No Backward Compatibility? So What?

[Yuuki]

I thought this video had made it pretty obvious (Yahtzee's part):


Why are people complaining? Because PC gaming happened. Because Steam happened. You can play age-old titles no matter how new your PC is, developers (or community modders) are constantly working on making ancient games work on the latest operating systems & hardware.

At this point saying PC's have a "library" is an understatement of the century, the library has become larger than every_single_console generation has ever accumulated. And I'm not even counting in ability to emulate older consoles.

Meanwhile consoles continue their relentlessness march of pretending a game library always needs to be built up from scratch with each new generation and you're expected to keep your old console around if you want to play your old games. It's quite backwards (see what I did there ).

That's why people are complaining.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I better question is why wouldn't we want BC? Is there anything bad that comes with BC?

And now let me tell you a few reasons why I want it.
1. I got used to have it. As many people already said, the PS2, PS3, Wii, WiiU, GBC, GBA, DS, 3DS and 360 had BC. It is/was/should be a standard now.
2. I enjoy playing my old games and I don't have unlimited space. I have my Wii, PS2, NES and N64 close to my TV. I honestly don't have any more space while I still play games on those consoles. Space is a big factor for long term gamer who do like their collection.
3. I don't have neither the PS3 nor the 360, while there are games I would like to play on the PS3. Now if the PS4 had BC, if I bought it, I would get the libraries of 2 generations for the price of one. But as it is, betting both, the PS3 and PS4 is rather expensive. I certainly won't get the PS3 because there aren't enough games I'm interested in (already got a PC for multiplats) and the PS4 won't be appealing for a long time until it builds up a library.
4. Consoles break. Unlike Nintendo's, other consoles aren't made of Nintendium. They break, especially the 360. I already had to fix my PS2 once. Once it breaks for real, my collection is done for. Now, I know that everything tech related will sooner or later be useless, but shouldn't I be allowed to ask for it to last longer? I actually am entitled to ask for more if they want my money. They want to sell something, I tell them what I want to buy. It's called being a customer. Entitled isn't something bad as you may think. Don't use words if you don't know the real meaning and not the "meaning" that gaming "journalists" use.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

BC is especially important for anyone jumping ship to a different console or buying a console for the first time in a while. A lot of good games came out this gen and it would suck to miss out on them

Here it is in simple form:
Personal case in point: I own NO physical copies for my PS3. Yet, I have a shit ton of old school RPGs on it with which to play. Sadly, at the moment, I'm currently mowing several lawns with Salvador and his damn near infinite shooting rocket launchers in Borderlands 2, but when I tire of that, I'll be at the PS3 enjoying a good story and/or soundtrack.

Its funny you say that given your avatar. I bought Grandia on psn forever ago and still haven't gotten around to finishing it

My uncle has the physical copy of the game and I have the digital. On both, I have logged over 100 hours of gameplay. Stories like that NEVER get old.

Neither does throwing Puffy at enemies.

I watched my cousin play it on ps1 when I was a kid and I bought it a few years ago while we were talking about old games. It's just so classic and cheesy. [small] Justin and Sue are my one true pairing. I don't care if they're related [/small]

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Honestly? It comes down to cost. The want for used games is obviously there, but does that want warrant an extra $100-$150+ cost to make the console backwards compatible? For a great deal of people the answer is no, which is what we saw with the PS3 when it was first released at $600~. When Sony realized this they striped the compatibility out to put down the cost of the console down to a point where people would want to buy it. I'm certain that if people were willing to pay the cost, or that the cost was insubstantial they would include backwards compatibility but at the moment including it would price their console above their competitor and we'd likely see a repeat of the PS3 release.

TLR; Backwards compatibility makes the console more expensive than people want to pay.

But what ends up costing them more: not having backwards compatibility and relying on your launch library, or having it with both libraries but with more cost? I'm of the opinion that when the made the software different from the PS2, that's what sealed the PS3's early fate. Not having access to one of gaming's strongest list of games was a dumb move. Making it so they couldn't give that access to their consumers was another. Pricing it that ridiculously high was probably the major deal breaker. Even selling it at a loss, they should've realized that very few would've bought one at that price.

Not to mention the other early issues it had.

 

[Irridium]

Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly.

