Is it just me or do people care way too much about backwards compatability?

Zoglog

Zoglog

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
Ok first off lets look at some of the more recent home consoles

First nintendo
SNES --> NES? NO
N64 --> SNES? NO
N64 --> GC? NO

Sega

Sega System --> Genesis? NO
Genesis --> Saturn? NO
Saturn --> Dreamcast? NO

And for Atari --> Jaguar? NO


I mean come on people, if you look in the past most systems have NOT been backwards compatable and frankly it's not as big of an issue as people make it. I mean Sony's playstation 2 was prob the first backwards compatible machine for me and I've played like a ps1 game on it for like maybe 2 hours for the whole life of both of my ps2s. You simply shouldnt buy Next Gen Consoles with banking so much on backwards compatability.

And of course we're moving to a next gen and things "should" be advancing to be backwards compatible but it'snot like Microsoft didnt want to make things backwards compatible, it was all due to thier little dispute with Nvidia and not licensing the technlogy. I've seen tons of companies leave out backwards compatability where possible (*coff nintendo*) just so you'd have to retain old versions of consoles.

Seriously people, get over it...
 
Actually the Genesis was backwards compatible if you bought the adapter that let you play Master System games. That was pretty nifty back in the day.

I think people expect backwards compatibility now because the system turnover time is so short and they invest in games that they would like to be able to play without keeping their old system hooked up.

Oh, and I've played several PS1 games on my PS2 because it was more convenient than hooking up my PS1.
 
it makes us feel better about our $$$ we invested in previous gen consoles, + who wants to dig up old gen console to play one game, when our new gen system is alrdy set up. Less clutter = better
 
Well it's a personal opinion so I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this thread, but a lot of people don't want to a) drop $300+ on a system that may only have a few games they want at the beginning, or b) not have the room to hook up all the systems they own. The PS2 and XBOX won't be 'extinct' for another few years, so any true gamer would probably want access to the games on a regular basis.

Also, some people (myself included) often sell their current gen system to fund the next gen. Non-backwards compatible would mess with that too.
 
Well, with the PS3 that's like having three systems in one case, it's really convenient.

Especially since even high end HDTVs only have 7 video inputs.
 
No, they don't care too much.

Along with some of the above reasons (selling off your sys but playing games), I'll add:

Space . . . right now I have all three systems hooked up to my TV . . . adding another is not a good option unless I can retire one.

Also, launch games are not enough to keep one gaming . . . there is a "need" to play older games as the next gen emerges.
 
After it's been offered to the market, it's one of those features that people come to expect. Sort of like (This may be a bad analogy) a CD player in a vehicle today. Sure it isn't necessary, but it's a minor point that makes someone feel better about their purchase.

For me personally, I don't own a PS2 or an XBox, and my Gamecube laser needs to be recalibrated every few months now. Backwards compatibility will let me play games that I may have missed out on from the previous generation or two.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']

I think people expect backwards compatibility now because the system turnover time is so short and they invest in games that they would like to be able to play without keeping their old system hooked up.

Oh, and I've played several PS1 games on my PS2 because it was more convenient than hooking up my PS1.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. I think people do sort of expect it now that PS2 did it. I never owned a PS1, and I've bought a number of PS1 games on the cheap. With all this talk of next-gen games going for $60-70, I'm in even less of a hurry to get through my pile of still unplayed PS2 games. It will be nice to not need 2 systems hooked up to play older and newer games.

Having said all that, backward compatibility (or lack of it) would not be a determining factor as to whether I'd buy a console or not.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']Ok first off lets look at some of the more recent home consoles

First nintendo
SNES --> NES? NO
N64 --> SNES? NO
N64 --> GC? NO

Sega

Sega System --> Genesis? NO
Genesis --> Saturn? NO
Saturn --> Dreamcast? NO

And for Atari --> Jaguar? NO[/QUOTE]
You have a bunch of failures listed there you know.

