By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Soo... Who on this site honestly cares about backwards compatitbility?

 

Is a backwards compatibility important to you?

Would never buy a console without it! 30 12.45%
 
Yes, but not necessary 96 39.83%
 
Good to have, but I really don't care 52 21.58%
 
Nah 7 2.90%
 
Yes 55 22.82%
 
Total:240
-CraZed- on 05 October 2013
DialgaMarine said:

I've noticed recently that backwards compatibility has become a huge topic in gaming, especially seeing as it is a feature that will be absent in the next gen consoles. So, I'm just here to ask, who on this site honestly cares about backwards compatibitity? 

Personally I do not. It's not because I find it to be a bad or useless feature. It's definitely a good feature, but only good for convenience sake, and certainly shouldn't be a factor in a person deciding to purchase a video game console nor as a negative in the description of a console. 

With every backwards compatible console I owned, it's a feature I almost never used. It's something that doesn't affect me, because I don't buy next gen hardware to play last gen software; I buy it to play the next gen software, of course! If I really want to play last gen software, I'll play it on my last gen hardware. I don't see why I can't just keep my PS3 after I purchase my PS4. It's not like getting up and switching out the HDMI cable will somehow take a vast ammount of my life away. Like I said, the feature is convenient, but completely unnecessary. I'm confused why so many people make a huge deal about it. I remember even watching a video back in 2008 of a really wierd looking guy (with some really messed up teeth) making a huge deal because he bought a brand new PS3 to play God of War II. Not sure why he didn't just buy a PS2, as they were already dirt cheap at the time, but nonetheless it was stupid of him to even bitch about it imho. I have no plans of getting rid of my PS3. What about you guys? 

I know this is kindof an arbitrary topic, but I hear about it all the time, and I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think it was a really big deal the beginning of last gen but as we saw after Sony completely dropped it for the PS3 slims etc. it didn't stop the system from selling like crazy. Its a concern for many early adopters but as we are seeing from the fervor about these next gen consoles it obviously isn't paramount this time around.

Things like Gaikai will satiate the B/C hungry crowd I think (as long as it works) and will be a nice feature to have but it won't necessarily be the system seller that it was always meant to be in the past. I did use my launch PS3 to play amny PS2 and PS1 classics etc. and still have some PS1 discs that I have never gotten rid of but they don't keep me from moving on. 

I personally am selling my PS3 (its up for bid on ebay currently at $66.00 with 4 days to go) to help make my wife happy about me spending damn near $700 on a new console and games so I will be missing out on Beyond Two Souls (Gaikai will have it in a year or two for sure) and GTA V (IT will be on next gen consoles or PC at the very least) but I am ready for next gen B/C or not!



Around the Network
NightDragon83 on 06 October 2013
attaboy said:
NightDragon83 said:
You gotta love the feeling of entitlement among today's gamers. They feel they should be given anything they want.

Newsflash: From the introduction of the NES, there were ZERO major home consoles that were backwards compatible with their predecessors up until the release of the PS2. (The only other one was the Genesis being backwards compatible with the Master System, but that required the user to buy a separate module). And as far as I know, nobody EVER complained about not being able to play their old games on their new systems.

Then Sony went and spoiled everyone by making the PS2 b/c with PS1 games, and now all of a sudden everyone expects that every console will at least be b/c with the previous generation's library. Nevermind the logistics involved in doing this, from the added costs to the different architecture between console generations....

Nintendo made the Wii b/c with the GC because the Wii was essentially two GCs duct-taped together in the first place, so it wasn't much of a stretch nor much of an added cost (other than including the controller and memory ports). And the Wii U is essentially a Wii in HD with a tablet controller.

M$ made the 360 b/c with select Xbox games via emulation. And then the PS3 tried to be b/c with both PS1 and 2 until Sony realized how futile this was and removed all b/c for PS2 because of the different architecture, which is also the reason why PS4 is not b/c with PS3.

But as usual, the spoiled entitlement generation wants everything their way. Of course, they wouldn't want to fork over the extra $$$ it would cost if the Xbone and PS4 were in fact b/c. Not only should these gamers have everything they want, but it should also be FREE, dammit!


Oh.  You're one of those guys that doesn't count Atari consoles.  It's okay to be wrong sometimes.

Anyway, since the PS2, lots of things have become pretty much standard to some degree.  Are we entitled because we expect gaming consoles to have Netflix (for example)?  And hey, if there were some Genesis styled add-on for the PS4 or Xbox One, I'd pay extra for it.  Calm your boobies.