Yeah, that's why you can't put a PS disc in a PS2.

"What's that, imaginary voice in my ear? You could? You could even play them in Playstation 3s? Backwards compatibility with the PS2 until they went and removed it?"

Well...I stand corrected.

Sure, the Wii played Gamecube games, the Wii U plays Wii games, and most Nintendo handhelds have at least a generation of backwards compatibiity, but this has never been a thing, right?

And what's this about the 360 playing Xbox games and Microsoft's promise to add the entire library eventually? Oh, wait, they stopped in 2007, nevermind. Because who cares about those old games, amirite? I mean, it's not like they have any value any more. They're old, and old things are pointless, and therefore should be forgotten. I don't care, so you shouldn't either. STOP CARING!

 

[spartan231490]

Okay, I see people getting pissed about the Xbox One (and the PS4) not being backward compatible. You can't even use the same controllers on the new consoles.

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly. I mean, I grew up playing on Nintendo consoles, and those were always radically different each generation. Hell, the cartridges were different shapes from one to the next. The discs were different sizes once they started using discs.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

--Morology!

The PS2 was 100% backwards compatible. And why do we feel entitled to BC? Because we've spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on our games and since most people can't afford to have 2 consoles at once, that means they either have to give up their entire game collection or miss out on all of the new releases. It's not that they feel entitled, it's that without BC, it's not worth buying the new console, so they won't. It's not that complicated, it's cause/effect logic.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they?

Every console of the last generation (even the ps3 originally) was backwards compatible, as has been every nintendo handheld since the gba. I think a lot of people got the impression that it was something like online, or built in memory, where it's just a standard feature that came out of evolving technology to make the new consoles better. It's also a really good feature, so it's kind of a bummer they're taking it out. It'd be especially good for bringing over new customers from last generation. If I didn't own a PS3 and the PS4 was backwards compatable, that would make it a much better purchase for me because Id have access to a whole generation's library of games.

That said, I don't feel "entitled" to it, but backwards compatability adds a lot of value to a new console and it's disappointing that neither one of the next gen consoles will have it.

 

[badgersprite]

Honestly? It comes down to cost. The want for used games is obviously there, but does that want warrant an extra $100-$150+ cost to make the console backwards compatible? For a great deal of people the answer is no, which is what we saw with the PS3 when it was first released at $600~. When Sony realized this they striped the compatibility out to put down the cost of the console down to a point where people would want to buy it. I'm certain that if people were willing to pay the cost, or that the cost was insubstantial they would include backwards compatibility but at the moment including it would price their console above their competitor and we'd likely see a repeat of the PS3 release.

TLR; Backwards compatibility makes the console more expensive than people want to pay.

The PS3's lack of early success is a bit more complicated than that, though. It can't only be blamed on the inclusion of backwards compatibility making it more expensive. A lot more of it had to do with the fact that it was beaten by a long way onto the shelves by the Xbox 360 (and the Wii, but let's forget about that) and the fact it didn't have a strong library of exclusive games to allow it to compete. Everyone who had already shelled out for the 360 was obviously going to play newer games on that.

 

[Sir Pootis]

I don't really care about backwards compatibility, it's nice, but I can definitely live without it. The only thing it really does is make people able to trade their old console with a discount. Personally, I prefer to keep my old consoles, and if you say, "I want to play my old games on my new console", then all I do is point out that you can play them on the console you already have.

 

[Irridium]

Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly.

Yeah, that's why you can't put a PS disc in a PS2.

"What's that, imaginary voice in my ear? You could? You could even play them in Playstation 3s? Backwards compatibility with the PS2 until they went and removed it?"

Well...I stand corrected.

Sure, the Wii played Gamecube games, the Wii U plays Wii games, and most Nintendo handhelds have at least a generation of backwards compatibiity, but this has never been a thing, right?

And what's this about the 360 playing Xbox games and Microsoft's promise to add the entire library eventually? Oh, wait, they stopped in 2007, nevermind. Because who cares about those old games, amirite? I mean, it's not like they have any value any more. They're old, and old things are pointless, and therefore should be forgotten. I don't care, so you shouldn't either. STOP CARING!

If people had your attitude then many of works of art and literature would be destroyed because by your standards they would be old and pointless.Luckily there are people who value things regardless of how old they are.

