The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Playstation 2 took a brave step in introducing backward compatibility for the PS1. Why do other console developers not follow suit?
Microsoft monopolise the software market because they have created a kind of 'compatibility niche'. If someone wants to run the latest software, write compatible documents, they NEED Microsoft software.
I used Linux for a while, but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT Microsoft software.
Microsoft created this empire purely by good advertising, and getting people in a position where they can never possibly get away. Perfect business strategy!
So with Microsoft ruling the desktop, who rules the console market? The answer? At the minute - no-one. The reason? No manufacturer has yet introduced a console that will truly have longevity and software to match. However, if a console promised future compatibility, and a promise that you will never strictly have to throw away any of your old games, they would be on to a winner.
The Playstation seems to be on a victorious track. The PS1 still has many titles that are considered excellent. Final Fantasy 7 is probably my best loved game of all time. Best of all, I can play it on the PS2! I can also play any new releases in the Final Fantasy series. Too bloody good to be true!
With the release of the new generation consoles such as the PS2, XBox and GameCube, who will rule the niche? This remains to be seen. But in terms of the future, I predict Sony will come out on top. In 20 years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?
Microsoft monopolise the software market because they have created a kind of 'compatibility niche'. If someone wants to run the latest software, write compatible documents, they NEED Microsoft software.
I used Linux for a while, but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT Microsoft software.
Microsoft created this empire purely by good advertising, and getting people in a position where they can never possibly get away. Perfect business strategy!
So with Microsoft ruling the desktop, who rules the console market? The answer? At the minute - no-one. The reason? No manufacturer has yet introduced a console that will truly have longevity and software to match. However, if a console promised future compatibility, and a promise that you will never strictly have to throw away any of your old games, they would be on to a winner.
The Playstation seems to be on a victorious track. The PS1 still has many titles that are considered excellent. Final Fantasy 7 is probably my best loved game of all time. Best of all, I can play it on the PS2! I can also play any new releases in the Final Fantasy series. Too bloody good to be true!
With the release of the new generation consoles such as the PS2, XBox and GameCube, who will rule the niche? This remains to be seen. But in terms of the future, I predict Sony will come out on top. In 20 years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?
Talking about backwards capability, i have probly only used it for a couple of hours to see if it makes a difference to the games, i never use it now
Franny wrote:
> I used Linux for a while,
> but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These
> days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT
> Microsoft software.
Sorry, I just have to talk about this.
Yes, this is a problem, although software is being created daily. I can find that I can do all my web-designing easily without Micrsoft products. I don't even use Word any more, because OpenOffice has progressed in leaps and bounds.
However, yes, you do have to boot/emulate Window for some things, such as Macromedia software and most games, but it's not really a problem. All it means is your computer goes offline for 3 minutes, or not at all if you use VMware (useless for games though). I would like to see more propietry software, such as games and the MM suite, developed for the penguin masses, but sadly it ain't gonna happen. Shame really, but that's the extent of power Microsoft has. Good thing in the gaming world they're the new kids on the block. It might teach them a lesson.
Just out of interest, why did you stop using Linux? Did you use a desktop? Which one?
> I used Linux for a while,
> but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These
> days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT
> Microsoft software.
Sorry, I just have to talk about this.
Yes, this is a problem, although software is being created daily. I can find that I can do all my web-designing easily without Micrsoft products. I don't even use Word any more, because OpenOffice has progressed in leaps and bounds.
However, yes, you do have to boot/emulate Window for some things, such as Macromedia software and most games, but it's not really a problem. All it means is your computer goes offline for 3 minutes, or not at all if you use VMware (useless for games though). I would like to see more propietry software, such as games and the MM suite, developed for the penguin masses, but sadly it ain't gonna happen. Shame really, but that's the extent of power Microsoft has. Good thing in the gaming world they're the new kids on the block. It might teach them a lesson.
Just out of interest, why did you stop using Linux? Did you use a desktop? Which one?
SCAMPS wrote:
the Gamecube plays mini disks.
