Backwards Compatibility: Yea or Nay?

[Goblin]

I'm sure a similiar topic has been done before, this is to be directly related to the 3 recently announced systems. With the number of dedicated systems threads going around, I haven't seen this questions discussed as it pertains to all the collective whole.

I was reading through posts on a number of other boards today and it really got me think, is this a good thing and would it sway me towards one system or another.

The only current gen system I own is an X-Box, and my first impression of backwards compatibility in the 360 was that I'd probably stick with MS in the next round so as not to loose what I already have. Then I really started to think, why not switch and get a PS3 instead. My thoughts being, I have an x-box in which to play the titles I already own, so backwards compatibility doesn't really give me anything tangible other than one less system hooked up to the TV.

On the other hand if I spring for a PS3, not only will I get new titles, but the worlds of PS1, and PS2 will be opened up. To someone like me who after the 16 bit days sat out the 32/64 bit era, the idea of now getting 3 systems in one is appealing. Will I be playing the older titles a lot, probably not - but there are a number of cheap old games I missed and if I now have the ability I might take them for a spin.

Not sure what I'll end up doing, too early to tell. I'm just thinking to a fan boy backwards compatibility may not mean anything, but to someone who is looking at buying for the first time maybe adds some extra weight. The same argument can be had with the other systems as well.

[Cthulhu]

Backwards compatibility means a LOT to the average consumer. The PS2 launched while I was working at an Electonics Boutique, and I was amazed at how many people were totally enthralled with the fact that it could play PS1 games. "Why does it matter so much?"; I thought.

It does makes sense though. First, there's the "you're not giving up anything" factor. Your new system is a total upgrade - nothing whatsoever is lost. Next, the idea of having more than one game system hooked up to a TV is ridiculous to a non-gamer. It seems silly and redundant. I had ... what, 14? Lots of systems hooked up to my TV at home, so I never caught onto this until later, however. LOL

[XxMe2NiKxX]

Nay. Personally, I think they should do what Nintendo's doing with the Revolution (make the games downloadable, but not technically backwards compatible) as opposed to backwards compatibility. They could spend more effort on making the technology in the system itself better while keeping the price the same instead of featuring backwards compatibility. Just my thoughts.

[Drexel923]

Nay. Personally, I think they should do what Nintendo's doing with the Revolution (make the games downloadable, but not technically backwards compatible) as opposed to backwards compatibility. They could spend more effort on making the technology in the system itself better while keeping the price the same instead of featuring backwards compatibility. Just my thoughts.

Ummm...the Revolution can play Gamecube discs. ;)

My opinion on the subject is that I like it, but it's not necessary. It's great for saving space in the old entertainment center, but it won't stop me from buying a system if its not included.

[felix]

honestly, I dont see any reason why not? I havent really heard a good reason.. Its more games that you can play on a current system. Plus if you are anything like me, you dont buy the system asap so when you do, all of your older systems games are compadible on it.. can anybody aruge a VALID reason of why backwards compad. is a negitive?? Its like saying you dont want to buy a car because it has air conditioning.. its a perk and a sellingpoint for the system.. if its free, then why bitch about it?

[Milk]

I like that the GBA is backward compatible, since I don't want to lug around an original Game Boy, a GBC and a GBA on road trips just to play my games. For consoles, it's a little different. I haven't bought a new console in a dog's age, but if I did compatibility wouldn't be a huge concern. It's nice to save space and adds some value to the console (two systems for the price of one!), but it's not like the older machine stops working once it's out of production.

[SirDrexl]

I think it's only a negative for the console makers, as it means they have to take additional steps to accomodate it. Remember how Nintendo said they wanted the GameCube to be focused only on games and not playing DVDs? Well, I think backwards compatibility can be the same kind of thing (not that I don't appreciate either feature though). It takes away from the effort put into making a whole new system since they have to consider how they will support the old games along the way. It makes the system cost a little more to produce, although I think much of the cost goes into the R&D beforehand rather than the actual manufacturing of the finalized system. Even if it's entirely software-based, somebody has to pay to get that emulation software developed. It could also mean, to a small extent, that you end up having your new games compete with your old games: if people can play all the old games on the new system, they may end up buying fewer of the new ones.

All of the above is just speculation on my part, and could be totally wrong.

Of course, it's great for the consumers, since you have a system that can play more games, and it isn't going to cost any more, since the console will be priced according to competition and not based on what it costs to produce.

[goatdan]

Backwards compatibility has become a must because it is needed for third party developers to want to finish games for an older, dying console while not making people lose faith in it. In the past, companies like Nintendo and Sega kept pushing out stuff long after they launched a new console. Without backwards compatibility, doing so is stupid, as the new consoles is where the big money is.

Making a console backwards compatible means that the people who don't upgrade to the new one keep getting new games, while the people that do upgrade keep the ability to purchase them if they want. For developers, it is a win-win situation.

For the most part, it also works very well for gamers too ;)

[punkoffgirl]

Obviously, the manufacturers make more money in the long run if they don't include compatibility with older games in their newest systems. It forces the consumers to buy the new media, as eventually, manufacturers will stop producing games for the old system.

[Flack]

I'm sure a similiar topic has been done before

Yup. This exact thing was just recently done! You know the drill.

[ Poll ] Backwards Compatiblity / Throwing your old system out
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=58171

[ Poll ] Is Backwards Compatibility Really Necessary for a Console?
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55324

I hate Backward Compatable Systems
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42410

Was backward compatibility ever a real issue?
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40051

...etc.