Is Legacy content/backwards compatibility important for a console's success?

[JCGamer55]

The_Liquid_Laser said:

IcaroRibeiro said:

This whole remakes are new games or not debate are giving me Ship of Theseus paradox vibes 

For me games are about software development much more than gameplay. Saying reausing the gameplay does not make a game new it's like saying a movie remake with the exaclty same screenplay is not a new movie. Like, can we really say Lion King and Lion King lice action are the same movie only with a different animation technique? (Original being 2D cartoonish animation,  remake being a 3D photorelistic motion-captured animation)

 Of course no, because just like games aren't mainly about gameplay (but from coding and overall development) movies are more about filming filming and editing. The process seems more important than the actual product. 

Of course, writing the screenplay and the elaborating a gameplay obviously counts in as part of the process but you can reuse them and integrate as part of a new development cycle

Keeping the same energy, from a software standpoint as long the game developed source code, assets and models are mostly original then it counts as a new game

When I release a patch of an old system, I'm still working using the source of the original system. Even if it comes to a point the source code now it's not even 10% it was originally, still "the same" system, because every iteration was built in the back of an preexisting original software

When I'm creating a brand  new system, even when I reuse identical user-cases and usability in practice what really counts is how my back code is being written. Don't dare me to say I'm developing the same system because technology and methods behind this new software can be completely different even if the user don't perceive it as a new software

Are you a game maker or game player?  It really doesn't matter what the experience of the game maker is.  What matters is the experience of the game player.

In Super Mario All-Stars (SNES) the games look completely different from their NES counterparts, because they use a different graphics engine.  They are still the same games, because the mechanics, level design, music, etc... are all the same.  The graphics don't really determine what the game is.  Demon's Souls is in the same situation.

If we are to use your movie analogy, then think of the original Star Wars trilogy.  George Lucas updates the the special effects of the explosions using radically different effects technology and nobody minds.  But when he makes Greedo shoot before Han, then a ton of fans go nuts and complain.  The updated visuals did not change the experience, but changing one little story detail did. 

For a movie, the story is the real experience.  For games, the gameplay is the real experience.  If nothing about the gameplay changes, then it's the same game regardless of how it is remade.

This is not true. Graphics are an important part of a videogame experience. They can make two games, with same gameplay and story, two different experiences. That is why playing Super Mario Bros on the NES and playing Super Mario Bros in All-stars are two different experiences, that is why there is a distinction between a remaster and a remake. A remaster is mostly the same experience as the original while a remake gives a new experience based on the original, which of course can be achieved by a completely different graphic presentation.