Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment Hardware

Backward Compatibility in Next-Gen Consoles? 108

Posted by simoniker from the speculate-away dept.
jvm writes "A new article at Curmudgeon Gamer speculates on the prospects for backward compatibility in the upcoming generation of video game consoles. Sony's PlayStation 3 will reportedly play both PSOne and PlayStation 2 games, but how it will achieve this is unknown. Building from the facts we know and the rumored specifications, can we look forward to replaying Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker on the GameCube 2 and Halo on the Xbox 2?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Backward Compatibility in Next-Gen Consoles? More

Backward Compatibility in Next-Gen Consoles?

Comments Filter:

  • Doubtful... (Score:2, Informative)

    by lortho ( 700090 )
    Assuming previous reports [slashdot.org] are true, it's unlikely...

  • PS1 compat will be software emulation (Score:5, Informative)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @03:25AM (#8653719) Homepage
    This news article in Japanese [itmedia.co.jp], dated 2003/07/15, report that SCEI announced recruitment of PlayStation emulator developers. (The official link at SCEI is http://www.scei.co.jp/synthesis/career/careerpro10 8.html, though it's already gone. Geez, I submit this story before in the last summer to Slashdot but rejected)

    What is required for those who apply the recruitment was 1. Experience in emulator making 2. Knowledge about Just-In-Time compiler 3. Knowledge about CPU micro-architecture, and recommended is "experience in debugging existing game titles".

    For PS2 compat in PS3, 1-chip EE/GS a la PS1 in PS2, for co-processor in PS3, or something hardware/software mix, will be safe bet.
    • PS1 compat in the PS2 is software emulation, too, so this isn't surprising.
      • Huh? Where did you get the misconception, it's not. PS2 contains PS1 hardware. Check hardware specs and I/O processor or somthing is Hitachi SH processor that is PS1 main CPU.
      • Partially. The I/O processor is the same as the main PS1 CPU, and so that's what runs PS1 games. But there is no PS1 GPU in the PS2, so that's software emulated by the PS2's more powerful EE chip.
        • I doubt it can be called "software-emulated". EE is hardware, and implements compatible command set which was present in PS1 graphics hardware. Do you call Radeon 9800 Pro "software emulated" version of Geforce4 MX?
          • Do you call Radeon 9800 Pro "software emulated" version of Geforce4 MX?

            Not quite the right connection to try to make, since nVidia and Ati tend to implement a lot of hardware functionality that the other can not. In the case of most video cards, it is software emulation, because DirectX and OpenGL deal with a subset of hardware functionality and each card deals with those commands appropriately to their own hardware with a driver that translates the DirectX or OpenGL calls. This is also why both Ati and
          • Just as the MC68000 processor can be emulated inside of another (say x86) processor so can the EE. Look at the state of console emulation, you can emulate the N64 on your Xbox these days to some fairly reasonably faithful degree. If Nintendo wrote the software, it would probably be spot on.

            Now for graphics you might call it "translated". The graphics system of the PS2 is quite complicated (so is its CPU for that matter) so there will be a lot to keep track of. The fact that the EE (which is the CPU by the

  • Backwards is good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by narratorDan ( 137402 ) <narratordan@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @03:29AM (#8653727)
    At this point making consoles backwards compatible is a smart move for makers. Not only do you get to leverage your new exclusive games, but you also get to leverage your installed customer base.

    When making any kind of puchase I look at everything from the cost of the new console to the cost of getting enough games for it that I do not get bored after a month. If the console choices do not support my old games I will look at other systems and compare them, if it does support my old games then the choice becomes more of an "upgrade" with minimal cost rather than a replacement with maximum cost.

    In my personal opinion if the PS2 did not support the PS1 games then the XBox would have gained a greater share of the console market.

    NarratorDan

    • Re:Backwards is good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by benchbri ( 764527 )

      I, for one, don't see a point for backwards-compatability.

      In my experience, there are two types of people that buy consoles: 1. "Hard-core" gamers, who have every system available, and save for wont of space, will not need backwards-compatability. And 2: The one-system, locked in, game-of-the-moment players. These are the guys that play the latest incarnation of Madden or Final Fantasy.

