How important to you is backwards compatibility in your console purchasing decisions? Is the ability to play PlayStation 3 games on a PlayStation 4 (or Orbis, or whatever) something that will make your purchase of any new console more likely?
Backwards compatibility has always seemed a bit of an odd feature for people to demand in a new console. Don’t we buy a new console because we want the new, exciting features and increase in power? Isn’t a large part of the reason we upgrade to get away from the restrictions of a previous generation? And even if you want to continue playing your library of games from the previous generation, won’t you still have that machine?
And yet, it’s an issue that appears in comments sections and on forums over and over again. It’s obviously something that many people are very passionate about.
It’s not exactly a staple of console hardware, either. The SNES didn’t play NES games at all. The N64 didn’t play SNES or NES games and the Gamecube failed to play N64, SNES or NES games. The Wii did have backward compatibility for the Gamecube and emulated a lot of older consoles through its Virtual Console system and the Wii U works similarly, although without any Gamecube titles just yet.
If you wanted backward compatibility on a Mega Drive (or Genesis), you needed an extra device known as the Master System Converter in Europe, Mega Adapter in Japan and Power Base Converter in the US. That was a pass-through device that converted the cartridge slot to accept Master System cartridges. The Master System Converter cost about £40, roughly the price of a new game, and wasn’t universally functional. The Saturn didn’t play Mega Drive games and the Dreamcast didn’t play Saturn games either.
The functionality was much more common in home computers. The new iterations of Spectrum computers ran programs made for older machines. The Amiga was compatible through each step of the system’s life. But it could be argued that the console business has always been slightly different, with larger generational leaps and more defined, lengthier periods with a single hardware focus.
So, backwards compatibility is a relatively new thing for consoles.
Only the PlayStation 2, Wii and Xbox 360 have reliably supported it in home consoles (Nintendo’s handhelds have a good track record for backwards compatibility, to be fair). Sony even removed the ability from the PS3 in the first hardware revision and sales certainly didn’t suffer for it. So why does it seem that many are expecting it in the next generation?
It’s not something that worries EA’s Chief Financial Officer, Blake Jorgensen. He recently said, during an investor call, “an important thing to remember is that next-gen consoles will most likely not be backwards compatible.” He went on to imply that this was a good thing for EA’s business as it would mean they could maintain sales of current generation software.
He also pointed out that incompatibility between generations would mean that groups of friends who enjoy playing online would all upgrade around the same time, assisting sales of next generation software when the time comes.
It’s easy for us older folk to forget that many modern console owners are too young to remember a change in generations that didn’t at least feature plenty of discussion around backwards compatibility. The PS2 had it, and dominated that generation. The Xbox 360 was almost entirely backwards compatible. The PS3 launched with it and there was a lot of backlash, at least online, when Sony removed it. So it’s reasonable that anyone under 20 years old would feel like it’s an assumed feature to at least seriously consider when they’re upgrading.
How imperative is it, though? If Sony unveils the PlayStation 4 and there’s no possibility of playing PlayStation 3 games on it, would you be put off from buying the new console? How far back do you want them to go with it, is one generation enough or would you demand PS2 and PS1 compatibility too? What are your plans for your existing generation of consoles, after you own the next generation?
Of course, some newer questions about backwards compatibility will arise with this generational shift. We now have large libraries of digitally distributed games, made for PS3 or Xbox 360 and sold via PSN and XBLA. We’ll most likely still be using some version of the PSN and XBLA on our next generation of consoles, so will those libraries fragment into games compatible only with this current generation and those compatible only with the next generation?
It would be, I believe, a major selling point if Sony or Microsoft can claim to have an existing library of hundreds of digitally available games when they launch their next consoles. Quite aside from the convenience of being able to re-download or even transfer my existing purchases to a new machine, I think the appeal to newcomers would be significant. But it’s certainly not a deal breaker for me.
Ultimately, when I buy the next generation of consoles, it will be because I want something new. I won’t pack away my PS3 or Xbox 360 until I’ve finished playing games on those consoles and when I do, it will be because there’s more excitement in the new than there is temptation in the old. But we’re all different, so let’s hear how you intend to bridge the generational leap with your own buying and playing habits.
xdarkmagician
Its not the single selling point I’m interested in the most, but BC would increase the odds of that purchase. But BC isn’t as important as no DRM, a working network, media apps, physical game drive, theres alot more important things to consider now. BC was cool back in the day when we didn’t have the online infrastructure we have today and all we had was story or bot mode.
I trade almost all ( except for rockstar games) of my games in a few months after I buy them, plus I keep my old consoles so I can still play the games I keep. So if I buy into next gen chances are I’m trading in my unwanted last gen games to buy next gen games anyways.
But IMO this generation hasn’t produced more than a handful of games worth replaying, and most MP based games will have their servers turned off anyways so theres no point in BC. And as far as not being able to play digital copies of games, well what do you expect when you don’t own it. people who support digital copies should have seen this coming a mile away.
stueeeee
I do see what people mean when they say they buy a new console to play new games. This is true, and I dont play any ps2 games now. I do play quite a few of the classics though. I no longer have a ps2, but if they hadn’t released classic hd I probably would. Just think of a the excellent games u couldn’t play every now n again if they hand re released them.
And like someone said above, ps2 looked shocking on HDTV. If there’s no new tv/format for ps4 I’m not really sure I’m too interested to begin with anyway. I shall definitely be keeping the ps3 for a while as I’ve got lots of games to get through.
