The Death of Backwards Compatibility?

[Mid Boss]

Since I love classic games, backward comparability is very important to me. I got a backward compatible Ps3 back before they realized they could make more money by selling me all my games over again.

I love the thing.... Hardly ever use it to play Ps3 games because I found the library extremely lacking in games that interest me. But as a netflix/dvd/blue ray/ps1/ps2 game player I love the thing. I'll pay to get whatever on it breaks fixed as it gets older. I have no incentive what so ever to upgrade to a PS4.

 

[josemlopes]

For what its worth that Gaikai thingy with the streaming may be the best option out there to be honest since making the console itself backwards compatible would probably raise the price so much that you might as well buy the other console.

This was my first thought. Sony is saying that you will be able to play PS3 games on the PS4 via Gaikai sometime next year. I'm curious as to what that will entail, and if they will charge for it, but it sounds like a good alternative to the system just being backwards compatible.

I won't lie. I wish the PS4 was backwards compatible. It sucks, but it's hardly a deal breaker. I understand why it would be difficult to do (especially with the PS3). And I'm hoping that any future consoles will try to keep the hardware similar and perhaps make backwards compatibility easier in the future.

The cool thing may be that since its a streaming service by the time PS5 comes around that same service will most likely be possible to transition to that one (with the addition of PS4 streaming) making the PS5 backwards compatible with 2 older generations and keeping your games from one generation to the next (still dont know how they are going to sell the games, buy games seperatly again or like Onlive with a monthly fee for all games).

Still, with this system you could avoid having the need to buy the compatible version seperatly since they can easily tie your accounts together to validate your purchase.

The problem with backwards compatibility isnt that no one is considering preserving the past, its that no one is thinking about the future when making the games/hardware, its always about the present so when you have to change hardware the software wont accept that new hardware. With a service like Gaikai it may be possible that whatever library you build this gen (PS4) can easily be available to you next-gen (PS5) without the need to buy the games again (like it was with the PS3) or having the console itself be made to accept software that wasnt made for it in the first place since now all that information can be tracked and veryfied (something you couldnt do in previous gens, thats why you had to buy the games again).


Still, with the lack of actual information about the service it can still suck, Im just talking that this is a possibility if all things are considered.

 

[babinro]

Backwards compatibility is a non-factor for me.

Knowing myself from prior console generations it becomes evident that I'll just leave the previous generation console collecting dust. It might sit unusued for a year or even years before I revisit an older game. While the older game is fun to revisit it's not a deal breaker for me. It's more like: "You know it would be neat to go back and play Tales of Symphonia...oh well, I've got plenty of other options".

The ONLY time backwards compatibility would influence my buying decision is if console offered it at a higher price than a non-backwards compatible version. I would gladly pay $10 or $20 more for the PS4 if it were backwards compatible just because it 'feels' good knowing that I have the option to run my older games. It won't change my playing habits though. I could still easily go an entire console generation without revisiting most of my last gen games.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Yeah, my Wii was essentially a Gamecube that played Virtual Console games. I don't think seriously played more than one or two Wii titles on that console. I very begrudgingly bought a Wii U last weekend because Marios, and now I gotta have them both hooked up because it won't play my GCN games.

On the PC, I still can't get most of the Sierra Adventure games I got off Steam to work with my version of Windows, same with Myst and a bunch of others. Makes me sad.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

As PC Master race, I am largely unconcerned.

Yes, it is harder to get the games from the 15 years back now, but there are communities who produces compatibility mods and people who fixes outdated format of the games(namely Steam and GOG). Even on this dreaded Windows 8 I can run some decade old games just fine.

As for consoles, I don't see backwards compatibility coming back any time soon. Probably after 2 generations or more(when they have good reason to install DRM). If a console cannot run all the games from previous gen, that just means it takes some work from someone(Sony/MS/Nintendo).