I was being sarcastic. Sadly quite a few people do seem to have that attitude. Though I doubt they're the "I want old works to DIE!" type, more of the "I just don't care" type. Which is a damn shame. The PS2 has the greatest console game library, and it's in real danger of being lost forever. Current consoles have a big, diverse library, and they're probably going to be lost as well.

That's a damn shame. Backwards compatibility is the ONLY way to preserve console games. It's already nebulous as hell, since it requires the original games, but at least it's something. Now... not anymore. Now you'll also need the console, which will become VERY hard in the future.

The PC has Good Old Games, DOS Box, and plenty of other ways to play older games. The consoles? Backwards compatibility is all they have. Sure you could say HD remakes are a thing, but those are only for successful games. Not the "alright but not great" ones.

And again, that's a damn shame.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly.

Really? Because I remember the PS2 supporting all PS1 games completely (Except for the older games that didn't use analog sticks, meaning they had to be played with directional buttons instead). It was even compatible with it's own separate memory card. If that's not backwards compatibility then I have no clue what is. And your use of "Not truly" is very off. Here, we can't even attempt to play the previous generation of games on these consoles. We are past the point where consoles have the technology to play the previous era's games and why we are being shafted on this is for money's sake. Because sooner or later down the line, there will be more "HD Classic games" forcing us to cough up more cash for games we already own. It's downright limiting the audience to what they can and can't play on this console (that they have already forked over a couple hundred dollars for) until they are forced to pay extra to get it a second time.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

Because the technology is there but they purposefully leave it out so that the companies can cash in on HD Re-releases further down the line on a new console that already costs an arm and a leg. It's a massive cocking rip off.

Edit: Damn it, I was ninja'd by that Zachery guy. FOILED AGAIN!

 

[Johann610]

Microsoft is normally OBSESSED with backwards compatibility. Their flagship Spreadsheet program, Excel 2010, reads (at no add-on or additional charge) Lotus 123--a program over 20 years old!
What the hell happened that, even though the disks are the same size, shape, and weight, they suddenly don't work? You mean to tell me, that in order to enjoy the old, GOOD stuff, I have to unplug ALL my audio, video, power, and what-not? So I can--what, exactly?--play the latest spunkgargleweewee, and ExpelAll sports, and television? No sale. I don't like it.

 

[SirDerick]

Which would you rather have, a console with a few games, or a console with an entire library of games already available, most of them on discount?

 

[Darth Foxtrot]

People are speaking about it without even knowing the hardware specs. Backwards compatibility isn't easy or cheap. Making it so will drive the cost of an already expensive machine. I own a PC with a modest graphics card, but I cannot play Star Wars Republic Commando because my graphics card calls for bump mapping commands which don't exist in the Unreal 2 engine. The only work-around I know of is to disable bump mapping. And this happened because I upgraded my graphics card. Wait until we see the hardware specs, compare them to the 360, and if it's clearly capable - then ***** about it. But it is clearly different enough where backwards compatibility is going to be an issue - and you aren't willing to offer your programming and computer engineering expertise to Microsoft (because everyone here are obviously experts on these two)....

STFU.

 

[faefrost]

Backwards compatibility is not a necessity. But it is a nice to have, that if leveraged properly can really boost a consoles market share.

Cases in point. The PS2 and the Wii. These are really the only 2 consoles to ever offer true unequivocal backwards compatibility. At release they were both able to heavily leverage the existing game libraries of their predecessors. Now as I said this is not an absolute requirement for a successful console, but it is worth noting that in part because of this leveraging these two were the best selling consoles ever. Neither one was the best or most robust console of their generation. In pretty much all cases their competitors had superior hardware. But those vast existing game libraries were a major selling point at least until the dev houses caught up with the new tech. As a further example Nintendo has largely dominated the handheld market for almost 20 years now, because each of their new handhelds evolved from and plays the games of the previous generation. There is a solid unbroken line between the original Game Boy and the 3Ds.

Backwards compatibility typically gives an edge for the first 12-24 months of a consoles life cycle. After that the playing field will start to level out from new game releases. (Assuming the console in question meets the basic sales requirements to not be dying a slow death from lack of development. See: PSVita, Sega Dreamcast, etc). So it can be useful for gaining an edge early on in the sales race. And momentum once achieved in this industry rarely reverses.

