Why is backwards compatibility such a major deal now?

[WWmelb]

Just curious on this. People are getting quite riled up over the new gen consoles, and current gen ones not being backwards compatible. This really isn't a new thing

Sony kind of tried with the PS3 at first and it failed dismally, and i'm not 100% about microsoft, but i think their attempts were pretty woeful too.

But.. since i started gaming on consoles.. i couldn't play Sega Master systems games on the megadrive, or NES games on the SNES, or SNES games the 64... etc etc, so why such a big deal now?

Just curious. I understand it would be nice and handy to have, but why is it now such a big issue?

 

[JenSeven]

It's pretty simple. It's an issue of support.
The NES, SNES, Megadrive and other older systems didn't have internet connectivity nor did they need to contact any servers for authentication and only had local multiplayer.

Current game systems all have those things. And those servers that enable it cost money for the publishers and Microsoft/Sony. If a console is replaced with a newer version it naturally means that over time those servers are dropped.
This also isn't helped by the fact that a lot of games feature multiplayer and this is a very prominent feature. Now those multiplayer games will also stop working once those servers are dropped.

With the new console being backwards compatible those games will remain supported by the companies and people can still play their favourite multiplayer games.

 

[FrostyCoolSlug]

There's also the convenience consideration, If I were to buy a PS4 and XBone, I would still need my PS3 and 360 under my TV to play my catalogue of old games, with two brand new boxes there to play maybe 3 games at launch (making them mostly useless), resulting in a crapload of space being used and a jumble of cables and switches to be able to get between my four consoles.

Also, backwards compatibility would allow me to sell my old consoles off relatively cheaply to help towards the costs for a new console, and give someone who may not have the funds for a brand new console an opportunity to get a cheaper 'last gen' console for themselves (admittedly, that last part is less relevant, there's already a second hand console market, the prices just wont be driven down that much if everyone has to hold on to their old consoles).

 

[SmugFrog]

Imagine if every time you upgraded your PC, all of your old games stopped working. Microsoft seems to kill off a few games with each release of windows, but there are always people creating workarounds to play those older games.

I know the difference in price for PC vs console is not even close to being the same, but it would still be such a pain to drag out the old system to play a favorite game.

This is also a chance for them to repackage and sell those same old 360 games as "classics" that you can pay for again! Ka-ching.

 

[ThriKreen]

Flip side, supporting backwards compatibility is a reason the Xbox 360 has a 100 friend limit - to support Halo 2's multiplayer mode.

So its understandable that not doing so allows the company to not have to deal with any legacy issues that hamper and limit the platform moving forward.

I'll bet MS will go the way PSN is with the legacy support, re-release games ported to it over XBL cuz hey, why let them play their old games, when you can make them pay for them again?

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

It's also quite important when the console tends to break as much as the 360 does, because if there's no backwards compatibility, then your only means of playing those games is gone.

I didn't care so much about the PS3 not being compatible anymore because the PS2 were made to last and I still got both of mine in great working condition. But my household has also gone through three 360 and we're not about to just give up on the many games we have for it (we still have the old Xbox, incidentally, and it worked fine the last time we tried it).

 

[Sir Christopher McFarlane]

Modern consoles are not as durable as the old ones. You can't count on your 360 being operational for as long as the NES has been. It also means that you can avoid hoarding multiple consoles in your house. It also means not needing to repurchase games after your old console gives out on you.

 

[Maxtro]

With a BC system, one is able to sell their old system and use that money towards a new one.

With no BC, one has to keep there old system if they want to play it's games and now they have two systems.

 

[Aeshi]

Because people wanted to sell their old systems and are upset that they might have to actually hold onto them.

 

[Comocat]

Imagine if every time you upgraded your PC, all of your old games stopped working. Microsoft seems to kill off a few games with each release of windows, but there are always people creating workarounds to play those older games.

I know the difference in price for PC vs console is not even close to being the same, but it would still be such a pain to drag out the old system to play a favorite game.

This is also a chance for them to repackage and sell those same old 360 games as "classics" that you can pay for again! Ka-ching.

This has literally been the case for consoles for ages. SNES cant play NES. N64 cant play SNES. Gamecube cant play N64. I dont know about Wii and GC compatibility. I think the OP is asking, given that historically consoles have little to no backward compatibility, why is it suddenly a deal breaker for new systems?

Personally I think its that game developers and customers have adversarial relationships. So while technical limitations make backwards compatibility expensive to implement, consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased.

 

[JenSeven]

Personally I think its that game developers and customers have adversarial relationships. So while technical limitations make backwards compatibility expensive to implement, consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased.

Wait, what?
Steal yet more money from publishers by reselling old games?
I hope you're being ironic or are trying to mimic the way most consumers assume publishers think.

If you are actually serious, I have no words and hope I never see another one of your posts on this forum.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Imagine if every time you upgraded your PC, all of your old games stopped working. Microsoft seems to kill off a few games with each release of windows, but there are always people creating workarounds to play those older games.

I know the difference in price for PC vs console is not even close to being the same, but it would still be such a pain to drag out the old system to play a favorite game.

This is also a chance for them to repackage and sell those same old 360 games as "classics" that you can pay for again! Ka-ching.

This has literally been the case for consoles for ages. SNES cant play NES. N64 cant play SNES. Gamecube cant play N64. I dont know about Wii and GC compatibility. I think the OP is asking, given that historically consoles have little to no backward compatibility, why is it suddenly a deal breaker for new systems?

Personally I think its that game developers and customers have adversarial relationships. So while technical limitations make backwards compatibility expensive to implement, consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased.