Personally, hopes of them giving stuff out for free instead of them making HD remake and selling those again is like me having the hopes of receiving 72 concubines from them. So no. I hope you bought gravestone for the backwards compatibility, but I am willing to eat my own words when MS and Sony changes their business status to non-profitable.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Honestly in today's age I would think BC would be easier simply because of cloud. I mean yeah you'd have to buy them again, but you look at what Sony did where you could buy certain old PS2 games (I mean really, P3Fes for 4.99, sony could have charged 4 times that and people would still pay happily). PLus with what I heard before about your PS3 games going to a cloud and you can play them on your PS4 (but i coul dbe wrong).

 

[elvor0]

Sorry but I just had to leave this here. PC MASTER RACE.

Really? No, just no.

PC has a very similar problem in that when windows gets updated a lot of older games either completely stop working, or need inconvenient workarounds to keep them working.

I for one can't get Thief to work on my PC not matter what I do.

True, but most games get fixes from fans or GoG.com, even if the work around are inconvenient, at least they exist. You have NO hope of getting a game to be backwards compatible on a PS4 or XBone.

Plus there's DoSbox and compatibility mode, which seems to work quite nicely on Windows 7. I'd wager the GoG version of thief would work, heck I've got the Sold Out Software version of Thief 1+2 which works fine on mine. My point is the option of BC is there, regardless of it sometimes being finicky, rather than being completely locked out on consoles, so it's not /that/ similar.

 

[Petromir]

PC issues are largely non-existant in my expereience. Hell In general DOS games are hardest to get running and they are usually easier these days to make work than they where back when they were new. I rember going to endless trouble making boot floppies to use to set up the machine just so a specific game would run on it. Programs like dos box take a lot of the pain out of this.

The problem with backwards compat for console genreations recently has been they've gone through such radical hardeware arcitecture changes that they'd have to VM the whole thing or just include half the old console in the new onw. The former is extremely resource hungry the latter expensive, and likely to cause heat issues.

 

[Milanezi]

This used to frighten me. Then I quit it once I realized that I complained about lack of backwards compatibility but never really came back to play older games with really just a few exceptions (and some of those, like Monkey island, got a revamp for current gens)... Thing is, unlike movies/books/comics, I hardly go back to a game when it's generation has gone through, the impact of technology is so big I'm usually pushed away from most of the older stuff, the problem with PS4 and Xbox One in this issue, as far as I care, is that they haven't shown me yet what os the great "leap" like, say, Ps2 to Ps3. But no matter, form this current gen, for instance only Bioshock, Mass Effect and the Batman (and GTA IV) games had a lasting effect on me and might make me wanna play them again, maybe Fallout 3, but if a better Fallout comes around, so be it, all the better, whilst a better Batman game will still entice me into going through Arkahm Asylum/City/Origins again. I believe we are walking, with all the digital releases, to a new way of business here, where you can digitally repurchase those games, adapted for a new console. This is where, so far, Steam wins, you don't have to repurchase anything, it's your library, as long as your machine runs the game it's cool (I'm playing on my Mac The Witcher, which I purcahsed and also played on a windows laptop). What I'm saying is, it would be cool that MS and Sony and Nintendo had a similar library, where I can play whatever I want whenever I want after i bought it for once, instead of repurchasing games over and over again, still, it's better to have them available for purchase at the very least... Even then, I'd only keep with the ones I love the most, obviously, but I know how it feels to really wanna go again at a given old game and not being able to

 

[aozgolo]

So obviously not all gamers care about backwards compatibility, and I wouldn't expect them to, I know plenty of gamers who won't play anything that's not "current gen" and the idea of going back to classic games isn't on their radar. I don't begrudge them for that, but nor do I think I should be begrudged for wanting to play classic games.

Backwards Compatibility admittedly isn't the most important decision for everyone in buying a game console, when it's not factored in I use console exclusive games as a deciding point on which one gets my money, but back 2 years ago when I was sitting on $500 and I could easily have picked An XBOX 360 or Wii as both have lots of games I'm interested in, I went with the PS3 because I had a pre-existing library of games.

