No Backward Compatibility? So What?

[Zanderinfal]

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly.

Really? Because I remember the PS2 supporting all PS1 games completely (Except for the older games that didn't use analog sticks, meaning they had to be played with directional buttons instead). It was even compatible with it's own separate memory card. If that's not backwards compatibility then I have no clue what is. And your use of "Not truly" is very off. Here, we can't even attempt to play the previous generation of games on these consoles. We are past the point where consoles have the technology to play the previous era's games and why we are being shafted on this is for money's sake. Because sooner or later down the line, there will be more "HD Classic games" forcing us to cough up more cash for games we already own. It's downright limiting the audience to what they can and can't play on this console (that they have already forked over a couple hundred dollars for) until they are forced to pay extra to get it a second time.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

Because the technology is there but they purposefully leave it out so that the companies can cash in on HD Re-releases further down the line on a new console that already costs an arm and a leg. It's a massive cocking rip off.

Edit: Damn it, I was ninja'd by that Zachery guy. FOILED AGAIN!

 

[Johann610]

Microsoft is normally OBSESSED with backwards compatibility. Their flagship Spreadsheet program, Excel 2010, reads (at no add-on or additional charge) Lotus 123--a program over 20 years old!
What the hell happened that, even though the disks are the same size, shape, and weight, they suddenly don't work? You mean to tell me, that in order to enjoy the old, GOOD stuff, I have to unplug ALL my audio, video, power, and what-not? So I can--what, exactly?--play the latest spunkgargleweewee, and ExpelAll sports, and television? No sale. I don't like it.

 

[SirDerick]

Which would you rather have, a console with a few games, or a console with an entire library of games already available, most of them on discount?

 

[Darth Foxtrot]

People are speaking about it without even knowing the hardware specs. Backwards compatibility isn't easy or cheap. Making it so will drive the cost of an already expensive machine. I own a PC with a modest graphics card, but I cannot play Star Wars Republic Commando because my graphics card calls for bump mapping commands which don't exist in the Unreal 2 engine. The only work-around I know of is to disable bump mapping. And this happened because I upgraded my graphics card. Wait until we see the hardware specs, compare them to the 360, and if it's clearly capable - then ***** about it. But it is clearly different enough where backwards compatibility is going to be an issue - and you aren't willing to offer your programming and computer engineering expertise to Microsoft (because everyone here are obviously experts on these two)....

STFU.

 

[faefrost]

Backwards compatibility is not a necessity. But it is a nice to have, that if leveraged properly can really boost a consoles market share.

Cases in point. The PS2 and the Wii. These are really the only 2 consoles to ever offer true unequivocal backwards compatibility. At release they were both able to heavily leverage the existing game libraries of their predecessors. Now as I said this is not an absolute requirement for a successful console, but it is worth noting that in part because of this leveraging these two were the best selling consoles ever. Neither one was the best or most robust console of their generation. In pretty much all cases their competitors had superior hardware. But those vast existing game libraries were a major selling point at least until the dev houses caught up with the new tech. As a further example Nintendo has largely dominated the handheld market for almost 20 years now, because each of their new handhelds evolved from and plays the games of the previous generation. There is a solid unbroken line between the original Game Boy and the 3Ds.

Backwards compatibility typically gives an edge for the first 12-24 months of a consoles life cycle. After that the playing field will start to level out from new game releases. (Assuming the console in question meets the basic sales requirements to not be dying a slow death from lack of development. See: PSVita, Sega Dreamcast, etc). So it can be useful for gaining an edge early on in the sales race. And momentum once achieved in this industry rarely reverses.

We will see how it goes this go round. While the only true Backwards compatible system this time is the WiiU, the complexity of developing for it vs the newer PC architecture XBone and PS4 may counteract that. (And the overall lack of Wii Games that you want to stretch forward besides Zelda and Mario). So this generation is probably wide open. Just from what we know now I suspect the edge may be sitting in SONY's court. MS seems suicidaly determined to give it to them. (We forget SONY truly dominated for two of the last 3 console generations before stumbling with the complicated, clunky to develop for and expensive PS3. It sounds like they are falling back on the type of customer and developer relations that allowed them to succeed to the PS1. MS seems to be following the model that has brought them such successes as Vista, Windows 8 and Microsoft Bob. IE "Because we say so and you all are losers" as a marketing philosophy.)

It should be fun to watch.

 

[Zeraki]

Unfortunately your old consoles will break down sooner or later. These things won't last forever, and anyone who thinks they will is kidding themselves.

It doesn't matter how well you take care of them, sometimes things just break. When my original SNES died back in '06 and I was unable to repair it(couldn't get a replacement for the part I needed) I was lucky enough to find a replacement console at a decent price. That's going to get much, much harder in the future though.

