DISQUS

Tony Sadowski · 9 months ago

I'd talk about wanting to keep my Wii Shop downloads in the next gen, but I'm just focusing on having a reliable place to store and access them without constant shuffling, deleting and re-downloading on my CURRENT system.

As games get bigger and better, there will be less and less interest in revisiting that old crap. It made sense for PS2, because PS1 was such a hit, and everyone had a ton of games. It made sense, again, for PS3...

...or so we THOUGHT.

With game downloads and new full releases to pick up dropping all the time, who needs to go back to the PS2 or PS1 days to have fun?

If you're THAT dependent on a game or handful of games from an era long gone, I'd argue that you probably still have access to a console that can play it/them.

mclazyj · 9 months ago

This ended up being my solution to backwards compatibility for Xbox games. I kept my original Xbox. It made no sense to trust emulation. And most 360 owners made this their solution to backwards compatibility.

mclazyj · 9 months ago

While I focused on Sony and Microsoft, one has to wonder as well what happens with the next Nintendo console. Normally the completely revamp the design, but how do you do that when the titles that have been created are so embedded to the controller type?

Jordan_Snyder · 9 months ago

Let's think about this for a second. Microsoft and Sony have basically ignored backwards compatibility, and Nintendo is relying on it. When compared to the other two systems, Nintendo is lacking in the third-party attach rate but ahead in the first-party attach rate. Microsoft and Sony both know that they have the support from the third-parties to carry them along, whereas Nintendo has to do everything themselves. It's games like Mario Kart, Wii Play, and Wii Fit that are selling like hot cakes, while Zack and Wiki goes to the bargain bin after two hours. It's the first-party games that are really taking off and hitting big with the casual gamers.

Honestly, Nintendo doesn't have to do a damn thing and the Wii will still sell by the truck loads (while earning them a $6 profit per console), but they have to make sure they keep drawing in those casual gamers, otherwise, there goes 80% of their current target audience. Out of the hardcore crowd and the casual crowd, which group do you think never played the GameCube? The casuals. Both groups are most likely partaking in the Virtual Console, and let's not forget about New Play Control. I don't think anyone would deny that Nintendo likes having that backwards compatibility to fall back on.

That's my take on the situation. While it would be nice to be able to dig into my old library, or just buy some missed gems, Microsoft and Sony don't need to take advantage of backwards compatibility. It might even be a hindrance or burden on them. On the other hand, Nintendo is not afraid to take a game from ten years ago and shove it in your face. I would hate to see the feature gone completely, but the companies have to get their priorities in order.

StephenJMunn · 9 months ago

In fairness, Microsoft doesn't have ten year old games to offer. The Xbox brand doesn't reach that far back, and there are only a handful of games on the original Xbox worth playing that weren't also available on PS2 or Gamecube. Sony can reach back two generations to PS1, and they also own older brands like Lemmings. There are even NES games Sony owns, like Solstice. Then you look at Nintendo, which is currently in their fifth generation console. I will argue that there is no disputing which console maker has the richest history of software worth playing, first, second, and third party. If Nintendo drops that backwards compatibility next time around (and there's no reason for any of these companies to drop it in my opinion) that is a great loss to the consumer.

chackokhan · 9 months ago

Backwards compatibility, was one of the major factors I was considering when I was looking to upgrade to the next gen consoles. I have a huge library of games for the PS1 and PS2, so it was natural for me to upgrade to my (1st gen) PS3. As for my Wii the ability to play old school games, was also attractive to me. Which also led me to discover and build a nice library of GameCube games that I missed out on.

StephenJMunn · 9 months ago

When the backwards-compatibility was lifted from the PS3, I rushed out to buy a refurbished launch model. I had no intention of owning a PS2 and PS3 at the same time when a smarter alternative was available. The PS3's ability to use the HDD as a home for virtual memory cards makes it the best place to play PS1 and PS2 games, provided you have a launch model.

chackokhan · 9 months ago

The thing that "erks" me, is that both M$ and SONY promised backwards compatibility on their consoles. This wouldn't have been an issue if they didn't make it a major selling point to upgrade to the "Next Gen" console. Both companies have gone back on their promises, by giving their fan bases partial compatibility. The PS3 is still able to play PS1 games, and the 360 is able play some Xbox games. How lame is that.

