Topic: Expecting Backwards compatibility

If it makes business sense for the company, how exactly is it "selfish"?

@iKhan: Yeah but when the NX comes out, I doubt the Wii U will still cost $300, people can get one then to play a few of the games.

@Tasuki: But why should that be the case? Why shouldn't future systems be backwards compatible?

@DefHalan: Well, it's "selfish" for all of those reasons you just stated. Let's just take one thing you said, as example.

"Why should I have to try to hunt down an old system and the old software, just to play a game I want?" - You (@DefHalan)
...
If you honestly can't see the selfishness oozing from that statement, I don't know if I'm the one who can open your eyes. That sentence you typed, right there, embodies this sense of entitlement gamers seem to have these days. Why should you have to "hunt" down old systems to play a game? Because that's the system the game was made for! That's why! If you want to play it, you'll find the system. Or you'll give up and not play the game. End of story.

A company - any company - doesn't owe you anything. They only need to do what they believe is best for their bottom line. If some of those actions come off as "heartfelt" or "caring," that's great for the company! If some come off as "tough" or "disconnected," well, you're just the consumer, and most likely can't see certain things the company is looking at in terms of bottom line. Companies need us to consume their goods, but they need to balance that with ways of making profit from us.

If you can't tell, I am someone who certainly does NOT believe "the customer is always right" lol

Because we want new exciting not old stuff. What's the point of getting a new system to play old games. Also without adding BC it keeps the cost down. I am buying a new system to play new games not games I can already play.

@rallydefault: No, companies don't "owe" the customer anything, but the fact that companies can produce something non-consistent with what many customers want and that helps the bottom line is an indication that the game industry is not a properly functioning market.

It seems like you read that as me only talking about myself. When I said "I", I meant a consumer… any consumer. I didn't mean just me personally.

I don't have to hunt down a computer with Windows 95 to play DOOM. I don't need a iPhone 4 to play older iOS games. Why does the console part of the industry get to not support Backwards compatibility but we expect it on PC and Mobile?

As time progresses and features are added to our technologies we expect some of those features to remain in future products. We expect games to be released in High Definition. We expect games to be downloadable. We expect systems to offer online multiplayer. We expect to be able to communicate with others from around the world in real time. But heaven forbid we expect our software to be compatible with future hardware. How dare we expect that our games will work on the next system when our current system is phased out. I mean only about half the industry does that, larger if you go by install base, so why would we expect it from our consoles?

Your right, the consumer is not always right, but consumers are free to expect things from companies and when those companies do not deliver, we can be disappointed. We can even not support their products if we want.

Backwards Compatibility has become an expectation because the industry has given it to us for so long now. It is a big deal when Backwards Compatibility is missing, and it is considered a normal thing when Backwards Compatibility is present in a system. Microsoft adding backwards compatibility to the Xbox One was, in my opinion, a similar move to when Sony announced the PS4 would not have the ridiculous DRM that the Xbox One was trying to have. It was a message of, "That is not the industry norm. Here is what you, as customers, expect from us." It is your choice to not expect Backwards Compatibility but, it is also our choice to expect it. It is not selfishness. It is what the Industry has made me expect from my products and not having it is a step backwards, not forwards. lol

@Tasuki: "Exciting new stuff", you mean remasters of games that are a few years old right? That's what the path of no backwards compatibility leads to. Here's some examples:

XB1
/
. Halo 4 as part of MCC (released in 2012 on Xbox 360, 2014 on Xbox One)
. Tomb Raider (released in 2013 on Xbox 360, 2014 on Xbox One)
. Sleeping Dogs (released in 2012 on Xbox 360, 2014 on Xbox One)
. DmC: Devil May Cry (released in 2013 on Xbox 360, 2015 on Xbox One)
/
PS4
/
. The Last of Us (released in 2013 on PS3, 2014 on PS4)
. Tomb Raider (see XB1)
. Uncharted 3 as part of Nathan Drake Collection (released in 2011 on PS3, 2015 on PS4)
. God of War 3 (released in 2010 on PS3, 2015 on PS4)
. Sleeping Dogs (see XB1)
. DmC: Devil May Cry (see XB1)
/
Both Microsoft and Sony relied on very recent remasters until Microsoft introduced backwards compatibility of which we've got to the situation where they're creating plenty of new games while only Sony is relying on very recent remasters. Don't get me wrong, Nintendo is not completely innocent due to the 3DS remasters of DKCR and Xenoblade Chronicles but mostly the remasters have been from 10+ year old games which is the right strategy.

@Grumblevolcano: Yeah but they are remastered using the current systems specs. Take GTA V for example look at the difference between the 360/PS3 version to the One/PS4 versions. It would be one thing if they didn't improve the graphics and such. Besides by doing remasters, they don't have to hike up the price for adding PS3 components into a PS4 for for example. And if you have the original game on say last gen, then don't buy the remaster if you don't want too. You don't have to pay for a remaster if you don't want too, if they put backwards compatibility into the system you have to pay for that.

@Tasuki: Remember how much Microsoft charged for the cost of adding backwards compatibility? They don't have to increase the price for backwards compatibility.

I wonder if backwards compatibility had sales, similar to Steam Sales, if the old games would make enough money to pay for the backwards compatibility.

@DefHalan: Lol yeah ok they only reason MS didn't charge for BC is because they are still trying to recover from the whole DRM always online debacle. They just used it as a means to entice people to buy an Xbox One over the PS4. They lost alot of 360 owners at the beginning to Sony so by offering BC they were hoping not to lose anymore. I bet if the numbers were reversed and Xbox One were outselling the PS4 they wouldn't have even brought out BC on the One.

Look at the PS3, how much that dropped in price when they removed PS2 backwards compatibility. How much did the Wii dropped in price when Nintendo removed the Gamecube backwards compatibility?

@Tasuki: But at the same time you wouldn't buy the console because there's virtually no reason to. The XB1 only really became worth buying last year when there was finally enough new stuff to enjoy and PS4's only just becoming worth owning this year. That's 2 and 3 years respectively since launch, meanwhile the Wii U which only had Wind Waker as a remaster became worth owning late 2013 / early 2014 (only a year since launch).

@Grumblevolcano: **sigh** You're one of those there is nothing to play on PS4 or Xbox One person aren't you. Ok let's see what there was to play since launch on PS4 that wasn't a remaster (I can't say about Xbox One cause I don't have one).

Infamous Second Son
Killzone
Assassin's Creed IV
Drive Club
Diablo III
Plenty of Call of Duty games if you're into that
Lego games
Project Cars
The Crew
Not to mention a bunch of indy games as well like Rocket League, Dust Axiom Verge

And that's all the games I can think of off the top of my head. There are alot more games to play on the PS4 that aren't Remasters.

@Tasuki: No, I was saying that if you own the last gen console there being no reason to upgrade. Most of the games you listed are multi-gen.

@Tasuki: those are generations without digital games. The backwards compatibility in those systems were also hardware based, unlike the backwards compatibility in the Xbox One. Backwards compatibility was a big issue for Xbox, so Microsoft added it. People expected it and people complained when it was missing. Microsoft listened and added it.

@Tasuki: Half of those are available on last gen systems. Not really "exciting new stuff" if you ask me. But the PS4 has been doing better with games like Bloodbourne, Arkham Knight, and Witcher 3.

@Grumblevolcano: @iKhan: I realize that those are multigen games but you can still get them on current gen consoles that is what I am getting at, you guys were saying that there are no games to play on current gen consoles and that's why backwards compatibility is needed. And for some there is the reason to upgrade. Better looking graphics, sound maybe more content on a PS4 version over a PS3 etc. Is not the main reason to buy the next generation of hardware is for an improvement over current gen?

@DefHalan: Can you honestly tell me that MS was kind enough to listen to its fans? MS can't afford NOT to listen to its fans. As I said the backwards compatibility is just damage control that's all. Backwards Compatibility is an optional luxary. It's like leather seats in a car, sure it's a nice perk but are you going to make you sole reason for buying a car leather seats? No same thing with backwards compatibility if you do make it your sole reason for buying a next Gen system then you are seriously mixed up.

@Tasuki: I said Microsoft listened to their fans. Maybe they weren't doing as well as they wished but at least they listened. Backwards compatibility in my opinion would be closer to an Air Condition in a car. Not required but expected. It use to not be expected, it use to be a luxury, but time has passed and it is expected to be in the car now.

If you are willing to buy a system without backwards compatibility or a car without air conditioning the go ahead and do so, I envy that you have space for all these generations of games. Some of us want more comfort and expect air conditioning in our cars or to be able to play our games on the newest hardware. I only have space for 1 console hook up and am completely digital since I don't have space for everything. When I buy a new console, I normally have to sell the old one to make room.

Without backwards compatibility you take away some people's ability to get the newest console as quickly. You make some people give up hundreds of games for a few. You are stuck in the past. PC and Mobile are backwards compatible, why shouldn't I expect current industry standards for my next generational consoles?

@DefHalan: I am stuck in the past?? Who's the one that wants to play old games on a new system?