Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»
1Jun 13

So there's been a lot of talk about how the PS4 and Xbone aren't going to be backward comptable with 360 and PS4 games, not just the discs but not even the stuff you downloaded which sucks. Ok guys, you're trying to save a few dollars in production by nixing some of the crap gamers don't care about like Xbone's cable TV B.S. unless you were hair gel guy on GT's Bonus Round (seriously go watch that, I swear he had to be paid by M$ to make the TV feature sound awesome).

But this isn't going to be about why consoles should or shouldn't have it. I am thinking more of what if the console makers are purposely leaving it out to make more money off us? Think about it.

Now when this gen started, all three consoles could play games from the previous gen though the 360 was limited and emulators had to be downloaded to play the entire Xbox (1?) library. Now originally the first wave of PS3's did play PS2 games but later models nixed it. Then not long after the PS3's dropped it's ability to play PS2 games, we started seeing these.

663930_254225_thumb.jpg649670_236664_thumb.jpg997773_185775_thumb.jpg

These are the ones I have played and I am considering getting the Kingdom Hearts 1.5 game later this year. On one hand, it's nice having these collections in HD on one disc and if you're like me and didn't own a PS2, it's a nice way to catch up on stuff you missed. But what if you had the PS2 versions of these games and your PS2 dies? My friend loves the R&C series and played the PS2 games over and over again. They had a first gen PS3 that could play them but eventually it wore out and had to be replaced and their PS2 died shortly after. Lucky Sony got money out of her to purchase games she already owned.

Now all the game companies have been making money rehashing classics for a while now. The good part is, most of these are a good deal. They're usually cheaper than new AAA titles. All 3 compilations I showed were $39.99 at launch as I recall though I would argue that both Jak and Ratchet's could've thrown in the PSP outings as well as Deadlocked and Jak X respectively but I'm going to guess that disc space was an issue.

Most of us are not like the Angry Video game nerd with a basement full of working versions of every console and game ever made so "stacking them" isn't an option for everyone. PC gamers probably have the most backwards compatability but even that depends on the hardware and what emulators you've installed. And being able to download old games is particularly good for cart based games that can't be put into modern disc based consoles.

But when I thought more about the lack of backward compatability on the new consoles and more so the inability to transfer over downloaded titles, it really makes sense. The new consoles will launch and mark my word, we'll start seeing compilations of PS3 and 360 games though they won't simply be able to slap an HD coat of paint on it this time. I'll hedge my bets right now that an early XBO title will be "The Halo Collection" and don't forget all your 360 peripherals are useless on the XBO so you'll need all new controllers and headsets to go with it. $$$$$$

And yes just in case someone wants to point out my Nintendo bias, it wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo does HD remakes of more Gamecube games. We already have several 3DS remakes and Wind Waker HD coming but at least some of these added new things. Way back when Link's Awakening was released for the Gameboy color, they added a new dungeon and if you are going to basically make gamers buy the same game again, then add something to it. New levels, fix issues the original had like the XBLA version of Banjo Kazooie that fixed it so you didn't lose all your notes and Jinjos when you died or left the level. I was annoyed that the original Ratchet and Clank rerelease didn't work in the strafe or make a bigger health bar or Jak II couldn't have tossed in a few more health packs to not make it so brutally hard.

And that's what bothers me about a lot of rereleases of old games. Yes some of us will argue that it "dumbs it down" but you gotta admit having autosave put into an old NES game beats the hell out of entering a password. But I am getting off topic, I worry more of seeing compilations that are just the exact same game from before that we end up buying again so it can play on our next gen console, thus the game publishers making easy money. "What's that you want to play the Mass Effect Trilogy on your PS4? Sorry we didn't make it backward compatable but here's our Mass Effect Collection you can buy for $50 even though you already own all 3.

Maybe you think that sounds crazy. But doesn't it kind of make sense. Don't make the PS4 or XBO backward compatable and don't let downloads transfer over so they can make you buy a game you already own again. $$$$$

139 comments
kpolicoff
kpolicoff

This is one other major benefit of PC gaming... the idea that the vast majority of the game I buy will work regardless of what computer I have. I upgrade my video card, my old games will work. Upgrade my memory... old games still work. Get a whole new computer? Redownload my games off of steam and they all work. A game has to be VERY old to not play on a newer computer... and backwards compatibility option usually helps, and even if it doesn't, lots of modders out there try to release patches to make games work on newer operating systems.