I'll admit many people probably won't consider virtual console and PS1/2 Classics as true backwards compatibility, and it's not essentially (though PS3 can play PS1 game discs just fine) but the cross platform nature of my ability to transfer purchases from one system to the other, places it in the same category for me. I understand the majority of consoles have no backwards compatibility, but to call it a moot point of discussion is ignoring it's significant impact. The PS4 FAQ even says there will be no backwards compatibility for PS1/2 games which I would presume also means their "Classics library" of PS1/2 Digital Games, which is rather unfortunate, especially since PS1 games would ONLY need software emulation (PS2 tends to be a bit trickier which is why there's significantly less of them on the PSN).

Basically no matter how you slice it, going into the new generation of XBOX One, PS4, and yes even Windows 8 you have lost a lot of basic compatibility. Now I know you can definitely work around compatibility issues in MOST cases with newer versions of Windows, but to say it's not an issue is missing the point. I'm sure if someone hacked a PS4 they could load PS1/2 emulators on it, but that's nowhere near the same as having native support, and it tampers with the original product (regardless of your stance on this it won't be discussed here).

I have kept most of my old consoles around, and I try to keep them in good working order, but the simple fact is electronics have a shelf life, both my NES Consoles have quit working, and both my Super Nintendos get a bit flaky from time to time, it's only a matter of time before these consoles stop working, and yes I understand with a bit of technical know-how you can fix them up, replace their parts, swap out battery backups in your gamepaks and get everything working like new, but gamers have come to expect simplicity and convenience when it comes to playing their games.

GoG.com is a great service, and has taken off because of it's convenience. Why do people put up with Valve's DRM so much when many games published on Steam can be found DRM free? Convenience! There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of downloading, installing, playing, and even uninstalling games without any headache of tweaking installation programs, running compatibility modes, and a myriad of other far more annoying DRM schemes.

So the bottom line is that yes I CAN still own my old consoles, and I CAN still fix them up to make them work, and I CAN hold onto all my old games for them and play them, but that does not mean that console makers SHOULDN'T future proof their hardware and strive to give their customer's easy, stress free, convenient access to their classic games. I definitely don't think it's the only angle they should push for, but it's certainly a huge incentive to many potential buyers, and what publisher doesn't have wet dreams at night about selling you the same game again?

 

[josemlopes]

So obviously not all gamers care about backwards compatibility, and I wouldn't expect them to, I know plenty of gamers who won't play anything that's not "current gen" and the idea of going back to classic games isn't on their radar. I don't begrudge them for that, but nor do I think I should be begrudged for wanting to play classic games.

Backwards Compatibility admittedly isn't the most important decision for everyone in buying a game console, when it's not factored in I use console exclusive games as a deciding point on which one gets my money, but back 2 years ago when I was sitting on $500 and I could easily have picked An XBOX 360 or Wii as both have lots of games I'm interested in, I went with the PS3 because I had a pre-existing library of games.

I'll admit many people probably won't consider virtual console and PS1/2 Classics as true backwards compatibility, and it's not essentially (though PS3 can play PS1 game discs just fine) but the cross platform nature of my ability to transfer purchases from one system to the other, places it in the same category for me. I understand the majority of consoles have no backwards compatibility, but to call it a moot point of discussion is ignoring it's significant impact. The PS4 FAQ even says there will be no backwards compatibility for PS1/2 games which I would presume also means their "Classics library" of PS1/2 Digital Games, which is rather unfortunate, especially since PS1 games would ONLY need software emulation (PS2 tends to be a bit trickier which is why there's significantly less of them on the PSN).

Basically no matter how you slice it, going into the new generation of XBOX One, PS4, and yes even Windows 8 you have lost a lot of basic compatibility. Now I know you can definitely work around compatibility issues in MOST cases with newer versions of Windows, but to say it's not an issue is missing the point. I'm sure if someone hacked a PS4 they could load PS1/2 emulators on it, but that's nowhere near the same as having native support, and it tampers with the original product (regardless of your stance on this it won't be discussed here).

I have kept most of my old consoles around, and I try to keep them in good working order, but the simple fact is electronics have a shelf life, both my NES Consoles have quit working, and both my Super Nintendos get a bit flaky from time to time, it's only a matter of time before these consoles stop working, and yes I understand with a bit of technical know-how you can fix them up, replace their parts, swap out battery backups in your gamepaks and get everything working like new, but gamers have come to expect simplicity and convenience when it comes to playing their games.