Um, I clearly stated in my post I was talking about the post-Atari game industry (NES and on), but if you really want to nitpick and go that far back, yes Atari had b/c, but only on the 7800 out of the box... the 5200 required a module just like the Genesis did for Master System b/c, but that was more of a response to Coleco and Intellivision who both had  2600 adapters for their consoles (yeah, weird world when you can play the competition's games on your console).

And last time I checked... nobody had run out to buy a 7800 for its awesome b/c with 2600 games when it was released.  Bottom line is b/c is a nice thing to have, but it's far from necessary.  And with game consoles being vastly different from each other every generation, b/c isn't as simple as say having a Blu Ray player play DVDs, or older Windows games working with newer versions.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Dr.EisDrachenJaeger on 06 October 2013

You should have your facts checked man^

There is a Wii inside the WiiU.

That you can mod. That's why its backwards compatible



curl-6 on 06 October 2013

I care, and I'm glad at least one of the next gen systems has it.



NobleTeam360 on 06 October 2013

If either PS4 or X1 had BC it would make selling my Xbox or PS3 a lot easier. Due to the lack of BC I'll be holding onto both of them.



Around the Network
attaboy on 06 October 2013
NightDragon83 said:
attaboy said:
NightDragon83 said:
You gotta love the feeling of entitlement among today's gamers. They feel they should be given anything they want.

Newsflash: From the introduction of the NES, there were ZERO major home consoles that were backwards compatible with their predecessors up until the release of the PS2. (The only other one was the Genesis being backwards compatible with the Master System, but that required the user to buy a separate module). And as far as I know, nobody EVER complained about not being able to play their old games on their new systems.

Then Sony went and spoiled everyone by making the PS2 b/c with PS1 games, and now all of a sudden everyone expects that every console will at least be b/c with the previous generation's library. Nevermind the logistics involved in doing this, from the added costs to the different architecture between console generations....

Nintendo made the Wii b/c with the GC because the Wii was essentially two GCs duct-taped together in the first place, so it wasn't much of a stretch nor much of an added cost (other than including the controller and memory ports). And the Wii U is essentially a Wii in HD with a tablet controller.

M$ made the 360 b/c with select Xbox games via emulation. And then the PS3 tried to be b/c with both PS1 and 2 until Sony realized how futile this was and removed all b/c for PS2 because of the different architecture, which is also the reason why PS4 is not b/c with PS3.

But as usual, the spoiled entitlement generation wants everything their way. Of course, they wouldn't want to fork over the extra $$$ it would cost if the Xbone and PS4 were in fact b/c. Not only should these gamers have everything they want, but it should also be FREE, dammit!


Oh.  You're one of those guys that doesn't count Atari consoles.  It's okay to be wrong sometimes.

Anyway, since the PS2, lots of things have become pretty much standard to some degree.  Are we entitled because we expect gaming consoles to have Netflix (for example)?  And hey, if there were some Genesis styled add-on for the PS4 or Xbox One, I'd pay extra for it.  Calm your boobies.

Um, I clearly stated in my post I was talking about the post-Atari game industry (NES and on), but if you really want to nitpick and go that far back, yes Atari had b/c, but only on the 7800 out of the box... the 5200 required a module just like the Genesis did for Master System b/c, but that was more of a response to Coleco and Intellivision who both had  2600 adapters for their consoles (yeah, weird world when you can play the competition's games on your console).

And last time I checked... nobody had run out to buy a 7800 for its awesome b/c with 2600 games when it was released.  Bottom line is b/c is a nice thing to have, but it's far from necessary.  And with game consoles being vastly different from each other every generation, b/c isn't as simple as say having a Blu Ray player play DVDs, or older Windows games working with newer versions.

True.  You did clearly state that you were talking about the Nes forward.  I picked up on that.  It just baffles me why you would start there.  You're calling gamers "entitled" and in many ways, we are.  We want our free online, free DLC, low priced hardware/oftware, retro-Resident Evil, etc--as if the companies aren't out to make a profit.  I understand it's a business and some things simply can't be done.  I just think that, via the system hardware or via add-on, backwards compatibilty has been somewhat of a standard since forever.  It's not necessary but, for me, it is an important feature.