It's such a deal breaker because we've had those games and console for, what, 10 years now? That has never been the case before. Also, back then, consoles were made to last. I still have a working Megadrive, Gamecube and PS2, yet I've gone through 3 Xbox 360.

And yes, the Wii can play GC games. PS2 can play PS1 games, and some PS3 could play PS2 games. Xbox 360 can play Xbox games. See the problem here? We got used to the fact we could play our old games on the newer machines.

 

[Comocat]

Personally I think its that game developers and customers have adversarial relationships. So while technical limitations make backwards compatibility expensive to implement, consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased.

Wait, what?
Steal yet more money from publishers by reselling old games?
I hope you're being ironic or are trying to mimic the way most consumers assume publishers think.

If you are actually serious, I have no words and hope I never see another one of your posts on this forum.

edit: snark

It costs companies money to make backwards compatibility work. The 360 doesnt run Xbox games, it emulates them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_compatible_with_Xbox_360

So basically its a gesture of goodwill to make those games work.

From a business standpoint it makes sense to charge for that because it costs money. From a consumer standpoint I'm essentially buying the product twice for reasons that are fuzzy, hence the feeling that I'm being gouged.

 

[JenSeven]

Personally I think its that game developers and customers have adversarial relationships. So while technical limitations make backwards compatibility expensive to implement, consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased.

Wait, what?
Steal yet more money from publishers by reselling old games?
I hope you're being ironic or are trying to mimic the way most consumers assume publishers think.

If you are actually serious, I have no words and hope I never see another one of your posts on this forum.

I'm sorry to offend you delicate sensibilities, there is an ignore feature that you are welcome to use. Not sure what set you off though.

It costs companies money to make backwards compatibility work. The 360 doesnt run Xbox games, it emulates them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_compatible_with_Xbox_360

So basically its a gesture of goodwill to make those games work.

From a business standpoint it makes sense to charge for that because it costs money. From a consumer standpoint I'm essentially buying the product twice for reasons that are fuzzy, hence the feeling that I'm being gouged.

Ah, wait, I see what happened.
When you said "consumers see it as a way to steal yet more money from them by reselling games they have already purchased." It looked like with the "from them" you meant the publishers while you actually meant the consumers.
I think the wording was a bit confused and it went all strange.

In my mind you said that the consumers were stealing from the publishers by reselling games, while you meant the consumers feel like they are being robbed by having their old games sold back to them.

Good, seems like we're on the same page now and of the same opinion.

 

[Nomanslander]

Because now we have four generations of PS consoles, and they can't even support each other. PS2 could support PS1, but PS3 couldn't do shit. Now PS4 has to stream those games... I mean, I have a giant collection of PS3 games, what am I suppose to do with them when my PS3 bites the dust? And it's already having trouble reading Blue Rays. Buy another PS3? What about PS2? buy another... oh, wait? Didn't they discontinue the PS2?

Forget Xbox, you ask for Xbox 1 games... I mean original Xbox games (stupid new Xbox title!) it might as well not even exist because Microsoft completely discontinued them very shortly after the release of the 360. How much you bet once the Xbox 1 is released (third system -_-), 360 is going to be immediately discontinued and if yours breaks down (and being an Xbox... IT WILL), well then, if you want to play Gears 3 you're shit out of luck, and you can't even buy a new system because Microsoft ain't selling anymore. Best thing you can do then is Ebay and prey you don't get another red ringer.

You know PC, is the ultimate platform still. The fact that I can play System Shock 2, a game over 13 years old, and emulate every NES, SNES, Genesis game and whatnot shows it's the only system that can stand the test of time as long a I keep upgrading parts now and then.

/thread.

 

[SmugFrog]

I think the OP is asking, given that historically consoles have little to no backward compatibility, why is it suddenly a deal breaker for new systems?

True, it theoretically costs them more to implement it, but it doesn't make sense from a PC standpoint why it would be so difficult. I can play Atari 2600, NES, SNES, N64, PS1/PS2 games on same hardware that I play Far Cry 3 on. How much do you think it cost those emulator developers to make that happen? No Comocat, I think the cost is trivial, in the long run. Microsoft is raking in cash from Live, both from subscriptions and how they manage digital distribution and ads. Even if you're paying them you're watching ads. One reason I think several people consider it a dealbreaker is:

We got used to the fact we could play our old games on the newer machines.

Not only that, but a system like Steam gives you the ability to OWN (don't get me started in the debate of "what happens if Steam goes down - at least Steam runs in offline mode, and while I'm deployed out to sea, I can enjoy my games) your digital game purchases that you can install on any computer you own! In the age of digital distribution that we're in, it makes no sense to have to purchase those same titles a second time; and I guarantee you that you're going to see the same games from previous generations for sale on these new systems.

You know PC, is the ultimate platform still. The fact that I can play System Shock 2, a game over 13 years old, and emulate ever NES, SNES, and what ever system game shows it's the only system that can stand the test of time as long a I keep upgrading parts now and then.
/thread.

I'm not trying to turn it into a PC vs Console debate, but this is unfortunately turning out to be so true. It's only a matter of time before you'll see a Xbox 360 emulator that works on PC.

These companies aren't in the game business out of the kindness of their hearts to provide entertainment or great deals - no, it's about PROFIT. The profits will be greater to not include backwards compatibility. Want to play all those 360 games you didn't get to play? Go buy a 360. OH WAIT, better not buy a used one, because it might be banned from Live and any digital downloads might not work on it because it's preowned. This way they can still keep the 360 market going for a little longer while the XBone rolls out. Seriously, though I hate it, it's smart from a business standpoint.