Backward Compatibility in Next-Gen Consoles?

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?"

Comments

No go for me

[NanoGator]

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.

Re:No go for me

[josh glaser]

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 ^_^

Shelf space, dvd capabilities.

[bludstone]

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.