This whole no backwards compatibility is the stupidest thing ever! One of the biggest rip offs since DLC. Every time a new system comes out they go FU player so what if you spent $1,00s on our products you've gotta do it again cuz we won't let you play that old crap on our shinny new system unless you pay for a download! It's like buying a new house and being forbidden from bringing even a lamp in from your old one you're forced to buy all new stuff cuz the house is new and will explode if old crap comes in, oh you can still have all your old stuff its just you gotta keep your old house too in order to enjoy it. Every time you buy a PC you still can play your games not to mention we had PS1 moves right over to PS2 so the ability is there its just the console makers decided to stuff dvds in and give you other things you never asked for. I think they should do a build your own console where if you want backwards compatibility and forgo your dvd or kinetic you can have that ability. The usual argument over this lack of compatibility is, "Who the hell wants to play their old games?" Well the x% if the population who isn't selling their systems that's who.
The Death of Backwards Compatibility?
- Thread starter aozgolo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would spend an extra $150 on a PS4 that could play PS3 games. Simply because that cost would be made up for with the sale of my PS3 which I would no longer need.
If the PS4 could play PS3 games I would have preorderd it, but for now I have no need for one and I'll just hang on to my PS3 till the middle of next year or whenever.
If the PS4 could play PS3 games I would have preorderd it, but for now I have no need for one and I'll just hang on to my PS3 till the middle of next year or whenever.
To me backwards compatibility is very important there are same games to struggle to run on newer system but there is always nearly a patch or something to get it working, and even if there isn't you can duel beet your PC or run an virtual machine or emulator to get it to work. Backwards compatibility is second to none on a PC and ultimately it's about consumer control. You should have the right to dictated what you can play on your PC, not M$
BC is crucial. Without it, the console lifespan is crippled right out the gate.
I grew up on the PS1, and I adore the fact that the PS2 perfectly (to my understanding) plays all PS1 titles. But then only the initial models of the PS3 were compatible with PS2, though all PS3 models take PS1, with only the PS2 titles in the store available as a really shitty side-step. So you can't make the PS3 play PS2 games off discs but you -can- repackage them into HD games. Somehow.
I grew up on the PS1, and I adore the fact that the PS2 perfectly (to my understanding) plays all PS1 titles. But then only the initial models of the PS3 were compatible with PS2, though all PS3 models take PS1, with only the PS2 titles in the store available as a really shitty side-step. So you can't make the PS3 play PS2 games off discs but you -can- repackage them into HD games. Somehow.
Wow really, you couldn't get Thief to work. The only game from GOG I had trouble with was Blood 2, getting that game to work was a headache but very possible. In fact compare the BC of a console to a PC is down right ridiculous. While PC with compatibility issues do exists. They are few and far between and there is always a way to get it to work. Sometimes it's bu messing with dll files, other times you have to run a virtual machine or emulator, but it is possible.amaranth_dru said:Even some gog games don't necessarily work correctly on newer systems no matter what you do.wombat_of_war said:thats what gog.com is forDirty Hipsters said:to me its worth the $5 or so to update a game to work on newer systems
Also as much as I don't like Microsoft, that fact that Win8 uses the Win7 engine proves that BC is impotent to the PC market. Not just for gamers but also for industry. Many companies want to upgrade their OS without having to upgrade the software they have licensed which is another reason why BC is given more attention on the PC.
. Vista was something that tried to get rid of BC and look how that went. Now M$ (the branch that makes Windows) very much cares that most older programs will work.
The BC on a PC is second to none. Consoles are beaten in that area as well as pretty much every other area.
The answer if a bit cynical is why make backwards compatibility when they can sell you the same game again? The PS4 is coming right out the gate with this with its $10 upgrade plan. Nintendo has more or less gotten a free pass on this with the virtual console (then again these games are not really feasible to Backwards compatiblize (this is now a word) but I'm willing to bet most of the guys shelling out money for Earthbound on the Wii U have a Super Nintendo Emulator somewhere with that and the rest of their childhood memories on it. Plus that old copy of Earthbound gathering dust with the old super nintendo in the closet/attic/garage/whereever)
The ps4 was the only console that actually needed to change their hardware in a way that removed backwards compatibility. The ps3's proprietary hardware was intentionally difficult to program for (their CEO's own words from just before when he became CEO) out of some silly fear that developers would conquer the system early on and bring the generation to an immature close. They should have been so lucky to have developers making games like Uncharted 3 and the Last of Us four years ago...Pariah Dog said:
Because of the nature of that hardware, emulation would be nearly impossible on a technical and hardware level. It's not like the move between the ps2 to the ps3 in that regard. I think this was the best move. It'll ensure the easiest development process and ensure the maximum number of ports be made for the ps4 as the cost of porting has dropped off the face of the earth with that move. That $10 upgrade plan is if you own the ps3 version of a game that also comes out as a ps4 version. It has nothing to do with backwards compatibility and the $10 is likely to prevent some shenanigans with someone purchasing a preowned (aka, $0 profit transaction) game for $50 and then upgrading for free. $10 ensures they at least get something for a more advanced version of the game that the publisher actually invested in making.
Sony's BC solution is the Gaikai game streaming service. What's hilarious, is this could eventually even compete with Steam on some levels with the ability to play PS4 games on a tablet that's connected to a controller of some sort. But we'll see. I think Sony did the best they could in repairing the damage that the ps3 mistakes set up. The next generation is the only way to tell whether or not they'll fall to greed where non-BC is concerned. Because once you go x86, there's no excuse.
I'm still not sure why the XBO dropped it other than greed. The 360 was close enough to an x86 environment to where it should have been able to do this. But they made so many mistakes that it's hard to get any legitimate news on just one point.
Kudos to the WiiU. This was one of the few things they did right.
99% of games have either incredibly easy patches or universal programs like dosbox that let you run them. Only the most awfully coded programs (like the terrible eidos PC port of ff7) struggle to work at all years later, the rest are A-OK. PC has the best backwards compatability, hands down - having to do 15 minutes of troubleshooting and then having the game work is, yknow, objectively superior to the console not running the older game period.Dirty Hipsters said:
"PC master race" is supposed to be facetious, but on the topic of backwards compatibility, it really is the master race. No other gaming platform comes CLOSE.