No Backward Compatibility? So What?
- Thread starter Ace Morologist
- Start date
The PS2 was backwards compatible with the PS1 and early PS3 models were backwards compatible too. The Nintendo DS was backwards compatible with the GBA, the GBA was backwards compatible with Gameboy Color and Gameboy games, and the 3DS still plays DS games. This is a huge selling point for me, particularly as a Pokemon player. I have Ruby and Sapphire plugged into my DS Lites right now, and most of what I play on the 3DS is actually DS games because there aren't many 3DS games.
Backwards compatibility is important to people because, I don't know about you, but I have a pretty damn huge library of games. PS2 games and Xbox 360 games especially, since I got the Xbox 360 before my PS3. My library isn't even anywhere near as big as a lot of gamers' collections. So, I ask you, what is really the advantage of me getting the Xbone if I'm still going to have to keep my Xbox 360 plugged in and ready to go if I want to play any of these old games I have and enjoy? Remember that new consoles are only going to have a small number of games out for them in the early days after their release, and I'm certainly not going to be interested in buying every single one of those games that they release in that period, or I won't be able to afford to buy more than maybe about two or three at a given time anyway.
In order for a console to be attractive to me, I need something to play on it while I wait for more games to come out or while I wait and save up enough money to be able to afford new games. I'd also point out that most games that come out during that transition period play perfectly fine on previous-generation consoles and are likely to be at least a little bit cheaper, so, if I can also get new games on my old console, there's really no incentive for me to switch over to the new generation, is there? So, really, without backwards compatibility, why should I switch over the second a new console comes out (which is when consoles can make the most money) when there is absolutely nothing I can play on the new console that I can't play on a current generation console and when I can't transfer any of my current games over?
That is why backwards compatibility is an issue they need to consider.
Now, either they can transfer digital downloads to the new consoles for free, which I sincerely hope that at least Sony does if they have any sense or otherwise I'm not going to have much of an incentive to get the PS4 any time soon, or they make the new consoles backwards compatible so that we actually have something to do with our new consoles before all the new games start coming out.
Backwards compatibility is important to people because, I don't know about you, but I have a pretty damn huge library of games. PS2 games and Xbox 360 games especially, since I got the Xbox 360 before my PS3. My library isn't even anywhere near as big as a lot of gamers' collections. So, I ask you, what is really the advantage of me getting the Xbone if I'm still going to have to keep my Xbox 360 plugged in and ready to go if I want to play any of these old games I have and enjoy? Remember that new consoles are only going to have a small number of games out for them in the early days after their release, and I'm certainly not going to be interested in buying every single one of those games that they release in that period, or I won't be able to afford to buy more than maybe about two or three at a given time anyway.
In order for a console to be attractive to me, I need something to play on it while I wait for more games to come out or while I wait and save up enough money to be able to afford new games. I'd also point out that most games that come out during that transition period play perfectly fine on previous-generation consoles and are likely to be at least a little bit cheaper, so, if I can also get new games on my old console, there's really no incentive for me to switch over to the new generation, is there? So, really, without backwards compatibility, why should I switch over the second a new console comes out (which is when consoles can make the most money) when there is absolutely nothing I can play on the new console that I can't play on a current generation console and when I can't transfer any of my current games over?
That is why backwards compatibility is an issue they need to consider.
Now, either they can transfer digital downloads to the new consoles for free, which I sincerely hope that at least Sony does if they have any sense or otherwise I'm not going to have much of an incentive to get the PS4 any time soon, or they make the new consoles backwards compatible so that we actually have something to do with our new consoles before all the new games start coming out.
I am getting a little fed up by people playing the "entiteled" card.
Here is how I see it.
Feel free to call it complaining or whatever, but think about it. If noone said what they wanted, how would they ever hope to get it?
So if people are complaining about things not having backward compatibility, it's most likely because they want it but are not getting it.
If you want to buy something that is not being made, what else are you supposed to do than speak up about it until those who can make it happen does so? Why they refuse to listen to their customers is beyond me, clearly people want this.
Here is how I see it.
Feel free to call it complaining or whatever, but think about it. If noone said what they wanted, how would they ever hope to get it?
So if people are complaining about things not having backward compatibility, it's most likely because they want it but are not getting it.
If you want to buy something that is not being made, what else are you supposed to do than speak up about it until those who can make it happen does so? Why they refuse to listen to their customers is beyond me, clearly people want this.
Why SHOULDN'T we expect it? It's a valid expectation of a machine that promises to do all the things it says it will. It's good marketing to say "hey, you know that huge library you have? Sure, you can go ahead and play it on this console. We encourage it because you're our loyal fans!!!"
Not only that, it's the BS line about people wanting it being backwards. Who talks about their customers like that? Plus, the BS statistic he gave? Only 5% of their customers play old games? No, a lot more than that play old games.
But to have a problem with people expecting BC seems silly. They should expect a machine like this to do something as simple and seemingly obvious as this. Don't say you can do all that and then say people are retarded for wanting the console to play games.
Although, I get why the poster doesn't get it, to some it's not an issue. People have space for their consoles. I kept my PS2 and I still play it a lot. But if PS3 had BC, I wouldn't need it. Not everyone has space. Not everyone has these consoles working.
But at the end of the day, like I said, it's a very simple expectation of a complex machine.
Not only that, it's the BS line about people wanting it being backwards. Who talks about their customers like that? Plus, the BS statistic he gave? Only 5% of their customers play old games? No, a lot more than that play old games.
But to have a problem with people expecting BC seems silly. They should expect a machine like this to do something as simple and seemingly obvious as this. Don't say you can do all that and then say people are retarded for wanting the console to play games.