And I can understand the difficulty of adding the feature.  In some cases, it would be impossible.  Xbox 360 never did run many of the best XB titles.  Hell, PS3 still has issues running PS3 titles!  I'm just saying it's a feature that I cared about and would have sold me on the two systems launching later this year.  I'll buy eventually (maybe), but in this case I think it's something we've grown accustomed to over the decades.  The thread asks who honestly cares about backwards compatibility.  Some of us care.



sub-zero-TM on 06 October 2013

Not me. I never did care and i never will.



Adinnieken on 06 October 2013
attaboy said:
Adinnieken said:
Mr Khan said:
It's convenient in not having to keep multiple consoles hooked up. It bothered me that Wii U didn't keep GameCube b/c (although i understood it, given the difficulty of getting a slot-loading drive to have variable disc-sizes), meaning that i'll have to dig up my GameCube if i ever get the urge to run a GC game.

Back in the day of CD singles, you could buy a plastic carrier that would allow you to snap a 3.5" disc into a 5.25" disc carrier.  Disc size isn't an issue.  To explain this further, initially when CD singles were released, they were released on 3.5" discs, however they fell out of favor for 5.25" discs.

The bigger issue is the fact that Wii and GameCube games work by including the OS used for the game on the disc.  If you're running the OS from the disc you can't alter the game to emulate hardware, which despite the Wii U using similar hardware, it isn't 100% the same.  Even if you just want to slow down the CPU performance so the game plays at a normal level, you can't. 


I'm not one of those tech savvy guys but I guess that's why, when you play an Xbox game on a 360, a DS game on a 3DS, a GBA game on a DS, or a Gamecube/Wii game on a Wii/Wii U, you don't have access to virtually any of the newer console's extra features.  I think it's a blessing from the heavens above that the Wii U controller can display Wii games, now--with Wii Remote support, too!

Point taken, but I think the context is that on the Xbox and PlayStation a game is by all rights an application that is running on a given system/OS and the OS is upgradable to the point where the game can still run.  The fact that a game may not be able to take advantage of the new hardware is the fact that the game wasn't designed for it. 

That said, Xbox LIVE games from the original Xbox were usable with Xbox LIVE on the Xbox 360. 

With Nintendo, games are self-contained entities.  It's like having a planet with a fully breathable atmosphere, but all the residents of that planet breath their own unique atmosphere.  The Xbox 360 and PS3 aren't that way.

The feature to switch to a second screen is a feature of the hardware, not the OS.  The GPU supports two screens, as do most GPUs in modern computers today.  So getting that to work isn't much of a big stretch.  A nice feature, I'm sure, just not technically difficult.

The way Nintendo did games on everything from the Wii prior was an interesting way to do it, it had its advantages.  It made pirating the games more challenging and hacking the console more difficult.

The drawbacks became apparent early on in the Wii's lifecycle when a game got released with a serious game ending bug in it.  The only option Nintendo had to resolve the problem was to press new discs and send them out to affected customers.  They couldn't push down a game update, not because they didn't have enought storage for it, which they didn't -- though they could have forced those users to use an SD card to put the update on, but because there was no way to start the game from the updated code or have the game check for the updated code even if it existed on the system.  The system was never designed that way. 



attaboy on 06 October 2013
Adinnieken said:

Point taken, but I think the context is that on the Xbox and PlayStation a game is by all rights an application that is running on a given system/OS and the OS is upgradable to the point where the game can still run.  The fact that a game may not be able to take advantage of the new hardware is the fact that the game wasn't designed for it. 

That said, Xbox LIVE games from the original Xbox were usable with Xbox LIVE on the Xbox 360. 

With Nintendo, games are self-contained entities.  It's like having a planet with a fully breathable atmosphere, but all the residents of that planet breath their own unique atmosphere.  The Xbox 360 and PS3 aren't that way.

The feature to switch to a second screen is a feature of the hardware, not the OS.  The GPU supports two screens, as do most GPUs in modern computers today.  So getting that to work isn't much of a big stretch.  A nice feature, I'm sure, just not technically difficult.

The way Nintendo did games on everything from the Wii prior was an interesting way to do it, it had its advantages.  It made pirating the games more challenging and hacking the console more difficult.

The drawbacks became apparent early on in the Wii's lifecycle when a game got released with a serious game ending bug in it.  The only option Nintendo had to resolve the problem was to press new discs and send them out to affected customers.  They couldn't push down a game update, not because they didn't have enought storage for it, which they didn't -- though they could have forced those users to use an SD card to put the update on, but because there was no way to start the game from the updated code or have the game check for the updated code even if it existed on the system.  The system was never designed that way. 


Thanks.  I've learned much on this day!