Only PS2 did, and the PS3/360 have half arsed versions and then canned it. But people act like they always had BC when actual fact they never did. Can not see the point people moan about.Ace Morologist said:
No Backward Compatibility? So What?
- Thread starter Ace Morologist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My current console has already spontaneously combusted. Three times. This is the Xbox 360 we're talking about, one of the most broken down hunks of hardware the gaming world has ever seen.StayCalmAndHateXbox said:
So allow me to clarify: at some point in the future, Microsoft is going to stop making new Xbox 360s. Also, my Xbox 360 is going to break again. That's what it does. When that happens, I will have lost access to both my physical and digital copies of 360 games. About $500 worth of games, gone forever.
I think that's worth being unhappy about.
One major problem with no backwards compatibility, especially with this recent console generation, is that this new console is coming out as new games are still being released for the current xbox 360. Say a game comes out and it has an online mode, the new console comes out a month later and then Microsoft shut down the older servers for the 360. That makes the purchase of that brand new game for the older console nearly worthless. Sure some people don't care about online but its the fact that a portion of this brand new game you bought is now completely unavaliable to you.
Okay this can also apply to the PS4 since its not backwards compatible either but this is one thing that worries me about the PS4 too. I doubt either company would shut down the servers for the PS3 and xbox 360 so soon after the new consoles launch but who's to say they won't?
So you buy a new game now but only have so many months to play it online? Thats pretty damned unfair if you ask me. If you got a PC ya don't have to worry about that stuff at all. I'm only saying all this with so much focus nowadays on online play but its so annoying that servers can just be shut down on a whim, with little to no warning. With Sony wanting to support the gaming side of things more this time around, I doubt that the PSN access on the PS3 will be shutting down anytime soon after the launch of the PS4. With Microsoft and the Xbone however, well, let's just say I ain't gonna hold my breath that people who acess live on the 360 will still be able to afew months after launch.
But anyways, as much as I love backwards compatibility its not a huge deal breaker for me since I still have all my older systems but I can understand why its still desired by people and a huge plus for them. Why should the previous generation of games suddenly be closed of to you? You paid for them so you should still have the right to enjoy them. Not everyone can keep their older systems, either they trade it on for the new one or any other number of reasons why the can't have it around anymore. Sadly this just seems to be a major reason for them to sell you the games digitally all over again, sometimes for prices some games don't deserve.
Okay this can also apply to the PS4 since its not backwards compatible either but this is one thing that worries me about the PS4 too. I doubt either company would shut down the servers for the PS3 and xbox 360 so soon after the new consoles launch but who's to say they won't?
So you buy a new game now but only have so many months to play it online? Thats pretty damned unfair if you ask me. If you got a PC ya don't have to worry about that stuff at all. I'm only saying all this with so much focus nowadays on online play but its so annoying that servers can just be shut down on a whim, with little to no warning. With Sony wanting to support the gaming side of things more this time around, I doubt that the PSN access on the PS3 will be shutting down anytime soon after the launch of the PS4. With Microsoft and the Xbone however, well, let's just say I ain't gonna hold my breath that people who acess live on the 360 will still be able to afew months after launch.
But anyways, as much as I love backwards compatibility its not a huge deal breaker for me since I still have all my older systems but I can understand why its still desired by people and a huge plus for them. Why should the previous generation of games suddenly be closed of to you? You paid for them so you should still have the right to enjoy them. Not everyone can keep their older systems, either they trade it on for the new one or any other number of reasons why the can't have it around anymore. Sadly this just seems to be a major reason for them to sell you the games digitally all over again, sometimes for prices some games don't deserve.
As long as were using prior experiences as an argument...Ace Morologist said:
I grew up in the PS2 and original Xbox generation. The PS2 HAD backwards compatibility with PSX titles. The 360 and PS3 HAD backwards compatibility with Original Xbox and PS 2 titles respectively. Its a feature we've come to expect in consoles, that early adoption doesn't mean our previous library of games are suddenly heaps of useless plastic. These next-gen consoles are claiming to be bigger and better than their predecessors, claiming that we don't need the others once they come out, trying to convince people to become early adopters. That falls flat on its face without backwards compatibility, hell, theres NO downside to it. It pushes up early adoption and helps (at least for a while) quell the drought of games that ALWAYS happens in the first 6-12 months of a console launch.
Here it is in simple form:
Games sell consoles. Don't have a good enough library at launch? Backwards compatibility ensures you have both current AND previous libraries at your disposal, which increases the chances of your newer consoles selling. Sony COULD have capitalized on this, with the PS2 having one of, if not the most, powerful gaming libraries in the history of consoles; yet, they screwed themselves and their consumers by having different software architectures (I believe, not really sure on this) for their games.
