-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How important is backwards compability?
- Thread starter zMiiChy-
- Start date
Chingachgook
Banned
This^^^
Players always clamor for it, but I remember Sony saying something to the effect of; People always ask for it but their data showed low percentages of people actually using it.
And with PS Now why do you need it? (I just say this as my son purchased PS Now for $9 dollars a month, and he's been playing all these older games. And the library is way more than he could ever play. A good purchase for him.
To me its a vocal minority that pushes back capatibility. If they get it good for them, just not a big deal IMHO.
I mean if you really want play old games, I think its fun owning older systems. And you can pick them up cheep.
Because back then digital wasn't a thing and Live MP wasn't as popular as it was.
And PS Now is a joke. Why re-buy games you already bought? Only to stream them?
PhantomThief
Banned
It's a pretty awesome feature to have. Too bad Sony won't do it.
Not important. Which is why it puzzles me as to why BC was a big deal for Xbox One. But the biggest reason people have given me is backlog which I guess its fine but why have that big of a backlog if you weren't intending to play it in the first place? 2-4 games is fine but a whole entire freaking generation?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I don't have quite as many as you do but I do have over 100 games installed on my X1. I will not be happy at all if I've got to keep this box when a new Xbox comes out.
//DEVIL//
Member
its important to the point I will go exclusive to the company who offers it. if the PS5 isn't backward compatible with the PS4, then I am done with Sony. same goes for MS, even though with the way MS is going. I am 100% sure the new xbox ( one after this scorpio ) will be full backward compatible. just waiting to see if Sony will fuck it up.
Very important.
You are not getting both. There is a reason why Halos and GTAV aren't backward compatible since they are already on Xbox 1.
InsaneFandom
Member
I agree with you OP
It's a very nice bonus to have & I do really appreciate it when it's present but it isn't necessary. I just keep my old consoles so I don't get locked out of playing anything
I do hope it becomes the norm again going forwards though, it's convenient & can breathe some new life into older games that might otherwise be largely forgotten
I'm going to pick up a cheap Xbone at some point primarily for it's backwards compatibility since I don't really trust my second hand 360 to last
It's a very nice bonus to have & I do really appreciate it when it's present but it isn't necessary. I just keep my old consoles so I don't get locked out of playing anything
I do hope it becomes the norm again going forwards though, it's convenient & can breathe some new life into older games that might otherwise be largely forgotten
I'm going to pick up a cheap Xbone at some point primarily for it's backwards compatibility since I don't really trust my second hand 360 to last
Exactly. And not only that: all of them are digital. I cant Even resell them to get at least part of my investment back. As i said, fundamental.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
For me personally, not at all. I'm hoping PlayStation 5 and Xbox after Scorpio isn't backwards compatible at all because it's not why I buy new consoles. We get cross gen games for at least two years, a bunch of remasters, etc. so we don't need it whatsoever and it takes away from what the console should be, present and future as opposed to the past.
With that said, I did buy Assassin's Creed Rogue digitally since it was one of my favorite games of last gen and it was my 2014 game of the year. Plus, it was cheap. Outside of that, I only own Far Cry 3 but that was free since I owned it digitally when I owned an Xbox 360 a few years ago. I completed both 100% back then. Chances are slim that I ever go back to play either but I figured for cheap and free, why not? At the same time though, I want Splinter Cell Conviction to be backwards compatible but if it never happens, im not going to get pissed about it.
Backwards Compatibility is basically like an extra bonus if you want it. That's how I look at it but in no way, shape or form does it impact my decision to buy any console. And I would much rather prefer consoles to not have it simply because I don't want any amount of time, money and resources to be wasted on the past when the present and future is what's most important for a console.
If anything, I would much rather pay $60 for a good or better remaster of the few last gen games that were some of my best than it being backwards compatible.
