curl-6 said:
burninmylight said:
If it's true that people don't experience games objectively, then that means that people don't always automatically place less value on games from previous generations. So for someone who had to miss out on entire generations of consoles, having one that has access to that entire library of a previous generation's library is a huge deal. For a lot of folks, that's a big selling point of a console. On a personal level, I missed the entire DS generation, so a big reason I took the plunge on the 3DS was to have access to that entire library as well. When I bought my friend's PS3, I was thinking just as much about all of those PS1 and PS2 gems I spent decades standing on the outside looking in on as I was any games that were modern for the time. Even now, look at these forums or message boards where the Switch 2 comes up and how important backwards compatibility is for most people. It's not just about not having to juggle devices, it's about feeling like your gaming console is the most complete and accessible machine ever. |
And that's fine if you feel that way, I'm just saying not everyone does. There's a reason that say, SNES games on Virtual Console didn't cost as much as they did when they released brand new in the 90s, or that Wii U being able to play all Wii games didn't prevent it from selling 13% of the Wii. |
Two good points. It just really comes down to the question posed originally being open-ended and open to interpretation, so it will mean different things to people. If you look strictly at game library based on what originally launched for the console, you're going to see it completely different than looking at it based on all games that are available on a console through one form or another. I understand that the former might be the majority view, but I think the latter is significant enough to bear mention.
However, if you're going to make the argument that games inherently lose value over time, then you're making the argument that newer games are superior to older games. Therefore, newer versions of IP are better than older versions. If you have a console with newer, better, more modern versions of the same IP along with access to the older versions, then you have a console with the best of both worlds.
Wman1996 said:
I understand the value of backwards compatibility, and 3DS and Wii U have fantastic backwards compatibility. But I'm very hesitant to use it as a criteria for ranking a platform above another.
An example: I prefer GameCube over Wii, and I prefer Wii over Wii U.
But if we're looking at the library compatibility...
Wii U and backwards compatible Wii are pretty much tied, and GameCube would at best rank above a Wii without backwards compatibility.
If someone never owned a DS or Wii, I could maybe understand finding 3DS and Wii U preferrable over a Switch. But if you already had those platforms, the backwards compatibility on their successors is just a convenience, not a new experience.
Are there people out there who argue a Phat PS3 with PS1/PS2 BC is inherently better than a PS2 because of playing even more games? I'm sure those people exist too.
While backwards compatibility is a great industry standard, I think you have to look more at the new hardware and software of a system. It's 2024, and I've had a PS5 for over a year. But are you ready to hear something wild? I haven't decided yet if PS5 is a better console than PS4. Oh sure, it's got way better specs. It plays over 99.9% of PS4 games and has a more feature-filled controller. The PS4 still has a better native library so far, but that could probably be expected considering PS5 isn't quite 3 and a half years old yet.
In February 2024, PS5 is still better as a highly souped up PS4 (think a PS4 Pro Pro) than it is with its own library of cross-gen games and games not on PS4. |
Not sure what you mean by the Wii U and Wii being pretty much tied in terms of backwards compatibility. If you're saying in terms of available BC, then no they are not. The Wii has access to every GCN disc and controller, while the Wii U has three extra Nintendo consoles that the Wii VC does not: GBA, DS and Wii (before we get into the weeds on that last one, consider the advantages, like being able to own a game digitally or, when you could still access the Wii U eShop, being able to acquire games at a reasonable price if the physical copy had gotten too costly). So it comes down to which you value more, full GCN support in a physical form, or full Wii support in a physical form + the entire Wii VC + a big chunk of those same VC games with extra features like better save states and being able to play on a handheld screen + extra consoles.
Are there people out there who argue a Phat PS3 with PS1/PS2 BC is inherently better than a PS2 because of playing even more games? I'm sure those people exist too.
Yep, and I'm one of them. That was a huge selling point on the PS3 for me. I wouldn't argue that the PS3 has a better library; I'd rather have a PS2 and access to every game I'd want on it than a non-BC PS3 without the ability to download old games. But this is real life, and a PS3 can give me all of the greatest hits over the years through three generations of PlayStation sounds a lot better.
Regarding the PS4/PS5 comparison, that's apples to this discussion's oranges. Most modern games are still going to PS4 and X1, so PS4 owners who haven't migrated aren't really being left in the cold.
