Top
80°

How the Industry Is Ruining Backwards Compatibility

Hardcore Gamer: Backwards compatibility is still being experimented with, as older games still have value on the market, but unlike at the beginning of the seventh generation, we’re not seeing an abandonment of backwards compatibility: we’re seeing a ruination of it.

Read Full Story >>
hardcoregamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
XiNarutoUzumaki1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

Meh. Backwards Compatibility is overrated. The past is the past. Move on people!

PS Now and Microsoft's azure are bringing BC the best way they can without including the Cell processor or 360 processor in the PS4 or Xbone.

Keep your PS3 or 360. It's not that hard.

randomass1711264d ago

I disagree. I like being able to run my older games on my newer machine. It gives me more to do with it since the new trend these days is to launch new consoles with very few exclusives. PS3 can play any Playstation game regardless of generation (minus the slim models) and so can the Wii. That's an awesome thing and since I like going back to the classics, that to me is a huge plus.

Besides, I like that alternative better than buying my older games on newer platforms. Unless it's a completely overhauled remake, like Resident Evil Remake on GCN.

CRASHBASHUK1264d ago

umm all ps3s play ps1&2 games with download more on ps2 games with the slim ps3 models

starchild1264d ago

Well said. It is a huge benefit to only have one generation of console hooked up to your tv at a time. I don't have the space to have so many devices hooked up to my display. Not to mention a lot of people like to sell or trade in their old console in order to help fund the purchase of the new console.

Luckily my PS3 plays both PS2 and PS1 games, so I have my PS3 to cover all my favorite PS1, PS2 and PS3 games, and then my PS4 for PS4 games.

1264d ago
randomass1711263d ago

@Gamins-Last-Legend

I didn't say anything like that. I said that having backwards compatibility is a huge plus and has its benefits and therefor is not irrelevant. If it is affordable it should be considered for new consoles.

user56695101263d ago

seem like console gamers love to make excuses why theyre being rob.

"its ok. he took my launch money, but im getting more money tomorrow"

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1263d ago
wonderfulmonkeyman1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

Yeah, no.
I'm sorry, but moving on =/= completely abandoning concepts that were GOOD for us.
And backwards compatibility IS a good thing.

It gives the newer systems an expanded library on release and gives our collection of games a system that will last longer than our old ones would.

It's not fair to say BC is overrated just because Sony and Microsoft weren't smart enough to keep it in mind when designing their consoles.

It's a part of future proofing, and it's a part that they forgot about, then conveniently started trying to downplay as unimportant due to costs.

But to gamers who still love their collections of physical games and want to continue to play them without having to switch back and forth between two or three different systems, which is a huge majority of us, it IS an important thing.

Their stupidity in designing complicated systems that can't even support their most recent generation of games, becomes our loss due to not being able to play our collections without keeping older systems at hand.

Native BC is not a bad thing; the industry wants you to think it is.
But it's not.

Oh, and this is coming from a multiplatform gamer who still owns and loves his PS3, and who WOULD have bought a PS4 at launch if it had given me native BC.

kneon1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

They really only had three choices, they could have continued with the same architecture as last gen, just faster. That would give you easy BC. Or they could have included the necessary hardware to support BC while still moving on to a new architecture.

The first choice would have resulted in more expensive consoles and we would not get the substantial benefits that we get from moving to something close to standard x86 architecture. The second choice would have resulted in an even more expensive console, though they would get the x86 benefits.

The final choice was to break from the past architectures and just move on. That gives them to freedom to design what works best withing their parts budget without the constraints of the past. This is the one they chose and it was the right decision.

wonderfulmonkeyman1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

No, Kneon, it was not the right choice.
The RIGHT choice, would have been finding cheaper equivalent parts, or creating cheaper equivalent parts, that performed the same function, then included it into the systems without raising the price, or presented it as a separate retail accessory far cheaper than just buying a whole new last-gen console, that could hook INTO the PS4/XBone from outside to accept and play games from the past gen.

It gives the players something more to play while they wait for the games that will be built specific to the platform.
It gives us a way to keep using that new system with our old games, when/if its new games become boring or turn out to not be very good. which is happening to a surprising number of the new games...]

Ditching their last gen was not the right choice, no matter how you try to spin it.

Antnee5341264d ago

It wasn't that they were not smart enough it was just that it would add on to the price of ps4 and Xbox one. Base prices would have been at 500 for ps4 and 600 or more xbox one. Price efficiency sells more consoles that's what we seen, and now that's why we have an Xbox with out kinetic which is stupid anyway.

Summons751264d ago

And yet the industry sure loves to move games up because of the lack of backward comparability and want their games to reach a wider audience. People may not be able to keep their old systems for various reasons or maybe didn't have a ps3 before getting a ps4 or vice versa. Its 2014 there is no reason why BC isn't available.

Vegamyster1264d ago

Look how many people switching over from the 360 are looking forward to TLOU Remastered because they never played it, obviously some people owned both consoles but for everyone else that hasn't it's still a good option.

starchild1264d ago

Yeah, the lack of backwards compatibility is one of the things I dislike most about consoles. I have Xbox games that I love that I can no longer play because my old Xbox died and I'm not going to spend the money to buy an old used Xbox that will probably die soon on me anyway.