GoG.com is a great service, and has taken off because of it's convenience. Why do people put up with Valve's DRM so much when many games published on Steam can be found DRM free? Convenience! There's a lot to be said for the simplicity of downloading, installing, playing, and even uninstalling games without any headache of tweaking installation programs, running compatibility modes, and a myriad of other far more annoying DRM schemes.

So the bottom line is that yes I CAN still own my old consoles, and I CAN still fix them up to make them work, and I CAN hold onto all my old games for them and play them, but that does not mean that console makers SHOULDN'T future proof their hardware and strive to give their customer's easy, stress free, convenient access to their classic games. I definitely don't think it's the only angle they should push for, but it's certainly a huge incentive to many potential buyers, and what publisher doesn't have wet dreams at night about selling you the same game again?

Read my last post, there is a possibility for things to change but it will never take into account whatever games/content you already bought/own. Whatever needs to come (streaming seems like the best option) it will have to be something with the intent of outlasting whatever generation its implemented on (you will have to start your library from scratch since no previous generation verified your purchases, the PS3/Xbox 360 can at least verify the digital purchases) otherwise you get another case of the PS2 where it ran PS1 games because they were very similar/compatible in hardware, but that was just a coincidence.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Sadly, there's a rampant "New is all that matters" mentality among the video game industry. We're still printing books that were written hundreds and even thousands of years ago. In video games, anything from five years ago is no longer relevant.

Backwards compatibility just isn't something most consumers are willing to pay for, and since it's a significant cost that means that we aren't getting it. I'd love if they released a version of the Xbox One a few years after launch that was more expensive than the base model, but played 360 and Original Xbox games, but I doubt it would sell enough to justify it. People just aren't interested in playing anything from last generation.

This mentality isn't good for anyone. For consumers, it means we're limiting ourselves by only experiencing whatever the latest trends are and missing a lot of classic games. We'd never have something like A Song of Fire and Ice for video games, because by the time the fourth game came out the first would be too old to expect people to keep up with. We're getting more and more sequels and long-running series, but there's no long-term planning built into them since nobody in the industry has that kind of attention span. Look at Bioware- By the time Mass Effect 3 came out they had decided that they were going after a completely different audience than they were with the first game, and the series became a mess as a result.

For developers and publishers, it means that they're not getting any long-term profit out of what they make. In every other media industry, older hits can be milked for a long time. They've got a slow trickle of revenue coming from media that's been out for a while. Products that don't sell well in their first two weeks aren't a complete loss, and have a chance of gaining a following over time through word of mouth. They're spending years an millions of dollars on a product that they have an impossibly short window to make money on.

I recently started reading the Dresden Files, and wound up buying 14 novels and one book of short stories in less than a year. Discworld has dozens of books in its series now, and when it gets new fans it sells old books. You don't get this with video games. New COD fans aren't going back to check out the first MW, and reboots run rampant because there's no interest in actually catching up on a long-running series.

So why bother with backwards compatibility?

 

[aozgolo]

Sadly, there's a rampant "New is all that matters" mentality among the video game industry. We're still printing books that were written hundreds and even thousands of years ago. In video games, anything from five years ago is no longer relevant.

Backwards compatibility just isn't something most consumers are willing to pay for, and since it's a significant cost that means that we aren't getting it. I'd love if they released a version of the Xbox One a few years after launch that was more expensive than the base model, but played 360 and Original Xbox games, but I doubt it would sell enough to justify it. People just aren't interested in playing anything from last generation.

This mentality isn't good for anyone. For consumers, it means we're limiting ourselves by only experiencing whatever the latest trends are and missing a lot of classic games. We'd never have something like A Song of Fire and Ice for video games, because by the time the fourth game came out the first would be too old to expect people to keep up with. We're getting more and more sequels and long-running series, but there's no long-term planning built into them since nobody in the industry has that kind of attention span. Look at Bioware- By the time Mass Effect 3 came out they had decided that they were going after a completely different audience than they were with the first game, and the series became a mess as a result.