One thing I've always wanted to see if hardware BC wasn't an option in newer consoles, is to at least give those of us who own the original games the option of using the serial numbers on said games to redeem a digital copy if it's available. I don't know how that could be made to work properly(and obviously won't because they'd rather force us to re-purchase games we already own) but I think something like that could have some potential.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think previously it hasn't been a big question because the newer consoles always ended up with more and better games. The new releases made up for not being able to play the relatively small library of games people had acquired over the three or four years of the console's life.
All three consoles have been on the market for at least five years now which has lead to libraries of over a thousand games per console. People still have plenty of games that they still want to play.

That's at least my take on it. I have two, one-foot tall piles of games next to my 360 that I've been working through (not to mention a collection of nearly forty games on just the 360). Personally, I'm going to take advantage of all the price drops in 360 games. I don't have the money to drop on new consoles anyways.

 

[In Search of Username]

Because I don't want to have a bunch of consoles lying around that I have to dig out when I want to play any older games. Getting as close as possible to being able to play everything on one platform is always a good thing.

 

[WanderingFool]

Okay, I see people getting pissed about the Xbox One (and the PS4) not being backward compatible. You can't even use the same controllers on the new consoles.

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly. I mean, I grew up playing on Nintendo consoles, and those were always radically different each generation. Hell, the cartridges were different shapes from one to the next. The discs were different sizes once they started using discs.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

--Morology!

Thats is a good queastion. There were a number of games I played on the NES and SNES that I loved, but I had to own both consoles (which sucked when the NES died... funny story about it, tell ya another time) to play them.

Really, the only time I really made use of BWC was with the PS2 and PS1 games. I mean shit... didnt even bother with the XBox to 360.

 

[Vegosiux]

People are speaking about it without even knowing the hardware specs. Backwards compatibility isn't easy or cheap. Making it so will drive the cost of an already expensive machine. I own a PC with a modest graphics card, but I cannot play Star Wars Republic Commando because my graphics card calls for bump mapping commands which don't exist in the Unreal 2 engine. The only work-around I know of is to disable bump mapping. And this happened because I upgraded my graphics card. Wait until we see the hardware specs, compare them to the 360, and if it's clearly capable - then ***** about it. But it is clearly different enough where backwards compatibility is going to be an issue - and you aren't willing to offer your programming and computer engineering expertise to Microsoft (because everyone here are obviously experts on these two)....

STFU.

Well here's the thing. Whenever this thing comes up it comes across as if backwards compatibility is something that needs to be "added". Why? I'd wager that building on the foundations of what you have and developing/improving upon it, keeping backwards compatibility in mind, wouldn't cost all that much.

You have to go out of your way to design the new hardware to be different enough to eliminate backwards compatibility, not to improve the hardware you already have and end up with better hardware, based on the last setup, that will be compatible as it's an improvement on the old setup, not something specifically designed to be different to axe backward compatibility.

 

[Olas]

Imagine you don't already own a PS# or Xbox 360. Backwards compatibility can be the difference between having the previous system's entire library available to you vs not having it at all. We're talking 700+ games vs a just few dozen expensive ones.

Ya big deal, who would care about that?

 

[Windcaler]

Looks like you missed the success surrounding the PC and PS2, the only truely backwards compatible gaming platforms that I know of. PS2 had a ton of early adopters in part because of backwards compatibility because, hey what did you have to loose? Not only did you get a great console and a built in DVD player you could play every game you already owned on playstation.

Then theres the PC, IMO the best gaming platform that Ive ever seen because its near endless customization, wider variety of games, open platoform, and through emulators I can play anything from Dark souls to Zork. Of course the kicker is I can do just about anything else with my PC, like write here on the escapist

Now its true that a lot of executives say that backwards compatibility is often asked for but rarely used. However I question where the basis of that claim comes from. In the case of the xbox 360 its BC was garbage. I couldnt play some of my favorite regular xbox games because the thing literally wasnt backwards compatible. I dont see any way you could get the numbers off of PCs or PS2 so its a question that cant be adequetely answered without some execs PR spin on it

At the end of the day, if Im buying a console backwards compatibility is a huge thing for me because Im running out of shelf space. In 30 years we've had about 11 different consoles (14 with the PS4, Xbone, and Ouya) not including handhelds. We've also had thousands of games released. Theres only so much space on my shelves for all this stuff and even if I just take the really good games, I still have to struggle with the consoles taking up space. For younger gamers that have only been around for a couple console generations this wont mean a lot and I get that, but Im not a younger gamer. I see a problem thats only building as consoles become abandonware and it really is a problem that needs to be addressed

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

Because a company can't survive if it blatantly does the exact opposite of what its customers want (obviously not everybody cares). If you want a more direct answer, it's a convenience issue. If you want a smart ass answer, Nintendo figured it out, so can Sony and MS!

