XDSkyFreak said:
From a bussiness standpoint backwards compatibility is bad business.
Right. It's such bad business that the most successful consoles of all time (PS2, and the Gameboy series, GBA/DS and soon 3DS) were backward compatible.
And don't say it would boost sales. You don't understand basic math.
Forget basic math, it's you who doesn't understand basic economics and business.
Proprietary platforms, like game consoles, have value directly related to the number of Related Goods available to them.
In this, the Related Goods are video games. I can say this because game consoles are obviously worthless without games.
It doesn't matter what the game(s) cost(s); if it sells, it creates appeal and generates interest in the system.
You assert that consumers are willing to pay less per unit for old games vs new games, fine.
But there are two factors you're neglecting:
1) Old games are finished products and require little to no added cost for production, while most new console games will cost millions on average.
2) Modern digital distribution methods have slashed the cost of distribution down to pittance. Less than a penny per game sold. I can assert this for the Vita because Sony
has already staked any chance of the Vita being profitable on this fact by making everything digital. New games benefit from this too, yet the fact remains that the only reason to NOT capitalize on old games is if the cost of distribution/rights/etc would exceed the revenue.
And because these are all Related Goods relative to the platform (console/online store, etc), all of those old games will generate exposure for new games by drawing people to the store. Why? Because it gives them another reason to use it.
Also, if one were to retort with "Everyone who wants a given system (like a Vita) already has one." is already courting insanity, because if you're treating your potential console market as a zero sum market (no new customers entering/leaving)
then why the Hell would you exclude content that would appeal to old customers?
I understand the fear of market saturation and loss of growth, but it's insane to not capitalize on what you have when you suspect that.
That boosts sales, and the cost for exploiting this is smaller than it has ever been; literally for the same reasons that indie developers are booming right now. If indies can exploit it, then why not one of the largest game companies in the world?
These aren't my idle theories; this is in practice elsewhere.
Steam is proving that right now. Why the hell else is there a sudden resurgence in classics?
Final Fantasy 7 & 8, Ensemble's old games (Age of Empires 2, and soon, Age of Mythology), or the numerous big publisher backlog bundles like Epic, THQ (now 2K Games)...I can go on.
The very EXISTENCE of GoG disproves the entire notion of backwards compatibility being bad business.
If Sony execs honestly think that restricting sales to new games where possible is the best business solution, they're insane. Sony's prior successes should tell them that.