Andy Anonymous · 9 months ago

I would argue that backwards compatibility is more important than ever before. Because consoles are now of necessity built with moving parts and sensitive laser lenses, we're seeing an end to the days when we could keep one in perfect working order for fifteen, ten...even five years. So simply keeping them to play our old titles on is becoming less of an option, and as production on a last-gen console ceases and more and more of them malfunction, you could see a situation where your entire library of games for that console becomes unplayable...unless you have backward compatibility from a newer console.

morphiend · 9 months ago

Honestly, Sony did the backwards compatibility right, and the platform support wrong. There are a couple of major differences between the PS1->PS2 and the PS2->PS3. First on the list is that the PS1->PS2 included functionality not seen before: DVD playback. Yes, the PS3 did add Blu-Ray, but most people will agree that the jump from VHS->DVD was much greater than DVD->BluRay (especially since it was during the beginning of the format war). So by buying your PS2, out of the box you got a cheap DVD player, a PS1, and a PS2 (sound familiar?). Now, here's where the next kicker came in: support for the previous platform. Not long after the PS2's launch, new titles specific to the PS1 were quickly becoming scarce. Developers and publishers embraced the platform and the games and genres that players wanted showed up on the "next gen" system. Right now, at 2 years into the PS3, we're still seeing active development for the PS2, where a game is ONLY made for the older system. This does nothing but hurt the sales of the PS3 since there's no incentive to upgrade.

Nintendo has done an excellent job in support backwards compatibility, for a console that had a relatively small game base (unfortunately). So for those that had GC's, the Wii was a nice upgrade/replacement and for those that missed the GC, they could play some of the classics from that era even on the original controllers.

I do laud Microsoft for attempting backwards compatibility, because it helped people make the jump from the Xbox to the 360. Another thing that helped was that the fact that the original Xbox was on its way out the door when the 360 launched, thereby making it a necessity to support it in the beginning of the 360's life. If they truly cared about BC, they would have spent more time on it, but honestly their money is made on pushing new content and not having people buy used games and replaying. And we all know MS is all about the Benjamin's. :) Also, as with the PS2, the original Xbox saw a quick decline in platform-specific titles.

Personally, I love BC and was a big reason why I wanted a PS3 with it, as well as not as interested in the 360. I had a nice library of PS2 games that I still go back and play. Having to keep another console around to play it sucks. Although it does help that cable manufacturers have finally built multi-console AV cables, keeping space for the hardware around is just not practical.

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

Let's be honest. WE only care about backwards compatibility because we're cheap. I'm sorry, but the Consumer Saving Money really isn't much of a priority for manufacturers of any stripe. They'll give it lip service, they'll find a couple ways to spin it like their product is a great bargain, but at the bottom line, they exist to make money off of us. The only mitigating factor is what the market will bear, and history shows that game consoles sell awfully well without backwards compatibility of any kind.

And as for the ability to ALWAYS have playable old games (once your PS2 finally dies, for example), I'd say that ship sailed long ago. These things don't last forever. I can't play my old Apple //c favorites without jumping through huge emu hoops, and only a small percentage of purchasers are going to take the effort to figure that kind of stuff out. We all just have to learn to live with the fact that someday we will no longer be able to play Jumping Flash anymore.

Unless you re-buy the game digitally on a future system, of course.

I don't get why we think we all deserve games that last forever. Once you lose the little Diver Man, your copy of Mousetrap is junk and you have to buy a new one.

My take on the three: Microsoft's first Xbox had a lousy overall library (under four years, remember) and they saw that they were already upselling fans to the 360, so back-compat was minimized.

Sony saw that there's very little need to maintain PS2 compatibility when anybody can go buy a PS2 if they're so deadset to play a PS2 game... for under $100.

Nintendo had similar architecture going from Gamecube to Wii, so full Gamecube compatibility was so cheap as to be a no-brainer. But given that quality Gamecube games had already all but disappeared from shelves six months into the Wii's lifespan, you have to wonder how many Gamecube games actually landed inside Wiis.

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

And yes, that "Let's be honest" comment is from Joe Fourhman. Something is wonky with my DISQUS/Facebook Connect.

mclazyj · 9 months ago

I like the Mousetrap example you give, because it is true. We, as consumers, do want everything to last, but that does not happen anymore. And to be honest, why take away research, budget, and time by trying to make older games work. The only reason that has happen is that the physical media that we are using has been kept around since the PS1. DVD drives can read CDs and so on. In the day of the cartridge, there was a physical limitation to playing your old console games on the new console, because they cartridges physically would not work. I know there were adaptors that came along for some of these consoles, to play older games, but their support was spotty at best.

And these companies can make more money by repackaging the items on the marketplace as donwloadable items. I am sure that a chunk of people bought Halo via the Xbox Originals program. I don't know why, as you can buy it in a store far cheaper, but they did. Prepare for more downloadable items with the next console. All it takes is drive space.

StephenJMunn · 9 months ago

You make an excellent point: DVD players read CDs. BluRay players read DVDs. Why should we have to throw away our DVDs when we buy a BluRay player? These companies designed and manufactured these consoles. They know how to make the hardware. There's no reason why, when the same drive can read all the formats, that they should omit this feature. Nintendo gets a pass on everything before Gamecube because they're cartridges, but the only argument I can see Microsoft or Sony making for dropping backwards compatibility is that they're worried software sales of their current gen games will suffer. I don't accept that it's significantly more expensive to make a backwards compatible console when it's only using tech that is at least five years old.

