Backwards compatibility is objectively important
- Thread starter xPixelatedx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It is more important to have it than in previous generations.
The jump from PS3 to PS4 is marginal, I mean the fidelity will be nearly identical in a lot of games, at least for a few years. Plus they both use Blu-ray, they will be using the same engines as well for at least a few years.
The jump from PS3 to PS4 is marginal, I mean the fidelity will be nearly identical in a lot of games, at least for a few years. Plus they both use Blu-ray, they will be using the same engines as well for at least a few years.
As someone who wants backwards compatibility, I doubt Microsoft will go with it for the next Xbox. It just doesn't make the company any money, as the costumer already has the game and more often than not, the machine that can run the game. Consoles are sold by big blockbuster titles like Halo, something doesn't apply to a backlog of last gen games.
But if you think about it, it's kinda impossible to always have backwards compatibility. Things will always become outdated. It just happens faster with consoles. I have a windows 98 cd (Sega Smash Pack) that won't run for anything on my Windows 7 high end laptop.
It's also not that big a deal. There will always be emulators and people who want to make these things work
It's also not that big a deal. There will always be emulators and people who want to make these things work
Why do people seem to think that buying a new console means their old console disappears in a cloud of smoke thus preventing them from continuing to play their current game collection?
Just keep your old console.
Just keep your old console.
Backwards compatibility is sometimes important. In the beginning of a console's life then it's very useful because the lack of game gives you no reason to get the new console. Now some of you say that it's as simple as to keep the old one around. Well sure it is that simple if you've got unlimited room for consoles. I don't however. I barely got room for the 3 consoles I have now and I've had to move my Wii to make room for them. I will probably have to move my Xbox 360 too.
I think the main reason why console backwards compatibility is so poor is that the console manufacturers haven't even been trying to keep their architecture consistent.
Look at the playstations: MIPS, some custom thing, PowerPC, and now x86_64. Four different architectures over some 15-or-so years.
Now look at desktop computers: x86 and its descendants for over three decades.
Is it any wonder console backwards compatibility is so poor?
Look at the playstations: MIPS, some custom thing, PowerPC, and now x86_64. Four different architectures over some 15-or-so years.
Now look at desktop computers: x86 and its descendants for over three decades.
Is it any wonder console backwards compatibility is so poor?
I had a whole library of ps1 and ps2 games and my ps2 burned out. So I upgraded to a PS3. If the original PS3 wasn't backwards compatible I'd have never bought one! I still have it. Had to replace the hard drive last year but otherwise it's worked great. Can pop in whatever game I want all without having to buy it over again on the PSN.
It's going to be mid to late generation before they have enough games for the PS4 to make me want to get one.
That's IF they do away with the contract they make you sign stating they can remove any functionality they want from your system any time they want. When I shell hundreds of dollars for something I'd like consumer rights to come with it.
It's going to be mid to late generation before they have enough games for the PS4 to make me want to get one.
That's IF they do away with the contract they make you sign stating they can remove any functionality they want from your system any time they want. When I shell hundreds of dollars for something I'd like consumer rights to come with it.
It just feels like a bad investment really. I mean backward compatibility is not important, but it is the most convenient part of most modern age technology. It makes money, all for obvious reasons.
I mean why would I/anyone even bother paying for yet another console that isn't revolutionary whatsoever (Its marketed as a PC, don't we kind of have those already?). I'd imagine people invested a lot of their budget into their PS3s, its downloadable games, and the fact that we still have upcoming games for it shows that the thing still has a lot of life left in it.
Nintendo proved they know how to step up their game to the next gen, they made sure your money isn't wasted when you bought the WiiU. The PS4 feels... pointless.
Sony might as well announced: "Hey loyal fans, hold on to your PS3s, cause you won't be getting anything special with what we're announcing today..."
I mean why would I/anyone even bother paying for yet another console that isn't revolutionary whatsoever (Its marketed as a PC, don't we kind of have those already?). I'd imagine people invested a lot of their budget into their PS3s, its downloadable games, and the fact that we still have upcoming games for it shows that the thing still has a lot of life left in it.
Nintendo proved they know how to step up their game to the next gen, they made sure your money isn't wasted when you bought the WiiU. The PS4 feels... pointless.
Sony might as well announced: "Hey loyal fans, hold on to your PS3s, cause you won't be getting anything special with what we're announcing today..."
Wow. I mean... jeez man. I will openly admit to not reading all of that. But... is this about the PS4 not having backwards compatibility?xPixelatedx said:
It's because the system architecture doesn't allow it. Like, it just won't work. However, the option to stream PS1/2/3 games may be an option in the future.
Outside of that... do you throw out your old console as soon as you get its successor? I doubt it. So a lack of BWC really shouldn't be a big deal. I'm certainly not bothered by it. It would be nice (though transferring saves would be a bother), but I'm not longing for it to any degree.