      Since after the release of the PS2, PS1 game development effectivly stopped, gamers see buying a new console a neces

      • Re:Backwards is good (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bluesman ( 104513 )
        The point is that if I'm a casual gamer and I don't care whether I buy a Playstation X or a Gametorus, I'm more likely to buy a Playstation X after I find out it can play a whole bunch of old, but still fun, games that I can buy used for $10.
      • ""Hard-core" gamers, who have every system available, and save for wont of space, will not need backwards-compatability"

        I would consider myself a "hard-core" gamer and I tell you that unless the PS3 has backwards compatability with both the PS2 and (especially) the PS1 I will most likely not be buying it.

        When the PS2 came out, I bought one mainly for the fact that I would be able to play new games on it, while not having to have another system for PS1 games - and frankly, I used the system mainly for PS

      • PS1 development did NOT stop with PS2 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @10:37AM (#8655709) Journal
        Final Fantasy IX, Valkyrie Profile, so on and so forth. All PS1 games, but released during the PS2 era. PS1-compatible games were released well into 2003 (could even be ones this year, but I don't know). In fact, at least a few games that are marketed as PS2 and carry the PS2 mark on the package have been found to be PS1 compatible.

        Also, PS1 games still sell quite well. They can't get a PS1 console as cheap as you say they can, it's hard to find in the stores, and you can't play PS2 games with it.

        Sony still makes money from PS1 game sales, but PS1 console sales are pretty much done with. SNES games continued being produced until 1999. Playstation games date back to, what, 1995? Thusly:

        I challenge you to find a single SNES game from 1996 (pretty much the last year they were produced in the US) in a retail store (new, not used). While you're at it, go to the developers and try to order one. Can't do it, eh? Now, try to find a PS1 game from that year. Quite easy. You can probably buy thirty of them just by driving around a few retail stores.

        Hell, the Target here in Saginaw has an entire isle still dedicated to PS1 games (more shelf space than for PS2), and this isn't a big town for game sales. They dedicate an enitre end-of-isle rack to GB/GBC games as well, and they sell.

        The games are cheap to produce. The games that will turn a profit already have, so it's basically just covering the cost of production (what, 14 cents for the disk, maybe 50 for the case? Sell for a dollar and you make a profit, and they usually sell for $5 to $20).
        • Hell, the Target here in Saginaw has an entire isle still dedicated to PS1 games

          Wow, that must be some isle, eh?
        • Any PS1 games released after the PS2's release had been in the pipeline (as they say) for some time already and basically had to be completed. Developers can of course only have been pleased to know that their games would work on both platforms if they had a PSX title they were still working on, and of course all those PSXs didn't just disappear.
      • as a Hardcore gamer i'll say this, while i have a PS1 and a PS2, i don't have my PS1 connected, its sitting in the original box in my basement as i don't need it (but still refuse to sell it).

        just like i have some-odd hundreds of old Genesis, SNES, and NES games that rather than keeping the old systems out, i just emulate them on my X-Box.

        even hardcore gamers don't want a living room litered with 2 dozen gaming systems, and its nice to have the ability to turn one on without re-connecting everything or

    • If the console choices do not support my old games I will look at other systems and compare them, if it does support my old games then the choice becomes more of an "upgrade" with minimal cost rather than a replacement with maximum cost.

      Exactly, and with many stores accepting trade-ins, you can trade in the previous version to drop the price a bit. Add onto that the fact that many PS1 games plummeted in price on the PS2's release (in fact most of them were cheaper than they are now), and you've got a lot
    • I am really hoping that MS will make the Xbox backwards compatible. I don't see why they wouldn't. I know there has been continuing speculation over wether or not the Xbox 2 will include a Hard Drive or not, and I think it will, specifically for backwards compatibility reasons. All of the XB1 games are made with a hard drive in mind. Although they could limit the storage to bigger memory cards I suppose, but I doubt they will.

