Backwards compatibility is objectively important

[xPixelatedx]

I have both a PS3 and an Xbox 360. I consistently had the option to buy both PSN/XBL games and multi-platform disc based games on either console, but I chose the Xbox more often then not because that's the console my friends played on (over XBL). ...I cannot even describe in words how relieved I feel right now, especially after hearing the PSN news. Unless Microsoft announces they will 'cut & run' to, I don't think my Xbox games or my XBLA downloads are in any immediate danger, as of yet. If anything, Microsoft showing they support their customers (and all the money they spent) is going to give them the same huge lead they had at the start of last gen. It feels funny saying that because I don't like Microsoft, but that's the reality I have to deal with now.
With PS4 prices theorized to be around the $500 range, and the Xbox maybe following behind, a new console from the next gen is a big investment for a lot of us. Many of us are only getting one, and probably at the cost (or eventual cost) of our prior. I know backwards compatibility doesn't mean much to some of you, but some of us want that giant stack of games we bought this gen to still be easily playable. Now that the typical consumer has a stack of prior games, I imagine they would to.
Back in the days of the 8 and 16-bit consoles, having no backwards compatibility didn't mean much; it was particularly easy to deal with when only a few consoles existed and TV ports weren't cluttered. But with gaming becoming as big as it has, with as large an audience as it now has, more games were sold this gen then any prior. Sweeping them under the rug seems less and less like a feasible option, especially when it's becoming a common sight on entertainment centers for old consoles piling up like a monolith. Even going so far as to do it digitally seems outright moronic. Not a single good thing can come of this. You don't think backwards compatibility is important? It's one of the things hurting Vita sales.

The original PSP reception was lukewarm, at best. It certainly wasn't the DS killer Sony wanted it to be. But loyal fans bought it and enjoyed it, even if everyone else didn't. Sony rewarded that loyalty by telling PSP owners they have to re-buy all their games over again if they wanted them on the Vita, and I don't even know if that's a full catalog they offered (I can't see how it would be). The Vita is doing terribly right now, and could have easily made up for it's lack of fulfilling games by allowing PSP owners the use of their own. 3DS owners settled for lack of great games after launch by playing their DS games on their 3DS, and the 3DS is doing great right.
It not only (now) has a selection of great games, but it offers itself as a genuine trade-up to anyone that has a DS. Thats a pretty important thing. People didn't have to carry a 3DS and a DS in order to make the 3DS worth while. They didn't have to re-buy and re-download all their DS games onto their 3DS. That's how you do it. Backwards compatibility is important now. At the very least, it's a feature that helps build momentum for a console before it has it's full potential to offer.

I am really happy right now that I didn't back the PS3 as my main console. I am really happy I didn't buy a lot of games on it. I am really happy I didn't buy a lot of PSN titles and I am really happy I didn't get a PS+ account. Yeah, good way to start the next gen Sony, by making people feel relieved they didn't back you last one. I am sure that's some sort of brilliant business strategy I am just not getting. At least Nintendo got it right. I may not have bought too many wii games but I did download some SNES, NES, N64 games on my wii, and guess what? They are all playable on my wiiU. I can play wii games on my wiiU to. I can attach the same hardware to my wiiU and play wii games at full functionality. I already gave my (now empty) wii to my family so they could enjoy it and continue the process all over again. Backing Nintendo paid off. Time will only tell if Microsoft will follow Nintendo's example or Sony's, but I have a feeling we'll know soon enough with E3 around the corner. If it's Nintendo, Sony will find itself in a bit of trouble from having denied it's customers what their competition has deemed 'basic functionality'.

 

[mrjoe94]

Kids today....not learning to use paragraphs and such. I could barely read any of that, I only read the bold parts, but I agree. Backwards Compatibility is important if Sony actually wants any sales in the first 2 or 3 years.

 

[DigitalSushi]

The PSP was never meant to be a DS killer, in fact the DS was designed rushed and very quickly because the news of Sony actually having a contender in the handheld field the frightened Nintendo because they didn't want to lose the massive market share they enjoyed with the Gameboy and all its iterations.

As for backwards compatibility, its not used that much, it really is a minority that use it on a regular basis. Also Gaikai (or however you spell it will be doing the backwards honours for the PS4)

 

[Elijin]

Actually, objectively, they're businesses looking to make a profit.

By opting to not have backwards compatibility, paired with discontinuing the previous line, they ensure people must move to the next generation. Couple that with the common practice of digital remaster and distribution of prior titles, there is even more opportunity for profit.

People sure do forget that they primary concern of these companies is in fact, to make money.

