No Backward Compatibility? So What?

[Olas]

Imagine you don't already own a PS# or Xbox 360. Backwards compatibility can be the difference between having the previous system's entire library available to you vs not having it at all. We're talking 700+ games vs a just few dozen expensive ones.

Ya big deal, who would care about that?

 

[Windcaler]

Looks like you missed the success surrounding the PC and PS2, the only truely backwards compatible gaming platforms that I know of. PS2 had a ton of early adopters in part because of backwards compatibility because, hey what did you have to loose? Not only did you get a great console and a built in DVD player you could play every game you already owned on playstation.

Then theres the PC, IMO the best gaming platform that Ive ever seen because its near endless customization, wider variety of games, open platoform, and through emulators I can play anything from Dark souls to Zork. Of course the kicker is I can do just about anything else with my PC, like write here on the escapist

Now its true that a lot of executives say that backwards compatibility is often asked for but rarely used. However I question where the basis of that claim comes from. In the case of the xbox 360 its BC was garbage. I couldnt play some of my favorite regular xbox games because the thing literally wasnt backwards compatible. I dont see any way you could get the numbers off of PCs or PS2 so its a question that cant be adequetely answered without some execs PR spin on it

At the end of the day, if Im buying a console backwards compatibility is a huge thing for me because Im running out of shelf space. In 30 years we've had about 11 different consoles (14 with the PS4, Xbone, and Ouya) not including handhelds. We've also had thousands of games released. Theres only so much space on my shelves for all this stuff and even if I just take the really good games, I still have to struggle with the consoles taking up space. For younger gamers that have only been around for a couple console generations this wont mean a lot and I get that, but Im not a younger gamer. I see a problem thats only building as consoles become abandonware and it really is a problem that needs to be addressed

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

Because a company can't survive if it blatantly does the exact opposite of what its customers want (obviously not everybody cares). If you want a more direct answer, it's a convenience issue. If you want a smart ass answer, Nintendo figured it out, so can Sony and MS!

 

[Siege_TF]

Uh.....because upgrading to this new console will make my 6-year-old game library completely fucking worthless. I think I have the right to complain about that.

What? is your current console going to spontaneously combust when you bring the new one home? No? Then how would your library become worthless lol? You do have the right to complain about anything, but we all also have the right to tell you that youre being a whiney spoiled gamer when its over something trivial.

My T.V. has two HDMI ports. One is being used by the cable box, the other is being used by my PS3. There's no such thing as a HDMI splitter (yet) which means if I were to use another system I'd have to unplug the PS3, which is no small task given the layout of my living room. I'd also have to find room to put the PS4, which, in my case at least, is another challenge. Maybe you have more room to work with, but I don't, and I don't imagine that the average apartment-dweller does.

 

[Alakaizer]

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!

I would like to recommend a concept to you that is known as research. If you were to engage in this concept you would find that a number of consoles have been backwards compatible. For starters, both new iterations of Game Boy (Color and Advance) could play all previous Game Boy games with no trouble. This continued somewhat to the DS which can play at least GBA games. The 3DS can play the DS games. Backwards compatibility is not new. If, however, you dismiss these examples as being merely handheld systems, then I must point you to the PS2 and the Wii, both of which could flawlessly execute games from the previous generation (PS1 and GameCube, respectively).

OT:All I can say about the lack of backwards compatibility on the PS4 (I'm not touching the Xbone with a ten-foot-pole), is that I'm just glad they told us this time. This way I know not to get rid of the PS3 the way I did with the PS2 a few years ago. Once I finally figured out my PS3 didn't have the hardware to play my PS2 games, all I could think was...

 

[Xan Krieger]

If they could find a way to work a whole lot of crap that people don't want into a console then there is no reason (financially or otherwise) that they couldn't work something that people do want into it.

 

[Prosis]

Consumers like it because:
1)they can continue to play their old library of games until they build up a good new library.
2)Nostalgia Lane
3)Some games are really good, and worth playing in future generations
4)Older games are generally cheaper, and allows someone to expand their library without spending a ton
5)Reverse compatibility means the older system remains relevant a bit longer.
6)Xbox 360 and PS3 were (somewhat limitedly) reverse compatible. PS2 was fully reverse compatible. WiiU and Wii are both reverse compatible, as are 3DS and DS. Huge precedent for reverse compatibility.