      I also agree with the point about PS2 selling so well because of its backwards c

      • Re:Backwards is good (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Neuticle ( 255200 )
        It's been said before in this thread, but:
        It's a safe bet that the MS's new console won't have backwards compatability. Here's why:
        1) Different cpu architecture, Intel PIII->IBM G5.
        2) Different graphics chipset nVidia->ATI
        3) A hard drive is pretty much out of the picture
        4) No black and white buttons on the new controller

        Now, even if the new cpu is sufficiantly powerfull to emulate a 700-odd MHz PIII, there is a lot of proprietary nVidia graphics whiz-bang that won't translate to the new ATI chip,

  • Oh come on! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by M3wThr33 ( 310489 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @03:52AM (#8653784) Homepage
    Can we get beyond Sony's horrible naming convention?
    The Xbox and GameCube successors are most likely NOT going to include numbers and addressing them as such is just a stamp to your ignorance of memories past.

    In other news, since the next MS console is switching processors, gfx chips, losing the hard drive and dropping off the black and white buttons, it probably will not play the old games.
    • You're right... it is clear, based on previous trends in the gaming industry that we should be looking forward to the GameBox and the XCube.

      I also agree that Sony should take a cue from the big dog in the software arena (like it or lump it) and take the indirect cue from the auto industry by naming products by year - here comes the PS 2007! Now we just have to keep some frisky company from developing their system in 6993 years under the name HAL...

    • Re:Oh come on! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 )
      Actually, that's a good point. It's unlikely that MS and Nintendo would use numbers simply because 3 is more than 2. A brain-dead consumer, not having a clue about the gaming marketplace, would just assume that the Playstation 3 is better because of that three. It infers that the Playstation is an entire generation ahead of the competition.

      Maybe Infinium can get a jump on things and label their console the Phantom 5. Consumers will buy into that.

    • Re:Oh come on! (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Jeffool ( 675688 )
      Sure they're dropping the black and white buttons. But have they ruled out adding extra shoulder buttons and further mimicing the style of Sony's controllers?

      I think most gamers agree that they aren't as akward as the black and white buttons were. Maybe they could use these as for playing older games.

      Every console changes processors and such, otherwise what's the point? I don't get your point there. And really the current size of memory cards make the harddrive nearly obsolete anyway, as not many game

  • it's just a selling point, nothing more... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I had a PSone. I have well over a thousand dollars worth of software for it. I played PS one games for about 10 minutes on my PS2. Yes, I occasionally get nostalgic for Mike Tyson's Punch out and drag out the NES, but after about 10 minutes I feel really stupid for digging that thing out of the closet and I start to dread having to put it back in.

    There are software engineers out there working their asses off to give me bigger, better, faster, and more, and all I can say is: "Thank you sir, may I have ano

    • Re:it's just a selling point, nothing more... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Then you are something of a minority in that respect. The game industry will always remember it's roots, and though I hate the parallels between this industry and that of motion pictures it can be said the same for movies. People don't really regret dragging out old classics like Casablanca and Citizen Kane because they still stand on their own against todays films.
      Likewise, there are many games gone by that stand on their own against the next generation titles in terms of gameplay. It sounds just like y
    • But think about the transition phase. When PS3 first comes out and you already have 50 games you can play on it, not to mention the few good games that will still be released for PS2 while it dies out. Or you can buy Xbox 2 and only turn it on for Halo 3 for six months.
      • Especially puzzle / party games, ie Tetris, where graphics don't really improve drastically to even buy the newest version available. The mechanics of the older games work the same, if anything, the super intense graphics ruin games like tetris and make it too complex.. I'd sleep a lot better knowing I didn't have to pay $50 for the newest tetris release.
      • "When PS3 first comes out and you already have 50 games you can play on it, not to mention the few good games that will still be released for PS2 while it dies out."

