Is Backwards Compatibility Really Necessary for a Console?

[James]

This is a touchy subject as it's probably not the most important thing in the world for a console from a business standpoint but it's still interesting and a great feature at that.

As for the next generation we're going to have 3 major competitors in the race again and Sony has already officially stated several times that the PS3(I hope they call it something else.) is going to be backwards compatible with the PS2 but may not be backwards compatible with the Playstation. On the other side Microsoft’s new Xbox which will hopefully be called something more intelligent than Xbox 360 may or may not be backwards compatible with the Xbox. Microsoft representitives have stated their interests in making their next console fully backwards compatible with their current one mainly because with Live support etc. everything would be streamlined nicely in one complete package. And since it looks like Sony is definitely going ahead with it Microsoft is going to have to as it would probably be a stupid business decision not to.

As for Nintendo they have never released a home console that is backwards compatible with their previous one, the Super NES or Super Famicom depending on where you are is a good example of this. They studied the possibility rather extensively for a few months and came up with something but decided not to include the feature built in the console because they would have had to sell it for $60 - $80 US more and that might have made the competitions lower prices more attractive at that point. As for the GameBoy line of products each subsequent version of the system is fully compatible with the last as to give the new system the ability to play hundreds or even thousands of titles right out of the box. Nintendo's newest system Nintendo DS even has an extra slot so it can play GBA games, which in essence is the perfect marketing decision and an excellent feature. As for the Revolution(By far the best tentative title when compared to anything either of the other two companies have come up with) which could turn out to be the ‘be all end all’ of video game based home entertainment or it could fail as far as a profit goes and even so it will probably not be the last home console Nintendo releases, it also has a good chance of being backwards compatible with Gamecube software.

The only problem with having such a feature is the cost of it which in turn will end up loosing the companies more money unless they plan on releasing the systems for around $400 US or so which in my opinion is a bad idea, just look at the Saturn or Microsoft’s original estimate for the Xbox. The main cost problem two of the three systems will have will be running the old software on completely different chipsets(Sony and Microsoft; the Nintendo Gamecube runs on a Custom IBM Power PC chip and the Revolution will as well). Because of this they will have to either emulate their previous consoles or have a dedicated Hardware chip built onto the board.

Either way backwards compatibility will bring the next generation of home consoles an already complete library of hundreds or even thousands of games for the consumer to choose from right from the start of launch and as such will hopefully boost sales but will also make the previous console somewhat worthless in the long run.

[SuperNES]

it doesnt really matter for us collectors cause heck most collectors own like every system ever made..

[Berty]

True,

But i don't have all of my console hooked up at once so i like backwards compatability for the convenience.

[Sylentwulf]

I think it's stupid NOT to make it back compatible. I'd gladly pay an extra $20-$30 per console to make them backwards compatible with all previous systems in the line.

[Dangerboy]

I used to not care, but the PS2 and GC GBA player have proven two things to chaneg my mind:

A. It allows geeks like me to screen capture stuff without needing special tools or roms or emulators. Plus with the PS2's better S-Video support, screenshots are much cleaner.

b. In the PS2's case, it allows me to play PS1 games through PS2 Component out, and let me say, these games have never looked better. Heck, with the smoothing option on, they look *damn* pretty.

Who knows, maybe PS3 will have a PS2 Smoothing option? :)

[racerx]

As a gamer or a collector?

As a gamer it's not a necessity by any means, but it's certainly a nice plus. Anything that can simplify the nightmare behind my entertainment center is a Good Thing.

As a collector it doesn't matter at all, as the hardware ends up relatively cheap anyway.

[Flack]

I think it's more of a selling point for families who are only going to own one gaming console. My sister-in-law bought a PS2 simply because it would play her kids PSX games. They probably have 10 games, but paid $30-$50 for each one and doesn't want to simply throw/give them away.

DP may be the wrong place to get an unbiased opinion, as there are lots and lots of people here who have a dozen or two systems hooked up (I know I have at least 4 PSX units, a PS1, and a PS2 (not all hooked up of course but still)).

[drewbrim]

It doesn't mater much to me, the problem I do have with it is that it makes the previous console/handheld pretty much worthless as far as the value goes. Not talking about the resale value or anything just the usefullness of the machine. After the PS3 is out for a little while (long enough that a used PS2 is like $20-$30) there will really never be a reason to buy a PS1. I know, I know, LCD screen, compact, blah blah blah. You guys know what I mean.

