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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Is Legacy content/backwards compatibility important for a console's success?

 

Is legacy content important for a console's success?

Yes, very important. Huge effect on sales 4 5.63%
 
It is important, noticable effect on sales. 14 19.72%
 
Not very important, small effect on sales. 38 53.52%
 
Not important at all, lit... 15 21.13%
 
Total:71
theRepublic on 21 April 2021
padib said:
theRepublic said:

I thought this discussion was about backwards compatibility? Remakes/remasters/ports are separate topic in my opinion. To me backwards compatibility is about taking the same exact disc, or cart (or I guess just digital version these days) and being able to play it in the new console. No additional purchases necessary.

No the title in OP is "Is Legacy content/backwards compatibility important for a console's success?" and then the 2nd paragraph in OP also mentions legacy content in an equal way. It doesn't take too long to scroll up.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have zero control over what 3rd parties do with remakes/remasters/ports though.  The only thing they can control is backwards compatibility built-in to the console.  They can control their own 1st party properties obviously, but that is a pretty limited form of playing old games if you are just waiting for remakes/remasters/ports.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
Intrinsic on 21 April 2021

Ah... you must have slept through all of the 8th gen.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Backwards compatibility and legacy content are really important.  The most important things for selling a system are game library and price.  That old content is a real easy way to beef up a game library.  If the system is backwards compatible, then it becomes an attractive system right out of the gate.  Let's look at some evidence.

1) The PS2.  It inherited the PS1's library, which is extremely impressive.  If you add the PS1 and PS2 game libraries together you get over 8000 games.  The PS2 is Sony's most successful system and the best selling game console of all time.   

2) The Wii.  The SNES, N64 and Gamecube lacked backwards compatibility.  Then the Wii comes along.  It's both backwards compatible with the Gamecube and it also has a ton of old games on the Virtual Console.  People like to point out Nintendo's decline in the home market NES > SNES > N64 >GCN.  The the Wii comes along and turns that all around.  One huge feature of the Wii was all of that old content.

3) Nintendo handhelds.  Nintendo has never been defeated in the handheld market. GBA, DS, and 3DS were all backwards compatible.

4) Switch.  Backwards compatible?  No.  Legacy content?  Lots of it.  The best selling game on the Switch is a Wii U game.  One reason why the Switch did so well out of the gate is because they could port over a lot of the Wii U titles.  That made the Switch's library pretty good even from the first year, because most people never played those Wii U titles.  The Switch also has a bunch of old NES/SNES games included with it's online service.

5) XBox1.  This system is a total turd.  If you take away the backwards compatibility then there is almost no reason to buy this system.  Personally, I've never owned any XBox, but I am seriously giving consideration for the XB1 just because of backwards compatibility.  It's the XB1's main selling point.

6) PS5.  The PS5 has backwards compatibility and it's still sold out.  What new games does the PS5 have?  None.  Demon's Souls?  That is legacy content.  People definitely don't want the PS5 for new exclusive games, because it doesn't have any.

7) Sega Saturn, N64, Gamecube, PS3, PS Vita.  All of these systems lacked backwards compatibility and sold disappointingly compared to their predecessor.  It's clear that all of these systems made some pretty big mistakes, but then again, so did the XB1, and it managed to salvage most of it's Gen 7 market in spite of being about as good as a Saturn or Vita on it's own merits.

In short, legacy content matters a lot.  It's an easy way to beef up a system's library.  On top of that the easiest way to include legacy content on a system is simply to make it backwards compatible.

Nice write-up.... you conveniently skipped the PS4 though.



curl-6 on 21 April 2021
padib said:

Nintendo showed that remasters and remakes of older games, such as Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart 9, Wind Waker HD, Super Mario Deluxe, Mario 3D collection, Mario All-stars and many other 1st party remasters are very popular. 

Smash Bros Ultimate isn't a remake or a remaster of an older game.

Its not a case of the graphics of an existing game being touched up, it has its own gameplay foundation distinct from any of its predecessors.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 21 April 2021

Shiken on 21 April 2021

Is it important for a console's success? No...

Can it help give incentive? Yes...

Is it important for game preservation and should people care more about it? YES!!!



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken on 21 April 2021
padib said:
theRepublic said:

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have zero control over what 3rd parties do with remakes/remasters/ports though.  The only thing they can control is backwards compatibility built-in to the console.  They can control their own 1st party properties obviously, but that is a pretty limited form of playing old games if you are just waiting for remakes/remasters/ports.

Firstly it would be more cool if you acknowledge that you missed the fact that the discussion is about both rather than push an argument. But I'll reply.

Whether manufacturers have any control over it does not change the fact that such content can have an impact.

However they do have control. Nintendo showed that remasters and remakes of older games, such as Smash Ultimate, Mario Kart 9, Wind Waker HD, Super Mario Deluxe, Mario 3D collection, Mario All-stars and many other 1st party remasters are very popular. That plus the virtual console and many other 1st party solution play a considerable role in a console's success, again, to varying degrees depending on what their current offering is.

Smash Ultimate is not a "remaster" and refering to it as such only hurts your cause, because it comes off as a desperate reach.

This is not a rebuttal, just a correction to a very tired false claim that should have died the moment it was released (sooner in fact).



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Around the Network
IcaroRibeiro on 21 April 2021
Shiken said:

Is it important for a console's success? No...

Can it help give incentive? Yes...

Is it important for game preservation and should people care more about it? YES!!!

I don't understand this argument 

In 2021 there isn't any risk of any published game disappearing. They don't need preservation, they are preserved already unless you manage to delete every file stored in any storage in the world 



Mummelmann on 22 April 2021

I think it was more important back when physical copies were more or less the norm. With digital taking over, even on consoles, it becomes somewhat easier to adapt and enable backwards compatible gaming on newer platforms. The Xbox One has quite a few games from the 360 library that function really well as digital offerings. I think, if given the choice, I'd rather have developers making games BC digitally than make endless remakes and re-masters as we've seen in the 8th gen. This would enable them to focus on more interesting fare.

I think my answer to the OPs question would be "no" though, it's not all that important today. It's still a shame that Nintendo has made such poor use of their immense catalogue of games as online offerings though. I'm still hoping they'll change their mind on this instead of selling retro hardware for a higher premium and with only a fraction of the games available.



EnricoPallazzo on 22 April 2021

VERY important for me, but probably not important for the average consumer.



eva01beserk on 22 April 2021

Only a bit important in the first year of a consoles cycle. When there are few games out. Once the catalogue build within the second year Nobody cares about BC.

Example of it is the ps3 launching with BC then abandoning it in like a year if im not mistaken. It did its job after that new games take the interest of gamers. the sales of the console are prove as the console remained selling well after removal.

Example of it done wrong the x1. It did not launch with BC and then it added it 2 years later, almost 3. By this time there where plenty of new games out that legacy titles could not compete with so the x1 saw almost no boost from such a feature. They thought BC would replace the lack of games they where developing and that would never be the case.

But like the switch if your line up of games is very strong withing your first year then the need for BC is zero as we can all see. The subsequent years where not as strong as the first but it dosent matter as the momentum was already build.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

d21lewis on 22 April 2021

I LOVE backwards compatibility but it's just a nice feature to have. That's it. I'd rather have it than not but a new console will live and die by it's new game catalog.