        If you already have a PS2 with those games laying around, what have you really bought yourself? The PS2 isn't exactly a niche product.
        • you bought a PS3... i don't understand the question. if PS3 and Xbox 2 come out the same day with the same specs, but i could play 2 generations worth of game library, including the newest PS2 game i bought last month, with potential better graphics and speed on the PS3, i would be swayed. and i would be entertained while i built up my new library, along with knowing the games i purchased would be around for a while. it may be a minor advantage based on your own preferences, but it's a clear one.
          • " i don't understand the question. if PS3 and Xbox 2 come out the same day with the same specs, but i could play 2 generations worth of game library, including the newest PS2 game i bought last month, with potential better graphics and speed on the PS3, i would be swayed."

            If you already have a PS2, then what are you actually gaining? In that sense, you are FAR better off waiting until either console has games you want to get. If they're slow to move, then you might even get it for cheaper. Certainly y
            • you aren't gonna buy a PS3 the day it comes out? how'd you even find slashdot? seriously. rationale is already thrown out the window in my case, at least i'm trying to be thrifty by buying the backwards compatible one.
              • You're not being very thrifty if you already have a PS2. If you don't, then godspeed.
                • You're not being very thrifty if you already have a PS2. If you don't, then godspeed.

                  Dude; you can sell back your PS2, and save some space in the living room.

                • i never claimed to be thrifty overall. of course i have a PS2. i waited in line for 7 hours at launch. but it's thriftIER to get the backwards compatible one.
                  • Why is it 'thriftIER' to get the backwards compatible one when you already have the system? You're not buying new functionality. Enlighten me?
                    • Because you can hawk your old system to defray the costs of the new system, without losing the ability to play your games.

                      But, as has been said by some, the real incentive is for people who don't have the system already. For example, if I'm a GC owner only, and I decide to get either a PS3 or an XBox Next, backwards compatibility will be huge. With a backwards compatible system, I have a choice of hundreds of games on launch day, while without backwards compatibility, I have a choice of around 10.
                    • er, i am buying new functionality. PS2 offers new functions. i'm sure PS3 will too (AA?). and that stuff's fun. what about if my current console breaks? and if not, i can donate my system to a poor blind kid whose parents won't buy him video games.

                      "if i buy this, my current library will be enhanced and prolonged."

                      what's not thrifty?
                • Well, thats debatable too.

                  You can find a used ps2 for 90$

                  90$ for a cd player, dvd player, ps1 player, and ps2 player, all in one.

                  Not only that, but for 20$ you can get 100+ HOURS of entertainment off of a single ps2 game. (ffx)

                  Now, if you cant afford FOOD, I wouldnt reccomend a ps2 (duh.) But in a cost/benifit analysis, ps2's and the games provide TONS of entertainment at a very low cost.

                  For the record, I think people who buy consoles on release date are nutbags. I usually wait until the first price dr
    • Your reasoning seems a bit flawed. You seem to be saying why would I go back and play 'original game' when I can play 'OG2, same game better graphics'

      But there are many games that stand up well over time even if thier graphics have been surpassed. Look at the Zelda series: Windwalker does not make Ocarina of Time or Mask of Majora feel obsolete or outdated. Those games are still fun and fully playable .. even the original is still enjoyable.

    • Shelf space, dvd capabilities. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bludstone ( 103539 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @10:28AM (#8655624)
      You forgot the shelving aspect.

      Japanese homes are tiny. Really tiny. You wouldnt believe how tiny they are.

      As such, near everything in Japan is designed to save space. The gamecube is incredibly tiny, while the ps2 can be mounted vertically, giving it an EXTREMELY small footprint. The xbox is a gargantuan monster.

      Yes. This design aspect may seem trivial to Americans, who can throw a console in a closet and forget about it until they want to dig it out to play some oldschool games. But in japan, size is a MAJOR issue.

      Think about how much space backwards compatability can save. I wouldnt say its the #1 selling point, but its worthwhile to note.

      On another note, the xbox is not selling well in Japan at all. This is interesting because it has always been the most graphically impressive system that catches the Japanese gamer's eyes. They love their pretties. But, for some reason, xbox didnt sell. Could be the "its not japanese" aspect.

      Of course, noone really points out that one of the major reasons that the ps2 sold well in japan was because of its dvd capabilities. DVDs had not taken off in japan at the time, and when the ps2 was released it was the most inexpensive DVD player.. and it played cds, ps1 games and ps2 games.. and everyone HAD a ton of ps1 games already.