Red_Armadilloe
Red_Armadilloe

I've never understood why people would want their next console to play the previous console's games. Do people actually sell their old console WITHOUT selling the games? What's the point in that? Why would you have ps2 games and only have a ps3? Why would you have Gamecube games and only have a Wii? Xbox games and only have a 360? What happens if your new system breaks? Now you can't play BOTH generations of games because...you sold your old system without trading in any of the games? 

If you're selling your old console, you're more than likely selling the games with it. The two go hand in hand. Therefore, there's no point in having backwards compatibility when you should pretty much have your old system on hand with your old games. 

I don't know, when I sold my ps2 I sold all my games with it, because no one was buying it without them. Maybe if you trade in your system to a store, I guess? Just seems unreasonable to keep the games but sell the system. 

rapboy_905
rapboy_905

@Red_Armadilloe Way back that would make sense.  When I sold my old SNES to get the first Playsation I obviously sold all of my games and controllers etc.  However, when it came to the time when the PS2 was out, I sold my PS1 but kept the majority of my games and controllers purely because I would be able to play them on the PS2.  When the PS3 was released, I plumped for the 60gig because it was the only one that could play PS2 games and again sold my PS2 and kept all my games.  Okay my 60gig eventually bit the dust, which sucks, but it seemed pointless at the time to keep something if the newer one had the ability to play the old games.  If there's no backwards compatibility then I'll just be keeping my PS3, which just means I'll have to save more to be able to afford the PS4.

sonicare
sonicare ranger

Backwards compatibility can be expensive to produce.  The original ps3 was backwards compatible with old ps2 games, but Sony eventually discontinued it because of cost issues.  The original xbox 360 was backwards compatible with many xbox titles, but not all of them.  Dont know if future 360s maintained it or not.  In regards to backwards compatibility, it's probably more important at the start of a new generation.  At that point, you just dont have enough titles to keep you sated.  Once things get going, though, most people dont utilize it anymore.

kbaily
kbaily like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@sonicare They could save money by cutting out a lot of that crap none of us cared about like all of XBO's TV stuff. Just sayin.

Orga777
Orga777

Guy, if your PS2 dies, it is not a big deal. There are literally millions out there still. It was only recently Sony stopped making them all together. It isn't like it is the 3DO or something. Anyway, while backwards capabilities would be really nice and all, it is unrealistic this time around. Especially for Sony who is getting rid of the Cell Processor which made developing a bitch.

Raizak
Raizak

When my 80GB backwards compatible PS3 broke I had come to the realization that I bought that system to play PS3 games. My PS3 wouldn't boot up, but because I still had a PS2 up and running all that I had missed was the ability to play the PS3 games I bought the system for. 

I don't condemn Sony for removing backwards compatibility from the PS3. We all should still have a PS2 sitting in our house and making the following generation more affordable is a good idea. You also gotta remember that PS2 games were sitting at a ridiculously low resolution, so if you're playing on a nice big flat screen you're gonna be seeing some pretty ugly upscaling. The HD collections resolve that issue, but I can't really say it's worth the price to buy a game you already own. 

mike300zxt
mike300zxt

The Xbone was the one I expected to have backwards compat.  Yes, it's a different CPU, but the windows kernel runs on i386 and ARM. Plus the Xbone uses Microsoft's virtualization tech. It doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to have an emulator for the xbox 360 on the xbone.

I have to agree with you that it's all about the money.  There's nothing wrong with my 360 controllers, but they've redesigned them for a different battery, so you need new controllers, new batteries, and new chargers.

Then the whole used games fiasco.  And like you said, ports of old games.  Oh, and lets not forget about paying for xbox live so you can use Netflix or IE on the console.  What a joke.

Everything about this console gen screams cash grab.  It is quite literally everything I don't want in a console, with a couple bits I do.

Thank god for cheap gaming PCs and Steam!

GeminiEntity
GeminiEntity

BC requires either hardware, software, or a mix of both. All of those things cost money and time. So while it may be about money (which any successful company is about to some degree), it's not specifically about these companies getting money from HD versions and the like.

The PS4 and XOne both are trying to save money all around this time, which is why they decided to just use PC parts and tweak them.

Also to note, disc based games and digital downloads are the same when it comes to running on the system. They are made based around the architect of the system. So if discs don't have BC then neither will downloads. Now if and when the PS5 and Xbox4 are made and use PC components again, then BC should be easily implemented since the architect will be the same just more powerful.