If they have PSN but dont allow u to play downloads (like u can download psp>ps vita currently) then I will hold off as long as poss. Having potentially hundreds of pounds worth of content (bought and ps+) locked in a box in a cupboard is not really what I wanna do. And streaming should be far better soon? And I dont wanna buy the ps3 Classics 4K really…
But then I say that now but when ps3 launched I never thought I’d re buy better looking versions of ps2 games. Or psOne games I have on disc just to play on psp/vita….
skibadee
going to keep my PS3 so I will just use it when I need to.
Galgomite
With Gaikai, I really have no doubt that streaming PS2 and PS3 games will become part of the PS Plus subscription, or an additional option. I’d love to have PS3 emulation, but I’m not expecting the hardware to feel like more than a “1.5” revamp.
Dummy01
I can hardly understand all this backwards compatibility story.
To me is extremely difficult to come back to a game even of the current generation that I already played. And I don’t see the reason to do it since there are always new games that come out waiting for me to play.
And if the above is difficult, it is impossible for me to return to previous generations like PS2, PS1, or (because I am and old game-saur) Sega, and Atari. All these consoles had their time, and I enjoyed them very much back then, but the beat goes on. To me it’s like a sin to play in the same console Uncharted and PS1 Crash Bandicot!
I guess I am from the very few that has this opinion, and the continous porting of old titles points that there is a market that like it. Or maybe they want you to like old titles since they cost almost nothing to port.
In any case I don’t want my next generation console to be less powerful than it can be, because they invest money on hardward parts to support backwards compatibility. I want me to enjoy always a new experience. 8-Bit Donkey Kong can stay just a happy memory.
Torquemada
I think this would be a huge mistake for both companies. Most new console releases has about 1 good game buried in a sea of shovelware, so it takes ages waiting for the next good game to be developed. The Vita is a good example here. Golden Abyss & Unit 13 were cracking games, but we had to wait ages for anything half decent to turn up after launch (some may say we’re still waiting). This can affect console sales. Ive no intention on spending a ridiculous sum of money on a launch machine to be only to be able to play 1 game for 6 months or so. I’ll wait, as a lot of my friends have said they would, until theres a decent slew of games. This is obviously not what Sony or Microsoft want. Im not asking for PS1 & PS2 backwards capability, or to play original Xbox games. Just the ability to play last generation games. Some are still be played quite heavily now (Battlefield 3 for instance), and it’ll help bolster the decision to make the leap to the next generation.
If they dont, then I really wont be buying in to it until theres a decent number of games to make it worthwhile. Most of the games released will end up being cross platform (remember Bully), so it’ll be a while before I even feel like Im losing out.
JigsawPieces
With PS2 and PS3 (at first) this really mattered to me. I’d moved on from the previous console some time before, either to other gaming platforms taking my interest or because the physical console itself had died. So the backwards compatibility meant I’d got a chance to go back and revisit some old games that I hadn’t been able to play for a while.
This time? I’m surprised to find myself not bothered about it at all. I think it’s because the PS3 is still very much alive for me as a gaming platform that I’m still enjoying. This time, I’ll be keeping the PS3 set up alongside whatever’s next.
Napo2k
I like it, if only to avoid piling up consoles in the living room. Also, it gives me a chance to try to get the new console slightly cheaper by selling the old one. This, for instance, makes the Vita a huge thing for me, now that I can play a lot of PSP and PSOne games on it. It’s not “getting the new system to play the old games”, but “wanting to play the old games in the new system”.
Quag
Backwards compatibility would be nice so long as it does not increase the purchase price of the console to much.
hazelam
for me, it’s important, it’s not a deal breaker but it’s important.
some of the best games for a console come towards the end of its life, certainly there’s more quality there than the launch line up, to have to swap cables over and shift boxes around to play games is annoying.
people say “who cares about last gen games?”
i say look how many hd remakes there are, they only get made because people buy them and people buy them because they’re bloody good games.
but honestly, i’d rather they did no BC than the piss take way they’re doing it on the ps3, at least with ps2 emulation.
it’s not that only certain games work, that’s to be expected with software emulation.
it’s that they lock out the disc versions while the download versions.
don’t tell me they’re modifying them for the ps3, nobody’s going in and modifying those midas shovelware titles, that you could buy new for 99p when the ps2 was still on sale.
the Gameboy is an interesting one though, my thoughts are that maybe the bc is one of the reasons why the system, and the DS, has become so huge.
you buy the new version and you know you’ll have a huge library of games available, day one.
they sort of wean you into the next generation, first they release a model that supports the last gen, then eventually they release a version that removes that ability.
the GB colour could play GB games, the GBA could play GB and GBC games, the DS could play GBA games and now the 3DS can play DS.
and eventually they’ll probably release a version of the 3DS that doesn’t support ds games.
it’s a policy that would help home consoles as well i feel.
having a ready made library at launch has to be a handy selling point for any new console.
incidentally, the SNES never had BC, but it did have a sort of sideways compatibility, there was a gameboy adaptor you could get that let you play, shock, gameboy games.
and the Gamecube had a GBA adaptor, i’ve got one, but i need the bloody disc.
seriously, how is it the hardware is cheaper than the disc? o_O
i remember on the old Colecovision, you could get an adaptor that let you play Atari 2600 games, you’d never see anything like that these days.
the closest we ever saw to that in the modern era was bleem.
speaking of bleem, why is it that none of the software emulators in the consoles render the games in higher resolution?
it can be done, i once, and once only, managed to get a ps1 game running in bleem that rendered in a higher resolution, it looked pretty good, not as good as a game made for the higher resolution, but miles better than the standard version and way better than upscaled after rendering.
wall-o-text ™