      I expect the next gen of consoles to be boring.
      • This is interesting because it has always been the most graphically impressive system that catches the Japanese gamer's eyes.

        Uhmmm.... When the Genesis came out before the SNES it certainly didn't sell like hotcakes, and the Japanese public was thoroughly opposed to upgrading from the Famicom (NES) to the Super Famicom. The Dreamcast bombed in Japan. The N64 certainly had better in-game graphics than the PS1 (no FMVs though) and bombed. The GameCube, which my understanding is close graphically to the

  • How it will achieve this is unknown?

    Possibly the same way they achieved it for the PS2. No aspect of the idea sounds difficult.

    PS3 has been guaranteed to have backwards compatibility with PSOne and PS2 by Sony. They feel this is a major issue for customers. It is to me. I love knowing I'll always have a system to play my current PS games, possibly with graphical and load time advantages (as the current situation).

    Microsoft isn't sure about backwards compatibility, since a lot of their games use proprieta

    • Re:stuff (Score:3, Interesting)

      by polyp2000 ( 444682 )
      PSP?
      Since they have effectively (with a few minor differences) managed to squeeze a PS2 into a handheld, they probably have a single chip that they can just drop in the PS3 maybe thats how they will manage it.

  • GC will feature backward compatibility... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @06:04AM (#8654230) Journal
    Must we tread the same ground over and over again? Nintendo has already indicated more than once that their next machine will be backwards compatible with the GC. A quick Google turned up this [cubed-3.co.uk].

    Sony has also confirmed compatibilty with the PSX and PS2. The Register has the story here [theregister.co.uk].

    The only wildcard is Microsoft, who seem to be leaving some of the important hardware specs to the last minute in an effort to meet or beat Sony. It is very unlikely that the Xbox Next, or whatever they're are going to call it, will be backward compatible given the facts that the machine will lack a hard drive, has moved to a different microprocessor family (IBM), entirely new graphics chip from ATI, and a redesigned controller without the black and white buttons.

    In my opinion, I find the lack of backwards compatibility very telling -- almost an admission from Microsoft that the current Xbox strategy is a failure. Quite a pity, I really do enjoy my Xbox and backwards compatibility would have cinched me as a customer of the next machine.
    • Quite a pity, I really do enjoy my Xbox and backwards compatibility would have cinched me as a customer of the next machine.

      What for? You already have an Xbox!

      What, are you waiting for the next gen systems to play the games you could be playing now?

    • Sony has also confirmed compatibilty with the PSX and PS2. The Register has the story

      If you actually read the story in the Register, you should notice that the actual quotes never once say the PS3 will be compatible with the PS1.

      "a matter of security... [PS2] offers a sense of insurance because it is compatible with PSone and DVD-Movies."

      The insertion of PS2 is The Register's, so we have no idea what it said there, but this isn't discussing the PS3.

      "PSone runs on the PlayStation 2 through emulation rat
      • If the PS3 is compatible with the PS2 then wouldn't that meen it could run the PS2's emulation of the PS1?
        • If the emulation is good enough, in theory you could emulate the PS1 emulation in the PS2 emulation. That would be rather interesting, and probably a fun exercise, but leads to the question of why, and would it cause more compatability problems with PS1 games than already exist with the PS2's emulation of the PS1?

          Despite the claim of the article, some level of the PS2's emulation of the PS1 is done by hardware in the PS2's I/O chip, as this contains most of the hardware in a PSOne console. Therefore, simpl

  • backwards forever... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ddsoul ( 756692 ) *
    Ken Katsuragi (I think that's how you spell it), has previously stated in an interview that PS3 and ALL consoles following will be backwards compatible forever! For as long as Gran Turismo is released on Playstation, I'll for always be a Sony fan...

  • No go for me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @07:25AM (#8654463) Homepage Journal
    The nice thing about backwards compatibility is it makes your machine 'usable' if the launch titles suck, and generally they do. After that.. well who really mucks with it? I mean, I could see somebody who doesn't own a PS1 enjoying playing the $5 bargain bin games on the PS2. But really, both systems were so successful that it's hard to imagine the compatibility feature being that big of sell.