The GameCube plays 8cm round "CDs" not the actual mini-disks that you can listen to music on :D
the Gamecube plays mini disks.
The GameCube plays 8cm round "CDs" not the actual mini-disks that you can listen to music on :D
I thought I should post my views on the backward compatibility issue in the gaming industry as I think it is an interesting topic.
Backwards compatible consoles, are they a good thing or bad?
At first when I thought about this I thought that only the PS2 was backwards compatible but then on the train from Uni one of my friends took out his GBA and began playing a gameboy game on it.
It was an issue that came up in a lecture a few weeks ago, in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles.
When I thought about it more, there have been a few consoles I have thought of that with the help of extra hardware additions are able to play games from a previous console. The SNES had an addition to play NES games, the mega drive could play master system games. I think there are a few more but my memory is a little blurred (some of the ones I mentioned could be wrong too :) )
So what are the good points of backwards compatible consoles?
Well seeing as the PS2 is the only backwards compatible next generation console I will use it as an example. Microsoft have just entered the market so they have no other console to be compatible with and the GameCube from Nintendo used optical disks where all the previous Nintendo consoles have used cartridges so to make it backwards compatible would cost a lot.
There are a number of good points with a console being backwards compatible, if you owned the previous console then all the games and a lot of the peripherals can be used on your new console.
Some games only come out on the older console, for example Syphon filter 3, so having a console which plays both can be a bonus for games like this. It is the same with some peripherals, you in a way get the best of both worlds. It saves you having to own both consoles so you can sell the older one (if you own one) or only buy the newer one (if you don't already own either and like the games available for both) this expands on the number of games and peripherals you can buy, meaning there is a greater variety to choose from.
But as well as this, like with every argument there is another side to it all. So what bad points are there?
Well for one the console dosn't improve the old games at all, they will play exactly the same way as they would on the older console. Also most people I know sell their old console to pay towards the new one so in most cases they don't have and probably will never buy the old games as the newer games are more technically advanced.
I can't help thinking though that the hardware and software techniques that are used in a console to allow the feature of backwards compatibility could be used for something more beneficial to improving the games. Now I don't know the exact facts or details about what makes a console backwards compatible but I am sure that the console could be made a bit better if these options weren't required. The architecture could be changed so it no longer needs to cope with the option of the old PSX games and concentrate only on the PS2 games. Take the PS2, if it wasn't backwards compatible then they could easily have had 4 controller ports built in (When I say easy I don't mean it to be used as really easy but a because it is backwards compatible it is almost impossible to build in 4 ports, or extremelly hard)
I also know a few people who have had problems in that not all games are compatible on the newer system, it may only be a few but it kind of defeats the purpose.
Also when a new console appears the older console usually drops in price quite a lot so most if they wanted could probably buy both if they want to be able to play old games on an older console.
The way I see it is that a new console should bring something new, better and offer a better experience, the PS2 does this with an added bonus of being backwards compatible but this is something I have used very little, I haven't played a single PSX game on my PS2 (I still have a PSX though) but I do use my old controllers. But If Sony could have made the PS2 better by sacrificing the option of being backwards compatible then I would have prefered Sony to make it better and forget about making it backwards compatible. I guess again it all comes down to money, if the developer thinks one option will maximise sales then it is likely they will include such an option.
At some point I would like to try get into the Gaming industry in some way, I would like to maybe work on games design or designing Gaming engines but If I don't get into them I would like to be involved in designing a console. Backwards compatibility seems like an option that has to be considered when it is in development, The PS2 maybe would have been different if it wasn't designed to allow us to play PSX games and use PSX peripherals but would they have sold as many PS2's? There are probably a lot of options they had to consider and to them the best idea was to make it backwards compatible. The PS2 could also be backwards compatible was the fact that its CD/DVD drive could easily be addapted to read various types of disks including the old games, had they chose a new storage meduim it is likely the PS2 wouldn't be backwards compatible.
I don't think the PS2 will be the last console to be backwards compatible with another console but I doubt that the PS3 (Assuming sony produce another console and call it the PS3 of course) will be backwards compatible.