The Saturn had a fairly useless cartridge slot on it, and I would bet that a good amount of customers were "tricked" into thinking that their Genesis games would work on it. Sega had been supporting 3 different systems up until the Saturn launched, when it became 4 (and then everything completely went to shambles). If the Saturn had come out of the gate with full Gen/CD/32X backwards compatibility, Sega could've kept supporting all 4 systems. The Saturn's lack of BC was a noticable omission, and it really could've saved the system (as well as its 3 predecessors).

The low adoption rate of the Saturn would've made BC irrelevant for the DC.

The Jaguar came out so long after the other Atari systems that BC would've been irrelevant. If anything, it would've been considdered a novelty rather than a key feature.

The SNES was successful without NES BC, but one has to wonder how much more successful it would've been if it had it? The NES had been trailing off for a couple years by the time the SNES hit the scene, so it probably wouldn't have had as big a potential impact as the Saturn's would've.

Also, ask yourself why the PS2 sold as many launch units as it did? The launch lineup was one of the worst ever, yet it had the most successful lineup of all time. A big part of that was the BC aspect of it, especially with the popularity of the ps1.

So yeah, it's an important feature.
 
Plus, you don't want to spend a bunch of money on things like memory cards and controllers if they just end up becoming obsolete with the next gen. I didn't even think about getting bongos until the Rev had GC ports. And this is after owning a Wavebird, several wired controllers, and 4 GBA/GC cables.

Yes, I am a consumer whore. But at least that stuff gets way more mileage than it used to. Where as the added multiplayer aspects of certain titles drove me to want 4 controllers off the bat (Smash Bros), it's nice to know I can continue to play that game. It's endlessly fun and always fresh, so I like the fact that I can play it easily.

To schultzed: Only 3? I have 7! :)
 
dude you taking that side of this issue on this board is like someone supporting affirmative action at a KKK rally. We all want to milk every penny out of our consoles and at $400 it better have more uses than a sega genesis
 
Well the main reason is because my HDTV only has two component inputs, and one runs only 480p and higher. Also I don't have a large amount of space in my gaming media center. So mainly it's a convenience issue more then anything else.
 
Actually I really don't think backwards compatability had much to do with the high sales of the ps2. it was the sony hype machine and the brand name's huge recognition. Plus no real competitors during launch.

I don't deny the benifits of Backwards compatability, I just think people are making too big a deal out of it.
 
I like backward compatibility because if I have had a system since launch and used it heavily for 5 years or so it may be at the end of its life. I don't want to spend more money on another PS2 for example when I can use the money toward a PS3 that plays all the games.
 
I don't want to waste 150 on an XBOX, but do recognize that there are some good games on the system. Do those games warrent me wasting 150 on an XBOX? NO! But if those games could be played on the new 360, then sure I'll get a 360. That would allow me to be a current gamer and not waste 150 on a dying system. If those games couldn't be played on the 360, then Ill just believe the 360 will suck as much as the XBOX and only throw a handful of good games out, thus making me realize the stupidity of wasting 400. Two Systems with a handful of good games each? Not worth it. One system to play all those games? Worth every penny. This is my philosophy.
 
I own way too many PS1 and PS2 games for backwards compatiabilty not to be an issue. The thing I worry most about the new systems is (in order of importance) exclusive games, backwards compatability, and online play. It is really getting to the point where (to me anyway) that systems are more and more alike these days. The victor in the next-gen system battle will be the one who gets the best exclusive games for their systems. Because no matter how powerful a system is if it doesn't have good games nobody cares. There are a lot of people that still play SNES and NES games just as much as the newer games. Great games will get the players, not the strength of the system. (I apologize for sorta getting off topic)
 
I need to add one more thing:

Systems get old and age. My 2 N64s are finally starting to have problems working with all my games. My SNES barely works and my NES barely works. Having a new system play a previous gen's games is excellent because it is a newer product and I won't have to worry about it breaking as soon as I would the older model. My friends PS1 is starting to break on him, but my PS2 plays my games fine. Newer is better.


