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?"
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
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."
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).