Backwards compatible consoles, are they a good thing or bad?
At first when I thought about this I thought that only the PS2 was backwards compatible but then on the train from Uni one of my friends took out his GBA and began playing a gameboy game on it.
It was an issue that came up in a lecture a few weeks ago, in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles.
When I thought about it more, there have been a few consoles I have thought of that with the help of extra hardware additions are able to play games from a previous console. The SNES had an addition to play NES games, the mega drive could play master system games. I think there are a few more but my memory is a little blurred (some of the ones I mentioned could be wrong too :) )
So what are the good points of backwards compatible consoles?
Well seeing as the PS2 is the only backwards compatible next generation console I will use it as an example. Microsoft have just entered the market so they have no other console to be compatible with and the GameCube from Nintendo used optical disks where all the previous Nintendo consoles have used cartridges so to make it backwards compatible would cost a lot.
There are a number of good points with a console being backwards compatible, if you owned the previous console then all the games and a lot of the peripherals can be used on your new console.
Some games only come out on the older console, for example Syphon filter 3, so having a console which plays both can be a bonus for games like this. It is the same with some peripherals, you in a way get the best of both worlds. It saves you having to own both consoles so you can sell the older one (if you own one) or only buy the newer one (if you don't already own either and like the games available for both) this expands on the number of games and peripherals you can buy, meaning there is a greater variety to choose from.
But as well as this, like with every argument there is another side to it all. So what bad points are there?
Well for one the console dosn't improve the old games at all, they will play exactly the same way as they would on the older console. Also most people I know sell their old console to pay towards the new one so in most cases they don't have and probably will never buy the old games as the newer games are more technically advanced.
I can't help thinking though that the hardware and software techniques that are used in a console to allow the feature of backwards compatibility could be used for something more beneficial to improving the games. Now I don't know the exact facts or details about what makes a console backwards compatible but I am sure that the console could be made a bit better if these options weren't required. The architecture could be changed so it no longer needs to cope with the option of the old PSX games and concentrate only on the PS2 games. Take the PS2, if it wasn't backwards compatible then they could easily have had 4 controller ports built in (When I say easy I don't mean it to be used as really easy but a because it is backwards compatible it is almost impossible to build in 4 ports, or extremelly hard)
I also know a few people who have had problems in that not all games are compatible on the newer system, it may only be a few but it kind of defeats the purpose.
Also when a new console appears the older console usually drops in price quite a lot so most if they wanted could probably buy both if they want to be able to play old games on an older console.
The way I see it is that a new console should bring something new, better and offer a better experience, the PS2 does this with an added bonus of being backwards compatible but this is something I have used very little, I haven't played a single PSX game on my PS2 (I still have a PSX though) but I do use my old controllers. But If Sony could have made the PS2 better by sacrificing the option of being backwards compatible then I would have prefered Sony to make it better and forget about making it backwards compatible. I guess again it all comes down to money, if the developer thinks one option will maximise sales then it is likely they will include such an option.
At some point I would like to try get into the Gaming industry in some way, I would like to maybe work on games design or designing Gaming engines but If I don't get into them I would like to be involved in designing a console. Backwards compatibility seems like an option that has to be considered when it is in development, The PS2 maybe would have been different if it wasn't designed to allow us to play PSX games and use PSX peripherals but would they have sold as many PS2's? There are probably a lot of options they had to consider and to them the best idea was to make it backwards compatible. The PS2 could also be backwards compatible was the fact that its CD/DVD drive could easily be addapted to read various types of disks including the old games, had they chose a new storage meduim it is likely the PS2 wouldn't be backwards compatible.
I don't think the PS2 will be the last console to be backwards compatible with another console but I doubt that the PS3 (Assuming sony produce another console and call it the PS3 of course) will be backwards compatible.
Nintendo hasn`t enabled backwards compatability for the Gamecube for a good reason, the Gamecube plays mini disks,if the Gamecube was to play normal sized disks,it would need to be much bigger than it is.Another reason is obviously the fact that the Gamecubes ancestors used cartridges.
