How far should backwards compatibility go?

[emeraldrafael]

Its a simple question really (though maybe its stupid, I dont know), brought up by the PS3. How far should a gaming console go back in terms of games being playable on the system?

and what should companies do if they dont go back far enough for games to be playable?


Personally, I think they should go back as far as the hardware is relatives. So, since hte PS1 used CDs, PS3s should play them (and I know,t hey did, to a degree).

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

If the game was made by your company, and is the same format, then your system should be able to play it. That's why I bought my 60gb PS3, and that's where most of its use comes from.

 

[Stammer]

It gets harder and harder to go backwards with each extra generation, but I think that one generation is good.

I'm still willing to pay $100 for a peripheral or software update (whichever is needed) to play PS2 games on my PS3, Sony!

[sub]I have like 30 PS2 games and my PS2 crapped out but I don't want to send it in to get it fixed because I'm constantly holding out for this.[/sub]

 

[loc978]

I don't see what's so damn hard about supporting your old games... I mean, if the laptop I bought in 2004 can successfully emulate a PS1, why can't a PS3? Same with the computer I have now and PS2 emulation.
I'm neither a coder nor a businessman, so I don't know all of the specifics... but it seems to me that companies can make more money by not emulating previous systems on their current one, and then re-releasing old games with minimal changes to make 'em work with the new system.

...and I'm still pissed that I can't run my old DOS-native games on my current hardware. >.<