The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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 I remembered when I was sitting in a really boring lecture at Uni and 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 while back in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles. Is there a point to it all? Can an option like this just be to maximise profits?
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 :) )
A backwards compatible console is one which plays games of a previous version console from the same developer, so the PS2 can play PSX games etc.
So what are the good points?
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 and probably a feature that would be largely un-used. Like with the PS2, a number of owners probably don't use it to play PSX games as the difference in quality between PS2 and PSX games is quite large.
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 it would have made it easier to have had 4 controller ports built in Although there is a possibility that they could have built a kind of multi-tap into the console to maybe overcome that problem but I don't know how easy or hard that would be. 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. One reason I think that the PS2 was backwards compatible is because it was a possible thing to do and also the PSX was still a very popular console so they were able to appeal to two markets, a new one and an older one and make the most from the PSX market and make it go on that little bit longer.
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. I think the next bunch of consoles after the XBox, GameCube and PS2 will make use of a new storage medium, no longer CD or DVD style disks making backwards compatability a very hard thing to include. So what do you all think? Is making a console backwards compatible a good thing or something that wouldn't really be missed?
At first when I thought about this I thought that only the PS2 was backwards compatible but then I remembered when I was sitting in a really boring lecture at Uni and 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 while back in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles. Is there a point to it all? Can an option like this just be to maximise profits?
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 :) )
A backwards compatible console is one which plays games of a previous version console from the same developer, so the PS2 can play PSX games etc.
So what are the good points?
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 and probably a feature that would be largely un-used. Like with the PS2, a number of owners probably don't use it to play PSX games as the difference in quality between PS2 and PSX games is quite large.
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 it would have made it easier to have had 4 controller ports built in Although there is a possibility that they could have built a kind of multi-tap into the console to maybe overcome that problem but I don't know how easy or hard that would be. 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. One reason I think that the PS2 was backwards compatible is because it was a possible thing to do and also the PSX was still a very popular console so they were able to appeal to two markets, a new one and an older one and make the most from the PSX market and make it go on that little bit longer.
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. I think the next bunch of consoles after the XBox, GameCube and PS2 will make use of a new storage medium, no longer CD or DVD style disks making backwards compatability a very hard thing to include. So what do you all think? Is making a console backwards compatible a good thing or something that wouldn't really be missed?
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 I remembered when I was sitting in a really boring lecture at Uni and 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 while back in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles. Is there a point to it all? Can an option like this just be to maximise profits?
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 :) )
A backwards compatible console is one which plays games of a previous version console from the same developer, so the PS2 can play PSX games etc.
So what are the good points?
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 and probably a feature that would be largely un-used. Like with the PS2, a number of owners probably don't use it to play PSX games as the difference in quality between PS2 and PSX games is quite large.
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 it would have made it easier to have had 4 controller ports built in Although there is a possibility that they could have built a kind of multi-tap into the console to maybe overcome that problem but I don't know how easy or hard that would be. 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. One reason I think that the PS2 was backwards compatible is because it was a possible thing to do and also the PSX was still a very popular console so they were able to appeal to two markets, a new one and an older one and make the most from the PSX market and make it go on that little bit longer.
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. I think the next bunch of consoles after the XBox, GameCube and PS2 will make use of a new storage medium, no longer CD or DVD style disks making backwards compatability a very hard thing to include. So what do you all think? Is making a console backwards compatible a good thing or something that wouldn't really be missed?
At first when I thought about this I thought that only the PS2 was backwards compatible but then I remembered when I was sitting in a really boring lecture at Uni and 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 while back in terms of backwards compatibility of processors and that got me thinking, originally on the PS2 but then onto all consoles. Is there a point to it all? Can an option like this just be to maximise profits?
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 :) )
A backwards compatible console is one which plays games of a previous version console from the same developer, so the PS2 can play PSX games etc.
So what are the good points?
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 and probably a feature that would be largely un-used. Like with the PS2, a number of owners probably don't use it to play PSX games as the difference in quality between PS2 and PSX games is quite large.
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 it would have made it easier to have had 4 controller ports built in Although there is a possibility that they could have built a kind of multi-tap into the console to maybe overcome that problem but I don't know how easy or hard that would be. 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. One reason I think that the PS2 was backwards compatible is because it was a possible thing to do and also the PSX was still a very popular console so they were able to appeal to two markets, a new one and an older one and make the most from the PSX market and make it go on that little bit longer.
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. I think the next bunch of consoles after the XBox, GameCube and PS2 will make use of a new storage medium, no longer CD or DVD style disks making backwards compatability a very hard thing to include. So what do you all think? Is making a console backwards compatible a good thing or something that wouldn't really be missed?