Consumers dislike it because:
1) You "have to" purchase games you've purchased before (Wii store, PSN).

Game Companies like it because:
1)Consumers like it. Happy consumers is good business.
2)People who would wait until there are decent games out may buy the system because they can play their old games
3)People who wouldn't buy it normally may buy the new system if they can get games for it on the cheap
4)PSN and Wii store bring in profit.

Game Companies dislike it because:
1)Have to code for it/design it/include hardware/whatever.
2)If the systems engine has changed significantly (how it codes, how it reads data, that sort of thing) then it is very expensive to design
3)If customers are playing old games, they aren't buying as many new games
5)If customers are buying old games, they're buying used. No profit, and they aren't buying as many new games.
6)PR mess and angry customers if they claim reverse compatibility, but their system can't play a significant portion of the old library (PS3 had this problem)

So yeah, overall, consumers like it, and game companies dislike it. Game companies have decided against it this generation, which has angered consumers who like it

 

[Reaper195]

The PS2 had bakcwards capability, and the 360 had it...ish.

But I also can't see the big deal about it. Does that mean that everyone who is going to buy a PS4/XBone is going to get rid of their 360/PS3? I paid good damn money for both of them, and I'm going to play those consoles into the ground. And even then, I'll buy cheap ones that still work online. Same with people complaining that the controllers won't work on the new consoles. That wasn't the case with either of the previous generations of consoles (I know the PS1 controller worked on PS2, and I think there was a third party device which allowed PS2 controllers to work with PS3). Unless the consoles are released without including at least one controller.

 

[Palademon]

Oh look my years old console is dead.

BETTER GET RID OF ALL THESE GAMES I LIKE THAT ARE NO LONGER SUPPORTED.

 

[BarelyAudible]

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

Only PS2 did, and the PS3/360 have half arsed versions and then canned it. But people act like they always had BC when actual fact they never did. Can not see the point people moan about.

We didn't always have duel thumbsticks either, but holy hell if anyone tries to make a system without 'em.

See Also: The Gameboy Advanced can play 17 years worth of games.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

And what's more, most of the much older consoles didn't have backwards compatibility because:

A: From a hardware standpoint it was ludicrous to even consider it.

B: Gaming was still viewed as a niche. A fad. Gaming platforms nothing more than overly expensive toys.

C: There wasn't exactly an enormous back-catalog of games that would suddenly become "obsolete" with the release of a new generation of consoles.

Flash forward to today and we have thousands upon thousands of titles spanning decades. Not to mention entire communities; many linked through the internet; that help keep older games relevant and flourishing.

So, given how gaming has changed I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect at least some amount of backwards compatibility with older consoles. Especially if you're only going back one generation.

But you know what OP? You're right. The console makers have every right to not put backwards compatibility into their new line of machines. Just as I have every right to say, "Well that's fucking stupid. Guess I'm not buying your console then."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On a side note:

This whole affair wouldn't be such an issue if console makers weren't so God damned stingy with how people can place content on their systems. PCs, while having their own issues, at least have an open software environment. This lends itself beautifully to developers, or even community modders, being able to generate emulators for older games to run on newer hardware.

If consoles adopted a system similar to this, and did away with at least some of the corporate red-tape, the gaming community at large would do much of the "backwards compatibility" work for them. They wouldn't have to worry about making their consoles compatible at a hardware level.

 

[Requia]

The Original Xbox has a pretty crappy library, there is a reason why it was called "The Halo Box". If you didn't like that one game, Halo, chances are you wouldn't like the Xbox.

I never got this. Jade Empire, KOTOR, KOTOR II, Fable, just for the exclusives I personally loved. And there were plenty of non exclusives that matter if you're coming in from no console or the Gamecube.

Also, it had decent BC, I played 3 of those on the 360.

 

[funkzillabot]

I take exception from your use of the word "entitled", as if backward compatibility is only something YOU PEOPLE are worried about, and not something that effects us all. I, like other people, only have so much space in my entertainment cabinet and so much money to spend, that I don't think it too much to ask that my $500 dollar game system play my old games, (which are only on DVD) and my 30+ downloadable games, that I still play, to work on my account, connected to my new system. "I" (like everyone else) have supported the company, for years and was a loyal customer -- so they are going to repay MY LOYALTY with......"Thanks, but tough luck sucker!!"