[quote name='burningelf']I own way too many PS1 and PS2 games for backwards compatiabilty not to be an issue. The thing I worry most about the new systems is (in order of importance) exclusive games, backwards compatability, and online play. It is really getting to the point where (to me anyway) that systems are more and more alike these days. The victor in the next-gen system battle will be the one who gets the best exclusive games for their systems. Because no matter how powerful a system is if it doesn't have good games nobody cares. There are a lot of people that still play SNES and NES games just as much as the newer games. Great games will get the players, not the strength of the system. (I apologize for sorta getting off topic)[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. The Xbox had a couple of good exclusive games: Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden, Panzer Dragoon Orta, PGR. These are not enough to warrent buying this system for me.
 
It's not going to make or break my decision to buy a console but it is a very nice feature. I would definitely be inclined to buy one earlier though if I already had games at home that worked on it. Plus, like others have mentioned, clutter is bad. I play my PS1 games but not my N64 games simply because the PS2 can play them and Gamecube could not. My N64 is only hooked up in the bedroom but my PS2 gets the main TV.

I never owned an Xbox so I am hoping that MS works out the kinks and gets the majority of Xbox games working on the 360.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It's not going to make or break my decision to buy a console but it is a very nice feature. I would definitely be inclined to buy one earlier though if I already had games at home that worked on it. Plus, like others have mentioned, clutter is bad. I play my PS1 games but not my N64 games simply because the PS2 can play them and Gamecube could not. My N64 is only hooked up in the bedroom but my PS2 gets the main TV.

I never owned an Xbox so I am hoping that MS works out the kinks and gets the majority of Xbox games working on the 360.[/QUOTE]
In my case I'm straight on the fence about the 360. Whether its backward compatible will drive my decision to either buy it or Just rebuy an xbox and wait a few years for the 360 to drop
 
My big issue is the backwards compatability for the Xbox 360 is still (as far as I know) uncertain. I would feel great investing in a system that would play all the old games, and at the same time I wouldn't care too much if it doesn't. I just wish they would come out with the details already.

If I knew for certain it plays all the games, some games (with a list stating which ones), or none, I would be 100% more comfortable and may even consider getting one. But for now, I'll just wait until launch, and all of the "OMG TEH 306 WONT PLAY MY ********* GAME!!1" threads.
 
[quote name='Z-Saber']My big issue is the backwards compatability for the Xbox 360 is still (as far as I know) uncertain. I would feel great investing in a system that would play all the old games, and at the same time I wouldn't care too much if it doesn't. I just wish they would come out with the details already.

If I knew for certain it plays all the games, some games (with a list stating which ones), or none, I would be 100% more comfortable and may even consider getting one. But for now, I'll just wait until launch, and all of the "OMG TEH 306 WONT PLAY MY ********* GAME!!1" threads.[/QUOTE]
The fact that they have yet to come clean about this probably means a lot of people are going to be unhappy when the system is out
 
from these threads it's obvious that some people do seem to care a great deal about backwards compatability. My question is why bother with it, if you already have such a large library of those games shouldn't you have the console already? Also by the time the next gen launches the regular console will be available for dirt cheap. Isn't the whole point of Next Gen consoles and games so that you can move on? It makes very little sense to me that something as minute as backwards compatability on a next gen console could make or break somone's decision. It would make more sense to me if that person just didn't care at all about next gen since they were so infatuated with thier old games that they would rather not move to next gen until it becomes affordable.
 
believe it or not, but some people never owned an xbox, or a ps1 or ps2, so backwards compatibility is nice for the because it increase their library instantly.