Backwards compatibility is one of the things I really love about PC gaming. All my games stay on my system (or in my Steam library) even after I upgrade my hardware and I can continue to play them. And the games age backwards. They actually look better over time with multiple hardware upgrades.

GT671264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

if sony not going to continuing bc then they should remake old school games from ps1, ps2 era. FPS type games becoming boring now same shit over an over an over an over an over an over an over wtf .

mydyingparadiselost1264d ago

"Keep your PS3 or 360. It's not that hard."
That's what I did with my ps2 and OG Xbox... And they both died within 6 months of the then new gen coming out. Keeping your old system relies on that system remaining operational well into the future which for most electronics isn't really practical.

wonderfulmonkeyman1264d ago

Precisely.
Having new consoles support the most recent past gen, at least, is a way of future-proofing the libraries of the consoles.

It gives the players something more to play while they wait for the games that will be built specific to the platform, and gives us a way to keep using that new system with our old games, when/if its new games become boring or turn out to not be very good.

1264d ago Replies(4)
XiSasukeUchiha1264d ago

I disagree with you Naruto running old games is fun like playing Clash of Ninja 2 for GCN on Wii U:)

SpiralTear1264d ago

Oh God, Naruto and Sasuke are disagreeing. Does that mean we'll have twenty episodes of filler before we actually find out who's right about backwards compatibility?

Antnee5341264d ago

Sasuke your still falling into that put you shouldn't have the time to comment save naruto and kakashi let Sakura die if you so well please though

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1263d ago
nope1111264d ago

Yeah, i want true backwards compatibility, not a glorified rental service.

Agent_00_Revan1264d ago

Now that the consoles have adopted x86 architecture over custom and proprietary systems of before, I dont see a whole lot of excuses why next gen couldn't be BC with this one. Because I dont see them going back.

rainslacker1263d ago

It's quite possible, and even likely, that something better than x86 will eventually become better for games. GPU's can already perform most functions that games need much more efficiently than x86 can.

EL Lanf1264d ago

I don't think I've ever stuck with one brand of console for backwards compatability to be a problem. I can see the issue when a new generation comes out and you're starved for games. I seldom play anything more than three years old anyway and with PC being my main platform, it isn't even an issue.

That said, maybe I would be more tempted to get a PS4 if I could play some of the PS3 games I missed out on but I can see why backwards compatability isn't there this gen; the architecture is just too different: do you really want consoles costing like £100 for backwards compatability? Perhaps if it was variation that had it rather than main model maybe.

I'd say the real problem is that several consoles, microsoft ones in particular, just aren't built to last.

wonderfulmonkeyman1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

If the PS4 is really as great as people are saying it is, they'd pay that extra.
I know I would have.
I know plenty of others that would have.
Because the PS3 just had that many great games that we'd love to keep playing without having to haul out an aging console for the task time and again.

Jughead34161264d ago

At times I have this itch to play older games. I may want to go through the entire God of War series again. Or play Fallout 3 again. Many gamers are same way. Nintendo and Sony are attempting some form of backwards compatibility. And Microsoft is also rumored to be working on it too. As advanced as technology and game development gets in the future, gamers will always have an emotional attachment to the experiences that they've had with games.

Sy_Wolf1264d ago (Edited 1264d ago )

This asshole should try to make a software emulator for the Xbox One and PS4 that works flawlessly on every Xbox 360 and PS3 game retrospectively without any of the hardware in the console. It's not really possible, especially because of the VAST architectural changes. The shift from PowerPC to X86 alone is enough to cause massive issues. Then add the Cell CPU on the PS3 on too of that.

s45gr321264d ago

It's possible via digital distribution or through the cloud as Playstation Now has demonstrated. Is just the lack of profit that prevents the console manufacturer for implementing backwards compatibility. Remember the PS2 had a different disc format a. k. a DVD instead of CD. The architecture from PS One to PS2 was drastically different; yet, the price of the PS2 did not increase it stay the same. Even if the PS2 was twice the power of the PS One. The three reasons why the PS3 cost $600.00 plus tax was:

Piano Black Finish case
Blu-tooth+built-in multimedia flash memory

Cell Processor: first processor to offer parallel processing, and a built-in graphics chip.

If the PS3 had come with a run of the mill black case, lack of built-in multimedia flash memory plus Blu-tooth , and a duo core AMD processor then the PS3 would of cost $300.00 plus tax not $600.00.

Sy_Wolf1264d ago

First of all the PS1 emulation on the PS2 was hardware based so your point is invalid. Second, a subscription based streaming service isn't anywhere near as good because you have to buy the games again, it's EXTREMELEY bandwidth and latency sensitive, and it will eat up data faster than Netflix. Third, the PS3 was expensive because of the Cell CPU, the RSX which nVidia tougher them on, the XDR RAM, and the BluRay drive. The sub $1 amount of piano black plastic is basically irrelevant in the cost. The heatsink for the insanely expensive CPU costs ordersof magnitude more. Bluetooth and card readers actually don't cost that much. Although taking the card reader out like they did was in fact a good way to lower the cost of the system. Although losses could have potentially been regained if you bought any of Sony's proprietary memory cards.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.