 

[The Selkie]

They're trying to make a profit and backwards compatibility is generally a pretty big hassle, especially when a year or two after release no one will be playing the last generations games anymore.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I don't care about backwards compatibility- if I wanted to play Ps2 games I would use my Ps2. If I want to play PS3 games on my PS4... I won't, I'll play them on the system they were designed for.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Actually, objectively, they're businesses looking to make a profit.

People sure do forget that they primary concern of these companies is in fact, to make money.

I somehow knew I would be posting this shortly after the PS4 press conference.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

Kids today....not learning to use paragraphs and such.

I'm sorry .__.

 

[Elijin]

No see, they're companies engaged in providing purely optional leisure activities, and are mostly public listed companies. This means they literally are accountable for the decisions they've made and how that relates to their profitability.


You'll note I didnt say 'They exist to make money' I said 'They're businesses looking to make a profit.' These are entirely different concepts, and the kneejerk response you provided doesnt really mesh.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Objectively, backwards compatibility is not important. It may be important to some people, but that is subjective. If you want a truly backwards compatible system, get a PC. The PS3 started with backwards compatibility, and later dropped it. The 360 never offered more than lip service to the idea, and that has since also been forgotten. Yes, the 3DS plays DS games, because the 3DS wasn't a real generation. It was an evolution of the DS, like adding a Kinect or Move to your 360/PS3. You'll note that the GBA slot was removed from the DS/DSi/3DS well before that.

It is true that backwards compatibility can give the system a boost during the early days, when the library is limited. But it does not have the effect you imagine it does. Relatively few people are going to buy a PS4 to play PS3 games if they have a PS3 for that already. Those that do would be the ones who didn't buy a PS3 in the first place. And unless the library can stand on its own, there is no reason to buy a PS4 when the launch means that PS3s and the games that go with them will be plummeting in price.

The Vita isn't failing because it lacks backwards compatibility. It is failing because there aren't any games that people want enough to justify the system. Look back at the 3DS at launch. What was the overwhelming refrain? "I'll get one when a Pokemon game comes out for it." Now that X/Y have been announced, all of those people are looking at the 3DS. Games move systems. Current games. Backwards compatibility is a novelty. One that I have enjoyed in the past (I didn't get Pokemon Emerald until I had my DS and wanted to go back and play Gen 3), but still a novelty.

 

[Vegosiux]

No see, they're companies engaged in providing purely optional leisure activities, and are mostly public listed companies. This means they literally are accountable for the decisions they've made and how that relates to their profitability.


You'll note I didnt say 'They exist to make money' I said 'They're businesses looking to make a profit.' These are entirely different concepts, and the kneejerk response you provided doesnt really mesh.

Well, there's two ways to make a profit, as I see it. One is, make people give you money for your stuff. The other is, make people want to give you money for your stuff.

One is not quite like the other, as one of them breeds a much more loyal long-term customer base.

 

[sanquin]

They're trying to make a profit and backwards compatibility is generally a pretty big hassle, especially when a year or two after release no one will be playing the last generations games anymore.

People are still playing games like Final Fantasy 6/7/8. Or the older pokemon games. Let's also not forget some older Dragon Quest games, or older guitar hero's, okami, you name it. My point is, just because YOU don't play games on older consoles any more doesn't mean 'no one' plays older games any more. Especially since such games as the Mass Effect series, portal 2, borderlands, assassins creed series, and plenty of other really good games are on the current generation consoles.

That being said, yes, backwards compatibility is a hassle. They basically have to put in a whole PS3 in the console to make it work properly, since from what I've heard they're changing the operating system's inner workings and other such things quite a bit too. So it could probably cost them more than it would earn them from more sales. Even so, no backwards compatibility is a deal breaker for me. And if it did have it, I would probably buy it without needing too much consideration. Maybe if they implement a program where I can put in a PS3 game and it detects the disk and then lets me play the game not from the disk, but through the streaming service they're going to use for free. Since I already own the game. If they're going to make me buy the games a second time just to stream them on the new console then screw them...

 

[oplinger]

Well, here are my 2 cents.

Backwards compatibility? Not important on consoles. Important for handhelds maybe, because you do carry them around with you, but you can easily get by that by not having ADD, and wanting to play games on one handheld.

For a static console, it doesn't go anywhere..your console is probably still in your house from last gen, you can just...hook it up. If you're too lazy to do that then...you didn't really want to play the game that badly imo.

And for an extra cent, are we really surprised the PS4 isn't backwards compatible? A freaking cell processor, and you want to emulate that stuff on something not a cell processor? it was a ridiculous decision in the first place! Granted it's a nice processor, but PS3 owners should have known that because it's special, it might be hard to replicate. And it will be. ANd i don't think sony will sink the time and money into emulating the hardware. Or even more stupid, adding a small PS3 inside the PS4 just to run PS3 games and make you happy.

