EA Expects New Consoles Aren't Backwards Compatible

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So get the next gen console only to have to buy next gen console titles. This doesn't sound right and I don't think it ever will for an otherwise profit grab.

Sleekit:

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth

it may be many things but it's not "a myth".

there's no reason at all consoles can't emulate prior generations. it's not particularly hard to write an emulator especially if you are as technically familiar with the hardware as the actual hardware manufacturers.

But the current generation isn't backwards compatible - having to download a patch to play a game, having to download a special version, having to emulate is not backwards compatibility. I can't take an XBox game and play it on a 360, I can't take a PS2 or PS1 game and play it on a PS3... at least not without the game being adjusted to work on the new hardware. Nothing would be cooler than having real, 100% backwards compatibility, but it doesn't exist, not in the way that Sony and M$ claim.

Kinitawowi:

Strazdas:
Image has spore. this game should never be shown anywhere. your argument is invalid.

I thought most people were bemoaning the inclusion of Duke Nukem Forever these days, although the image predates the release of the game.

Either way, the image has Uplink and therefore should be shown everywhere. Partly as a great acknowledgement of the indie scene, and partly because the game is awesome.

I think we should just agree that this image should have been made by somone competent.

They will be backwards compatible or no one will buy them. The ignorance of some of EA's employees on the subject of systems organization isn't exactly surprising, but seriously, Software/Hardware equivalence is something anyone with access to wikipedia could look up and understand. Also, I've got no clue what in the world they are talking about with multiplayer compatibility across game consoles: Yes, the PS3 has different game code than the Xbox 360, for example, but that doesn't mean that sending signals between the two consoles and a central server is going to require massive amounts of resources to make functional. We are already doing that on PCs with different hardware and to some degree, operating systems! World of Warcraft for Mac and PC comes to mind.

The only reason Sony axed backwards compatibility is because their original solution for it caused the price for the ps3 to be through the roof and they didn't plan ahead on making good software emulation. So, they just killed backwards compatibility completely and kept selling PS2s for a while. Heck, from the way it looks in hindsight, it's like Sony didn't want to bother paying programmers to keep updating the emulation software, which is why they don't have it on the later slim models.

So... if the PS4 doesnt have BWC, than Ill still have to buy the PS3 for all those games Im missing out on...

Good thing I was already going to buying it.

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth:

PS3, no chance - I was too late getting a PS3 so got the rape version with no BC.
360, HA! - Ok if you only want to play a handful of classic games, don't for one instant think that any old XBox game will work.

Might I remind you that this gen was a three console gen? Wii had perfect back compatibility to the gamecube, didn't have overheating issues, and didn't become a huge monolith by building a gamecube into the little white box.

The Wii U can run Wii games as well, and from what I've seen, once again has no issues with them.

Back compatibility is a myth aye? Nintendo says hi.

I wasn't planning on buying a new console anyway, but this made absolutely sure of it. I hardly ever use my consoles for more than watching movies anymore, so if I can't play the games I already have, there really is no reason to buy a new $800 console when I could put that same money into upgrading my PC.

juyunseen:

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth:

PS3, no chance - I was too late getting a PS3 so got the rape version with no BC.
360, HA! - Ok if you only want to play a handful of classic games, don't for one instant think that any old XBox game will work.

Might I remind you that this gen was a three console gen? Wii had perfect back compatibility to the gamecube, didn't have overheating issues, and didn't become a huge monolith by building a gamecube into the little white box.

The Wii U can run Wii games as well, and from what I've seen, once again has no issues with them.

Back compatibility is a myth aye? Nintendo says hi.

Good point, Nintendo have always at least tried to support older formats, and the Wii does a great job of running GC games - but I tend to regard the Wii as a generation behind the 360 and PS3 (which I know I shouldn't).

heroicbob:
well the ps3 to ps2 backwards compatibility was a limitation of the hardware but am i wrong in assuming that current technology should have far outpaced current gen consoles by now? if they have the ability to do software emulation and they don't include it it would seriously annoying.