 

[Siege_TF]

Uh.....because upgrading to this new console will make my 6-year-old game library completely fucking worthless. I think I have the right to complain about that.

What? is your current console going to spontaneously combust when you bring the new one home? No? Then how would your library become worthless lol? You do have the right to complain about anything, but we all also have the right to tell you that youre being a whiney spoiled gamer when its over something trivial.

My T.V. has two HDMI ports. One is being used by the cable box, the other is being used by my PS3. There's no such thing as a HDMI splitter (yet) which means if I were to use another system I'd have to unplug the PS3, which is no small task given the layout of my living room. I'd also have to find room to put the PS4, which, in my case at least, is another challenge. Maybe you have more room to work with, but I don't, and I don't imagine that the average apartment-dweller does.

 

[Alakaizer]

Okay, I see people getting pissed about the Xbox One (and the PS4) not being backward compatible. You can't even use the same controllers on the new consoles.

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly. I mean, I grew up playing on Nintendo consoles, and those were always radically different each generation. Hell, the cartridges were different shapes from one to the next. The discs were different sizes once they started using discs.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

--Morology!

I would like to recommend a concept to you that is known as research. If you were to engage in this concept you would find that a number of consoles have been backwards compatible. For starters, both new iterations of Game Boy (Color and Advance) could play all previous Game Boy games with no trouble. This continued somewhat to the DS which can play at least GBA games. The 3DS can play the DS games. Backwards compatibility is not new. If, however, you dismiss these examples as being merely handheld systems, then I must point you to the PS2 and the Wii, both of which could flawlessly execute games from the previous generation (PS1 and GameCube, respectively).

OT:All I can say about the lack of backwards compatibility on the PS4 (I'm not touching the Xbone with a ten-foot-pole), is that I'm just glad they told us this time. This way I know not to get rid of the PS3 the way I did with the PS2 a few years ago. Once I finally figured out my PS3 didn't have the hardware to play my PS2 games, all I could think was...

 

[Xan Krieger]

If they could find a way to work a whole lot of crap that people don't want into a console then there is no reason (financially or otherwise) that they couldn't work something that people do want into it.

 

[Prosis]

Consumers like it because:
1)they can continue to play their old library of games until they build up a good new library.
2)Nostalgia Lane
3)Some games are really good, and worth playing in future generations
4)Older games are generally cheaper, and allows someone to expand their library without spending a ton
5)Reverse compatibility means the older system remains relevant a bit longer.
6)Xbox 360 and PS3 were (somewhat limitedly) reverse compatible. PS2 was fully reverse compatible. WiiU and Wii are both reverse compatible, as are 3DS and DS. Huge precedent for reverse compatibility.

Consumers dislike it because:
1) You "have to" purchase games you've purchased before (Wii store, PSN).

Game Companies like it because:
1)Consumers like it. Happy consumers is good business.
2)People who would wait until there are decent games out may buy the system because they can play their old games
3)People who wouldn't buy it normally may buy the new system if they can get games for it on the cheap
4)PSN and Wii store bring in profit.

Game Companies dislike it because:
1)Have to code for it/design it/include hardware/whatever.
2)If the systems engine has changed significantly (how it codes, how it reads data, that sort of thing) then it is very expensive to design
3)If customers are playing old games, they aren't buying as many new games
5)If customers are buying old games, they're buying used. No profit, and they aren't buying as many new games.
6)PR mess and angry customers if they claim reverse compatibility, but their system can't play a significant portion of the old library (PS3 had this problem)

So yeah, overall, consumers like it, and game companies dislike it. Game companies have decided against it this generation, which has angered consumers who like it

 

[Reaper195]

The PS2 had bakcwards capability, and the 360 had it...ish.

But I also can't see the big deal about it. Does that mean that everyone who is going to buy a PS4/XBone is going to get rid of their 360/PS3? I paid good damn money for both of them, and I'm going to play those consoles into the ground. And even then, I'll buy cheap ones that still work online. Same with people complaining that the controllers won't work on the new consoles. That wasn't the case with either of the previous generations of consoles (I know the PS1 controller worked on PS2, and I think there was a third party device which allowed PS2 controllers to work with PS3). Unless the consoles are released without including at least one controller.

 

[Palademon]

Oh look my years old console is dead.

BETTER GET RID OF ALL THESE GAMES I LIKE THAT ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTED.

 

[BarelyAudible]

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly.

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.

We didn't always have duel thumbsticks either, but holy hell if anyone tries to make a system without 'em.

See Also: The Gameboy Advanced can play 17 years worth of games.