Money also comes into things,if you could play your whole collection of games on one console,there wouldnt be much rush to buy new games,meaning the company would loose money,leading to lack of game production.Well thast what i think anyway.....
Money also comes into things,if you could play your whole collection of games on one console,there wouldnt be much rush to buy new games,meaning the company would loose money,leading to lack of game production.Well thast what i think anyway.....
Franny wrote:
> In 20
> years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope
> remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?
I hope they are not called playstation in 20 years time, a more original name would be much appreciated.
> In 20
> years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope
> remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?
I hope they are not called playstation in 20 years time, a more original name would be much appreciated.
It's an interesting topic, but personally I think backwards compatability os far too over-rated.
Take the PS2 as an example. Appart from hardcore gamers who love playing old games, most casual gamers will just wait for GT3 rather than go back to GT2. There are very few games that people would be bothered to buy, simply because they're "old" (worse graphics and the like).
Of course, there are some crackers in there- MGS1 is a must have for any PS2 owner.
So, backwards compatability is a nice extra, but if it doesn't sell consoles (and I doubt it does) then there's no reason to put it in.
Take the PS2 as an example. Appart from hardcore gamers who love playing old games, most casual gamers will just wait for GT3 rather than go back to GT2. There are very few games that people would be bothered to buy, simply because they're "old" (worse graphics and the like).
Of course, there are some crackers in there- MGS1 is a must have for any PS2 owner.
So, backwards compatability is a nice extra, but if it doesn't sell consoles (and I doubt it does) then there's no reason to put it in.
good post. i agree.
The Playstation 2 took a brave step in introducing backward compatibility for the PS1. Why do other console developers not follow suit?
Microsoft monopolise the software market because they have created a kind of 'compatibility niche'. If someone wants to run the latest software, write compatible documents, they NEED Microsoft software.
I used Linux for a while, but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT Microsoft software.
Microsoft created this empire purely by good advertising, and getting people in a position where they can never possibly get away. Perfect business strategy!
So with Microsoft ruling the desktop, who rules the console market? The answer? At the minute - no-one. The reason? No manufacturer has yet introduced a console that will truly have longevity and software to match. However, if a console promised future compatibility, and a promise that you will never strictly have to throw away any of your old games, they would be on to a winner.
The Playstation seems to be on a victorious track. The PS1 still has many titles that are considered excellent. Final Fantasy 7 is probably my best loved game of all time. Best of all, I can play it on the PS2! I can also play any new releases in the Final Fantasy series. Too bloody good to be true!
With the release of the new generation consoles such as the PS2, XBox and GameCube, who will rule the niche? This remains to be seen. But in terms of the future, I predict Sony will come out on top. In 20 years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?
Microsoft monopolise the software market because they have created a kind of 'compatibility niche'. If someone wants to run the latest software, write compatible documents, they NEED Microsoft software.
I used Linux for a while, but found myself HAVING to run Microsoft software using emulation. Why? These days you will be pushed to find fully compatible software that will run WITHOUT Microsoft software.
Microsoft created this empire purely by good advertising, and getting people in a position where they can never possibly get away. Perfect business strategy!
So with Microsoft ruling the desktop, who rules the console market? The answer? At the minute - no-one. The reason? No manufacturer has yet introduced a console that will truly have longevity and software to match. However, if a console promised future compatibility, and a promise that you will never strictly have to throw away any of your old games, they would be on to a winner.
The Playstation seems to be on a victorious track. The PS1 still has many titles that are considered excellent. Final Fantasy 7 is probably my best loved game of all time. Best of all, I can play it on the PS2! I can also play any new releases in the Final Fantasy series. Too bloody good to be true!
With the release of the new generation consoles such as the PS2, XBox and GameCube, who will rule the niche? This remains to be seen. But in terms of the future, I predict Sony will come out on top. In 20 years time when futuristic Playstations are in peoples living rooms, the hope remains that we can still play Ridge Racer on it!
Any thoughts anyone?