Although, I get why the poster doesn't get it, to some it's not an issue. People have space for their consoles. I kept my PS2 and I still play it a lot. But if PS3 had BC, I wouldn't need it. Not everyone has space. Not everyone has these consoles working.
But at the end of the day, like I said, it's a very simple expectation of a complex machine.
My view on this backwards compatibility thing is, that even though it might not be as important as some people believe it is, it's still something that players want. Therefore it should be worth it to include it for the sake of convenience and to accommodate the customers. Especially from the business point of view - it shouldn't matter to the console makers whether people actually use backwards compatibility, what should matter is whether they want it in the console they buy and whether they are going to take backwards compatibility into consideration when making a choice between the systems.
You see, I can still get the decision not to include it in case of Sony. They had to completely rebuild the system architecture, because, let's face it, that cell processor fiasco was a nightmare for developers. They had to make a call between catering to the people who are going to make games for the PS4 or including backwards compatibility. Given that the two options are mutually exclusive, I think they made a good choice.
As for microsoft though... there's just no excuse. The 360 architecture was already based on PCs and simple to develop for. They were not forced to change it in any way. And worst of all, they knew that PS4 was not going to be backwards compatible and that people cared about backwards compatibility. They had a massive opportunity to give themselves an edge against competition and they blew it. They even went on to insult the people who care about backwards compatibility, calling them backwards and whatnot.
I said this before and I'm probably going to say it again in the near future: Microsoft have their heads stuck so far up their asses they now think that sky is brown.
As for me, I do not really care about the feature that much. At least it gives me a reason to keep my old consoles.
You see, I can still get the decision not to include it in case of Sony. They had to completely rebuild the system architecture, because, let's face it, that cell processor fiasco was a nightmare for developers. They had to make a call between catering to the people who are going to make games for the PS4 or including backwards compatibility. Given that the two options are mutually exclusive, I think they made a good choice.
As for microsoft though... there's just no excuse. The 360 architecture was already based on PCs and simple to develop for. They were not forced to change it in any way. And worst of all, they knew that PS4 was not going to be backwards compatible and that people cared about backwards compatibility. They had a massive opportunity to give themselves an edge against competition and they blew it. They even went on to insult the people who care about backwards compatibility, calling them backwards and whatnot.
I said this before and I'm probably going to say it again in the near future: Microsoft have their heads stuck so far up their asses they now think that sky is brown.
As for me, I do not really care about the feature that much. At least it gives me a reason to keep my old consoles.
People like to play their old games, without having to buy them again.
...Maybe you are not one of these people. But I am. When ever one of my old games becomes weathered by time and becomes unplayable I am quite sad.
Also its one of the things that has driven me to PC. The chances of the game being filtered out by hardware become very slim as even 20 years down the line, dedicated nerds will find ways to improve the compatibility to current day soft and hardware through tweaking and modifications or at the most desperate: 'A virtual OS/Emulator'.
Consoles on the other hand, while some (PS1-3 ish) and (Gamecube to Wii) have faithfully honored this way of keeping their customers, the recent generations have opted out of it, because it's a long term profit gain, alot to invest to keep the engine expansive enough to support all old and new. But they loose long time fans to competitors should their console be a flop.
Can't play my old 'good' classics on this arguably unattractive and expensive looking console with poor release titles? Oh well I guess I'll look elsewhere....
...See the issue?
My sisters boyfriend, who arguably is one of those typical 'buys every Call of Duty, Assassins Creed etc and just follows what's popular on the bro-ternity' type (He is still a nice person and I consider him a brother) even with his expansive 360 library has said there is NOTHING that appeals to him hardware wise on the XBone and if the PS4 comes out cheaper, he's getting that.
...Maybe you are not one of these people. But I am. When ever one of my old games becomes weathered by time and becomes unplayable I am quite sad.
Also its one of the things that has driven me to PC. The chances of the game being filtered out by hardware become very slim as even 20 years down the line, dedicated nerds will find ways to improve the compatibility to current day soft and hardware through tweaking and modifications or at the most desperate: 'A virtual OS/Emulator'.
Consoles on the other hand, while some (PS1-3 ish) and (Gamecube to Wii) have faithfully honored this way of keeping their customers, the recent generations have opted out of it, because it's a long term profit gain, alot to invest to keep the engine expansive enough to support all old and new. But they loose long time fans to competitors should their console be a flop.
Can't play my old 'good' classics on this arguably unattractive and expensive looking console with poor release titles? Oh well I guess I'll look elsewhere....
...See the issue?
My sisters boyfriend, who arguably is one of those typical 'buys every Call of Duty, Assassins Creed etc and just follows what's popular on the bro-ternity' type (He is still a nice person and I consider him a brother) even with his expansive 360 library has said there is NOTHING that appeals to him hardware wise on the XBone and if the PS4 comes out cheaper, he's getting that.
I am to, but that doesn't change what most people apparently do with their games. There is a reason the 360 section of used games at gamestop is bigger then the PS3 and wii section combined. People just have an easier time separating from them. I am not like that and apparently you aren't either, but that doesn't take into account the actions of so many others.Xdeser2 said:
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.
TL
R; Backwards compatibility makes the console more expensive than people want to pay.
TL
R; Backwards compatibility makes the console more expensive than people want to pay.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 said:
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.wickershadow said: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.
TL
Not to mention the other early issues it had.
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!Zachary Amaranth said:Yeah, that's why you can't put a PS disc in a PS2.Ace Morologist said:
"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?
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.Ace Morologist said:
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.Ace Morologist said:
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.
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.wickershadow said: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.
TL
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.
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.the hidden eagle said: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.Irridium said: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!Zachary Amaranth said:Yeah, that's why you can't put a PS disc in a PS2.Ace Morologist said:
"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?
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.