With that said, I did buy Assassin's Creed Rogue digitally since it was one of my favorite games of last gen and it was my 2014 game of the year. Plus, it was cheap. Outside of that, I only own Far Cry 3 but that was free since I owned it digitally when I owned an Xbox 360 a few years ago. I completed both 100% back then. Chances are slim that I ever go back to play either but I figured for cheap and free, why not? At the same time though, I want Splinter Cell Conviction to be backwards compatible but if it never happens, im not going to get pissed about it.
Backwards Compatibility is basically like an extra bonus if you want it. That's how I look at it but in no way, shape or form does it impact my decision to buy any console. And I would much rather prefer consoles to not have it simply because I don't want any amount of time, money and resources to be wasted on the past when the present and future is what's most important for a console.
If anything, I would much rather pay $60 for a good or better remaster of the few last gen games that were some of my best than it being backwards compatible.
I believe Borderlands 2 is also BC with the Handsome Collection also out on XB1.
So with PS4 having a more standardised architecture, could it be that our ps2 classics work on PS5, 6 etc?
I assumed the reason we had to pay again for PS2 Classics was because they had to create the emulator from scratch with PS4 (because of PS3s mental architecture), so it was a lot for work for no returns (if they'd given them out free). Hopefully that wouldn't be the case for future generations.
I assumed the reason we had to pay again for PS2 Classics was because they had to create the emulator from scratch with PS4 (because of PS3s mental architecture), so it was a lot for work for no returns (if they'd given them out free). Hopefully that wouldn't be the case for future generations.
Dead Man Typing
Member
It's the difference between me buying a console day one or waiting until there are enough new games to justify the purchase.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
It's extremely important to me because I don't have much money.
secretanchitman
Member
Its a great feature and is nice to be able to play titles from previous generations all in one box. This is a big reason of why I kept my Xbone S after all this time.
It's honestly too bad Sony hasn't capitalized on backwards compatibility on the PS4. I can understand remastering/porting PS3 titles because of the Cell but PS1 and PS2 games should be coming out weekly.
I'm also surprised that Nintendo still hasn't announced Virtual Console on the Switch considering how portable the unit is, yet it still continues to put out VC games on the Wii U which is all but dead.
It's honestly too bad Sony hasn't capitalized on backwards compatibility on the PS4. I can understand remastering/porting PS3 titles because of the Cell but PS1 and PS2 games should be coming out weekly.
I'm also surprised that Nintendo still hasn't announced Virtual Console on the Switch considering how portable the unit is, yet it still continues to put out VC games on the Wii U which is all but dead.
Personally speaking when it gives a worse experience than the original console (PS3 60GB) then it's not at all important, I'll keep my original hardware. If it gives an identical experience (Master System on Mega Drive) then great, saves me some space. If it gives a better experience (360 on Xbox One) then holy crap, now we're talking!
NipplesAndToes23
Member
That said, I don't think we're ever getting another backwards compatible system. None of the three right now are. They'll just keep reselling those older games via remasters or through the online store.
It's important.
Halo will be BC at some point.
Saints row 4, Bioshock games , Borderlands, Gears 1 and multiple other games say otherwise aswell.
Xbox one IS backwards compatible though.. and all but guaranteed future Xbox's will be aswell.
Halo will be BC at some point.
Saints row 4, Bioshock games , Borderlands, Gears 1 and multiple other games say otherwise aswell.
Xbox one IS backwards compatible though.. and all but guaranteed future Xbox's will be aswell.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
I'd rather have remasters. Don't care to play Last gen games on new hardware, with no improvements.
But if you have a PS4 or Switch there's been so many good exclusives for them and more coming, that it doesn't matter. There's a reason MS is pushing this BC thing.
But if you have a PS4 or Switch there's been so many good exclusives for them and more coming, that it doesn't matter. There's a reason MS is pushing this BC thing.
Personally it's very important to me, but only because I actually give a shit about games that are more than a few years old. BC is one of the top reasons I prefer PC over consoles -- knowing my game library is going to run on whatever new computer I buy or build years from now. I'll go out and buy really old games I never played before, and enjoy them just as much as I'd enjoy new games.