For developers and publishers, it means that they're not getting any long-term profit out of what they make. In every other media industry, older hits can be milked for a long time. They've got a slow trickle of revenue coming from media that's been out for a while. Products that don't sell well in their first two weeks aren't a complete loss, and have a chance of gaining a following over time through word of mouth. They're spending years an millions of dollars on a product that they have an impossibly short window to make money on.

I recently started reading the Dresden Files, and wound up buying 14 novels and one book of short stories in less than a year. Discworld has dozens of books in its series now, and when it gets new fans it sells old books. You don't get this with video games. New COD fans aren't going back to check out the first MW, and reboots run rampant because there's no interest in actually catching up on a long-running series.

So why bother with backwards compatibility?

The short answer: Because Backward's Compatibility isn't FOR new gamers, it's for old school gamers who want some longevity with their purchase.

Granted I don't expect, nor will I waist my breath with trying to push consoles towards backwards compatibility. My big concern is whether or not BC will die out altogether. While in general new gamers gravitate towards new games, I do know there is a sizable audience for old school classic games that they DIDN'T play when they were new. I never picked up Actraiser until 2009 and ended up loving that game. There's still an audience.

But it's not just a case of an audience, it's also a case for preservation. Just like film negatives that rot away into nothingness in some forgotten studio's vault, that's a loss to film history. If games are to be considered as art, it's nice to maintain them as art. Does anyone honestly expect an original NES Console to still be working in the year 2100 without some severe maintenance? Fortunately that legacy is preserved in a variety of ways but for end users, private collectors, and just the classic gamers, we want way to be able to keep playing our classic games.

 

[Racecarlock]

I might have gotten a ps4, but now I think I'll just get SRIV, borderlands 2, and a 250 gig hard drive for christmas instead. That way I could fit all my games on it. And the free with gold games.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Sorry but I just had to leave this here. PC MASTER RACE.

Really? No, just no.

PC has a very similar problem in that when windows gets updated a lot of older games either completely stop working, or need inconvenient workarounds to keep them working.

I for one can't get Thief to work on my PC not matter what I do.

thats what gog.com is for to me its worth the $5 or so to update a game to work on newer systems

Even some gog games don't necessarily work correctly on newer systems no matter what you do.

 

[Something Amyss]

EDIT: Ugh. It was a joke. `PC MASTER RACE` is a reference to what TB says during the podcast when hes making fun of it, was expecting more people to get the reference.

Poe's Law: without a smiley or other indicator, it is impossible to determine a genuine fundamentalist from a parody.

thats what gog.com is for to me its worth the $5 or so to update a game to work on newer systems

That's not a function of PC gaming, though. Reselling old games is something everyone does.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

The new generation (especially Sony) has moved to x86 for a reason more pressing than retaining backwards compatibility. They want ease of development for new games. Using off the shelf parts on an established architecture makes a ton of sense, anyone can see that. The hardware in both the PS4 and XB1 aren't powerful enough to emulate the hardware of their predecessors, and adding in the relevant hardware, factoring in power, cooling, and firmware tie-in, will double (possibly triple) the cost of the end product, and leave it running massively over a reasonable power budget. If you want to pay $1200 for a hot, potentially massively buggy console that can play your PS3 or 360 library, fine, you're one of relative few.

Sony has made best attempt at BC through Gaikai. Granted, their policy isn't amazing (something as simple as putting your PS3 disk into the PS4, it recognising some basic meta-data, and then connecting to Gaikai to play that game would have been great), the technology makes many assumptions about the quality of the user's internet connection, and you're never going to get that native lagless experience, but it is an effort afterall (one they certainly didn't need to make).

To answer your question, BC has not factored at all into my choice of console. Granted I'm a PC player mainly, but I have my heart set on a PS4 (I'm a Sony person). BC hasn't factored in at all because I know enough about technology to realise the utter futility of this entire discussion when we are at this level of technological prowess. A sacrifice needed to be made, and the right one was made (in my opinion). I would sooner have the way forward for new developers to give me brilliant new titles paved, rather than a line into the past for a number of titles I can still play on my existing consoles I bought them for.