We will see how it goes this go round. While the only true Backwards compatible system this time is the WiiU, the complexity of developing for it vs the newer PC architecture XBone and PS4 may counteract that. (And the overall lack of Wii Games that you want to stretch forward besides Zelda and Mario). So this generation is probably wide open. Just from what we know now I suspect the edge may be sitting in SONY's court. MS seems suicidaly determined to give it to them. (We forget SONY truly dominated for two of the last 3 console generations before stumbling with the complicated, clunky to develop for and expensive PS3. It sounds like they are falling back on the type of customer and developer relations that allowed them to succeed to the PS1. MS seems to be following the model that has brought them such successes as Vista, Windows 8 and Microsoft Bob. IE "Because we say so and you all are losers" as a marketing philosophy.)

It should be fun to watch.

 

[Zeraki]

Unfortunately your old consoles will break down sooner or later. These things won't last forever, and anyone who thinks they will is kidding themselves.

It doesn't matter how well you take care of them, sometimes things just break. When my original SNES died back in '06 and I was unable to repair it(couldn't get a replacement for the part I needed) I was lucky enough to find a replacement console at a decent price. That's going to get much, much harder in the future though.

One thing I've always wanted to see if hardware BC wasn't an option in newer consoles, is to at least give those of us who own the original games the option of using the serial numbers on said games to redeem a digital copy if it's available. I don't know how that could be made to work properly(and obviously won't because they'd rather force us to re-purchase games we already own) but I think something like that could have some potential.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think previously it hasn't been a big question because the newer consoles always ended up with more and better games. The new releases made up for not being able to play the relatively small library of games people had acquired over the three or four years of the console's life.
All three consoles have been on the market for at least five years now which has lead to libraries of over a thousand games per console. People still have plenty of games that they still want to play.

That's at least my take on it. I have two, one-foot tall piles of games next to my 360 that I've been working through (not to mention a collection of nearly forty games on just the 360). Personally, I'm going to take advantage of all the price drops in 360 games. I don't have the money to drop on new consoles anyways.

 

[In Search of Username]

Because I don't want to have a bunch of consoles lying around that I have to dig out when I want to play any older games. Getting as close as possible to being able to play everything on one platform is always a good thing.

 

[WanderingFool]

Okay, I see people getting pissed about the Xbox One (and the PS4) not being backward compatible. You can't even use the same controllers on the new consoles.

Why are we complaining about this? Consoles have never been backward compatible, have they? Not truly. I mean, I grew up playing on Nintendo consoles, and those were always radically different each generation. Hell, the cartridges were different shapes from one to the next. The discs were different sizes once they started using discs.

Do people really feel entitled to backward compatibility in the games they buy? Why?

--Morology!

Thats is a good queastion. There were a number of games I played on the NES and SNES that I loved, but I had to own both consoles (which sucked when the NES died... funny story about it, tell ya another time) to play them.

Really, the only time I really made use of BWC was with the PS2 and PS1 games. I mean shit... didnt even bother with the XBox to 360.

 

[Vegosiux]

People are speaking about it without even knowing the hardware specs. Backwards compatibility isn't easy or cheap. Making it so will drive the cost of an already expensive machine. I own a PC with a modest graphics card, but I cannot play Star Wars Republic Commando because my graphics card calls for bump mapping commands which don't exist in the Unreal 2 engine. The only work-around I know of is to disable bump mapping. And this happened because I upgraded my graphics card. Wait until we see the hardware specs, compare them to the 360, and if it's clearly capable - then ***** about it. But it is clearly different enough where backwards compatibility is going to be an issue - and you aren't willing to offer your programming and computer engineering expertise to Microsoft (because everyone here are obviously experts on these two)....

STFU.

Well here's the thing. Whenever this thing comes up it comes across as if backwards compatibility is something that needs to be "added". Why? I'd wager that building on the foundations of what you have and developing/improving upon it, keeping backwards compatibility in mind, wouldn't cost all that much.

You have to go out of your way to design the new hardware to be different enough to eliminate backwards compatibility, not to improve the hardware you already have and end up with better hardware, based on the last setup, that will be compatible as it's an improvement on the old setup, not something specifically designed to be different to axe backward compatibility.