genesis was backwards and dont forget GBC, GBA
 
cool, gonna watch that auction. i have a SMS, but haven't tested anything other than the fact that it can power up. besides, one fewer console on my entertainment center can only be for the better.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']from these threads it's obvious that some people do seem to care a great deal about backwards compatability. My question is why bother with it, if you already have such a large library of those games shouldn't you have the console already? Also by the time the next gen launches the regular console will be available for dirt cheap. Isn't the whole point of Next Gen consoles and games so that you can move on? It makes very little sense to me that something as minute as backwards compatability on a next gen console could make or break somone's decision. It would make more sense to me if that person just didn't care at all about next gen since they were so infatuated with thier old games that they would rather not move to next gen until it becomes affordable.[/QUOTE]

It's already been mentioned several times. If a system is not backwards compatible and you want to play the previous system's games you must either keep the old system hooked up or hook up the old system everytime you want to play it. So, you either have more clutter around your entertainment system or you are inconvenience by having to hook up the old system when you want to play a game.
 
[quote name='pimp tyranny']cool, gonna watch that auction. i have a SMS, but haven't tested anything other than the fact that it can power up. besides, one fewer console on my entertainment center can only be for the better.[/QUOTE]

You have to have a 1st generation Genesis for the converter to work. Just wanted you to know that before you bought one.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']It's already been mentioned several times. If a system is not backwards compatible and you want to play the previous system's games you must either keep the old system hooked up or hook up the old system everytime you want to play it. So, you either have more clutter around your entertainment system or you are inconvenience by having to hook up the old system when you want to play a game.[/QUOTE]

I understand the whole clutter argument, but when I got my ps2 I probably busted out my ps1 maybe a whole 10 hours at most to play xenogears. I owned a good deal of ps1 games as well. Also I own like a good 30 xbox titles. Yet I still figure when I get the 360 I'll be moving on from those titles. I mean I didn't invest 400 in a new system just to play old games on them. I'd hope that the console's other merits such as live and the next gen games would keep me too occupied from playing my older games or else is the investment to go next gen really worth it? Thats why I feel backwards compatability is an overrated issue and really shouldn't be the tipping point. I suppose it is up to the person buying, and it is thier money after all, but the reasoning seems all wrong to me.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']Ok first off lets look at some of the more recent home consoles

First nintendo
SNES --> NES? NO
N64 --> SNES? NO
N64 --> GC? NO

Sega

Sega System --> Genesis? NO
Genesis --> Saturn? NO
Saturn --> Dreamcast? NO

And for Atari --> Jaguar? NO


I mean come on people, if you look in the past most systems have NOT been backwards compatable and frankly it's not as big of an issue as people make it. [/QUOTE]

Back when those systems were out you didn't have the possibility of a person owning 50 different consoles.

I understand your argument about not buying new systems for older games but backwards compatibilty is something that most consumers always wanted. As long as the added cost is minimal then it is a great bonus.
 
Any console with moving parts (i.e. cd drives) eventually crap out. That's what happened to my PS. I bought a PS2, threw out the old system and now I can play both systems. If you can't play the old games because no one has a working system, the games are useless.

My question is, when does the backwards compatability stop? Will PS10 play all PS 1-9 games?
 
[quote name='jshendel']

My question is, when does the backwards compatability stop? Will PS10 play all PS 1-9 games?[/QUOTE]

i would think that as they get more and more powerful it will become easier to emulate older systems, emulating ps1-5 will be easy for the ps8
 
I dig bc. It's nice to have only my PS2 hooked up and being able to play PS1 games. I think this goes hand in hand with not having enough time to play games....as there are still PS1 games I need to play through. I'm sure when the PS3 comes out there will still be PS2 and PS1 games I haven't either played or finished yet. Since all these systems are now disc-based it makes sense to offer it as an option.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']I understand the whole clutter argument, but when I got my ps2 I probably busted out my ps1 maybe a whole 10 hours at most to play xenogears. I owned a good deal of ps1 games as well. Also I own like a good 30 xbox titles. Yet I still figure when I get the 360 I'll be moving on from those titles. I mean I didn't invest 400 in a new system just to play old games on them. I'd hope that the console's other merits such as live and the next gen games would keep me too occupied from playing my older games or else is the investment to go next gen really worth it? Thats why I feel backwards compatability is an overrated issue and really shouldn't be the tipping point. I suppose it is up to the person buying, and it is thier money after all, but the reasoning seems all wrong to me.[/QUOTE]