Given the system requirements to get PCSX2 to run some PS2 games smoothly, I highly doubt that emulation of PS3 or 360 games will be possible on next-gen consoles. It would be a huge investment to get it running, and I doubt they'll have the raw power to pull it off just the same. PS2 backwards compatibility through software emulation might be a possibility though if they've actually been working on it. And it all depends on how similar the hardware architecture is as well I suppose.

The only other solution is building the PS3 and 360 chip sets into the new systems, but I really can't see them doing that this time unless they're a lot cheaper to produce than the financial data would indicate.

surg3n:

juyunseen:

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth:

PS3, no chance - I was too late getting a PS3 so got the rape version with no BC.
360, HA! - Ok if you only want to play a handful of classic games, don't for one instant think that any old XBox game will work.

Might I remind you that this gen was a three console gen? Wii had perfect back compatibility to the gamecube, didn't have overheating issues, and didn't become a huge monolith by building a gamecube into the little white box.

The Wii U can run Wii games as well, and from what I've seen, once again has no issues with them.

Back compatibility is a myth aye? Nintendo says hi.

Good point, Nintendo have always at least tried to support older formats, and the Wii does a great job of running GC games - but I tend to regard the Wii as a generation behind the 360 and PS3 (which I know I shouldn't).

Question now is, why can Nintendo do it, but MS and Sony can't seem to figure it out. It always puzzled me that my Wii could play any old game I wanted to (even emulate N64 and such) but my 360 choked and died on loading screens for Halo 2. Think 5-8 minute loading screens.

The switch to Bluray was a plausible justification for the PS3 to lack backwards compatibility, but its egregious in this transition. The new hardware looks remarkably similar from what I've seen on Eurogamer, theyd have to try harder NOT to let us play our old games on "Orbis".

ah. the joys of PC gaming.

You people still need to explain to me why there is such a difference between a console and a gamign pc you buy somewhere (or gasp, build yourself since its basically LEGO nowadays...)

Considering the insane sales on steam and consorts, the 800-900 dolalr pricetag is not so much after all when your games come so much cheaper....

I am glad of this. If I'm coughing up big bucks for a next gen console, I better put the wear and tear on it playing next gen games.

I tried a PS1 game on my PS2 years ago and that had me wondering, what the heck am I doing? I have limited time, I spent all this money on a new console, I should be using it for new games. Heck, I still have a PS2 for travel.

But all the money put into PS4, I hope, is to power a PS4. I'll keep my PS3... heck, my PS2 too for the right times. But gimme real next gen graphics. It is time. When someone shouts that Halo 4 has the best console graphics ever, it doesn't make me want to run out and get it. The consoles are honorable but old. Midlin PC games beat them.

Want me to get excited by console graphics? You'll have to do it on a next gen console that really ups the ante. (BTW: I just bought GOTY Red Dead Redpemption with a gift card I got. But I did it for the gameplay, not the graphics. If I want that gameplay even after a PS4 comes out, I'll put that wear and tear on a PS3... which hopefully cost $150 new for about 3 years. I'll put one in every room of the house:-)

My only fear: what will the PS4 cost? I can cough up about $500 for one. Scary, but if it really is amazing, it will be worth the beating my family gives me. I can still game while heavily bruised.

It makes sense from a business standpoint why backwards compatibility wouldn't be added to next generation consoles. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo stand to make much more money by selling older generation games online instead of just letting us use our existing library on the new consoles.

As a gamer I hate these kinds of practices but I understand why decisions like this are made. I feel a fair compromise is to build backwards compatibility on the first shipment of PS4/Xbox720 so that at least it doesn't affect the early adopter rate and momentum of console sales, which can really affect the life span and popularity of a console. As much as the business decision makes sense, the side effect is fewer early adopters (why the hell would I buy the new xbox for maybe one or two new games and wait a year for the goodies to start rolling in, and by that time the console price will have already been cut). They should at least build backwards compatibility into the first run of the next gen consoles, it's the only reason I ever bought a PS3 (which I ended up loving).