The reason BC doesn't seem to make THAT much of a difference market-wise is because console gaming doesn't seem to are about any content that's more than a few years old. What's odd is I think console gaming is unique in this aspect. It might even only be a certain segment of "core" console gamers who always want the bleeding edge.
If you look at film, literature, and music, the past is always preserved. Most important movies and albums from roughly the last century are readily available on the latest delivery media. The same is more or less true of PC gaming -- there's a significant effort to keep the last 30+ years of PC games available and playable. Even on mobile there are many examples of games that are played and updated for years on end.
Console video games seems to be the only place where the hardcore audience doesn't give a shit about anything that's more than four years old. And I don't even think that's true when you get to mainstream consumers who play consoles. Black Ops II is one of the top Xbox games right now, people keep buying Minecraft, and people keep buying GTA V because mainstream consumers really don't care how "new" a game is. In that way they're more in line with PC gamers and mobile gamers -- they see a popular video game is something like a ping pong table or a deck of cards -- something to be continually brought out that doesn't really get old. If they find a game they like they'll keep playing it. I have a newphew who has basically spent his entire life playing Wii Sports and still plays it.
This is why I think Games-As-A-Service might make BC more important in the future. If people get attached to GTA, Destiny, or some MMO on console to the point where they invest years into it, being able to keep playing that game will be a factor in upgrading a console. If the PS5 doesn't have BC and by that time millions of people are still attached to Destiny 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, still buying content in those games, I think those developers will just port those games to PS5 with a way to transfer people's save files. If any publisher other than Activision had BOII on its hands and wasn't releasing a new COD annually, it would probably have just ported BOII to PS4 and Xbox One.
I think remasters however might speak to the market impact of BC. Remasters show that people still care about playing those games enough to buy them again, sometimes three or four times. In Sony's case it shows the size of the audience that hasn't actually played many of those old games. Meanwhile I'm over here on PC saving money on these remasters because I can just reinstall the original versions and play them at 4K without paying again.
The reason BC doesn't seem to make THAT much of a difference market-wise is because console gaming doesn't seem to are about any content that's more than a few years old. What's odd is I think console gaming is unique in this aspect. It might even only be a certain segment of "core" console gamers who always want the bleeding edge.
If you look at film, literature, and music, the past is always preserved. Most important movies and albums from roughly the last century are readily available on the latest delivery media. The same is more or less true of PC gaming -- there's a significant effort to keep the last 30+ years of PC games available and playable. Even on mobile there are many examples of games that are played and updated for years on end.
Console video games seems to be the only place where the hardcore audience doesn't give a shit about anything that's more than four years old. And I don't even think that's true when you get to mainstream consumers who play consoles. Black Ops II is one of the top Xbox games right now, people keep buying Minecraft, and people keep buying GTA V because mainstream consumers really don't care how "new" a game is. In that way they're more in line with PC gamers and mobile gamers -- they see a popular video game is something like a ping pong table or a deck of cards -- something to be continually brought out that doesn't really get old. If they find a game they like they'll keep playing it. I have a newphew who has basically spent his entire life playing Wii Sports and still plays it.
This is why I think Games-As-A-Service might make BC more important in the future. If people get attached to GTA, Destiny, or some MMO on console to the point where they invest years into it, being able to keep playing that game will be a factor in upgrading a console. If the PS5 doesn't have BC and by that time millions of people are still attached to Destiny 2 and Final Fantasy XIV, still buying content in those games, I think those developers will just port those games to PS5 with a way to transfer people's save files. If any publisher other than Activision had BOII on its hands and wasn't releasing a new COD annually, it would probably have just ported BOII to PS4 and Xbox One.
I think remasters however might speak to the market impact of BC. Remasters show that people still care about playing those games enough to buy them again, sometimes three or four times. In Sony's case it shows the size of the audience that hasn't actually played many of those old games. Meanwhile I'm over here on PC saving money on these remasters because I can just reinstall the original versions and play them at 4K without paying again.
Lakershead22
Member
Not very important to me. I its good that its there though for the people that want it.
Yeah, the Switch has so many games and the Xbox has none thus they have BC. Gimme a break.
