Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Assuming previous reports are true, it's unlikely...
This news article in Japanese, 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.
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
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr
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.
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.
Sony has also confirmed compatibilty with the PSX and PS2. The Register has the story here.
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.
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.
"Derp de derp."
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.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
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.
no
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).
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!
All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
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 then you would be stuck with the PSOne's old memory slot formated system (Where savefiles took a number of slots of memory space on the PSOne memory card). I don't think we want that either. If you could adjust the amount of slots on it, then there would be no problem, and all will be right with the world.
Personally, I used my PS2 Memory card to house all of saves for the PS2 and the PSOne games. Haven't filled it up yet, and I have not deleted a save file to this day, and I do own a sizeable portion of games from both consoles.
I don't think anyone was saying that it was flawless BC, but it was pretty darn good for the time being. It will be interesting to see how Sony handles the saving issues with the PS3
The Galatic Freedom Force marches on! Defend!
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 drop before buying a console.
I got my ps2 the week it dropped to 170.
no
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 give me that my current one doesn't and how much is it gonna cost me? Experience tells us the MSRP on this new X2 is gonna be at least $250, and by the time it comes out original XBoxes will be selling for $150 or less. The XBox is still a kick-ass system, and provided a major leap from N64 and PS1 (and personally I feel PS2 as well). So what could the X2 possibly be offering to encourage consumers to buy a new console and a whole new suite of games to play on it? Just getting the system and enough games to enjoy it will cost probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $500+. Unless the X2 gives 3D (as in holographic) graphics, or is just so liquid that the real-time graphics look like the ray-traced FMVs from recent Final Fantasies then there's no reason to upgrade to the new system. Hell it makes more sense to go out and buy a used xbox and half a dozen used games and you'll still spend less than upgrading and still have a great console.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --