Backwards compatibility is important, here's why...

[chozo_hybrid]

I am going to go through the technical things here.

Understand that the backwards compatibility comes with a cost on the PS3. While the PS1 is fairly Easy to emulate the Ps2 is a completely kettle of fish and was a major part in the early versions price point. In other words the console was more expensive because of it. And when push comes to shove people didn't want it enough to pay for it. However the whole key point here is "Emulation". That is a lot harder than you think. Using one piece of hardware to mimic another piece of hardware.

You need to understand that this isn't free. This costs more to make happen than people are willing to pay. They dont want it enough.

Now had you said Nintendo Wii then this would have been a lot easier. The Wii was more or less just 2x gamecube chips so it was just a situation of only using half of it when playing gamecube games. In other words. Not an emulation

Okay, but what I don't get, is that if the tech for the PS2 to be on the PS3 if really old, why does it cost that much? When it comes to computer parts, if somethings a year old, the prices are slashed usually more than half.

 

[Twilight_guy]

As a programmer, I know what a huge pain it is to preserve old tech and code. I'd like to see backward comparability but I also know how much of a mess it can become in some situations.

 

[Ryotknife]

Backwards comparability isn't important

You want to play old games?

Get an old console.

Simple as that.

A PS3 has a requirement to be able to play PS3 games. If you expect it to play PS2 games, then you need to redo first grade because you cant seem to count.

The original one could though, and what about those that have the old console break down? They become harder to find over time, and it's not actually that hard for them to do backwards compatibility, I hope the next Xbox does it because I have tonnes of 360 games.

And to flick it off as not important is just stupid, some people have favorites from different generations, what's wrong with them wanting to be able to play them still.

It doesn't matter. The CD's break down as well.

And no there is nothing wrong with them wanting something. However the market didn't want it enough. That you want it isn't going to make them restart the production of playstations is it now? They are going to need a few million people who want it. And want it more than the next generation.

Now just a bit of correction here. It can be hard making backwards compatibility. To shrug it "Its not that hard" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding for the subject matter.

If you want to keep playing you older games, then keep your older generation platform. The next generation isn't made with the idea of play last generation games.

backwards compatability was the number 1 aspect gamers wanted in a console by a large margin, it was also the very same aspect that they KNEW would never make it in because those companies want to milk as much money as possible (not to mention kinda a pain in the rear)

 

[GloatingSwine]

Backwards Compatibility is most important in the transitional period after a new console launches.

It greatly increases the library of titles and convenience for users, if they buy the NewToy, and can immediately move all of their gaming to it from the OldToy they have less clutter in the living room, and they can more easily justify the cost of buying the NewToy because of the fact that it works with their existing library.

It also means that the NewToy isn't competing with the OldToy. Third party publishers can shift their support over to the NewToy more wholeheartedly because their games for the OldToy aren't being consigned to the dustbin.

After a few years, in the middle days of the console cycle, it's not really important. The market has moved fully to the NewToy, so there's much less incentive to continue supporting the OldToy.

Then, right at the end of the cycle, we've discovered, a new type of backwards compatibility takes over because you can actually sell the games for the OldToy directly on the NewToy, with minor upgrades, and people will buy them.

 

[TehCookie]

That's just ridiculous. You purposely avoided watching movies at home, but when you're arguing backwards compatibility you can only watch old movies at home. You can't even watching movies released earlier in the year at theater. However if you're watching them at home you have to buy a TV and a DVD player for that, and remoats because they don't come with your DVD player in your logic (what kind of business sold a console without a harddrive or controller, unless your buying from a pawn shop). Oh and you need to pay for Netflix for online streaming. Also if you want to play some movies you need to buy a special 3DTV with special glasses to watch it. What's that? You want to watch movies on the go? Well then I guess you also have to buy a portable DVD player.

 

[zehydra]

"First you have to buy a console"

I do know that you also mentioned PC gaming, but I would never ever consider a gaming console the first option.

Chances are, if you (or your family) can afford a high-end gaming system, then you can afford a decent computer. The idea that you need to buy a an Alienware or some "gaming rig" to play video games on your computer is preposterous. Granted, when choosing or designing a computer you will need to think of what is important if you plan on using it for gaming, such as a good graphics card, but it is not as expensive nor as complicated as turning your machine into a so-called "gaming rig".

Backwards compatibility really does not make much sense in terms of consoles (where it might with PCs), because unlike PCs, consoles are non-upgradable. What I mean is that you cannot simply upgrade an individual console's graphics card to match the graphical power of the next gen.

If you could manually upgrade parts of your console to keep up with modern gens, then what fundamentally would be the difference between it and a PC anyhow?

 

[Olas]

What I don't understand is why nothing is backwards compatible more than one generation. The WiiU will play Wii games, but not gamecube games, so I'll have to keep my Wii just to play gamecube games.

Stupid.

 

[Joccaren]

Sigh...
Really?

It's either SD or HD. Plug in, use game that says "Xbox360" and you are set to go. If you have a PS3, use the games that come in cases marked PS3, and you are set to go.

PC uses so many different components and usually games have requirements posted on the box which reads to the layman like stereo instructions (so to speak). Just because you have a PC, it doesn't mean you can run every game. Just because you have a high end PC, it doesn't mean it will run older games. You have to know what part does what, what program to use, what video/ sound cards are needed, ram, etc...

A typical consumer does not know that information, sadly enough.

The benefit of the console is, as the previous poster said , that it is objectively easier.
That's always been their main draw - plug 'n play.

PS. If you can get a computer to run on an old SD TV (like you were doing with the HD console) the subtitles will look fuzzy as well.

Finding an appropriate TV aside, my point was that a TV is just simply less to work with. Getting subtitles is one thing; getting a graphics card that can render a new game, getting more RAM, and upgrading an operating system when needed, these are just a few examples of things that are needed to worry about for PC gaming. While you may be more familiar with computers than TVs, it doesn't nullify the fact that there's a whole lot more to a computer than a TV, especially when it comes to gaming. So yah, i'll still stand by that one could objectively say computers are more complex than TVs, specifically on a hardware level.

captcha: "teh inter webs". When did you get so goddamn awesome, Captcha?

This is all a matter of experience. A console is not inherently easier to use than a PC.

First time I used a console, I had no clue what was going on. I turned on my TV, and rather than the game I wanted to play, I saw a TV station instead. So I changed channels a bit, and nothing got my game up. It wasn't until my friend came over and told me I had to switch the TVs input that I actually got it working.
That is a true story, I have no clue how to handle a TV, whilst a PC is extremely user friendly in that department. Type your password where it says "Password" and username where it says "Username", then hit the button next to them and it loads. Click on something, and it loads. No having to screw around with inputs, there's only one plug where your monitor's cable will go, and that's something you have to do when setting up a console with a TV anyway.

As for its HD or its SD, its that simple with graphics cards too. Its DX9, or DX10, or DX11. 3 things instead of 2. Incredible.

This time last year I had no clue at all on PC parts. I knew how to plug them in, as that really is child's play - there's only one type of slot that any given part/cable can plug into, and any of said slots will usually do [And if it doesn't you just swap it to another of said slots]. I had no clue on part compatability though, or what good cards were. Hell, I thought i9s existed. I decided to design my own rig from scratch. Within 2 hours I was done, everything compatible and I went on to build that rig later that year. That's how hard the barrier to entry for this stuff is. Easy.

My strategy at the start? Higher numbers = better.
For compatability: If the CPU, Motherboard and RAM have the same random numbers in their description, they will work together. Check Google to be sure.
And that was it. With just that I managed to put together a PC, and I figured that out all on my own [Yes I want a medal goddamn it!].

Anything to do with TVs however, I've always got my Dad or Grandfather to do. I have no clue where all the cables go, no clue what settings to put it on, no clue where to plug in the components, originally had no clue how to swap between inputs, didn't know if LCD was better than Plasma or the new LED screens. I had no clue what the hell all this HDMI, VGA, DVi and crap was, and when I see this:

Panasonic VIERA TC-P65VT50 65-Inch 1080p Full HD 3D Plasma TV

I still think the numbers are entirely arbitrary, with no pattern to them at all [The TC-P65VT50 anyway, 1080p computers have taught me about thanks to resolution settings, and 65 inch is obvious measurement of size, which I'll assume is horizontal].
I have no time to measure how much space I have to fit in a 40 inch TV, or if I need a smaller one.

To you, all this probably seems basic. You have experience with TVs. With none, instead relying on my PC for all my entertainment needs, I have no clue what this thing is on about. My guess on this thing?
You don't pay attention to the TC-P65T50, and probably half the other stuff and just judge picture quality in stores [Which from a guy I know who works in a TV store nearby isn't the best way to do things, as according to him they play around with the settings to make the expensive TVs look better than the cheaper ones, though IDK if that's just his store or not], or read reviews online, which you can do the same thing with PC parts. Read review online, ask people what a good part is, ask in store what a good part is, or look at benchmarks [The equivalent of picture quality IMO] for the default part.


Either way though, I find most of this discussion rather pointless when talking about how easy/hard it is to upgrade something. That is entirely subjective, and in general when testing which is faster, texting or telegraphing [actually done], you don't get two completely unskilled people in both to find out, you get two experts and see who gets it done faster.

Expert console person, expert PC person, I'd say they're probably about the same in terms of difficulty. Need to upgrade console? Go to store, buy a new one, plug it in, set up the new controllers and other peripherals. Need to upgrade a PC? Got to store, buy Graphics card, unplug old one, plug in new one, install new drivers.

In both cases the person upgrading knows exactly what they're looking for and what they're doing as they know what is going on in that field. Once you know that, its not too complicated to do either.

 

[Vault101]

Really?

It's either SD or HD. Plug in, use game that says "Xbox360" and you are set to go. If you have a PS3, use the games that come in cases marked PS3, and you are set to go.

PC uses so many different components and usually games have requirements posted on the box which reads to the layman like stereo instructions (so to speak). Just because you have a PC, it doesn't mean you can run every game. Just because you have a high end PC, it doesn't mean it will run older games. You have to know what part does what, what program to use, what video/ sound cards are needed, ram, etc...

A typical consumer does not know that information, sadly enough.

The benefit of the console is, as the previous poster said , that it is objectively easier.
That's always been their main draw - plug 'n play.

PS. If you can get a computer to run on an old SD TV (like you were doing with the HD console) the subtitles will look fuzzy as well.

I dont think its as hard as people make it out to be....now ganted I can understand the apeal of wanting to be 99% sure the thing is going to work rather than 80%

even for a tech spaz like me it didn't take long to look at the numbers on the back of the box and the specs on my computer and be able to say "yep...I'm good to go"

as for backwards compatibility...yes running older games can be a pain/impossible..however stuff like GOG is quite popular...

and for everything else there's google

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I wouldn't care so much about BC if they re-released previous great games for the newer generations. I mean, both Battlefront games were downright amazing, but there hasn't been talk of re-releasing them with better graphics. Hell, that's something I would actually pay money for rather than this year's newest variation of Call of Duty.

 

[Something Amyss]

First, the novel. An avid reader has only to go to the store and purchase his favorite authors' newest books as they are published.

Best example. Moving on to worse ones.

The radio. The listener has only to buy a radio and plug it in at a place where he gets reception. Unless something happens to the device, there is never any need to replace it so long as it still functions.

Of course, you don't own any of the content on it. Also, further iterations aren't exactly covered in terms of "backwards compatibility."

Music in general is more a decent comparison. Record companies loved what was effectively the planned obsolescence of vinyl and cassettes. They've actually invented new ways to get you to rebuy content over the years. Not to mention, MP3 players are not directly backwards compatible with older media.

The movies. A frequent patron of the movie theatre has only to transport himself to the cinema and pay for a ticket. (Obviously, it becomes a bit more complicated and costly when a film buff decides he wants to watch movies in the comfort of his own home.)

Of course, if he wants to see it twice, he gets whacked for the second time, too. He does not get to go back in to the theater for free. This model is actually similar to Sony's "Download old shit from us" model: If you want to play again, you have to pay again.

Keeping up with video games isn't as simple. First you have to buy a console. If you don't have a television (unlikely), you'll need to purchase one (preferably an expensive high-definition home entertainment hub that uses as much electricity as a refrigerator).

I like how you're going for high-end stuff here. Because this is only the sort of thing a gamer would need. Music lovers only use cheap equipment, same with videophiles. And don't forget a house. You'll need to have a house to protect your stuff (probably a million dollar mansion to keep the artificial inflation up; audiophiles listen to music in cardboard boxes).

And you'll need to buy games. You'll need to buy controllers to play them. You'll probably need a hard drive or memory card, too. And you might need special controllers for certain games. Maybe you'll need to pay to register an online account, too.

And you need friends to play with. You might need to bribe them, so factor that in. And you'll probably need to buy them their systems, so you're going broke times four (or more!!!)

Oh, did a spin-off or sequel to your favorite console game appear on a handheld system? Gosh, you'd better buy a handheld. And games for the handheld. Did your favorite video game developer release a game on a console you don't own? You'd better buy that console, too

And what of movie fans? Are they required to buy all the tie-in stuff, too? Cartoons, soundtracks, novels, toys? I'm just curious, because this seems pretty optional.

I mean, if you really MUST HAVE EVERYTHING, this might be a problem, but what genre is it not?

Well, books. And that's about it.

a new console just hit the market, and now they no longer make games in your obsolete system's format. (Remember that the film buff rarely has to choose between home video formats, and the average lifespan of a given format is 10-20 years.)

Actually, not exactly true. Industry standards are getting shorter. Meanwhile, industry standards for gaming life cycles are getting longer. Plus, consoles often have overlap (like movies)

So you'll need to buy a new console, new controllers, new games, new memory cards, spend money to download your old games onto the hard drive of your new system..."

Or you could keep your old system and enjoy those games. Voila.

Thoughts?

Howabout, instead of a hyperbolic and contrived scenario, you just say "Backwards compatibility is important to some, not important to others, and probably somewhere in the middle for most."

Look, it's all well and good to say that other formats are unable to rival the complexity here, but when you get into comparable setups you run into comparable price and comparable issues with format, compatibility, etc.

 

[Mr C]

I'm assuming the strongly anti-BC posters are either not collectors or are only on their first or second generation of consoles.

I've been playing games for 28 years. I dread the day my Megadrive breaks down and I can't play Gynoug or Hellfire because I can't find a replacement for a system that is at present 23 years old.

This will be a bigger problem for the newer systems, my MD and Neo Geo don't have moving parts. You keep saying "I have a PS2 for PS2 games", but will you in ten years after the lens has buggered up? How will you go back in the future to get your Silent Hill 2 kick? Not that god-awful HD remake I hope? What about the many great games that don't get ported to newer systems? The Immortal, Midnight Resistance, Phantasy Star 1-4, Alien Soldier and Mars Matrix. I mention these titles because they are great and there is a good chance many posters on this site are so young they have never heard of them.

BC should be considered important otherwise one day some games will sadly be lost.

 

[Joccaren]

Experience with TVs? I've owned an SD 14" as a teen. An SD 27" once married. An HD 37" 1080P since x-mas 2009.

You know what thought I put into my TV?

It's 37". It's on sale for $450. It's HD, 1080P.
That's all I needed to know.

Didn't have to research what it's compatible with, Plasma vs LED (I think it's LED) or really much of anything else. Plug the TV into the wall, take an HDMI cable, run it to the PS3, go to the right HDMI input channel and bam, done. Takes about 5 minutes to put together the first time. There is no comparison in simplicity. It is objectively easier, expert or not.

Having to look up video cards, sounds cards, programs, firewalls, physical installation, software installation, puzzling out the OS - all of these things are more complicated than consoles.

Again, I repeat that I'm not saying either one is better. Only that consoles are proven to be simpler than PC.

By experience I meant you've used them a lot more than I likely have. There are TVs in my house, but I haven't touched the remote for one in about 4 years now, and before that it was a once a month thing. That is my experience in TVs as my family is too busy watching crap on them most of the time, so I just don't bother.

How I upgrade my PC:
Nvidia GeForce #X is my card, Nvidia Geforce #Y is on Sale. Is #X < #Y?
If yes, purchase.
Pull out old GPU, plug in new GPU, wait for it to install Drivers.

You don't really need to look up video cards. If the # after GTX or Radeon is larger than the one you have, odds are its better. Priority for numbers comes as second and third numbers, then the first, which is the only slightly odd thing about it, but even that can be simplified further by adding the half thought of "Is #Y > #Z60". Then you plug it in, wait for it to install drivers, and it works. I've done close to 20 GPU swaps today testing out an old GPU I think has finally died, running it through several rigs in different PCI-E ports and such. Doing so took me about an hour. 5 minute installation for me thanks to my experience with PCs - I just know what to do.

Sound cards you don't look up unless you're doing professional audio that requires them - they're built into the Motherboard otherwise.

Programs, Firewalls, Physical Installation, and Software installation is all stuff I, and my friends who actually own the consoles, have had to worry about on consoles too. Programs are the same as Software installation, and you do it on a console for faster load speeds. Firewalls I don't bother with on the PC, my family and my friend's family's servers have them, but that blocks not only my PC traffic, but all traffic - including what comes from the console. Physical installation I find easier, not having to carry a large TV in, or not having to swap around controllers and such when you plug a new console in.

I've got no clue about puzzling out an OS. That is literally a step by step guided setup where it walks you through what to do.

Is there RAM and CPU and such to worry about?
Sure, if you're building a new computer. Assuming you've got a reasonably modern PC though, the CPU and RAM will be fine, its only the GPU you need to change, and building a whole new rig will only really happen for fun with enthusiasts, or if you've got a really old rig where everything is outdated [I'm talking 8+ years old]. That eliminates all the hassle of compatibility, as they just plug into any old PCI-E slot on any old Motherboard. You can easily ignore a lot of what is in your computer, just the same as you can ignore slim/normal/lite/W.E console specializations, and harddrive sizes, and TV resolutions and all that jazz. If you have experience with a PC, it is quite easy to just look at something and go "Yeah, that'll work".

I'd also stop using Objectively, as its not true. In some situations for some people a Console is easier to set up, in others a PC is easier to set up. It all depends on the circumstances as to which is simpler. A guy with a modern PC but no TV or console, and a small room would have a much simpler time upgrading his PC than getting a console, whilst a guy with a TV and a really old PC would have an easier time getting a console than upgrading his PC. A guy with neither could have issues with both dependent on how and where he lives. You could assume that said person in example has an infinite budget, infinite room in his house, every store he could ever need around him, unlimited strength for easy lifting and perfect dexterity for fine movements, and nothing to do with either platform, but really what's the point of using an impossible situation? It doesn't prove any points, and its impossible to tell which would come out on top there anyway, assuming 0 knowledge of either subject said person would have no idea what to do for either.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

snip

If you'd read the beginning of the post clearly, you'd have noticed that I didn't write the hyperbolic contrived scenario; I was quoting someone else, and yes, I just admitted that it is hyperbolic and contrived.

Even so, it got me thinking about why I think backwards compatibility is important. That is all.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

especially if you're not well-versed in the world of PC building/upgrading and have to pay someone else to do it for you.

Boohoo, my store charges 20 bucks for that service.

Yah i didn't get the part where you said PC gaming isn't as complicated as console gaming. It's objectively the other way around. When you consider that almost everyone has a TV, it can be eliminated from the equation.

In 4 TV sets I tried my 360 on, the image absolutely sucked to the point of not being able to read text. 3 were old tvs and another was a Sony Bravia. Some 720p model, I don't know the model.

I can choose parts for a new computer but I don't know how to choose a TV that will let me read the goddamn subtitles. You think it's subjectively more complicated. It's not a factual argument, I don't know much about computers but I simply don't understand TVs.

Of course I'm making a subjective statement. I'm guessing you're one of those "He didn't preface his opinion with 'in my opinion,' so he's trying to pass off his opinion as fact!" types.

 

[ElPatron]

Sigh...
Really?

It's either SD or HD. Plug in, use game that says "Xbox360" and you are set to go. If you have a PS3, use the games that come in cases marked PS3, and you are set to go.

Wish it was that simple. Both analog and HD suck. Hard.

50Hz cuts the image. 60Hz is damn near unplayable.

PC uses so many different components and usually games have requirements posted on the box which reads to the layman like stereo instructions (so to speak)./quote]

Yeah, because it's so hard to keep track of how much RAM you have, what CPU you have and what graphics card you have (3 components) that there are tools that test the computer for you and tell you if you can run a game or not.

Anyway, that is totally unrelated to my problem and only proves the subjective nature of this argument.

Just because you have a PC, it doesn't mean you can run every game. Just because you have a high end PC, it doesn't mean it will run older games. You have to know what part does what, what program to use, what video/ sound cards are needed, ram, etc...

Even more unrelated.

A typical consumer does not know that information, sadly enough.

I'm a typical consumer and I have never met anyone who can explain what the hell is my problem with TVs.

The benefit of the console is, as the previous poster said , that it is objectively easier.
That's always been their main draw - plug 'n play.

PS. If you can get a computer to run on an old SD TV (like you were doing with the HD console) the subtitles will look fuzzy as well.

It hasn't been plug and play for me. So yes, subjective.

Also, I have connected my PC to older TVs. CRT is crystal clear and much better than the Sony Bravia with the 360 on.

Finding an appropriate TV aside, my point was that a TV is just simply less to work with. Getting subtitles is one thing; getting a graphics card that can render a new game, getting more RAM, and upgrading an operating system when needed, these are just a few examples of things that are needed to worry about for PC gaming. While you may be more familiar with computers than TVs, it doesn't nullify the fact that there's a whole lot more to a computer than a TV, especially when it comes to gaming.

My point is that it's damn near impossible to familiarize yourself with TVs unless you're an aficionado or an electronics engineer or something.

I need a graphics card? I ask around. Probably I'll get an answer. I need to install RAM? I either flip those white paddles or just pay someone to do it for me.

I need to upgrade my OS? I can pay someone else to do it. Or just click the installer for it to start.

I need to know how to make my TV let me play without hurting my eyes. Nobody. knows.

So yah, i'll still stand by that one could objectively say computers are more complex than TVs, specifically on a hardware level.

captcha: "teh inter webs". When did you get so goddamn awesome, Captcha?

Okay. If I want to know the specifications on my computer, I run "dxdiag".

How do you check the hardware that is on your TV set?

 

[ElPatron]

Yah i didn't get the part where you said PC gaming isn't as complicated as console gaming. It's objectively the other way around. When you consider that almost everyone has a TV, it can be eliminated from the equation.

Of course I'm making a subjective statement.

My work here is done.

I'm guessing you're one of those "He didn't preface his opinion with 'in my opinion,' so he's trying to pass off his opinion as fact!" types.

You didn't have to be a jerk to me. What the hell did I do to you?

 

[Ryotknife]

Backwards comparability isn't important

You want to play old games?

Get an old console.

Simple as that.

A PS3 has a requirement to be able to play PS3 games. If you expect it to play PS2 games, then you need to redo first grade because you cant seem to count.

The original one could though, and what about those that have the old console break down? They become harder to find over time, and it's not actually that hard for them to do backwards compatibility, I hope the next Xbox does it because I have tonnes of 360 games.

And to flick it off as not important is just stupid, some people have favorites from different generations, what's wrong with them wanting to be able to play them still.

It doesn't matter. The CD's break down as well.

And no there is nothing wrong with them wanting something. However the market didn't want it enough. That you want it isn't going to make them restart the production of playstations is it now? They are going to need a few million people who want it. And want it more than the next generation.

Now just a bit of correction here. It can be hard making backwards compatibility. To shrug it "Its not that hard" shows a complete and utter lack of understanding for the subject matter.

If you want to keep playing you older games, then keep your older generation platform. The next generation isn't made with the idea of play last generation games.

backwards compatability was the number 1 aspect gamers wanted in a console by a large margin, it was also the very same aspect that they KNEW would never make it in because those companies want to milk as much money as possible (not to mention kinda a pain in the rear)

What you have done here is take "Your opinion" and mistaken it for "The opinion of the market". It is not the number one aspect when they realized they had to pay more for the functionality. Who would have thought? Developing a competent system for emulation previus hardware would be costly? Oh yeah.... everyone did.

actually, there were quite a few polls waay back in the day which is where i read it. It is not really a coincedence that most of the revered console systems are also backwards compatible (not to mention i can easily argue that you are guilty of the same thing).

I would actually pay more for backwards compatibility (so long as its reasonable), but that is niether here nor there. I do not like the idea that my PS2 titles have a finite date due to diminishing supplies of PS2 consoles. Hell, some PS2 titles are more expensive right now than they were when first retailed.

I know backwards compatibility will never happen, and i made peace with it somewhat for the PS2 era. BUT, I am concerned for the next few generations. every new generation of consoles last a shorter amount of time before breaking. My PS2, if maintained, can last for quite awhile (10-ish years). PS3? honestly i will consider myself lucky if it lasts for 5. that goes double for the 360. next generation will probably last 3-4 years if you are lucky. the one after that maybe 2-3 years and so on.

I view backwards compatibility like cruise control in cars. Not essential, but really nice to have.

honestly im more concerned about the rumored anti used games systems in the new generation of consoles. PC gaming is looking better and better.

 

[hermes]

Simply put, backwards compatibility is less of an issue the more into the life of the console you are on. If the PS3 weren't BC at the beginning of their life, it would have sold considerably worst because it wouldn't have many decent games to play in it. By the time Sony removed that feature, it had a decent sized library to be worthy.

If a console is not BC, I won't even consider for during the first couple years...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

For me its an added value that's worth half the price of the console, just for all the saved space. Its also a good thing to have if you have a shortage of "new" games. There is no real downside unless your a zombie gamer who never keeps anything more than a few months.