Being non-backwards compatible is a scam (almost as much as this anti-used game capabilities rumour). If one puts a PS2 game into a PS3 it says "This PS2 disc cannot be read". It obviously can becuase you have identified the disk type meaning the system would crash if it couldn't read it or just say "Unreadable disk" Not the bulls--t it actually says. As for "ever-dying PC console" that is a lie. PC gamers will always stick with PC and the gauntlet is taken up when console users are let down. E.g. since the Skyrim DLC incident, most of my PS3 gaming friends and me made the switch to PC and it is now our main console. It will never die-it will just never be most popular console again.

juyunseen:
Question now is, why can Nintendo do it, but MS and Sony can't seem to figure it out. It always puzzled me that my Wii could play any old game I wanted to (even emulate N64 and such) but my 360 choked and died on loading screens for Halo 2. Think 5-8 minute loading screens.

Exactly!

The GameCube is an unasuming little console, most people don't mind making a little room for it, or just leaving it where it is. It can be hidden away easily due to it's compact, uncomplicated design. Yet it has great forward compatibility with the Wii. Now the original xbox is a bulky monster of a thing, with bulky controllers - it's ugly too, not the sort of thing we really want lying around these days - the PS2 is obviously less bulky, but still fairly ugly, especially once those front grill things get clogged with dust... even collectors tend to drag their heels making space for an original xbox or PS2. Hehe - I remember putting a vinyl sticker set on my XBox, even scratched out the logo and lit it with LED's, still looked like a bad 90's sci-fi prop.

Come to think of it, I think Nintendo's had the most sensible case design out of the 3 for the last 2 generations. The GC is a neat little box with a carry handle, the XBox is a bulky monster, the PS2 is like an 80's fan heater. The 360 and PS3 can be laid down or stood up, and are both flawed no matter which way you stand them. There's heating issues, and if you stand the console up, play a game, give them a little nudge, have a pet knock into them, or even have them off balance, and the discs are likely to get scratched. The Wii can stand up and take no space whatsoever, it can lay flat and takes about the same space as a CD drive. Yeah, Nintendo definitely have the least annoying console forms lately. Quite a change from the N64 (hated the design and controllers).

The irony is that the 360 should have the best backward compatibility - it's DirectX FFS! - I can run DX whatever games on my PC using DX9,10,11 - it's one of the good things about DirectX - Microsoft have no excuse whatsoever for the lack of compatibility between the 360 and xbox. I had a good few XBox classics that I wanted to keep playing, which is probably why I've given up on it and proclaimed it as a myth :).

surg3n:

juyunseen:
Question now is, why can Nintendo do it, but MS and Sony can't seem to figure it out. It always puzzled me that my Wii could play any old game I wanted to (even emulate N64 and such) but my 360 choked and died on loading screens for Halo 2. Think 5-8 minute loading screens.

Snip

That's fair. I agree that nintendo has been far more space aware and visually pleasing in their consoles, of late. The Gamecube was wonderfully compact (and nigh unbreakable) and I keep it around, but i only keep my PS2 around begrudgingly because it's the only way I can play SH2. It's ugly and too big.

I will say that the 360 slim was a nice redesign, but even then it wanst perfect.

In a couple years time after everyone's 360 dies due to microsoft making them out of garbage and the lack of backwards compatibility all those 360 games will be completely useless due to microsoft dropping support for it. No longer will you be able to replay your console games after the next generation due to the 360's INCREDIBLY short life span.

I'm going pc, and I'm NEVER looking back. Well, maybe just to spit on microsoft from time to time. They should of just charged 600$ for a console that WORKS rather then lie about the price not telling everybody they have to buy it twice! at least it would of been honest. 3 360's and 4 wireless controllers RIP and I have been gaming since I was born and this was the ONLY console to break down on me. Not only that but MULTIPLE TIMES!