[Jibbajaba]

I think it is a nice added feature, and it definitely helps the console sell well when it first comes out, because the buyer has the option of ditching his or her old console and picking up the new one without being restricted to the small amount of launch games. The main reason that I am not picking up a PSP at launch is that I will have nothing to play on it with the exception of whatever launch titles I would pick up. I got a PS2 on launch day because on top of playing SSX, I was still playing my PSX games on it. No backwards compatibility means that I am going to wait until there are enough must have titles on the system that it becomes worth picking up.

I hope that all made sense.

Chris

[bargora]

I think it's pretty cool because it makes the previous generation of console dirt cheap so that I can pick up a second console for system link action. I've even believe that some PS2 games allow more than two systems to be linked through a Firewire hub for three or more players to compete. But I'm not going to spend $100+ for each. Bring on the PS3!

[DynastyLawyer]

Is it necessary and is it cool are two seperate issues. I've loved backwords compatible systems, and I think it's handy as hell that once the PS2 came out, I could essentially give my PS1 to a PC gamer friend who had yet to play the classics on that machine. Likewise, Backwords Compatibility tends to save a ton of space, and let's face it, there's not nigh infinate places to put your gaming systems, if we're talking about any electrical setup I've ever seen.

Is it necessary though? I'd call that a stretch. I can come up with two counter-examples of good systems without backwords compatibility pretty easily: Dreamcast and SNES. Likewise, unless we're talking about a power-base converter that's essentially seperate from the system itself, I have the feeling that the reason PS2 was so weak graphically and so difficult to program for was partially because they felt they needed to create a PS1+ sort of architecture, that everyone else had to react to in despair.

[squidblatt]

Very important to me. Consoles don't last forever, neither is there enough room to keep each one hooked up. I'd hate to lose my entire Xbox library because my hardware crapped out or because I have to stash it in a closet.

[calthaer]

Having a ready-made library (usually of games that are now relatively inexpensive) for a system upon launch is a major boost.

[NintendoMan]

it doesnt really matter for us collectors cause heck most collectors own like every system ever made..

What I was thinking.

Now, it definately matters to the mainstream type gamer.

[kainemaxwell]

Really should matter, it does to me so that I can still play the library of games I have for the previous system without having to get rid of them or keep the previous system around still. Besides, long as companies add features to enhanse previous system titles (ie PS2) then that should be a good selling point as well.

[Great Hierophant]

Backwards compatibility never seems to be exactly 100% Some games won't play on the new hardware because of the marginal tweaks that only worked on the old hardware or exploited bugs that have been eliminated in the updated design. While the compatibility tends to be good across the board, what happens when it comes to the one good but obscure game you like?

The three console systems that are known to be backwards compatible are the Atari 7800, the Sega Genesis and the Sony Playstation 2. (Both the Colecovision and the Atari 5200 had 2600 adapters, but the adapter did all the work. By comparison, the Power Base Converter only matched the pinouts to the Master System cartridges and cards.) While this was going on, each previous generation console got a redesign, (Atari 2600 Jr., Sega Master System II, Sony PSOne) and newly released games. Fortunately you could use the original controllers for each console. The Sega Genesis is the most compatible, with the Playstation a second. The Atari 7800has the worst compatibility (at least in regard to important games.)

The four handheld systems include the Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, the Neo Geo Color and the Wonderswan Color. The Gameboy Advance has a larger screen, so B&W and Color games are windowboxed. It is better with compatibility with Gameboy Color games than the Gameboy Color was with the original Gameboy games.

[drwily008]

I voted no because sy in the PS2's case anyone who used it's backwards compatibility practically HALVED the life of their $300+ system when it came out. Now look at it how many people (little Jimmies of the world) even touch their PSOne games. We collectors still love all of the great games but that feature seems directed more towards your MADDEN 97' & Syphon Filter fans. I'll just keep a PSOne in my gameroom and a PS2 in the living room.

However some systems (like the GBA) I love because I dont have to carry around 3 systems on a trip. Tough to say but I think the fact that we do have to pay more & it shortens the lives of our disc based systems I vote NO.

[Iron Draggon]

In the old age NO, in the new age YES. Imagine what PC gaming would be like if you had to get a new computer and all new games for it every time a new version of Windows was released. Imagine what XP did to DOS games happening with every new OS upgrade instead of happening every 10 years.

Modern console lifespans are only 2.5 years now instead of 5 years. In the 16BIT - 64BIT era, it was un-important. In the 128BIT - 512BIT era, it will be all-important. Sony has already proved that. The DC's lack of it was one of two things that killed that system against the PS2. The other thing was the DC's lack of DVD ROM support. So the next battle will see the big M and the big N matching Sony's previous-gen back-compatibility, or they will die fast.