    Nintendo got it right. Don't lock your system into a groove. I mean, really, what if the GameCube had held on to N64 games? Would it be a cartridge based machine as well, or would it be significantly bigger than it is today?

    Frankly, I see backwards compatibility as a fad. At least with the PS2, the PS1 games had an option of 'improving' the graphics. But how is the PS3 going to do that? It's not going to invent higher resolution textures. It isn't going to have much spiffier polygon drawing capabilities other than sheer number of them. I doubt they can go back and add real-time shadows to the games. (That'd be neat if they did actually..) Meanwhile, the cost of the system goes up *or* the quality of the older games goes down.

    Nintendo's approach is more interesting. Take the classic games, update them to what the new system can handle, and resell it. Yeah, you're out a few extra $$$, but you gain a more interesting game. Super Mario All Stars anyone?

    Call me cynical, but I firmly believe that Sony's going to discover within a generation or two that backwards compatibilty ain't all that hot anymore. Now, if you can make a portable system that plays previous generation games, then you've got a gold mine brewing. Too bad Playstation(N) discs are 5" wide.
    • The nice thing about backwards compatibility is it makes your machine 'usable' if the launch titles suck, and generally they do.

      Eh, the only recent systems I can think of where this was true is the PS2 and the GC (which did get Smash Brothers pretty quickly at least, IIRC). Dreamcast, Playstation1, Xbox, Nintendo64 (to a lesser extent) all had pretty good collections of launch titles. The first three especially had a great variety of quality titles in many genres.

      • Re:No go for me (Score:4, Interesting)

        by josh glaser ( 748297 ) on Wednesday March 24, 2004 @09:03AM (#8654840)
        Mkay...the GC didn't have a stellar launch (no Mario title), but the Nintendo 64 was worse. It had TWO games at launch (Mario 64 and Pilotwings). In Japan, the problem was even worse (sure, it had 3 games from day 1, but then a long drought of software afterwards...).

        The Xbox didn't have that great of a launch either. They tried really hard to have something for everyone, and they succeeded on most bases (but still had no console-style RPGs, etc.) and ended up with a bunch of mediocre titles. And Azurik. *shudder*

        The PS2 had at least an average launch, I think. What hurt it was the drought of software afterwards. So I think the backwards compatibility helped.

        Personally, I think backwards compatibility is a nice feature, especially during the often-turbulent launch period, but is hardly essential. I think a more reasonable explanation for the PS2's success is that, well, it's the PS2. PlayStation 2. The PlayStation was extremely popular, and when Joe Public saw that the new consoles were coming out...well, what would you choose? The one that you've been playing and enjoying for years, only "better," or a "kiddy console" (not my opinion, but a common one) or a newcomer to the field?

        I think it's rather funny that the only console in recent memory that's backwards compatible is the PS2 (and by recent memory, I mean, since Atari) and now everyone's saying it's essential, as if it's the entire secret to Sony's success. Sure.

        One last thought: If the console isn't backwards compatable, don't name it the same thing. It shouldn't be called Xbox 2 if it doesn't play Xbox games (which is seeming to be the case).

        And as for my predictions:
        PS3: It's a given that it'll be compatible with the PS2. I've heard questioning about whether it would be compatible with PS1 games, but I see no reason why it wouldn't, and no evidence that it could emulate a PS2 without also emulating a PS1.
        N5 (that's, like, the totally hip thing to call the next Nintendo, yo) probably won't be backwards compatible, although I wouldn't be suprised if we saw a portable Gamecube (especcially if the DS fails). In fact, the Mini-DVD format might even be used in the next Game Boy.
        Xenon (the "Xbox 2" codename, at least last I heard) probably won't be backwards compatible, as it's missing, for starters, a hard drive. But maybe they have some secret, like the always limited developers from using more then 256MB of the hard drive anyway ^_^
        • Is it just me, or am I the only one who shudders at the thought of an optical disk based portable?? I've got my walkman, and it rips the shit out of my CDs...horribly. Granted I'm not kind to the machine (backpacks will do that), but the idea of a portable Mini-DVD concerns me. One little scratch and gobs of data are damaged, and in a portable optical, scratches will happen. I guess I'm happy with the cartridge system for portables.
        • The Xbox didn't have that great of a launch either