ImpertinentFool
ImpertinentFool

I can't speak for anybody else, but personally, I'd never spend any significant amount of money just to play a game I own from one generation ago on my new generation console. The point is probably to make money off of newcomers that didn't own the appropriate console back when those games originally came out. For example, I bought ME3 for the Wii U and completely fell in love with the game, and I know damn well I'd be willing to spend a significant amount of money in the (highly unlikely) case that the ME trilogy will be re-released for the Wii U, even though I already own ME3.

Actually, my experience with the Wii U probably shows how backwards compatibility can benefit a company, or at least the retailers. Having missed out on the last two generations of video games (long story), I am currently busy buying Wii games that I missed back when they came out a few years ago. So yeah, Nintendo could've removed backwards compatibility from the Wii U, but I doubt they'd actually re-release all of their old Wii titles if that happened, so even if their plan is as you describe, I don't think it's very effective.

DarknautXXX
DarknautXXX like.author.displayName 1 Like

First of all, do older gaming systems really die constantly? My Gamecube, Xbox (1), Ps2 all still work pretty good, even if they look a little shabby. Granted, my PS2's laser seems like it is going, but hey, undoubtedly I could find a new one and replace it. 

You can find just about any kind of information on the internet. If your system is broken, learn what the problem is and learn how to fix it! Even though the parent companies (Nintendo, Sony, etc) may not make parts for your system anymore (lasers, batteries) other, more obscure companies that are from Taiwan or whatever are probably manufacturing them. Its all a matter of a little research.

Secondly, aren't these companies making their old libraries available digitally? Yes, it may mean buying a game that you already have physically, but that is your decision to make. Sony's not forcing you, and the game is undoubtedly cheaper anyways. It's also most likely the most effective way to make these games available to those who want them. Think about it. Your customer base most likely has PS3's, because you have the current sales report right in front of you telling you so. Even if you kept the sales reports from years ago for PS2's, you have no way of knowing if those buyers still have them. So you make those old games available for the PS3, which can download games, as opposed to the PS2.

Another reason why these games are being resold digitally is probably because there is not a major market in older games. In general, most of these games' gameplay concepts are either completely obsolete and boring and irritating as hell, or have been vastly improved upon and probably only played by hardcore fans. Digital is probably the most cost effective way to provide these games to those who want them. And people want them, because they make loud noise about it all the time. Just like this blog.

Thirdly, I sincerely doubt that MS, Sony designed their respective next gen systems with reselling older games in mind. They're designed with PC like architectures to be more accessible to CURRENT developers, making it far more easier to port their games to multiple systems, and to allow indie devs with little to no console experience to get their games on their systems.

But yeah, in the end, they are cashing in on older games. But that is how a company works. It makes money, so that it can continue to make games. Would you prefer these games to not be available at all?

shadowysea07
shadowysea07 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Whats hilarious is they make ports of games that are EASY to find copies of but not the popular ones that don't have a bajillion copies floating around.  Especially in the case of jak where you can walk into a 5o n below and buy them new.

hell they even did reprints of tales games, and atlus titles like nocturne and both ps2 versions of p3. Yet I cannot get my hands on xenoblade, the fire emblems, skies of arcadia ect under 80 to 100 bucks used.

Articuno76
Articuno76

@shadowysea07 If one game needs a complete HD version it is Skies.  A HD 16:9 version of Legends with the uncompressed soundtrack.  I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

shadowysea07
shadowysea07

as for the collections the majority of them aren't worth purchasing as you can get the original versions waay cheaper. especially jak. also the ps3 wasn't completely compatible with the ps2 games either. certain ones were unplayable like tales of abyss on certain models.

shadowysea07
shadowysea07

outside limited extra's only japan got of course like in the cases of tos1 and kh.

shadowysea07
shadowysea07

meh the ps3 and 360 libraries aren't really worth it unless you use that to justify buying the next one and skipping over them in the first place.

bc not being present just gives me even more of a reason to not buy these over priced dvd players. I'm having more fun in my backlog than I was playing current gen systems for the most part anyway.

shadowysea07
shadowysea07

with 360 and PS4 games


and this children is why one shouldn't blog when tired

oflow
oflow

duh?? of course they are leaving it out on purpose to make you buy the new games. Thats not rocket science.  


 You also have to factor in that companies dont like to waste money supporting old platforms.  If they make it compatible then they also have to have tech support and stuff for the old games which costs the company a lot of money. And as someone that works for a very large corporation, you learn quickly that big corporations do everything they can in their power to spend less and make more. This falls in that category easily.