First off, I may be wrong but I don't remember an add on to play NES games on the SNES... There was one to play Game Boy games on it I remember though...
Anyway, I think the one major factor in deciding the PS2 would be backwards compatible was the games library. If gamers did only own a PS2 (assuming they sold their old PSX or never owned one) they could still buy new PSX games and enjoy them on their PS2 despite not so good visuals. But I'm in doubt as to whether that actually happened in most cases. Sony themselves were actually trying to market their console at a kind of late teen/20 something market with the DVD playback on it, and the whole look of the console kind of suggests this too. So to me, backward compatibility was the way to appeal to a different market simultaneosly. The kind of trendy 20 something market that the look of the PS2 and the marketing campaigns etc. suggest it was aimed at could likely afford to buy a PS2 without having to sell/trade in their old console. But backwards compatibility would allow parents to get kids a PS2 for Xmas, then sell that old console that's cluttering up the lounge because the PS2 plays the PSX games as well.
I actually doubt PS3 will use a new storage medium. It may well use the smaller DVDs like the GC, or double layered DVDs or something, but I doubt anything brand new. I think if PS3 does become backwards compatible it will be with PS2 titles only. As you said, not all PSX games work on PS2. Similarly, I doubt ALL PS2 games would work on a backwards compatible PS3, so taking it back another generation (ie. trying to play PSX games on a PS3) would likely mean even more games would not work.
Also, I don't know about this, but it could be something to do with the backward compatibility that the PS2 has such complex innards and thus is such a hard console to code for. In the long run (despite middleware) if this is the case it could harm Sony more than it was worth in the first place...
Anyway, I think the one major factor in deciding the PS2 would be backwards compatible was the games library. If gamers did only own a PS2 (assuming they sold their old PSX or never owned one) they could still buy new PSX games and enjoy them on their PS2 despite not so good visuals. But I'm in doubt as to whether that actually happened in most cases. Sony themselves were actually trying to market their console at a kind of late teen/20 something market with the DVD playback on it, and the whole look of the console kind of suggests this too. So to me, backward compatibility was the way to appeal to a different market simultaneosly. The kind of trendy 20 something market that the look of the PS2 and the marketing campaigns etc. suggest it was aimed at could likely afford to buy a PS2 without having to sell/trade in their old console. But backwards compatibility would allow parents to get kids a PS2 for Xmas, then sell that old console that's cluttering up the lounge because the PS2 plays the PSX games as well.
I actually doubt PS3 will use a new storage medium. It may well use the smaller DVDs like the GC, or double layered DVDs or something, but I doubt anything brand new. I think if PS3 does become backwards compatible it will be with PS2 titles only. As you said, not all PSX games work on PS2. Similarly, I doubt ALL PS2 games would work on a backwards compatible PS3, so taking it back another generation (ie. trying to play PSX games on a PS3) would likely mean even more games would not work.
Also, I don't know about this, but it could be something to do with the backward compatibility that the PS2 has such complex innards and thus is such a hard console to code for. In the long run (despite middleware) if this is the case it could harm Sony more than it was worth in the first place...
I think backwards-compatabiltyismness is a great, great thing.
I never owned a PSOne, but I do have a PS2 now. After collecting a good 15 or so PS2 games I was running out of fresh titles... Since then I've spent no more than £30 collecting the following PSOne games: Hogs of War, Bishi Bashi, Incredible Crisis and Ape Escape. I have to say, I play these games (esp Hogs of War) as much, if not more, than I play my PS2 games. And to think I could have missed out on the most original games ever.
Likewise, I only really use my Dreamcast to play SNES and megadrive emulators. Admittedly, i own both original consoles, but it's so much more convenient what with wires, power cables and cartridges all over the shop.
If only Neo Geos were compatible with Amstrad CPC 464 tape cassettes.
I never owned a PSOne, but I do have a PS2 now. After collecting a good 15 or so PS2 games I was running out of fresh titles... Since then I've spent no more than £30 collecting the following PSOne games: Hogs of War, Bishi Bashi, Incredible Crisis and Ape Escape. I have to say, I play these games (esp Hogs of War) as much, if not more, than I play my PS2 games. And to think I could have missed out on the most original games ever.
Likewise, I only really use my Dreamcast to play SNES and megadrive emulators. Admittedly, i own both original consoles, but it's so much more convenient what with wires, power cables and cartridges all over the shop.
If only Neo Geos were compatible with Amstrad CPC 464 tape cassettes.