          What are you talking about? Halo, the most popular title still for this system, was a launch title. At least two of the other titles available the day the console came out, Dead or Alive and Project Gotham, became million sellers. The console also had the best attach rate ever for a console, from what I understand. I don't see how that equates to anything but a great launch, title-wise.
          • I stand (partially) corrected. I forgot Halo came out on day 1 (hear that noise? I'm kicking myself.) So, Xbox had a good launch. I won't say "great" though, because, believe it or not, some people aren't obsessive over Halo. Like, some people aren't that into FPSs. Hard to believe, I know, but there are other games outside of FPSs...and some people prefer those games more. Like myself. Or the entire nation of Japan. One title, no matter how popular, can not create a good launch. Mario 64 was (I b
    • Yeah that whole "backwards compatible with the PS1" thing really killed Sony with the PS2 sales....

      oh wait back into reality...

      I actually seriously think I will purchase a PS3 because I'm very close to buying a PS2 right now but I could wait and get both for the price of a PS3.
      • Same here. For a person who doesn't already own the older system, it doubles the value. More than doubles--those alder games are now much cheaper.
    • Nintendo got it wrong. They went with carts instead of optical media. Carts have a certain fixed cost which cannot be ignored. On the other hand they may have recouped it by preventing widespread piracy - cart copying units and the like have always been pretty expensive. Modchips got cheap.

      I'm pretty surprised no one used 3" CDR for their games. I guess they wanted to have boundless space for FMV.

  • For me, backward compatability isn't all that necessary. I own a SNES, N64, GC, X-box, PS2(don't own any PS1 games), Dreamcast, and a GBA. I'd rather not have to pay extra for backward compatability.

    Do I think it's a useful thing? Sure, for some people. Is it necessary that they include it or else it'll kill their system's sales? Nope.

    • In fact, you paid for backward compatibility with the GBA, it plays all old gameboy and gameboy color games.

      I personally like it as eventually the machines die. But then again I can deal with using emulators for my nostalgy.

      The only thing I'd worry about is when the backward compatibility threatens the possibilities of the console, I want to be able to see new and better things in a console, if backward compatibility might "hold" the console back then I don't want it, otherwise it's a nice bonus.
      • In fact, you paid for backward compatibility with the GBA, it plays all old gameboy and gameboy color games.

        Very true. However I have not ever used it for such. I only own GBA games. Like I said, useful but not necessary.

  • IMO, there are four reasons to have a console with backwards compatibility:

    1) People who DID NOT buy the previous console might be draw more toward the new version. The reason for this is obvious: they now have an 'excuse' to go back and get all the 5 star games that came out for the old console.

    2) Your old console stopped working, and you didn't pay to fix it or buy another one.

    3) The new version has the capability to play the old games 'better,' meaning faster or nicer graphics.

    4) You don't have room for both the new and old consoles.

    At this point, I think that #1 is the most important. Why? First of all, #2 is a fairly rare occurance. Sure, you hear about broken PS2s and Xboxes, but what is the ratio of failures to sold units AFTER considering the service plans that were used to repair said failures? I'll put my money on 'Very Low.'

    #3 was implemented by the PS2, and of the games I've tried playing, the difference was negligable, if the game worked at all.

    #4 is just sad. If you are hardcore enough to want to go back and play those old games that often, you'll make room. Or you'll pack it up, and pull it out to plug into those front RCA jacks on your TV when the need arises. I personally just trickle the old consoles down to the next smaller TV in the house. They're still available, and they're not in the way.

    Having said all that, I do not own an Xbox, but on several occasions have been on the verge of buying one (standing there at the counter in EB, asking how much they go for, CC in hand). If the NeXtbox were to be backwards compatible, and reasonably priced, I'd buy one as soon as I could get my grimey paws on one.