You do always have the option of keeping your old system and playing it. If its an online game the servers probably shut down but hey they shut them down most of the time during the life cycle of the console that the game is on anyway...

starfox15
starfox15

Going forward I expect to see companies nixing backwards compatibility.  The thing that irks me more than that however is the digital download.  If I buy a game digitally, don't I have the right to transfer that to my shiny new console?  I guess not.  Well I guess I'll just stick to Nintendo and PC then.

Haloxk9
Haloxk9

@starfox15 The thing that a lot of people don't get about downloaded games is that the only difference between a digital copy and a physical copy is the method of getting them onto the system. Whether you download a game or pop it in the disc tray, it's still an Xbox 360 or PS3 game, and can only be played on its respective console, and can't work on a new system that doesn't have hardware of emulation allowing BC. I wish they would transfer too, I was just saying that a lot of people are mad that digital games won't transfer over without realizing that they're no different compatibility-wise than a physical game. 

david_lck
david_lck moderator moderator

Sure HD remakes look good upscaled, but is it really worth it? I think playing them in their originals formats is the best way to go

Nova_Prime_85
Nova_Prime_85 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@david_lck ehhh people have preferences, if a older game can be made to play smoother, and look gorgeous, then why not?

for example i use Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3

back on PS2, MGS2 played extremely smooth, uh whats the term, Frames per second? but MGS3 played rather choppy in comparison

when i picked up the HD collection, i find that MGS3 is moving as smooth as MGS2 was

GeminiEntity
GeminiEntity

@david_lck 

I personally think so.

Most of these HD ports are bundled and start at $40, along with some being updated (DMC1 controls or ICO being the complete version) to boot.

ewokachu
ewokachu

It's kinda like when you're subscribed to a cable network for years - a loyal customer, then all of a sudden you see a commercial trying to get new customers by offering them free money. TVs, iPADs, etc...Then you're like "Hey, what about your loyal customer here?? Give me something as well!!!" :-p 

ewokachu
ewokachu

Nobody should be surprised at all about how video game companies are trying to make money off of us...They've been doing it for a long time now.  For example; I remember getting the N64, and it came with one controller.  But I also remember when I got the Atari 2600, NES, SNES and Genesis they all came with two controllers.  Video games are no longer an "underground" hobby. Most people now play them, and that's serious money making. Video game companies don't look at people like me who've been playing since the beginning and helped support these companies to where they are today, they look at "fresh gamers" the people who are new and naive enough to buy every gimmick offered (just like I was years ago) . The cycle will continue on...

Uesugi-dono
Uesugi-dono

I haven't heard anything about the stuff on the PSN not porting over.  Do you have a link to something I can read?

-INKling-
-INKling- like.author.displayName 1 Like

I don't have an issue with a lack of physical backwards compatibility as we have never truly had that or even really used it to be honest. I also don't have a problem with re-issuing old games on a new system like in the case of Ocarina of Time on 3DS. It gives a new generation the chance to play a classic without having to buy or dig out their old games machines.

What I do have a problem with is having to re-buy digitally purchased games on a new system. All those people who were reticent to get Limbo or whatever have been kind of vindicated as once this generation's service is cut then we are forced to buy it again in the same form or possibly never see it again. I appreciate it's not as simple as it seems but it doesn't stop it from basically being unfair. If I can move my 360 profile to my XBox One then why can't I take my purchasing history so when Limbo becomes available on the new XBLA then I can get it again. It stinks.

RobDev
RobDev

so if you bought Limbo on your XBOX should you expect to get a free copy for your PS3? No? why not, based on your logic you bought the "game" not the XBOX360 version of the game. Why should the XBOX1 be any different? It is a different console, platform and architecture after all.

-INKling-
-INKling- like.author.displayName 1 Like

@RobDev For me the benefit of digitally purchasing something is knowing that I can then retrieve it at any time. If I get Limbo from Live I wouldn't expect a PSN copy as that is a different service. However I would expect to be able to download it for my XBox One as that is the next iteration of the same service. I appreciate that it's a different architecture from the 360 so it's not an easy port but if I can carry over my profile to the new service and Limbo becomes available on it then I feel that I should be entitled to it especially as the 360 XBLA will eventually be switched off and I may lose what I have paid for.

To put it another way, if Steam launched an updated version of itself and then charged me again for the games I had bought on it then that would be unfair. Irrespective of the hardware if it's the same service I would expect the same entitlements. I guess Sony and Microsoft will get around this by saying it's not the same but this doesn't sit right with me.