I, and I'm sure many here are the same way, have literally dozens of unplayed games from this generation. Having to have both systems hooked up to play this gen's stuff may not be an option, but I may want to still play them off. If this is the case, then there is no way I will get the next gen until my backlog is gone. If the 360 (or whatever) was BC, I would personally be quicker to purchase it. Call it a stupid reason, but I KNOW I am not alone in this thinking.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']The Saturn had a fairly useless cartridge slot on it, and I would bet that a good amount of customers were "tricked" into thinking that their Genesis games would work on it. Sega had been supporting 3 different systems up until the Saturn launched, when it became 4 (and then everything completely went to shambles). If the Saturn had come out of the gate with full Gen/CD/32X backwards compatibility, Sega could've kept supporting all 4 systems. The Saturn's lack of BC was a noticable omission, and it really could've saved the system (as well as its 3 predecessors).[/QUOTE]

LMAO!!! That's the first time I heard that BC could of saved the Saturn. Ridiculous. Saturn was doomed out the gate because of a design flaw. :D
 
I don't care about BC. It's not like I'll get rid of my current system. I think I only used my PS2 to play a PS1 game twice.
 
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but another thing that comes into play regarding backwards capatability for me is which system I buy my games for. One of the reasons that I buy most multiplatform games for PS2 is that I know they'll be playable on future Sony consoles. Now that I have an Xbox, the harddrive is a selling feature for that version, but if I won't be able to play it on a 360, I'd rather go with the PS2 version. If my Xbox craps out on me in a few years, I don't want to have to buy another Xbox if I already have (or plan to buy) a 360. Especially given my backlog of unplayed games. I'll admit I didn't play much of PS1 games on my PS2 so maybe I care about it too much, but I still think about it when making purchases.
 
Backwards compatiblity is becoming more necessary with the new gen systems coming out quicker and also cartridge systems lasted longer. It's definitely hard to imagine my PS1 or PS2 lasting as long as my Super Nintendo.
 
Zoglog I do agree that you always want to get the newest and best games but the big problem is that there are usually not a lot of gems made for systems. Out of 200-400 games made for a console I will usually only buy between 20 and 30 games for that system. For me a great game is a great game no matter how old it is. That is what makes these games great. I have yet to see a system make a better Bomberman than the one made on the Sega Saturn. I have also beaten a lot of my games a few times. I just believe that a lot of people are just getting tired of getting a new system and waiting such a long time for any really good games to come out for it because honestly I am not impressed with any of the next-gen games for the XBox 360 due at launch. The main reason I bought my PS2 when I did is because I thought "Hey I can play my PS1 games on it, which will bide me over until I can eventually get some good PS2 games"
 
I really don't care much. IT's a nice feature...I do appreciate it, however, I don't see myself playing too many XBOX games once I get my 360. I'll play Halo2 and that's about it. PLUS, you ALREADY have an XBOX, so just hook that back up if you really want to play XBOX games.
 
[quote name='doubledown']I really don't care much. IT's a nice feature...I do appreciate it, however, I don't see myself playing too many XBOX games once I get my 360. I'll play Halo2 and that's about it. PLUS, you ALREADY have an XBOX, so just hook that back up if you really want to play XBOX games.[/QUOTE]

Halo 2 is compatible with the xbox 360 if I remember correctly.
 
[quote name='Zoglog']Halo 2 is compatible with the xbox 360 if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE]
Current BC list for Xbox 360:
Halo
Halo 2

Rest of the games:
Who the fuck knows?

Ones that won't work:
Steel Batallion
Steel Batallion: Lines Of Contact

I'm keeping my Xbox for a while, thanks, and waiting on a 360.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top