Tell GR: Is Backwards Compatibility Really That Important?

Kind of, yes. Everything up to the PS2 can be emulated just fine, but the original Xbox has no demand for a decent emulator (and I imagine the 360 won't either) due to so few exclusives, and I doubt there will EVER be a decent PS3 emulator because the hardware architecture is so needlessly complex.

Without backwards compatibility you either keep these old junky consoles that will eventually stop working because the build quality is relatively poor compared to older generations, or this whole generation is forgotten. For archival purposes things like Xbox live are a nightmare, because as soon as it stops being supported on the 360 there goes all those arcade games. It just contributes to the culture of impermanence perpetuated by the internet age.

The console that has backwards compatibility will probably get my money first. It majorly pads what is usually a meager launch library. After finishing the one or two launch titles I like to be able to pop-in a last-gen game that I missed.

I finally figured it out. Alex reminds me of Sylar from Heroes if instead of going out and killing a bunch of people he decided to just work on his skateboarding.

Why not just keep your current gen console?

'Cause they're broken.

Nothing last forever, learn to let things go.

At this point in time no. It gets too expensive to make each console backwards compatible. They either have to include ALL previous hardware or spend tons of money and resources on creating an emulator. Honestly just go buy the older consoles for some spare change on eBay. It doesn't really matter to me anymore. I can play PS1 games on my phone, tablet, Vita, PSP, PS2, and PS3. I may not be able to play PS2 games on anything, but you can get one on eBay for like $30. I think backwards compatibility is irrelevant at this point because I don't want the console price going up just for that.

Fair enough comment on the price going up to include backwards compatability, but that's a cost I personally would be willing to pay. If consoles could be modular and you could pay extra to upgrade it to play past generation games, that's something I'd be very interested in.

There's no way you could mod the console and "upgrade it" Either the consoles will have the compatibility or won't. From a hardware standpoint each company has to decide whether to include all previous hardware (PS1, 2, and 3) or emulate the software later on. It would be cheaper to just emulate software, but for three consoles? What happens when the PS5 comes out? Four consoles then? It has to stop at some point.

It's nice to have during the first 6 months of the console's lifecycle when the quality and quantity of new games is quite low. After that I typically stop caring.

I think the thing about backwards compatibility is it can really help make it easier to make that jump to the new console. It's definitely not completely necessary, but it is a big plus if I can move my old library over and get rid of my old console. Not everyone wants to get rid of their old consoles though I like to have room in my entertainment center without having to store old consoles in drawers.

No! I'm not getting a PS4 to play PS3 games. If you want to continue to play PS3 games, keep the console!

Fuck yes it's important. My ps2 is broken, but until my first-gen ps3 broke I could still cruise through RE4 or rock out to Um Jammer Lammy with a wireless controller. Those were the days. If we can't have hardware support I would definitely pay for emulation software, but it seems like they won't make that an option either.

Remember BleemCast? I so wanted that to come true.

As a pc gamer I think it is. I even run a ps2 emulator when I get the hankering to replay one of my ps1 or ps2 rpgs.

Last gen was 6 years. Everyone who wanted to play got to, and everyone who didn't, doesn't.

That said, I agree with Ivory Soul--proprietary architecture was a huge miss for Sony. Now they've got a huge catalog of perfectly playable first-party titles that are ridiculously expensive to port.

Just for fun: a history of major console backwards compatibility:

Console Year Backwards Compatible?
Sega Genesis 1988 Yes, with adapter
SNES 1990 No
Atari Jaguar 1993 No
Sega Saturn 1994 No
Virtual Boy 1995 No
Nintendo 64 1996 No
Dreamcast 1998 No
PlayStation 2 2000 Yes
GameCube 2001 No
Xbox 360 2005 Yes but No One Cared
PlayStation 3 2006 Yes then No
Wii 2006 Yes then No
Wii U 2012 Yes
PlayStation 4 2013 No

You win this round, Formatting...