Get a grip people, don't ever buy microsoft again. You get what you pay for and its garbage. Don't fall for it again and stop supporting a company that cares nothing about you.

Sleekit:

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth

it may be many things but it's not "a myth".

there's no reason at all consoles can't emulate prior generations. it's not particularly hard to write an emulator especially if you are as technically familiar with the hardware as the actual hardware manufacturers.

There are plenty of technical reasons and the cost to efficiently and correctly emulate the (extremely complicated) hardware of the PS3 probably wouldn't be worth it. Sony would be in trouble if they wanted to design the PS4 with a hardware architecture similar to the PS3, so for all we know they took the wise decision of going with a more standard hardware architecture for the PS4. This is their only sensible option, but renders backwards compatibility really hard to do technically, and thus very costly to do. It makes sense that Sony would like to provide compatibility with the PS3 at least for the initial runs of the new console, as a way to get people more likely to do the transition to the new console, but at this point they couldn't do it without great cost, so they probably won't do it.

xbox is another story, it always had a more standard architecture and I think it would be feasible to have BC, but maybe MS decided not to do it.

I'm assuming the reason Nintendo consoles are able to so easily accommodate backwards compatibility is because of the relatively small graphical jumps between hardware. Gamecube and Wii games look pretty much the same, but compare that to PS2 and PS3 graphics and the requirements to run both is going to put a lot more strain on the inner workings.

I'm just spitballing, here, I know nothing about hardware and gigawatts and all that; it just seems obvious to me that two consoles with similar hardware capabilities would be a lot more compatible than two that were worlds apart.

Strazdas:
Snip

The image is a time-honored running gag played for laughs. YOUR argument is invalid.

rob_simple:
I'm assuming the reason Nintendo consoles are able to so easily accommodate backwards compatibility is because of the relatively small graphical jumps between hardware. Gamecube and Wii games look pretty much the same, but compare that to PS2 and PS3 graphics and the requirements to run both is going to put a lot more strain on the inner workings.

I'm just spitballing, here, I know nothing about hardware and gigawatts and all that; it just seems obvious to me that two consoles with similar hardware capabilities would be a lot more compatible than two that were worlds apart.

Actually, with their latest console, it seems to be a little more complicated than that.

Essentially, people at Neogaf have been breaking down and analysing the Wii U GPU, and it looks like it has a Wii GPU integrated into it. Not bolted on the side, but actually integrated into the GPU itself. Imagine if a GPU got broken down into smaller bits, and then those bits were carefully placed inside a larger GPU like blocks of lego. Apparently, that's what Nintendo seems to have done. And potentially it means that not only does the Wii U have perfect backwards compatibility, but the actual Wii components, because they're integrated into the hardware itself, can be used to boost the performance of the GPU.

See, to my mind, this seems like the perfect way to go about BC. Don't just stick your old hardware on the side of the motherboard where it can sit generating extra heat. Break it down into its smallest components, then integrate it into the circuitry of whatever console you're working on now. While the PS3 and 360 are more advanced than the Wii, they're still primitive tech by today's standards. I really don't think it would take Sony that much more effort to strip the PS3 down to its skeleton, replace some of the bulkier parts with smaller, more efficient circuitry, then assimilate it into the A-10 APU they're allegedly using for the PS4. Not only would you get perfect backwards compatibility, but you'd be able to give the hardware an extra performance boost using cheap technology.

Oh I hope not. I already have a massive collection of PlayStation and PS2 games that I can't play because my backward compatible PS3 broke and I had to get a new model that doesn't have BC. Seeing as I already have a GameCube, 360, X-Box, and PS3, I can't really fit another console in there. And the thought of just throwing those games away, or letting them gather dust...I just can't. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to play all the Halo games on one system? Instead of having to get up and switch wires around? One can dream.