VanCityGamer
Member
This describes me as well. I never owned an Xbox console, so it's nice having access to the old Xbox games. That said, The Master Chief Collection brought all the Halo games to XB1 (which I love). And they remastered Gears 1 on XB1. I also have no desire to play old Forza games since they're very iterative and it feels weird to go backwards. Mass Effect ended up coming to PlayStation. As did Bioshock. So I came to realize that there suddenly wasn't much use I really have for backwards compatibility. I don't really see many X360 exclusives worth playing today. Witcher 2 is the big one that I bought since it's not on PlayStation and I LOVED Witcher 3.
Really? It's nice to have, but critical seems like a big stretch. Xbox One originally didn't even have it. And it's not like adding it moved the needle saleswise for them.
blue_phazon
Member
It's a great feature. Good games are good games to me. And nearly every b/c game I've played on my xbone are games I never would have experienced.
I do not have a 360, so if Xbone didn't have b/c, I would have never been able to play Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, etc.
Edit: How could I forget Read Dead and Witcher 2
I do not have a 360, so if Xbone didn't have b/c, I would have never been able to play Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, etc.
Edit: How could I forget Read Dead and Witcher 2
Prodigenius10
Member
I can't speak for anyone else but it is important to me. it's the sole reason for me getting a Xbox one over PS4. I skipped last gen so the ability to play those games along with future releases was too good to give up. What makes it even better for me is GwG offers 2 backwards compatible titles each month along with the regular One games.
Agreed, but digital wasn't really as huge as it is now either. If you have a large digital library it should carry over. Nothing wrong with having a huge eco-system that gives you tons of choices of games. Does it matter if games like Black Ops 2 or Bioshock are from last generation? Good games are just that, and they if they play better? Even better.
I mean I never played Dead Space series, now I can.
MomoPufflet
Member
It's a critical utility that's often literally the difference between me playing my collection and not playing it. PS2 and PS3 being able to play PS1 games kept me playing my old games 15 years after my PS1 stopped working. Nothing modern being able to play PS2 games (outside of a handful of volatile PS3s) is the main reason I never play my PS2 stuff anymore. It's too much of a pain in the ass to hook up the PS2 and I already have 5 other consoles hooked up to the TV. BC adds value to both old games and the hardware itself.
Agent X
Member
I agree. I'm shocked that 3 1/2 years later, we still don't have PS1 classics on PS4. I knew it wasn't going to be there at the PS4 launch, but IIRC it wasn't at the Vita launch either. They brought PS1 games to Vita a few weeks later; I figured they'd be doing the same for PS4. I didn't expect that this would take more than 6 months.
When we hit the 6 month mark with no sign of PS1 games for PS4, I felt fearful about the prospect, but still thought they would address it relatively soon. My confidence has gradually dwindled in the three years since.
This is why Microsoft has a leg up on Sony and Nintendo for future purchases. Judging from the three companies' recent actions, there is a lot more consumer confidence that older games could be carried forward to newer hardware. This is beneficial to consumers and also to developers and publishers.
I wish we could say that, but nothing is guaranteed.
Like I said above, I was sure that PS1 games would eventually become playable on PS4. After all, every other major Sony system prior to that could play either physical or digital PS1 games (or, in the case of PS3, both).
All of that went out the window with the PS4. Even though it should be an utter cinch to emulate the original PlayStation, Sony has chosen not to bother with it. There doesn't appear to be any technical barrier whatsoever--this is purely a strategic choice.
With that in mind, even if PS5 could be backward compatible with PS4, would it?
People don't subscribe to PS Now just to play games they already own. They subscribe to play games that they don't already own.
It's a very nice feature but more importantly to me the PS360 generation was the first one where digital console games were a thing.
How many of us fought tons of digital games?
I'm very happy to see most of them working on my Xbox 1 most of those games are graphically still decent and there were many I didn't get round to playing.
Same thing with Scorpio all my games this gen are digital that this machine will just play my already brought games is a boon to me as a potential purchaser of that console.