Being a customer to a company is a contract. (No different than a player signing up with the NFL.) If said company, is doing something that I no longer like or disagree with -- that contract is broken. I am allow to take my business else where. (See how this works?) This isn't about "entitlement" it's about respect, a mutual agreement. And it works both ways, if a company (or corporation) can't be bothered to show the smallest interest in customer loyalty, then there is no reason why I should give MINE in turn. And anyone who give loyalty (and money), without getting the same in return......is a fool.

 

[mysecondlife]

I won't demand backward compatibility now but I'll want it 5 - 6 years from now. I know my PS3 isn't going to survive forever. and if I happen to buy PS4, I don't want to be forced to buy another PS3 to replace it.

 

[Roxor]

Why do people want backwards compatibility in consoles?

Because every PC has had it for the last 30 years.

 

[Something Amyss]

snip

And what's more, most of the much older consoles didn't have backwards compatibility because:

A: From a hardware standpoint it was ludicrous to even consider it.

B: Gaming was still viewed as a niche. A fad. Gaming platforms nothing more than overly expensive toys.

C: There wasn't exactly an enormous back-catalog of games that would suddenly become "obsolete" with the release of a new generation of consoles.

Not to mention the lack of virtually any standards for manufacture.

I'd say a big part of it is that removal of something gamers have come to expect is not a good idea from a PR level at the very least. Now, I know the 360 never went full BC, and I know the Vita can't play PSP UMDs, but recent systems have set a general trend of backwards compatibility.

I also think it's not promising given the disregard they have for gaming with their new system, period. The console is said to get extra power from cloud-side, but that only works as long as the service is around to do that. Given it doesn't take us that long to see abandonment in games, the additional abandonment of hardware does not look promising.

This whole affair wouldn't be such an issue if console makers weren't so God damned stingy with how people can place content on their systems. PCs, while having their own issues, at least have an open software environment. This lends itself beautifully to developers, or even community modders, being able to generate emulators for older games to run on newer hardware.

If consoles adopted a system similar to this, and did away with at least some of the corporate red-tape, the gaming community at large would do much of the "backwards compatibility" work for them. They wouldn't have to worry about making their consoles compatible at a hardware level.

It's a shame they're so scared of not having complete control. Tha's why we're getting all this BS from the One in the first place. Not just no BC, but a lot of the other issues people have.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't care, so you shouldn't either. STOP CARING!

It doesn't matter to MEEEEE, so why does it matter?

Obviously you know nothing about 1st gen xbox, jon snow.

I know it's clearly an issue of care, since you've already established that the reason they break so frequently is lack of care. Therefore, if it broke, you must not care for it well.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

*Le sigh* This thread again...

We got to remember that these new consoles need to convince us - the customers - that they're worth our money, not the other way around. If the customer can't be convinced that the product is something they want or need, then they simply will not buy it. Backwards compatibility is one feature that matters to some people, and thus could sway them into buying the new console over just sticking with what they already have or buying the competitor's console / investing into a PC instead. Whether they think it's important or not is irrelevant; many potential customers such as myself find backwards compatibility a big deal and thus could be won over by such a feature.

Case in point - the entire reason I got a PS3 in 2006 instead of a 360 was because of backwards compatibility, as I owned a PS2 previously but not an original Xbox. To this date, every PS3 I've had - including my current one - have been backwards compatible. I buy and own more PS2 games than I do PS3 games, and I haven't had a PS2 in several years. Things like having a HDD instead of constantly buying memory cards as well as wireless controllers that dogs / kids / tangles won't damage make me feel like my PS3 is a direct upgrade to a PS2 and is worth the price I paid for it.

That is why backwards compatibility is such a big deal to me, and that's what's important for any console - providing what the customer wants. It's alone won't make or break a console, but it is one more incentive for people - especially people like me who may not have bought the previous console - to pick up the new console.

 

[Daw]

my 40" lcd tv is my main monitor for my PC, Which can emulate pretty much anything and play any old game i want to go to a little trouble to get working.
much less fuss than consoles are. ^_^

But it isn't very hard to make your hardware able to play old games if they put a day of work into it, They just don't want to market something they could make more money selling old consoles for. ^_^

 

[Tanakh]

I have but to wonder at the mental health of the people saying they want it because PC gaming has featured this for all it's history. Guess they either have zero memory and logic or they are new to PC and don't really remember anything before 2000.