Mr. Omega:
Oh goody. One last reason for me to hate the heavy online focus of this generation. We'll get to look forward to Sony and Microsoft reselling previous-gen games on PSN and XBL, or maybe we can even look forward to them trying to justify the Uncharted Trilogy or Gears of War Trilogy discs in a couple years.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play Mario Galaxy on my WiiU and Dawn of War on my laptop. Because I can.

Jumping the gun much? Maybe we should wait until there's any evidence whatsoever before we go and start ranting about last straws and shit.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Actually, with their latest console, it seems to be a little more complicated than that.

Essentially, people at Neogaf have been breaking down and analysing the Wii U GPU, and it looks like it has a Wii GPU integrated into it. Not bolted on the side, but actually integrated into the GPU itself. Imagine if a GPU got broken down into smaller bits, and then those bits were carefully placed inside a larger GPU like blocks of lego. Apparently, that's what Nintendo seems to have done. And potentially it means that not only does the Wii U have perfect backwards compatibility, but the actual Wii components, because they're integrated into the hardware itself, can be used to boost the performance of the GPU.

See, to my mind, this seems like the perfect way to go about BC. Don't just stick your old hardware on the side of the motherboard where it can sit generating extra heat. Break it down into its smallest components, then integrate it into the circuitry of whatever console you're working on now. While the PS3 and 360 are more advanced than the Wii, they're still primitive tech by today's standards. I really don't think it would take Sony that much more effort to strip the PS3 down to its skeleton, replace some of the bulkier parts with smaller, more efficient circuitry, then assimilate it into the A-10 APU they're allegedly using for the PS4. Not only would you get perfect backwards compatibility, but you'd be able to give the hardware an extra performance boost using cheap technology.

That's actually really interesting, but I still have to assume that there is a reason behind Sony and Microsoft (yeah, you guys can drop the dollar sign; it was never clever) not pursuing it, beyond the many cynical ones people are presenting in this thread. I'm assuming it's down to the fact that building a new console doesn't leave much budget left to R&D fitting components of the old one in, too; no matter how cheap it would be to do.

It's a shame because, as some people have pointed out, backwards compatibility would help to push new the consoles at the start of their life because they already come with a massive game library, which is something Sony will definitely need if they want to avoid repeating the massive fuck-up that was the PS3's launch.

The way things are now, with no backward compatibility I see no reason to splash out on a new console just for a graphical upgrade when there are already hundreds of great games for this generation I'm yet to even play. I never thought I'd say this, but I'd buy a WiiU before a PS4 or Xbox3, at the moment.

rob_simple:

That's actually really interesting, but I still have to assume that there is a reason behind Sony and Microsoft (yeah, you guys can drop the dollar sign; it was never clever) not pursuing it, beyond the many cynical ones people are presenting in this thread. I'm assuming it's down to the fact that building a new console doesn't leave much budget left to R&D fitting components of the old one in, too; no matter how cheap it would be to do.

I dunno. Half the reason R&D for the PS3 was so ungodly expensive is because they spent so much money trying to push the Cell processor as the next big thing. I think Cell ended up costing them something like $400 million.

This time around, they're apparently using off-the-shelf components. That alone should be a massive saving compared to the PS3's clusterfuck of customised parts bodged together in a weird way. If so, then would it really be that difficult to sit down with AMD and work out how it integrate the functionally necessary parts of the Cell processor into whatever CPU the PS4 is using? Again, Nintendo managed to (alongside a whole host of other custom jobs), and Sony is worth a few billion more than them. It's a 7 year old processor now. It's not even a real multi-core, more a single core with 7 or 8 SPEs to help with computational stuff. Surely it couldn't be that hard to compress that functionality into a modern CPU?

It's a shame because, as some people have pointed out, backwards compatibility would help to push new the consoles at the start of their life because they already come with a massive game library, which is something Sony will definitely need if they want to avoid repeating the massive fuck-up that was the PS3's launch.

Backwards compatibility was the only thing that saved the PS3's launch. If the original PS3 model hadn't been able to play PS2 and PS1 games, then even fewer people would have picked it up.