    I have an original PS, a PS2, a DC, an N64, and a GameCube. If PS3 and GameCube v2 were backwards compatible, I could care less. Why? I can already play the old games. If anything, the new consoles would get packed up after playing through the initial (most likely crap) libraries, until something reasonably good were to be released!
    • Here are a few more reasons I thought of...

      It is nice is that you can sell your old console to someone who can't afford the $ for the new console that has backward compatibility. Also helps you offset the cost of the new console.

      Another reason could be higher video quality. For example, the PS2 can be hooked up using component cables making for a sharper/clearer image on my projector. You can not hook up the PS1 via those same cables.

      Next gen consoles may improve the video quality. The PS2 has options
    • The price is set to drop soon. Then the price of the used unit will drop also. You can get a used 1.1 unit (easiest to mod) easier than a new one, just visit your local used game joint regularly and check the serial numbers (print out the ID guide...) since the Xbox warranty is good for three months or something, it's useless. Better to buy used, or reconditioned. Actually, a reconditioned unit is probably the best way to go.

  • Yes, you'll be able to play Wind Waker on N5 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "[The next-generation Nintendo console] will be able to use the games already created in the previous generation." - Satoru Iwata, Dec. 2003 Famitsu interview
  • I've only tried to play 1 PS game on my PS2 - XCom ... and it didn't support the PS2 save cards.

    So if it was flawless, I'd probably be hyped about it, but I don't entirely trust it anymore.
    • I don't believe that any of the PSOne games support the PS2 Memory Card. That was the only majojr problem with it.

      PSOne games used the PSOne Memory Card
      PS2 games used the PS2 Memory Card

      In order for a PSOne game to used the PS2 Memory card, you would probably have to rewrite the game to support, that since there is a huge library of PSOne games already, it is not cost effective for the company to do such a thing.

      You could also partition off a space on said memory card and format it like a PSOne, but the
  • was becouse of the backwards compatibly. Atleast the few non gamers in know chose a ps2 over a xbox becouse of the sheer volume of old cheap ps1 games that would work on there new ps2.
  • Let's think about it this way. What systems are currently the most popular and have the largest user base? The Gameboy/Gameboy Advance and the Playstation/Playstation 2. Is it a coincidence? It could be. But a fact that I'm sure every game console manufacturer has noticed. More than likely, I see at least 2 out of the 3 next generation consoles implementing backwards compatibility. For Sony, it just makes sense. They've done it before, seen the benefit, and will do it again. Nintendo has also seen
  • From what I've heard here and elsewhere, between the internal hardware changes, and dropping two (important!!) buttons from the controller I don't see how the XBox2 could possibly be backwards compatible.
    I think this is total folly on Microsoft's part, especially considering that despite better graphics they are still way below being the console market leader, so we've already seen that better graphics != bigger marketshare. When a new system comes out, what I ask myself is - ok, so what does this system gi
  • I just don't see BW compatibility as being all "that". I've worked in videogame retail for nearly 6 years, so I've had the luck to be in on most of the recent big launches, and I also was around for the end of some of the stinkers (Saturn, anyone?).

    Admittedly I am in a middle-sized town in Florida (Lakeland), but we get a fair share of business, so I've seen and spoken to many a gamer over those 6 years. When PS2 launched, very few people were interested in the fact that it could play PS1 games. The close
  • Backwards compatability is imo one of the biggest reasons for the PS2's success.

    With limited spazce available in most homes, no-one wants to have to throw away/sell all their old favourite games jsut because they have bought a better console that cannoyt play them.

    It was a stroke of genius for Sony to add this feature so as not to alienate all their loyal customers.
  • Considering the leaps in quality that consoles have gone through in the past, the new ones will have to be something pretty special. As games get less and less original it won't make much sense to play for instance Halo when Halo 3 comes out.

    I've heard that Nintendo have said their new one will be backwards compatible, but given that they never do this simply because in Japan they don't actually stop selling the previous model (they only recently stopped making the Famicom!) I can't really see it happening

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close