What I predict will eventually happen is that all the surviving competitors will find a way to cooperate as they compete to coexist in an increasingly cash poor world. At some point all the major manufacturers will agree on a core architecture, and just sell their own brand names of that architecture in a manner similar to the way that the 3DO system was marketed. The main source of competition will become game software sales, and what will drive hardware competition will be additional features beyond gaming capabilities.

I say that because we all know that hardware sales are not where all the money is in the gaming industry, and it never has been. That's why Sega got out of the hardware business, and that's why the remaining big players will eventually have to form alliances with each other to meet hardware demand while losing as little revenue on hardware as possible. This will allow them to focus on software as much as they'll need to focus on software at the ever increasing pace of technology and consumer expectations. Because as the gaming industry continues to mature, it's core audience will mature with it, but their disposable incomes won't be able to keep up with the vast wealth of the uber profitable megacorporations. So gamers will have less and less to spend, and they'll be more and more finicky about what they will spend on.

And of course, the industry will come to realize that another crash will be inevitable if they don't form some sort of alliances with each other. But it'll be savvy enough to prevent another crash from ever happening again, so it will do what it has to do to survive. And that will benefit gamers, because they won't have to buy multiple systems just to be able to play all the games anymore. They'll still be able to show their brand loyalties to their favorite manufacturers when they choose which version of "the console" they buy, as well as when they choose which games to buy or not buy, but the days of fanboys as we know them now will be long lost memories. Everyone will have the same system, so the architecture will no longer be the issue that fanboys debate with each other. It will be all about the games, and all the additional features that their chosen manufacturer's unit has to offer as opposed to the "competition". But the beauty of the console wars in the future will be that all the major manufacturers will split the profits from their hardware sales evenly amogst themselves. So even if one manufacturer's unit becomes a clear leader over the others, it won't affect the bottom line of the "competition" in any way. The software wars will be the main event.

It may take several more generations of hardware for all this to happen, and the big 3 may get whittled down to the big 2 before this happens, but it will happen eventually. It will have to happen for the industry to survive. You may or may not agree, but I'm willing to bet that most industry analysts will agree. If not now, they will surely concede these points at some point in the future. And the reason for this is because the gaming industry is the only branch of the entertainment industry that still fights all its battles for the disposable incomes of its consumers on more than one front. Any music CD will play in any CD ROM. Any movie DVD will play in any DVD ROM. And so it will come to pass that eventually any game disc will play in any game player. It will have to become that way, or consumers will demand it at some point.

So to answer the question in summary, speak out with your wallet now, and refuse to buy any system that isn't back-compatible. But at the same time, write letters to all the major manufacturers and demand multi-compatibility as well. If enough people who buy consoles insist that their next new console purchase will only be made if their demands are met, and they inform all the manufacturers of this immediately after purchasing a new console, then the big players will have no choice but to take it seriously and give us what we want. Because if they don't, we'll do it for them with emulation, and they're already catching onto that reality. That's why so many of them are starting to go after it in such a big way now, trying to kill it before it kills them. But as I said, at some point they'll realize all the benefits of emulation, and what it is about it that makes it so popular with gamers. Then they'll reinvent it in their own image, and sell it back to us as something similar to what I predict.

This is my personal vision of the future of gaming. Your mileage may vary. I didn't intend for this post to stray so far off topic, but this topic inspired my vision, so why not share it here? After all, it is my answer to the question. And it's all relevant, as we shall see soon enough. You read it here first! ;)

[AMG]

No. I keep all my consoles.

But to the average game buyer, it might matter.

[Videogamerdaryll]

it doesnt really matter for us collectors cause heck most collectors own like every system ever made..

Yup..I agree..That would be me..

[jdc]

To the average consumer who doesn't consider themselves a gamer, backwards compatability and multi usage is a very important part of the buying decision. A new console is a huge purchase and must be heavily justified. I had a very hard time selling the Gamecube because it could not play old format AND couldn't play movies and music. For many people there was absolutely no value in buying a Gamecube when the PS2 did it all. Dumb move on Nintendo's part in the eyes of the consumer.

For the average casual gamer backwards compatibility means value and multi usage means even better value. If they can find a way to run pirated software, so much the better.

For hardcores it doesn't matter as much since the system will most likely be purchased at the closest possible opportunity anyways. Backwards compatiblity, to me, means that I can have one system hooked up instead of two and also have a backup player for later on incase anything craps out prematurely.

[izret101]

It really depends on the console.
It isn't that hard to make a system reverse compatible and it offers an automatic library to any system on release day.

It to me just seems like good buisness sense to still offer the reverse compatability.

It can't make things worse for a system by that being so.

[ventrra]

I voted no because sy in the PS2's case anyone who used it's backwards compatibility practically HALVED the life of their $300+ system when it came out. Now look at it how many people (little Jimmies of the world) even touch their PSOne games..
I'm no "little Jimmy" myself, however, I get quite a bit of use out of my PS2's backward compatibility. (It doesn't hurt any that I have 10 times as many games for the PS1 as the PS2.) :D
I don't think that backward compatability is probably absoulutely needed, but it's certainly a nice (and very useful) feature to have.

[James]

Modern console lifespans are only 2.5 years now instead of 5 years. In the 16BIT - 64BIT era, it was un-important. In the 128BIT - 512BIT era, it will be all-important. Sony has already proved that. The DC's lack of it was one of two things that killed that system against the PS2. The other thing was the DC's lack of DVD ROM support. So the next battle will see the big M and the big N matching Sony's previous-gen back-compatibility, or they will die fast.

I couldn't disagree with this more. First off the average lifespan of a modern console is not 2.5 years, I have know idea where you pulled that from, it is currently 4.8 years on average with the way things are shaping up between the three players. If these companies were to release a new system every 2.5 years that would horribly piss off the consumers and bankrupt the console part of these companies much the way it did to Sega. Microsoft will be releasing a new console at the end of the year almost guaranteed which will mean the Xbox lasted exactly 4 years and Nintendo will release their Revolution shortly afterwards in the March to June area of 2006 meaning theirs lasted about 4.5 years. Sony on the other hand will not be releasing one until the end of 2006 meaning theirs lasted 6 years. Second there was never a 64 bit era, it was referred to as the 32 bit era being the PSX the N64 and the Saturn respectively and a bunch of others that are more obscure. The N64 does contain a 64 bit CPU per say but it is not a true 64 bit CPU as far as CPUs are measured. As for your supposed 128 bit - 512 bit era(dear god do you have any idea how long it will be until we see these or how powerful a 512 bit CPU is?) The fact of the matter is the current Gen consoles are all 32 bit. The PS2 has a 128-bit "Emotion Engine™" which again like the N64 is not a true 128 bit CPU. The Dreamcast said somewhere in its advertising that it had a 128 bit CPU which is a blatant lie it has a custom 32 bit Hitachi Power PC CPU. The Gamecube has a Custom IBM 32 Bit Power PC CPU and the Xbox has a Custom Intel 32 Bit CPU. The next Generation of Consoles being the "Xbox Next", The "PS3" and the "Nintendo Revolution" will all be true 64 bit consoles running on Custom IBM G5 Power PCs that are architectured to take full advantage of everything a 64 bit CPU can do. I do agree with the part about the Dreamcast dying because of lack of DVD support but not the backwards compatibility part although that would have been very nice and convenient if I could play all my Sega Saturn games and even Sega CDs. As for Microsoft and Nintendo dying I don't think there's much chance of that happening if they decide not to be Backwards compatible although again that would be a stupid business decision.



What I predict will eventually happen is that all the surviving competitors will find a way to cooperate as they compete to coexist in an increasingly cash poor world. At some point all the major manufacturers will agree on a core architecture, and just sell their own brand names of that architecture in a manner similar to the way that the 3DO system was marketed. The main source of competition will become game software sales, and what will drive hardware competition will be additional features beyond gaming capabilities.


As for this I couldn't agree with you more I just hope when it does happen probably ten or so years from now we will be able to purchase these multi compatible hybrid systems for a reasonable price. The 3DO would have succeeded and would be in first place today if it was sold at the standard $300 or so and had a bit more central control instead of everyone just doing their own thing with the console.

[Gamereviewgod]

I find it funny when people say that "parents like them because it doesn't seem like they wasted money on all the old games." Huh? The kids still have the old system right? What's the big deal? That money wasn't wasted. They can still play them whenver they want.

On my side, no, I don't care. I have a PS One and PS2 hooked up. Some games don't work on the PS2. Might as well be sure I can play everything. Plus, if this is a feature that in any way takes away from the power (graphically, sound wise, etc.) to save the company money, then it can go the way of all those features like MP3 playback, GPS, and anything else related. Let the console play games.

[CartCollector]

As stated before, if you have the original system, do you really need it? BUT, if the new system you're buying has it, you can always sell off the old one. You save some space for your other consoles, as well as get some cash ($50-under) back.

[Aswald]

Yes, absolutely.

Especially in the case of the Playstation 2. Imagine all of those Playstation games, such as Spiro the Dragon and those arcade collections, becoming useless.

Even some of the 2600 games the 7800 could play, such as Super Breakout, made it worthwhile.