-INKling-
-INKling-

@Haloxk9 @RobDev I appreciate that the XBO and the 360 is a different unit and a simple transfer is impossible. I get that and that has almost never been the case in previous generations.

However, when the same service is eventually discontinued on one console and then continues on another I would expect the same level of service. So for XBO I will be able to carry over my achievements, friends lists, profile etc. However once Limbo (or whatever) is eventually ported over to the updated (same) service I would expect my purchasing history to be recorded too. If the 360 version of Live goes on forever then that wouldn't be so much of a problem but I am pretty sure it won't. A benefit of digital purchasing has now become an issue.

The example of R&C is a good one and I agree that I wouldn't expect the HD version as they are different products but if it was the exact same game on the same service then I would expect to be able to get it (once it is ported over). A good example of this is Nintendo virtual console which charge a small fee to have any games you bought on the Wii VC available on the WiiU VC. Admittedly $1 a title isn't nothing but it's a lot fairer than being forced to re-buy something just because a company pull a plug on a server somewhere.

Haloxk9
Haloxk9

@-INKling- @RobDevThe flaw in your logic there is that moving your 360 profile is the same as moving a game. The problem is, you can't just move Limbo, or any other game to a new console like that. It's a completely new system, and you couldn't play the 360 version of a downloaded game any more than you could pop in a 360 disc, or a PS2 disc for that matter. 

The hardware and architecture are different and can't run the original version, so if they re-release Limbo on XBO, they'll have to completely do a software revamp to get it ported over.  RobDev's point is that the XBO is completely different from the 360. By your logic, I should be entitled to a free copy of the Ratchet and Clank PS3 remakes because I own them on PS2. 

That would be nice, but it doesn't work like that. In regard to your Steam analogy, I don't think it's relevant here. Instead of an updated version of the same program, it's more like an iPad and a Macbook. I use my same Apple ID, and my songs and account information carry over between them, as will your song/vides/account info for XBL. That said, if I download Infinity Blade on my iPad, I shouldn't expect it to work on my Mac, because they're two completely different things. 

JulyAeon
JulyAeon

I don't have an issue with that, because I will keep my old console and my old library of games.  Though I would like them to promise to keep the support indefinitely :) within reason.  What worries me more is all the commercial garbage they are forcing on me and all the things that haven't been said yet.  Too much emphasis on   the TV and getting achievements on ... what exactly???  The introduction lately on gaming achievements are proof enough what sort of benefits I can expect...buy MORE of this and get a little bit off with your accumulated points!!!   No, thank you!   I am all for a new and different generation in GAMING terms, but if all the improvements are concentrated on how to rope in money through advertisements and achievements on their own tv productions, well than I will have to stay out of the new exiting next generation.

As I mentioned before, not enough has been said about the really important issues and until than my excitement is really muted.  Only good quality new games with real impact on the NEXT generation will convince me,  not a lit up living room to expand my gaming experience !!! 

RobDev
RobDev like.author.displayName 1 Like

Right, so apparently you buy one copy of a game back in 1992 and you are entitled to now play that game in updated HD on your latest console for free for ever. Same old entitled gamer bullshit. I can't play my minidiscs anymore because the hardware is gone but i should be able to gointo a record store and pick up my entire collection on CD or dvd or whatever because i "own" it. and you people think it's the businesses that's killing the industry? Jeez. Having a copy opf God of War on PS2 doesn't entitle you to get the HD PS3 version for free just because your PS2 doesn;t work anymore. IT'S A DIFFERENT PRODUCT!!!!!!!!! 

FFCYAN
FFCYAN like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

I purchased a PS3 last year, only to play a few select PS3 games, and to use as my first Bluray player. I would have bought a new one, but I was fortunate enough to find an older, backwards compatible model in a pawn shop. It died after a few fun months of Skyrim, NHL 13 and Super Street Fighter IV. When I sent it to Sony to have it repaired, they offered to give me a new model, with far more GB's of storage. I declined of course. Bottom line is, backwards compatibility opens up a very massive library of games for me, in this case, nearly all PS1 and PS2 games. I now have the option to scour for game gems at my local record store or just order past games from Amazon I missed playing like SSX 3. As a gamer, backwards compatibility can only be a good thing.

yeah_28
yeah_28

I agree with your thoughts, and also, yes they can re-release PS3 and XBOX360 games and put the HD title on it, because current gen consoles arent true HD regarding how they can run games, but next gen consoles might be able to run mass effect at true 1080p for example.

i said this on another blog post about BC too, PC has always had its place in gaming and a very important one, but its when consoles stopped having BC that PC really became incredbly valuable for the PC gamer, AND for the console gamer.