Sony would need to have the mother of all launch line-ups in order to convince gamers to spend hundreds of pounds on a console that once bought is limited to launch titles. Anything less, and people simply won't buy it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rob_simple:

That's actually really interesting, but I still have to assume that there is a reason behind Sony and Microsoft (yeah, you guys can drop the dollar sign; it was never clever) not pursuing it, beyond the many cynical ones people are presenting in this thread. I'm assuming it's down to the fact that building a new console doesn't leave much budget left to R&D fitting components of the old one in, too; no matter how cheap it would be to do.

I dunno. Half the reason R&D for the PS3 was so ungodly expensive is because they spent so much money trying to push the Cell processor as the next big thing. I think Cell ended up costing them something like $400 million.

This time around, they're apparently using off-the-shelf components. That alone should be a massive saving compared to the PS3's clusterfuck of customised parts bodged together in a weird way. If so, then would it really be that difficult to sit down with AMD and work out how it integrate the functionally necessary parts of the Cell processor into whatever CPU the PS4 is using? Again, Nintendo managed to (alongside a whole host of other custom jobs), and Sony is worth a few billion more than them. It's a 7 year old processor now. It's not even a real multi-core, more a single core with 7 or 8 SPEs to help with computational stuff. Surely it couldn't be that hard to compress that functionality into a modern CPU?

So, if you'll forgive my ignorance on the technical side of things, does that mean essentially they're building a high-grade PC that you won't be allowed to upgrade? I know that's what everyone says the current gen is, but if they're not even making any new components this time then I don't see what I'd be getting from a next-gen console that building my own PC wouldn't provide, and better.

rob_simple:

So, if you'll forgive my ignorance on the technical side of things, does that mean essentially they're building a high-grade PC that you won't be allowed to upgrade? I know that's what everyone says the current gen is, but if they're not even making any new components this time then I don't see what I'd be getting from a next-gen console that building my own PC wouldn't provide, and better.

Erm... essentially so, yeah. Obviously we'll have to wait until the console come out, and people can actually rip the insides apart, before we know one way or the other. But where the PS3 had a whole host of custom parts, everything I've heard about the PS4/Orbis says it's using standard AMD Radeon stuff, perhaps tinkered with a little to gel better as a console GPU, but otherwise pretty off-the-shelf.

It's all about exclusives. You should never get into consoles for graphics, as they're always going to get outclassed by PCs. You should get consoles for the exclusives they have that you can't play anywhere else. And to their credit, Sony do have a good roster of exclusive titles for the Playstation. You're never going to play Uncharted or Killzone or Resistance on PC, so it just depends on how much you want to play those titles in future.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

rob_simple:

So, if you'll forgive my ignorance on the technical side of things, does that mean essentially they're building a high-grade PC that you won't be allowed to upgrade? I know that's what everyone says the current gen is, but if they're not even making any new components this time then I don't see what I'd be getting from a next-gen console that building my own PC wouldn't provide, and better.

Erm... essentially so, yeah. Obviously we'll have to wait until the console come out, and people can actually rip the insides apart, before we know one way or the other. But where the PS3 had a whole host of custom parts, everything I've heard about the PS4/Orbis says it's using standard AMD Radeon stuff, perhaps tinkered with a little to gel better as a console GPU, but otherwise pretty off-the-shelf.

It's all about exclusives. You should never get into consoles for graphics, as they're always going to get outclassed by PCs. You should get consoles for the exclusives they have that you can't play anywhere else. And to their credit, Sony do have a good roster of exclusive titles for the Playstation. You're never going to play Uncharted or Killzone or Resistance on PC, so it just depends on how much you want to play those titles in future.

Yeah, graphics aren't a huge deal for me, I'd have been happy with PS2-era graphics and using the more powerful hardware to create huge, huge games.

Exclusives, for me, haven't been that great this generation. I like all the games you mentioned, but when you compare it to the huge library of IP's that were born on the PS2 and PSX, this gen's haven't really done much to impress me, short of looking pretty.