So to you a system is only worth its ability to play games from older systems? It's not trying to be revolutionary, it's trying to be an upgrade from the PS3, so that the games developed for it can be bigger, better, and (hopefully) more ambitious.Xcell935 said:
Here's the general rule of thumb that I highly recommend following; if you're going to make an argument make it first and then add a video link that is pertinent if you really feel that it will either accentuate or better explain your point. Doing the whole I'll just throw this up here doesn't make a point, especially if in a case like this you really missed the point of the video. Congratulations someone just got sent to watch a 6 minute video and for what?xPixelatedx said:
The argument Jim is presenting is one of companies making completely anti consumer practices, ones that are out there for the simple thing of bleeding the consumer dry. The whole backwards compatibility thing really doesn't fit. Backwards compatibility isn't just them snapping their fingers and making it so, unfortunately with the asinine structure of some consoles like say the PS3 you essentially have to make it emulate the previous system. Like in the fat PS3, they had to add in components to essentially run a pseudo PS2 inside, and here's the kicker...it costs a lot of time and money for no profit. Heck, I'd imagine that while it might've helped sell consoles it probably worsened the whole "sell at a loss" thing.
You are not entitled to backwards compatibility, it's not like on disk DLC or locking away content in a game due to microtransactions, it certainly would be nice to have but in no way is Sony evil or a bad guy for not doing it.
True that backwards compatibility isn't equatable to nickle and diming the consumer.... unless people have to re-buy their games again, which is highly likely here. But that wasn't the point. The point was the person I was replying to was blindly defending a negative of the console under the banner that 'companies exist to make money'. That's not exactly an excuse for anything, nothing should ever be defended that way, which is what the video said as well. A better excuse is the PS3 had such a wonky setup it would be near impossible to make their games work on the new console. It's not a happy thing, but it's a legitimate way to defend Sony. Of course that doesn't explain at all why PS1 or PS2 games cannot work on it, since those can even emulate very well on most modern PCs, and that's were things get muddy. Just like with the vita, they want us to re-buy everything.Rednog said:
Objective.
You use that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
Really, I don't get why backwards compatibility is that big a deal. Maybe its 'cause I've got backwards compatibility for the last 20+ years on my PC, but I'm not seeing it. Consoles are different to PCs in this regard, in the fact that they aren't large and bulky. Having 2 PCs would be like having 8-16 consoles or so. Having to have 2 consoles instead of 1... Not that big a disadvantage IMO. Yeah, you'll have to swap around your TV ports every so often, but really they don't take up much space, and its not that big a deal that you'll have to use to systems instead of one.
You use that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
Really, I don't get why backwards compatibility is that big a deal. Maybe its 'cause I've got backwards compatibility for the last 20+ years on my PC, but I'm not seeing it. Consoles are different to PCs in this regard, in the fact that they aren't large and bulky. Having 2 PCs would be like having 8-16 consoles or so. Having to have 2 consoles instead of 1... Not that big a disadvantage IMO. Yeah, you'll have to swap around your TV ports every so often, but really they don't take up much space, and its not that big a deal that you'll have to use to systems instead of one.
I thought this thread would be about the lack of backwards compatibility on the PS4. I'm still disappointed!Dryk said:I thought this thread would be about the preservation of our history, I leave disappointed
The only issue I see with the "just keep your old console" argument is the folks who wouldn't be able to afford the new without some cash from selling the old; but Shirley that's not enough of an argument for the manufacturers to sink the resources into including backwards compatibility. Shirley that calls for the consumer to make the choice: sell the old and swallow it, or keep the old and save up until the new is cheaper and affordable for them. Is that a good thing?
Funny enough there's one 16-bit console that let you play older games...with an expansion, the Genesis/Megadrive you could buy a device that enabled you to play Master System games on the Gen/MD.
The PS4 will probably be B/C with PSOne & PS2 games rather quickly in the form of emulation. They're already doing something like that with PS2 games on the PS3 for those systems that lack the B/C function. But PS3? That's a shame.
The PS4 will probably be B/C with PSOne & PS2 games rather quickly in the form of emulation. They're already doing something like that with PS2 games on the PS3 for those systems that lack the B/C function. But PS3? That's a shame.
So please explain to me the practicality of having a PS3, PS2 and PS4 on my entertainment center, particularly when the PS5 comes out and once again the library of games we just got is rendered unusable. If you have been with Sony from the start, things are already at the ridiculous stage. Most people don't have infinite outlets, HDMI ports and space to have every console hooked up at once, and it's ludicrous to think that's cool. I am not saying this is a problem that can be fixed, but there is enough evidence to warrant that it is indeed a problem. Of course people are going to get a PS4 to play PS4 games, but when their new PS4 title fails to impress (and it will happen periodically), it's good to fall back on the enormous libraries prior without re-arranging your whole entertainment center.The_Echo said:
Well, really, its a good defence against your argument at the time. You state that it is objectively bad to remove backwards compatibility. You then use subjective personal anecdotes to support this claim. He has come in and said that objectively companies exist to make money, and this stands to make them more money, so from an objective standpoint removing backwards compatibility ISN'T a bad move. Remove that objective part and yeah, the argument holds no water, but with the whole objectively bad/good thing, its a valid point.xPixelatedx said: