backwards compatibility

[Allnatural]

Knowing that the PS3 will be backwards compatible means I'll likely be an early adopter, since I'll probably have a few unplayed PS2 titles left over.

Now there's word that the Revolution will be backwards compatible. Source (in French), and translated source.

With emulation available I rarely play PSX games on my PS2, but I like knowing that I can, and I'm stoked that (some) of the future consoles will allow me to do the same. Anyone else give a damn about backwards compatibility, or is it just me?

 

[smegforbrain]

I am huge on backwards compatibility, myself.

I love that I can use my mem cards, my controller, and my games all on my PS2 without worry. It's why I'm sticking with Sony rather than get any other system.

 

[smcd]

I think backwards compatibilty is a large reason for Windows' success. But regarding consoles, yes it's great. GameBoy for example. I love playing GB, GBC, GBA games all on the same device.

 

[rcgamer]

yep, backwards compatibility is great. i remember in the old days when no system was backwards compatible. at least not without having to buy an extra attachment. when the snes came out i remember there being a lot of angry people because it couldnt play nes games.

 

[Stezo2k]

to be honest it doesn't really bother me, but i am a bit biased because i play a lot of emulators on my xbox

very rarely used backwards compatability on the Ps2

 

[pj64er]

Nope, not a good thing.

For one, if you have psx games, chances are, you have a psx. So its a redundant feature. The second thing is that to keep backward compatibility, companies would either a) keep using old designs on relevant parts (no innovation or even worse, keep old bugs) or b) stick in extra hardware/software specifically for this feature (raising costs).

I'd much rather they put the resources used to keep backward compatibility into making the best possible platform for console gaming. I'd much rather have a cheaper and better dedicated Blu-Ray reader on my PS3 than some exotic CD-DVD-Blu-Ray hybrid that Sony has to waste money designing JUST so that three random joes can play their PS1 games on PS3. If you wanna play old games, thats what places like this is for (or dust off your ps1).

 

[ScottJC]

However pj64er.. if you don't own a PSX and really wanted to play a game from it, you couldn't do it without backwards compatibility, and people will pay more if they know that they can play old games on their new consoles, do you really think the GBA would be as popular without the ability to play GB games? I really doubt it.

PS2 support in PS3 sounds good to me, means if my PS2 breaks I can still play the games.

 

[Clements]

I used my GBA to play loads of GBC games. The GBC still had lots of games coming out for it when the GBA arrived.

 

[Doomulation]

Silly you. I can't play tetris on my gba if it weren't backwards compitable! Do I want a gb? No way... I like the gba ^_^ Backwards compitable is a good thing! I would also argue that some consoles are hard to get ahold of... and some can't afford to upgrade the computer to play emulation plus the feeling on the tv is better (imo).

 

[pj64er]

ScottJC & Clements & Doom: Ill grant you that handhelds are an exception. You dont have the luxury of having all of them available. Carrying around all your GBx's arent as easy as having all your systems laying in front of your TV.

ScottJC: http://www.epsxe.com/

Clements: yea, but how many are worth playing? ;p

Doom: Isnt it an industry rule that you MUST port tetris to every and any system? (http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/prod...BV_EngineID=ccdcadddjfelligcfngcfkmdffhdffk.0)
Also, consoles that are hard to get a hold of rarely have successors that have compatibility with its games.


The main point is, if game company X had used Y amount of resource to make their console backward compatible with a system I already have, I'd MUCH rather them spend that Y amount of resources on making their console better. Im also pretty sure that the original design of the new console has to be gimped a bit to allow backward compatibility.

Also, if you have a PS2 and PS2 games laying around, why would you go "omg, I MUST buy PS3 so I can play my PS2 games!"?

 

[ScottJC]

That is not the point, EPSXE is nice but it doesn't compare to the real thing, I for one would rather have one system that plays everything rather than 3 that plays 3 different things.

Nobody forces you to play a PS1 game on your PS2, the option to be able to do it will always be handy, and I don't buy the "it gimps a machine" thing.

Game companys know exactly how their machine works so it is not difficult for them to make their machines work with their older machines is it, Game machine developers have tons more resources than you can possibly imagine so why you care if they use a small amount to create a better machine by making it backwards compatible.

One could argue the same thing with pc's, since I built a pc myself I designed it using my resources, I could build it so its not backwards compatible at all since i already have a couple of old pc's but why would I do that? I know its possible to make a PC that can't run anything I own, haha... i'll just make it so patheticly slow

 

[pj64er]

Well, how do you achieve backward compatibility?

I can think of only two options.
1) start with the old design, and add stuff to it.
2) make a whole new design, and add components that provides this feature

If its 1), then the new console is what I referred to as 'gimped'. The new console is not designed to be as best as it could be, but rather keep old designs just to accomidate backward compatibility.

If its 2), then extra components is added to the system just for this feature. These are unnecessary components if youve already got the previous system+games.


Your PC example give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate this. So you're building new x86 PCs right? In order to be backward compatible with your old programs, youll have a choice of only the x86 cpus on the market. Now, what if some other company makes a new type of cpu, whose design is inheritly more powerful, efficient, and cheaper than anything on the x86 market? Now you have a choice: keep backward compatibilty, and go for the obviously inferior x86, OR switch to the new hardware and get its benefits. Backward compatibility limits the console maker to the first choice. With this limitation, the consoles were getting may be needlessly less powerful and more expensive. Thus, gimped.

 

[Allnatural]

Well, how do you achieve backward compatibility?

I can think of only two options.
1) start with the old design, and add stuff to it.
2) make a whole new design, and add components that provides this feature

If its 1), then the new console is what I referred to as 'gimped'. The new console is not designed to be as best as it could be, but rather keep old designs just to accomidate backward compatibility.

If its 2), then extra components is added to the system just for this feature. These are unnecessary components if youve already got the previous system+games.

I doubt any company would take the first approach.

Sony took the second route with the PS2, taking an R3000A (used as the main CPU in the PSX), giving it some dedicated RAM, and using it for I/O. Put in a PSX game, and the PS2 simply runs it from the I/O processor (with some emulation I'm sure). I don't see that as a compromise to the overall design.

 

[Hacktarux]

There are chances that the this console will have a power pc processor compatible with the game cube processor. And if it happens, it won't be because they want backwards compatibility, it'll be because the ppc is probably one of the best solution for console right now.... even microsoft will use one for the xbox2.

 

[pj64er]

thanks for the info, both of you.

...but theres more to a console then the cpu, no? Just because the example I gave only talked about cpu architecture, that does not mean thats the only component that needs to be considered when giving a new console backward compatibility.

AllNatural: No, that does not sound like a major compromise. But, look, they added an extra processor and RAM. These things cost money, money that could have went towards giving me a second controller.

An example of 1) would be ye olde PC.

 

[ScottJC]

I'd rather have the backwards compatibility than a controller, controllers are cheap.

I am so glad you don't work for Sony pj64er.

I think if the gamecube were backwards compatible with the n64 it'd be more popular than it is now. You only get one controller with the gamecube... heh

 

[Allnatural]

Allnatural: No, that does not sound like a major compromise. But, look, they added an extra processor and RAM. These things cost money, money that could have went towards giving me a second controller.

Extra? Something has to handle I/O...

 

[pj64er]

AllNatural: I'm not going to pretend to understand the details of the system, but do you think maybe theres a better processor out there to handle I/O? I mean, ps2 came out a full 6 years after the ps1, surely by then, something better for I/O would have came along.

ScottJC: the controller comment was an EXAMPLE. The resources that went towards keeping backward compatibility could have been used for various other beneficial endeavours. For another example, it could be used for designing/buying a better laser for the cd drive. early PS2 lasers were infamous for failing, no?

and the gamecube comment - look how much cheaper the system is! You may not get a controller bundled in, but were looking at a cost difference of about 50 USD between the cost of a GC and PS2. Thats TWO controllers. (I am aware that GC is cheaper for other reasons, but this does play a factor in the lower cost of the console)

 

[ScottJC]

The GC is only cheap because Nintendo designed it so, they tried to make it as small as possible and efficient at what it does, then sold it... but the Gamecube could easily support the N64 with its current hardware, check out Zelda OOT the bonus disc, it is PERFECT emulation... which proves to me if nintendo wanted to they could have made it support all n64 games.

Cheapness and Size was the gamecubes selling point;

Notice that the gamecube version of oot requires no changes to its hardware yet it is still able to do it... mind boggling huh? not all consoles designs have to change to make them backwards compatible... in the case of the GC it would obviously need a cart slot to achieve this.

The PS2 however using a DVD-rom easily supports the PS1 through emulation on the hardware, its quite possible they changed nothing to achieve this... it could be entirely software, I dunno... just theorising. They can do this because they know exactly how their hardware works like I have pointed out.

Personally... I don't give a rats ass about $50? pfft... $50.. if it means my PS2 can play DVD's and PS1 games for years to come i'll buy it... wait I did.

I am sure more people would agree with me on this.

Edit: while i'm at it, how cheap do you think the GBA SP would be if it didn't support the gameboy or gameboy color... now there is something to ponder... I doubt it could be any cheaper than it is.

 

[Doomulation]

Notice that the gamecube version of oot requires no changes to its hardware yet it is still able to do it... mind boggling huh? not all consoles designs have to change to make them backwards compatible... in the case of the GC it would obviously need a cart slot to achieve this.

Agreed. Emulation perhaps? Knowing that they do have the specs of their consoles, it should be (somewhat?) easy for them to do emulation. If the system isn't powerful enough, perhaps one extra component might help (or two). That way it's backwards compitable without a lot of extra cost.

Personally... I don't give a rats ass about $50? pfft... $50.. if it means my PS2 can play DVD's and PS1 games for years to come i'll buy it... wait I did.

...I don't agree -_-
I don't want to pay $50 for a fuggin' system for unnecessary functions (such as dvd playing? you got a computer, don't you?). Backwards compitable. Nice, but not worth that much extra money (unless you don't have the previous system) -_- ...

The gba could probably be much cheaper, it's just that ninty owns the handheld market and no one is even near to threaten their market share. That is, at least I think, why it's so expensive.

Some other notes, though...
Tetris on every system? Would you buy a tetris for the new system if you had the old one? I'd rather have backwards compability, you know...

GC emulating the n64? Actually, the GC is too weak. Hehe, ninty tried to make it backwards compitable at first, but they couldn't. The zelda is an exception. It isn't even a full emulator. It's only designed to run zelda.

That's my comments in this matter, though ^_^