It is important, if the WiiU didn't have compatibility for Wii games I would not have considered buying one.

Snap, the main reason I bought a WiiU is so I could hook it up to my computer monitor via HDMI to play my backlog of Wii games (as the TV in my front room isn't always accessible). As the PS4 isn't backwards compatable, I won't be buying it until I clear my PS3 backlog, which will be a good few years yet! Backwards compatability definately helps in early adoption

No. I've sold most of my 360 games over time to buy new ones, so if I really care about playing any of the ones I've got left ill just keep my 360.

Also remember that once you're balls deep in a new console generation for a few years a lot of those games you loved so much for the last one the you swore you'd want to replay forever start to look lame and chances are you want care about most of them anyway. Also many of the big games get remade, and if the next generation will be 10 years or so like predicted there will be tons of time for many if the old greats to be remade and bundled.

To a degree, but as already stated, it's not worth the jump in price it causes for the next gen console.

For me: no. I tend to thrash a game & then move on so playing old games is not a priority. I didn't purchase many titles from the PSN so they won't really be missed. I don't know if or when I'll buy a PS4, but if/when I do I'll still keep the PS3 easily accessible. I guess it's still PCs for the win.

Will it be a dealbreaker if the 720 doesn't play 360 games? Not necessarily. It would be super cool on MS's end, and it probably will factor into a lot of people's purchasing decisions, but I really don't think it's THAT huge of a deal.

I've heard rumors though, that Microsoft wants to reset Xbox players' gamerscores when and if current gamertags roll over to the 720. I see that as a longshot though. I for one would riot if they did this.

I could careless. I still have all my consoles . When I get my PS4 my PS3 will still be hooked up same that I have done in the past. BC doesn't matter to me, because no matter what I will still have my older consoles to play games on.

I think its important... I just feel like there are still so many great games to play this gen with more on the way... And while i love great graphics i am still satisfied with current games...

To me and many ive talked to there is a clear DEAL BREAKER: (OUR GAMER PROFILES!!!)
(most of us have invested too much time on (achievements) and too much money on digital items: (full games, arcade games, tv shows, movies, dlc) to just lose it all and start over...

Ultra HD remakes, it's going to happen.

Well, yes. I bought my 3DS in part because of backwards compatibility with all of my DS games. That and the fact I wore out my poor old DS. I just got it earlier because of the backwards compatibility, I still would have gotten it anyway, but just later than I did. I think backwards compatibility would sell more PS4's sooner rather than later.

The only people who really care about backwards compatibility are hardcore gamers. Casual gamers who buy a PS4 for Sing It! 5000 don't care about playing Jak & Daxter or Ico. Console makers are moving away from it because it is getting really expensive now because not only do they have to do this for the discs but also all the digital content. It's too expensive to do this now. Plus, consoles are cheap to buy on eBay if you don't own one.

I've been reading up on this issue for a while now, and whilst I fully understand the reasons for not implementing it (the PS3 cell structure is just plain too awkward to implement it) backwards compatability is a feature I would pay handsomely for. I get people aren't fussed by it, but it would be really nice if it was an option, either my modular expansion or even releasing different versions of the console.

I play a LOT of games, I own a PC and have owned nearly all consoles over the past 25 years, and despite never getting close to playing my backlog, there are certain standout games that I still go back and revisit, and having one machine to play them all one would make things so much easier. For example, I can fire up Diablo 2 whenever I feel like it on my PC (one reason I love PC gaming so much) but I can't do that with my PS2 games anymore.

Finally, just this week I've had a marvellous experience with backwards compatability. I have about a half dozen PS1 games that I love and haven't touched for years since this current gen. My PS1 has sat there but I don't have any way to hook it up to my HD monitor. Whilst researching backwards compatability, I found out my PS3 can play my old PS1 games! (How I didn't already know this is beyond me!) So I have literally spent the last week and a half playing R-type Delta, Castlevania SoTN and Bushido Blade, and realised I had more fun with those old games than I have all year with current gen ones. Some games are timeless, and if they're not 'popular' enough to get ports or HD remakes they may vanish forever. Backwards compatability is great, because it lets gamers like me get back to their roots.