I always loved my PSone and PS2 games, they were great, unique, and many, and besides the fact that sony and ms do want to get more money of you by not allowing BC, the industry's state is so sad and decayed, this gen's games are so bad in comparison, that i doubt many people really care about not being able to play them in their new consoles.

RobDev
RobDev

quite simply if you had an older game that means by definition you must have had the hardware to play it on. so play your old games on your old hardware. Id' rather pay less for a new console without BC and keep my PS3 for my older games than be charged the cost needed for BC.

rigbybot127
rigbybot127

Making an old game easier just ruins the original, intended experience. I would have hated it if they had butchered the difficulty of Jak II, and not having a strafe feature in the R&C is nostalgic.

williebazerka
williebazerka

It will always be about how much money they can make.

rktPYZQShWz
rktPYZQShWz

Sadly we as consumers just let this happen.

zgreenwell
zgreenwell like.author.displayName 1 Like

Losing backwards compatibility is about money, but not so much about reselling old games as it is about hardware. Especially with the PS3, which has a really unique architecture, it would be near impossible to emulate properly on the hardware they're launching and very expensive to include the old hardware. If they're going to offer backwards compatibility, they would likely do it through the cloud.

Another point, they're already repacking games from this generation. Sony is selling a Resistance Collection and Microsoft is selling a Gears of War "triple pack".

Foolz3h
Foolz3h like.author.displayName 1 Like

I remember a shop refusing to support the GameCube because it didn't do backwards compatability. Times have changed...

Coco_pierrot
Coco_pierrot

Well, this gen is near its death so it is quite normal to see compilation comming out like that. It was the same scenario during the PS2 area.

But is sure is a way to make some easy money or a way to play those games if you missed out. I only got the God Of War collection and I think about Metal Gear.

Also I buy a new consol to play new game ... so it isn,t so much of a problem from me

Yomigaeru
Yomigaeru like.author.displayName 1 Like

Near the start of this generation, backwards compatibility was a sticking point for me. However, I came to realize that none of my consoles (dating back to the NES I got for Christmas in '89).had ever stopped working. Furthermore, the emulation scene is steadily progressing, and most legacy consoles have a number of working emulators now. Legality aside, there is a way to play nearly any game for almost any console made before this gen.

Removing backwards compatibility is clearly a way to make more money, as evidenced by all the ports of old games available (I mean, we've got stuff like Space Channel 5 and Trojan available). It's just another facet to the business of making more money, added in with all this social media stuff and TV/movie services.

game-time
game-time

So I guess everyone is gonna have to hang onto their ps3s and X360s. You don't get shiit for money or credit when you trade them in anyway.

Poodger
Poodger

I actually preferred the old Banjo Kazooie. I liked the challenge that came with losing jiggy and Jingo progress when you died. I mean, these days, I can 100% the game in about 5 hours without dying once anyway, so why make it easier?

Anyway, one word for this article: emulators.

A gamers best friend. PS2 and Gamecube/Wii emulators are already up and running too, so gamers who experience a system breaking down don't have to go get ripped off by buying the game again.... they can just play them on an emulator for free.

timdogg42069
timdogg42069

I agree with a lot of what you said, the only thing I don't understand is YOU DIDN'T OWN A PS2, I THOUGHT EVERYONE OWNED ONE!!!

GamerofMario1
GamerofMario1

Backwards compatibility is one thing that makes Nintendo's consoles and handhelds great. But eventually, even they will drop backwards compatibility. I think the removal of it is just how the future will be.

freedomspopular
freedomspopular

Never mind the fact that backwards compatibility is physically impossible with the switch to the new architecture. And if they did make a special version that included the extra hardware necessary to support it, let's face it: you'd complain that it's too bulky and expensive.

Barazon
Barazon

@freedomspopular It is not impossible.  A more powerful processor can emulate an older one through software.  However it takes a fair amount of work to write that software, money/time they've decided not to spend.

I didn't expect this generation to have it on the PS4 at all (the PS3 Cell architecture is different from basically every  other processor ever made), but I thought it was a possibility for the Xbox.  What I didn't expect and do not appreciate was for MS to take the "let's insult our customers for wanting it" approach ("if you're backwards compatible you're really backwards").

Conversation powered by Livefyre