Andy Anonymous · 9 months ago

I think you underestimate just how quickly you may find yourself with an entire generation of consoles having died out. We are no longer talking about Apple IIc lengths of time here (machines were still easy to find that were compatible with that device for over a decade after its release, so the games would have been playable for much longer), we're potentially talking about five to ten years. If you're happy having the library you spent so much money on become worthless in that short time frame, great. I'm sure not, especially when backwards compatibility provides a decent alternative for as long as it's viable. It's not an issue of being "cheap" at all, it's an issue of wanting lasting value for the money I spend, especially when many of these games are ones I simply want to be able to replay for a long time to come.

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

Again, I think the core issue here is how often you really go back and play games that are five to ten years old. For me, that amount would be almost never.

I still don't see why we think electronic media should be for life, when everything else we buy, from VHS movies to audio cassettes and from cars to houses, was/is either outmoded, replaced, or requires a constant influx of money to maintain it.

Unless you're talking about the Sears Lifetime guarantee on your Craftsman tool kit, nothing lasts forever.

StephenJMunn · 9 months ago

And would you be happy to keep an original Gameboy around so you could go back and play Pokémon Red or Blue? Or do you prefer playing those on a nice backlit SP?

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

I don't see myself ever going back and playing Pokemon Red or Blue. I always buy the new games.

Andy Anonymous · 9 months ago

I played Super Mario Bros. 3 just today, Zelda LttP last week and a host of other titles within the past month. Many games remain fun to play long after their release, due to a combination of nostalgia and excellent game design. And I'm far from alone: retro game downloads on services like Gametap, Wii Virtual Console and Xbox Live Arcade have been a huge success.

Unfortunately, while some of your favorites do become available as downloads later on, many do not and probably never will, often due to licensing issues or simply not having been popular enough.

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

Sure, and companies will capitalize on that to make you buy those classics over and over again. THAT is the business model, not letting you play them forever for free after only purchasing them once.

The real question facing the next generation: will we be able to transfer our downloadable purchases across to the next Wii, PS4 or Xbox? I bet it will be frustratingly random, with some developers/companies allowing it, and others pinning the blame on incompatible hardware changes.

I wouldn't call the retro game download services a huge success. Turner just offloaded Gametap, and we rarely get sellthrough reports on what people actually buy on PSN / WiiWare / XBLA... which suggests the numbers are nothing spectacular when compared to retail releases. And I'll wager the new games sell far better than the older games anyway.

StephenJMunn · 9 months ago

I understand your argument, but I completely disagree. I care about backwards compatibility not only because it's more cost effective, but also because it's more convenient. We're using displays with a limited number of inputs. I've got my old 8, 16, and 64 bit consoles hooked to my TV through a switch box. This is an extra device that cost me more than $100 and all it's doing is waiting in case I feel like playing an old cartridge for NES, SNES, or Genesis. If my Wii or PS3 could run any of those cartridges, I wouldn't have to have those systems or that switch box. If a Dreamcast could play Genesis games, I'd own one of those instead. Having the newest system in a product line is far more appealing when its software library starts hundreds or thousands strong at launch, particularly with features like virtual memory cards, smoothing, and upsampling.

Joe Fourhman · 9 months ago

Absolutely, but that's at your convenience, not the company's.

I think they've found all the backwards compatibility you're going to see in the future: re-buy as downloadable files. Unless suddenly people stop buying new hardware and cause a huge outcry for nostalgia games (say Sonic's Ultimate randomly sells 10 million copies in a month), I can't imagine longterm backwards compatibility becoming a major thing.

You are unlike most people. Most consumers just buy what is new and rarely consider going back to old Genesis games. And for those that do, Nintendo makes you re-buy them or Sega re-issues them as plug-and-play or retro collections.

You're kinda asking the companies to save you money by making old games continue to run... and that's a neat bullet point for about six months into the new hardware launch, but it loses the console makers money in the long term. They want you always buying new, not living off stuff you bought ten years back. That's why they're trying to find ways to gun down emu and choke off the used market.

Would it be great if they all had full backwards compatibility? Sure. But they're not going to do that for free (maybe something like GameTap is the solution), and I'm not about to hold it against them because they don't want to invest the resources into it. Especially given that most people seem to buy up new systems and new games without thinking much about it.

Andrew Adam · 9 months ago

I love the fact my Wii is backwards compatible. I still play a lot of my GCN titles, so I sure hope they keep it around. But I see financially with online games why it can be bad.