The dissapearing of 'cult games' is something I really fear. Newer is not always better, and if I ever have kids, I want to show them some of the games their mother used to play. Whether it's an old DOS classic like Commander Keen, or a PS3 gem like Dark Souls, some titles are works of art that we should preserve and protect for the next generation of gamers.

definitely important, but not surprised no one is doing it and its not a deal breaker either. I'd be more worried about constant connection (the devil) or paying for an online pass

I like what one or two members said about backwards compatibility appealing more to early adopters and hardcore segments.
Perhaps some games just aren't epic enough to have support after their life-cycle is complete. Would be an idea to rejuvenate these products via cloud streaming or the like - get rid of the physical copies of older games and make them accessible via stream with additional mods/fix-ups etc (free to those who already own the games of course). Some games are technological and developmental master-pieces that deserve more support than they get, and at the very least, deserve to be absolutely abused by those who put their hearts and souls into the game.

I actually really like what PS4 is doing with Gaikai (if it works well). The new way I can still dip in and play not only the games I want to feel nostalgia towards, but ones I missed or couldn't buy.

Since most of us are discussing this using personal computers we're somewhat spoiled. Windows emulators, DOSBox, compatibility modes and driver rollbacks provide ample support to run programs from as many as thirty years ago. The idea that it would just become flat out impossible for a program to be run strikes us as absurd. All it takes is the will, determination, and know-how to put it together and PC gaming has always required all of it to some degree.

The only games I have ever worried about being backwards compatible this gen was KOTOR 2 (haven't played 1 but want too) and fable. That's it. I played halo 2 brielfly with a friend until halo 3 release and I got my own 360. Something like oblivion and skyrim will be so dirt cheap by the time I get a decent gaming pc it won't matter. As of right now there isn't much I care this gen to be backwards comp.

Simple answer, no.

You guys have to realize that now these guys want to start making money off the backwards compatibility thus the HD remakes, and releases on PSN. They aren't going to give us the BC for free anymore from here on now. If you want it, you have to pay a crap load of money for it.

Or keep what you have.

You sir are what they call "A smart gamer"

And "not part of EA's demographic"

I remember an old "The Lighter Side" comic in MAD.

"As businessmen we should take examples from the leaders of our country. Abraham Lincoln once said 'you can fool some of the people all of the time'." *cut to close up of guy saying it with evil grin* "Those people, gentlemen, are our target customers!"

My main gripe is that they don't even have a lot of older games on PSN or in HD Remake form. I stopped gaming for like 5 years and pretty much missed the entire 4th generation, so there are a lot of PS2 games I want to try...but no (legal) means of doing so short of getting a PS2 and paying ridiculous prices for now-rare games on Amazon (i.e. $60 for a used copy of Haunting Ground).

If you want to go the emulator route, I created a whole guide to get the PCSX2 emulator up and running. h t t p : / /binarymessiah.wordpress. c o m/2012/08/28/newbie-guides-pcsx2-1-0-0-ps2-emulator/ mind the spaces, GR doesn't like links.

I currently own an Xbox and was considering moving to a PS4 for the next generation, I would really like to have the ability to play some of the PS3 exclusives, but if not I'll just stick with my Xbox and buy that next-gen console.

Gee, let me think. I have invested tons of money into PS3 games and DLC, and now Sony wants me to cough up hundreds of euros for a PS4 won't even play them? Hahaha, NO. If that's how it's going to be, I might as well switch to the cheaper competition, or even PC-gaming. They won't play my PS3 games, but if the PS4 doesn't either, then what does it matter? I'll lose valuable shelfspace either way once I decide to switch to the next generation (seeing as I will have to keep the old PS3), so there is nothing keeping me leaving Sony. Way to encourage customer loyalty!