Backwards Compatibility...What Gives?

[Tortilla the Hun]

Alright, I've tried searching for a thread asking this question, but whether or not the search engine isn't working or it really hasn't been discussed, so apologies if this is redundant.

Anywho, I'm curious to know, from a purely technical standpoint, why is it so difficult to give a game console backwards compatibility? I've heard that the issue isn't really that simple, that the fact that both the PS4 and Xbone are using vastly different hardware makes it significantly more difficult to include the function than it would be if it was a simple upgrade, which I think makes sense. But then I hear that it's not about the hardware, that the same functionality can be mimicked with software in the form of emulators, which given what I've seen with some emulators, it also makes sense.

So, I just wanna get things straight here, so if anyone can help me understand, then that would be fantastic.

Now, to add some discussion value, where do you Escapists stand on the matter? Is backwards compatibility (or rather the lack thereof) a make or break situation for you? Do you see it as a necessity, or just a neat feature that's convenient to have, but it's no skin off your back in the case it's not there?

Personally, I wouldn't mind it as much if I knew enough about the technology to really know what to make of it, which is why I created this thread in the first place. I'd be perfectly okay with it not being included if it was really such a big issue, though I'd only be left scratching my head of it turns out to be as copy/pasting the functionality into the software (perhaps it's not that simple, I was just using hyperbole).

 

[Sir Christopher McFarlane]

Shamus Young explained that before in his Experienced Points column. Here's a link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/10215-Why-the-PS4-Doesnt-Do-PS3-Games

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, the way I see it, and the talks I had with some more tech-savvy friends, the unanimous verdict seemed to be that implementing backwards compatibility takes less work than going out of your way to make sure it's impossible. I forget the technical details of it, but "vastly different hardware" didn't seem like a point, especially since the hardware appears to be "vastly different" specifically to conflict with backwards compatibility and that it shouldn't be that hard to design next gen hardware to be compatible with the last gen, and that the only reason to design the new hardware otherwise would be that you don't want it to be backwards compatible - the next gen hardware not being backwards compatible isn't the unfortunate effect of progress, it was designed to be incompatible.

Now, those aren't my words, I'm paraphrasing conversations I've had.

But if true, then I'll just let the peasant mob with pitchforks and torches loose. I'll be bringing some tar.

 

[Olrod]

If a console is backwards-compatible, then that gives an opportunity for people to trade in their used games.

Obviously because the publishers wont be getting any more profits from these used game sales, they'd rather prevent it from ever happening. "If we can't squeeze extra money from you, then nobody will!"

 

[Maxtro]

Get rid of backwards compatibility and game companies can sell you your old games again.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I admit the PS4 not being able to play PS3 games is understandable.. maybe not so much the PS2 and even PS1 thing
. Even PCs can emulate those, so there really isn't a single excuse. The Microsoft thing? Not so much understanding going on... particularly the XBLA games. I won't believe one single person who tells me those can't be emulated, at least. I am sure people pirate them on the internet and play them on their computers. (I may be mistaken about that though.. am I?)

 

[Fujimora_Pantsu]

On the importance of whether or not a console has backwards compatibility when it comes to buying it, I have to ask myself this. Should I pay hundreds of dollars to get a gaming system with a dozen games currently out, or keep my current console with a library of hundreds. It's pretty make-it or break-it for me.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I think it would be a boost to have it at least during the transition phase, and especially considering this generation more than ever seems to be a good point to steal customers from other consoles. However I wouldn't necessarily use it (assuming I would be getting a PS4) because I have a PS3, unless there was an easy way to transfer all data over. I think it would have been a wise decision to include it, but I don't know anything about how expensive that might be, or how the change in architecture would require the games to be adapted.

 

[wintercoat]

The thing about backwards compatibility is that it adds an extra incentive for people like me who didn't own a 360 to buy your new console. Having a backlog of already released exclusives would mean not having to slog through several months of shitty launch games until the good stuff is released.

This is especially important after the announcement that the PS4 won't be backwards compatible, because that adds in all of the console exclusives that were only released on the 360 and PS3. The 360 doesn't really have all that many must-have exclusives to begin with, but throw in the console exclusives, and you've got a huge incentive for people like me who didn't own either system. Not all of those games had a PC port, after all.

 

[Roxor]

If you want backwards compatibility, consoles are the wrong place to look. Desktop PCs are where you look for backwards compatibility. Even if native backwards compatibility is lacking from the operating system (as is the case for 16-bit DOS/Windows software on 64-bit Windows), there are long-established emulators, virtual machines and compatibility layers available, usually for free.

The reason for the long history of backwards compatibility on general-purpose computers versus the highly inconsistent one on consoles is how the devices were used.

General-purpose computers tend to get used for tasks that require a great deal of reliability, such as business-critical tasks. The people who do such tasks just want to be able to do what they've always done, with improved speed from better hardware being a bonus. To let such users continue to do their boring-but-essential tasks, changes to the system have to take the form of ones which can still allow existing software to work, producing a history which largely resembles the evolution of life.

Games consoles, on the other hand, are specialised devices which are typically created from scratch each time a new one is made. Games are not like business-critical software. They don't get used for decades. Aside from a few classics, they tend to be forgotten quickly, which doesn't give the console companies much incentive to try for backwards compatibility. Selling consoles resembles selling toys. New and exciting, built from scratch. The spotty popping up of new consoles and demise of old ones doesn't result in something like a tree of ancestry. Kind of like creationism.

Well, that's my attempt to explain why I think games consoles are so bad with backwards compatibility compared to desktop PCs.