to port, and patch the code for the next generation.

They are going to have to maintain the storefront, and hope they once again get enough licensed content so that it doesn't look like a waste.

 

[Mr C]

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)

What you have done here is take "Your opinion" and mistaken it for "The opinion of the market". It is not the number one aspect when they realized they had to pay more for the functionality. Who would have thought? Developing a competent system for emulation previus hardware would be costly? Oh yeah.... everyone did.

I know, but often it's not the same (I know I'm being a sentimental fool).

The other problem is that not all games get emulated and they aren't legal. Hopefully one day that will change.

EDIT: Hit wrong quote button, sorry. *shamefully crawls into hole*

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

Sorry what? Aside from the GPU choice, which in itself isn't hard, there's literally thousands of helpful webpages and users like @Matthew94 and myself on this very website to help out with questions like that.

None of those other things you mentioned are remotely difficult. If you don't have a compatible OS for PC gaming, either you're stuck in 1995, or you're so far ahead of the curve that you don't find computers difficult.

If you don't have a firewall, then you haven't got a security program, which Windows itself comes with.

What else is entailed with PC Gaming that you find an impediment?

 

[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)

What you have done here is take "Your opinion" and mistaken it for "The opinion of the market". It is not the number one aspect when they realized they had to pay more for the functionality. Who would have thought? Developing a competent system for emulation previus hardware would be costly? Oh yeah.... everyone did.

actually, there were quite a few polls waay back in the day which is where i read it. It is not really a coincedence that most of the revered console systems are also backwards compatible (not to mention i can easily argue that you are guilty of the same thing).

I would actually pay more for backwards compatibility (so long as its reasonable), but that is niether here nor there. I do not like the idea that my PS2 titles have a finite date due to diminishing supplies of PS2 consoles. Hell, some PS2 titles are more expensive right now than they were when first retailed.

I know backwards compatibility will never happen, and i made peace with it somewhat for the PS2 era. BUT, I am concerned for the next few generations. every new generation of consoles last a shorter amount of time before breaking. My PS2, if maintained, can last for quite awhile (10-ish years). PS3? honestly i will consider myself lucky if it lasts for 5. that goes double for the 360. next generation will probably last 3-4 years if you are lucky. the one after that maybe 2-3 years and so on.

I view backwards compatibility like cruise control in cars. Not essential, but really nice to have.

honestly im more concerned about the rumored anti used games systems in the new generation of consoles. PC gaming is looking better and better.

There are a large amount of problems with that reasoning.

Does the entire market that would potentially buy a PS3 use the sites that had the poles or was it a site that mainly focuses on gaming increasing the likelyhood of only asking people who arn't first time buyers or enthusiast? In otherwords did the pole represent the meaning of the market or of a specific subset of the market?

Did those poles mention that this option would increase price?

You are an enthusiast. And you represent a certain subset of the market a lot smaller than you may think. What about all the parents who bought the PS3 for their kids who hasn't had a PS2? What about the "frat boy" gamer demographic who just got into gaming this generation as gaming moved from a medium for nerds and kids to adults? What about adults who got into gaming for the same reason?

I am sorry. Your poles do not represent the market.

does the entire market want on disc dlc?

does the entire market want multiplayer only games?

does the entire market want games series that change to broaden the potential audience (a la dead space 3)?

you cant poll the entire market , it is a faceless mob. about the only portion of the mob which can be analyzed ARE the "enthusiasts". We cant trust the game industry on what the entire market wants because they are clearly out of touch with their customers as the previous examples show with their terrible business decisions.

so....what? apparently nothing represents the market? either way i do not see why you are so passionate against the concept of adding in backwards compatibility that many people would enjoy and vehemently shoot down anyone that says they want it >_>

see now, im cynical so I dont believe BC would happen in the near future. I dont crush peoples desires, light them on fire, and then piss on the ashes though jeez.

...not to mention there is a good chance ill skip this console generation altogether (first time since atari)