Gamers Want Backwards Compatibility In Next-Gen Consoles

Quote :

Remember when the PlayStation 3 launched with full backwards compatibility? Considering the gigantic size of the PS2 lineup and the very few PS3 titles available, it was a huge deal.

It slowly went away, though. Ensuing models of the machine began cutting down on b/c capabilities until finally, we have the machine that doesn't play PS2 games at all (although it still can play PS1 games). That being said, b/c at the start of any generation is an appreciated feature, and that point was driven home in a GameSpot survey concerning next-generation consoles.

A whopping 83% of those who participated in the survey said backwards compatibility is either "very important" or "somewhat important" when considering a new console purchase. 80% said better graphics were important and perhaps surprisingly, nearly half (49%) said the ability to download full games was a big-time plus. About 32% want "better integration of motion controls." But getting back to the b/c, although 83% want it, only 24% actually expect to see it in next-gen machines.

Well, that's understandable. Neither of the Xboxes have ever been fully backwards compatible, and it cost Sony a big chunk to make the first PS3s b/c with both PS2 and PS1 titles. It was a cost they couldn't wait to drop for the sake of manufacturing costs. After all, it was getting to the point where a lower PS3 price tag was far more important to gamers.

What do you say? Do you want b/c? Me, I just keep a PS2 hooked up...although that may prove problematic when the next generation comes. Having the PS4, PS3, and PS2 hooked up at the same time? Eh...

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10498.html

I would like BC. I think they'll come out with it at first as a selling point but then remove it for remakes/HD ports.

He got something wrong though. It did not cost Sony nor Microsoft to add BC. The original 60gb PS3 had the EE (emotion engine) chip in it which did cost them money but they removed it when they introduced the 80gb PS3. Then they simple had PS2 BC available through an EE Emulator as did Microsoft for Xbox games. Although doing it that way made some games buggy. Most were innocuous bugs but there were a few games that were almost unplayable...Sony removed PS2 BC ultimately because it was good business sense. It kept PS2's selling and they could do HD ports for the PS3.

So even if they do add BC to their consoles they will probably do it through emulation to keep costs down and only about 60% of the 360/ps3 library will work just fine and without a hitch.

But then the HD collections would be obsolete and they wouldn't make any money. BC won't be present in future consoles IMO. Either way, I'll still have my PS3/X360 to pull out if I won't to play any games on said systems.

Why would they add BC if gamers are stupid enough to buy overexpensive HD collections.....

Well no shit they want it...

Azazel wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

I would like BC. I think they'll come out with it at first as a selling point but then remove it for remakes/HD ports.

He got something wrong though. It did not cost Sony nor Microsoft to add BC. The original 60gb PS3 had the EE (emotion engine) chip in it which did cost them money but they removed it when they introduced the 80gb PS3. Then they simple had PS2 BC available through an EE Emulator as did Microsoft for Xbox games. Although doing it that way made some games buggy. Most were innocuous bugs but there were a few games that were almost unplayable...Sony removed PS2 BC ultimately because it was good business sense. It kept PS2's selling and they could do HD ports for the PS3.

So even if they do add BC to their consoles they will probably do it through emulation to keep costs down and only about 60% of the 360/ps3 library will work just fine and without a hitch.

I am not sure where I heard this, but with Microsoft they actually do have to pay a royalty to nvidia and (I think it was intel) because the nvidia/intel setup was on the original xbox and the 360 is something like ati/powerpc. Something like that, but I forgot where I heard this and therefore how accurate it was, tread carefully.

Yeah I've heard about that too. I think it was samual the geek who said it so it's accuracy is questionable.

BlackStigma wrote:

Azazel wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

I would like BC. I think they'll come out with it at first as a selling point but then remove it for remakes/HD ports.

He got something wrong though. It did not cost Sony nor Microsoft to add BC. The original 60gb PS3 had the EE (emotion engine) chip in it which did cost them money but they removed it when they introduced the 80gb PS3. Then they simple had PS2 BC available through an EE Emulator as did Microsoft for Xbox games. Although doing it that way made some games buggy. Most were innocuous bugs but there were a few games that were almost unplayable...Sony removed PS2 BC ultimately because it was good business sense. It kept PS2's selling and they could do HD ports for the PS3.

So even if they do add BC to their consoles they will probably do it through emulation to keep costs down and only about 60% of the 360/ps3 library will work just fine and without a hitch.

I am not sure where I heard this, but with Microsoft they actually do have to pay a royalty to nvidia and (I think it was intel) because the nvidia/intel setup was on the original xbox and the 360 is something like ati/powerpc. Something like that, but I forgot where I heard this and therefore how accurate it was, tread carefully.

Yeah I've heard about that too. I think it was samual the geek who said it so it's accuracy is questionable.

Don't you EVER mention that name here again!

Doesn't the Wii-U have backwards compatibility?

Mecha wrote:

Don't you EVER mention that name here again!

Does he make you get butthurt? :lolguy:

I know what you're saying though the guy is a fucking dumbass. There's a reason I said the accuracy was questionable.