Personal case in point: I own NO physical copies for my PS3. Yet, I have a shit ton of old school RPGs on it with which to play. Sadly, at the moment, I'm currently mowing several lawns with Salvador and his damn near infinite shooting rocket launchers in Borderlands 2, but when I tire of that, I'll be at the PS3 enjoying a good story and/or soundtrack.
Games sell consoles. Don't have a good enough library at launch? Backwards compatibility ensures you have both current AND previous libraries at your disposal, which increases the chances of your newer consoles selling. Sony COULD have capitalized on this, with the PS2 having one of, if not the most, powerful gaming libraries in the history of consoles; yet, they screwed themselves and their consumers by having different software architectures (I believe, not really sure on this) for their games.
Personal case in point: I own NO physical copies for my PS3. Yet, I have a shit ton of old school RPGs on it with which to play. Sadly, at the moment, I'm currently mowing several lawns with Salvador and his damn near infinite shooting rocket launchers in Borderlands 2, but when I tire of that, I'll be at the PS3 enjoying a good story and/or soundtrack.
Yeah it sure is great having to pay for things I already own.StayCalmAndHateXbox said:
Also, who gets to judge if a game is 'worth remembering'? I sure as hell don't trust the likes of Microsoft or EA who think something is better just because it sold more.
Because I already have a good console..well good ish considering it IS a PS3 that will play all my PS2 games AND some of my PS1 games. I have quite the collection of games for my 360 as well. If I can't play those on a new console why the fuck would I bother with getting a new console? I have a PS3, a 360, and a Wii. As well as a gameboy advance and a DSI. For me, that takes care of EVERY GAME I WANT TO PLAY.(well almost. I'd like to update my DSI to a 3DS for Zelda but I can be patient in my waiting of doing that until I have the money to do so).
I think you MIGHT have meant PS3 in your first paragraph but then I could be misinterpreting that. However, I do, for the most part, agree. Sony started the PS3 with backwards compatibility. Then they decided to say to hell with that no more for the newer PS3's. I'm very glad for my backwards compatible first gen PS3(even if it has yellow lighted once already and I suspect it's getting ready to do so again) so I don't have to get rid of games I love (even if I do have most of them in their HD remakes). Personally, that was the stupidest decision Sony could have made. But then again, I'm not in the gaming industry outside of my video game obsession so what do I know right?CrazyCapnMorgan said:
What if I don't want extra content in the game and want the game exactly as is right now? Some of us are happy without the extra content for some of our games....It's basically the same argument as having multiplayer trophies/achievements as part of your overall trophy/achievement score for the game for those of us who don't play multiplayer.StayCalmAndHateXbox said:
BC is especially important for anyone jumping ship to a different console or buying a console for the first time in a while. A lot of good games came out this gen and it would suck to miss out on them
Its funny you say that given your avatar. I bought Grandia on psn forever ago and still haven't gotten around to finishing itCrazyCapnMorgan said:
Yeah, that's why you can't put a PS disc in a PS2.Ace Morologist said:
"What's that, imaginary voice in my ear? You could? You could even play them in Playstation 3s? Backwards compatibility with the PS2 until they went and removed it?"
Well...I stand corrected.
Sure, the Wii played Gamecube games, the Wii U plays Wii games, and most Nintendo handhelds have at least a generation of backwards compatibiity, but this has never been a thing, right?
This is all that really needs to be said.xPixelatedx said:
People have forgiven lack of backwards compatibility when the changes have made sense, when the formats have changed for the better.
People have been excited about the previous generation of consoles because they were backwards compatible. Meaning they EXPANDED your library, rather than reduce it. Yes, your previous consoles still exist, but then....what's the point of the new console if it has a bunch of titles I don't want and has no other features I'm interested in?
When you're selling product B, you try to show how it's better than product A that was sold before.
I don't think you should argue that (all or most of) the players are like that, but that the companies SEE players like that.xPixelatedx said:
I don't buy games anymore unless I'm sure I can milk them for more than a year or two.
And he probably already does this. Because if anyone has a lick of sense, they treat their technology with respect.StayCalmAndHateXbox said:
The point is that if corporations see what people want, ignore it because they aren't "worth considering or investing in" I think that shows really bad PR. That's what Microsoft did.
Sony only looks better than Microsoft right now because they don't have any online restriction or used-game bullshit, and they didn't fucking say "it's ok if we annoy 5 percent of those gamers who wanted backwards compatibility."
The more time goes by, the more I'm seeing companies replace the "what does the customer want?" philosophy with the "what should we give customers now?" philosophy.
I wouldn't surprise if he kept in a platinum case and it still broke. I got the RROD from breathing on my 360, twice.Zachary Amaranth said:
It dose not take much to do it and helps out real gamers so much. I guess that's why they do not do it they are to busy feeding pabulum and drool buckets to the casual core club.
My uncle has the physical copy of the game and I have the digital. On both, I have logged over 100 hours of gameplay. Stories like that NEVER get old.PoolCleaningRobot said:
Neither does throwing Puffy at enemies.