How many of us fought tons of digital games?
I'm very happy to see most of them working on my Xbox 1 most of those games are graphically still decent and there were many I didn't get round to playing.
Same thing with Scorpio all my games this gen are digital that this machine will just play my already brought games is a boon to me as a potential purchaser of that console.
HeisenbergWW62
Banned
This
It's a fantastic feature that all consoles should have moving forward, but as someone who still has every console I've ever owned, it really just makes things more convinenent
Tbh the fact that Xbox One owners treat it like such a big deal says a lot about the console. BC should be icing on the cake, not the highlight of the fucking console
Its important to me because I spent a bunch of money on last generation's digital marketplaces and now all that stuff will carry on with me moving forward, at no extra cost, reinforcing my decision to go digital on this platform.
I just don't understand the logic behind "I don't see the need to play old games", because we are talking about video games here!
How does that apply to something like Virtua Fighter 5 FS, the most recent entry in a long running fighting series that has no current-gen successor?
How does the gameplay of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night get outdated, when to this day there's few to no games in the genre that ever surpassed it?
When does the Multiplayer of Blops II stop being fun?
When does the unique experience of playing a game like Catherine become something you cant enjoy because of when it was released?
There are just some games that don't get "outdated" in the usual sense imo, because the experience that's being offered is still unique and modern enough to this day.
A more personal example is Ikaruga, a shmup. I've never played a shmup before, only watched them being played. Because of BC I was able to pick up one of the best games in that genre for $3 and some change last week, and finally got a chance
I just don't understand the logic behind "I don't see the need to play old games", because we are talking about video games here!
How does that apply to something like Virtua Fighter 5 FS, the most recent entry in a long running fighting series that has no current-gen successor?
How does the gameplay of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night get outdated, when to this day there's few to no games in the genre that ever surpassed it?
When does the Multiplayer of Blops II stop being fun?
When does the unique experience of playing a game like Catherine become something you cant enjoy because of when it was released?
There are just some games that don't get "outdated" in the usual sense imo, because the experience that's being offered is still unique and modern enough to this day.
A more personal example is Ikaruga, a shmup. I've never played a shmup before, only watched them being played. Because of BC I was able to pick up one of the best games in that genre for $3 and some change last week, and finally got a chance
at failing repeatedly to make it past the first level.
Good point, but I still replay games I owned on the 360 because I can. It was great after finishing Inside to go back to Limbo. Or fire up geometry wars for a quick fix.
It's nice to have your library on hand. I honestly think it's smart and keeps you engaged in their eco system. At this point if you don't do it, you'll pay for it later when it comes to consumer confidence in buying a game.
When I first got my PS3 in 2007 I spent most of my time on it playing PS2 games: PS2 games that were just coming out like Yakuza and Persona 3, as well as PS2 games I hadn't gotten around to. I didn't own any Sony console until a PS2 in 2005 though, so I was catching up on a decade of PlayStation games.
There are still PS2 and PS1 games I'm catching up on, and I'd definitely be playing them on my PS4 if I could.
Ex: San Andreas. If you search "San Andreas" in the Games section of PSN you get two identical entries that each cost $15. The only difference being one is PS3-only and one is PS4-only. The difference to the end consumer is just resolution but I guess to the developers the differences in architecture are the real problem. I bought neither and just hooked up my PS2 and am playing my old PS2 copy now. I wish I didn't have to take up that extra space and could just play the PS2 disc on my PS4.
It's a lot more likely PS5 will at least be BC with PS4 because sticking to the same architecture makes BC a lot less expensive. Microsoft has pretty much committed to BC going forward.
Physical backwards compatibility seems less important than backwards compatitbility of virtual console-style purchases. Fine to jettison hardware that enables reading of ancient discs, but people will always want some way to access their favorite games outside of computer emulation. People don't even seem to mind paying for emulated games on new systems...as long as this works on successive systems from the same company. No one wants to spend 5 bucks on every new Nintendo console to keep buying essential fare like Mario 3 or Final Fantasy VI again.
Similar threads
- Poll