 

[J Tyran]

In Sonys defense over the Vita its not just as simple as them wanting to screw the fans over, they wanted to drop the battery eating UMD drive with its tiny capacity and replace them with cartridges. Fitting a UMD drive would have increased the cost horrendously.

The screwing happened later, no way of registering your UMD games you own and transferring them to your Vita. They did roll this out in Japan but not globally. Only UMD games got screwed though, any games you bought through PSN for the PSP can be transferred to the Vita using your PS3 though. Sony could have tried to do more though, like plugging the PSP into the Vita to transfer them or linking the individual UMD game your PSN account and then being able to re download them.

 

[alphamalet]

1) You can keep your old console to play all of your disc-based games from yesteryear.

2) Sony has allowed the transfer of digital content purchased off PSN on every device they have made since the advent of PSN.

3) Backwards compatibility wasn't an issue for the 70+ million who purchased a PS3 to begin with, and won't be an issue to the vast majority now.

 

[KillaBC]

I like the idea of backwards compatibility, it was a god send for me after the PS1 went belly up and had to rely on my dads PS2 to play PS1 games. It is convenient and customer friendly as you have that back catalogue of games which you can play still.

It however by no means shareholder friendly, the extra cost of creating emulation software and gamers all ready having all those games can put a damper of future sales. Why buy the newest games when there are still some PS3 games you haven't played yet going dirt cheap?

I now have a 360, I wonder of the 720 will be B'C?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Actually, objectively, they're businesses looking to make a profit.

People sure do forget that they primary concern of these companies is in fact, to make money.

I somehow knew I would be posting this shortly after the PS4 press conference.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

That...isn't really pertinent to his/her points.
Both points are business strategies with sound reasoning from THEIR perspective while Jim's point of view is relevant primarily to the CONSUMER.

Keep the points/counterpoints in context when refuting them.

The simple truth is that business is in fact, business and demanding higher standards from any business or market means (as a customer) rejecting what they offer until they offer something you want that they can make.

You want backwards compatibility and with good reason, but if that isn't a dealbreaker for most of the market it doesn't really matter what you think, no matter how good your reasoning.

 

[J Tyran]

2) Sony has allowed the transfer of digital content purchased off PSN on every device they have made since the advent of PSN.

Its a big plus for digital distribution really.

 

[sanquin]

1) You can keep your old console to play all of your disc-based games from yesteryear.

2) Sony has allowed the transfer of digital content purchased off PSN on every device they have made since the advent of PSN.

3) Backwards compatibility wasn't an issue for the 70+ million who purchased a PS3 to begin with, and won't be an issue to the vast majority now.

The first generation of PS3's did have backwards compatibility. And buying a PS3 (later generation) doesn't automatically mean people didn't have a problem with it. It really sucked for me personally as I would have loved to still be able to play my final fantasy 8 game, for one. But that wasn't an option any more when I bought mine. So I had only two choices. Not buy a console at all (didn't have the money for both a PS2 since my old one broke, and a PS3) or buy a PS3 and not be able to play my old games.

 

[alphamalet]

1) You can keep your old console to play all of your disc-based games from yesteryear.

2) Sony has allowed the transfer of digital content purchased off PSN on every device they have made since the advent of PSN.

3) Backwards compatibility wasn't an issue for the 70+ million who purchased a PS3 to begin with, and won't be an issue to the vast majority now.

The first generation of PS3's did have backwards compatibility. And buying a PS3 (later generation) doesn't automatically mean people didn't have a problem with it. It really sucked for me personally as I would have loved to still be able to play my final fantasy 8 game, for one. But that wasn't an option any more when I bought mine. So I had only two choices. Not buy a console at all (didn't have the money for both a PS2 since my old one broke, and a PS3) or buy a PS3 and not be able to play my old games.

The vast majority of PS3s sold were models that did not include backwards compatibility, and those models sold because abandoning backwards compatibility helped bring the price down. It obviously wasn't too much of an issue.

Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret! YOU COULD HAVE PLAYED FINAL FANTASY VIII ON ANY PS3! All PS3s are backwards compatible with every PS1 game.

 

[Mirroga]

If PS4 want my money and have better sales, it better have backwards-compatibility. Why do they keep abandoning this for the sake of lower prices? Don't they want us to buy their PS3 sales even after PS4 is announced?

If they don't support it, it just scares me and other people from buying their wares simply because they don't care to support our older investments. What's the point of remastered versions of games and bundled collection packs if they don't make it timeless pieces? Are they seriously going to make me buy another ICO HD Collection for the PS4? If so, well, fuck the PS4. I'll gladly go regress back to my indie and PC games.