As somebody who's been avidly following the MAME project for decades, I can promise all of you that emulation isn't the simple matter that everybody here seems to think it is.

surg3n:
...I can't take a PS2 or PS1 game and play it on a PS3...

Now hold up just one second there. I'm calling bullshit on this. The PS3 can run PS1 games without the game having to be altered. I have played the entirety of my PS1 library(while small, it's still a fair amount of game) and all of them run perfectly fine, with exception to Croc, as that has multiple scratches and wouldn't run at all on todays discs. Seriously, go try and play one on your PS3, it will work.

OT: No surprise here. While I'd like it, it's hardly a shock to the system that it won't run PS3 games. It was apparently too expensive to do it for PS2 games; I don't see how on earth they could run PS3 games(and it still have a decent price that most people want) on the PS4. As long as we get some damn good games for it, I'll buy it. I'm partially hoping that in the announcement, they confirm some games other than the ones that I've seen so far for the PS4. Come on Versus XIII.

surg3n:

Sleekit:

surg3n:
In my experience, backwards compatibility is a myth

it may be many things but it's not "a myth".

there's no reason at all consoles can't emulate prior generations. it's not particularly hard to write an emulator especially if you are as technically familiar with the hardware as the actual hardware manufacturers.

But the current generation isn't backwards compatible - having to download a patch to play a game, having to download a special version, having to emulate is not backwards compatibility. I can't take an XBox game and play it on a 360, I can't take a PS2 or PS1 game and play it on a PS3... at least not without the game being adjusted to work on the new hardware. Nothing would be cooler than having real, 100% backwards compatibility, but it doesn't exist, not in the way that Sony and M$ claim.

*pulls out his first game he ever owned, V-Rally on PSX, puts it in PS3 and plays a race. Takes game out and puts back, then pulls out Killzone from PS2 and proceeds to play that for a few mins*...... I don't know what backwards comparability means to you, but PS3 was quite capable on the first generation of consoles.

FalloutJack:
Okay, where is it? I'm more a console gamer, but I still have a computer, so...

image

*clicks stopwatch*

Aaaannnd...2/3rds down the first page.
Kind of slow today.

Though it is kind of sad that someone will inevitably post that picture in response to any mention of PC gaming dying.
Like clockwork.

(And it's still as meaningless as the first 500 times I saw it)

ON TOPIC:
Anyone expecting added value out of an actual next-gen* console via backwards compatibility is in for a learning experience or should know better already.

When posed with the question of "Backwards compatibility?" in the last generation of consoles, each company's response was different:
-Sony flip-flopped on it throughout the PS3's life.
-Nintendo opted to recreate the Gamecube so compatibility wasn't an issue to begin with.
-Microsoft dodged the question altogether.

The next generation of consoles will unquestionably involve the internet in a more intimate manner, especially for DRM policing and marketing. From what I keep hearing, it appears more and more likely that the last thing the consumer should expect from the next generation of consoles is added-value from the last.

This strikes me as odd, considering how strong both the 360 and the PS3's game libraries are.
Of course, this also surprised me when Sony shuffled their feet, despite their system producing arguably the best library in the history of consoles (maybe this was Sony's Endgame?)

(*apart from WiiU, but I'll let people decide for themselves whether that's "Next-Gen" or if Nintendo is merely playing catch-up)

Atmos Duality:
Timing?

Well, as I stated before, I'm really a console gamer who branches out and this is the perpetuation of a running gag. I'm not in it for meaning. I'm in it for a quick chuckle. You'll note that it was not the main focus of my post, but rather there as an opening kid-around.

I see this creating a bottleneck effect for the people buying the new consoles. When we have plenty of games that we like and a new platform with maybe 2 or 3 in the start migrating will take some time. Sony did a great thing with the PS3 where they removed the backward compatibility when the library had got some time to grow since it allowed the console to be cheaper. Maybe this will happen this time around too.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here