Take-Two CEO On Backward Compatibility: "Give Consumers What They Want"

@StrawberryTurtle That port will one day be like $10 on the eshop, like everywhere else. Moaning about it won't make it any quicker lol

Backwards compatability benefits everyone. Folk can take their games with them and publishers can sell their games to a much higher user base (until the new system catches up.) I suppose the decision comes down to if you can only make so many games a year, do you cater for the big audience or the new hungry one?

BC fine by me. Oh and while you are at it Nintendo, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, NES, SNES, N64 and GC Starwars collection all remastered will do even better! Oh and bring back VC and Miiverse please??

I might just skip Switch 2 if there's no backward compatibility. There are simply too many games I'm determined to enjoy on Switch before moving on. And it's possible I'll decide not to move on to Switch 2 if it isn't backward compatible. Seems like a no-brainer really.
Nintendo doesn't have to have a heart towards it's consumers, but in this case, I'm sure it'll help both sides.

"You have to do the very best you can for them."

So what is his excuse with his own company?

But then how can you sell the same game again at the same cost as 5 years earlier?

@StrawberryTurtle Well, you do make a valid point, mate

If there's no backwards compatability, at least with digital purchases, on the next Nintendo console?
I'm keeping my money and buying an Xbox Series X.

@CharlieGirl,

Have both, the Series X and Switch are a perfect combination imho.

Pretty sure the new Switch will be backwards compatible though, when it eventually comes out.

Maybe not the best person to talk about this topic. I mean yes RDR won't release on Xbox because it is already playable there through backwards compatibility, but there was no need to release a new GTAV version for the current gen system.

@StrawberryTurtle for a second there I thought you meant GTAV being once again released 😅 but yeah, this guy is one of the worse CEOs in the industry when it comes to giving the customer what they want.

“No, making money & profit margin is more important, and consumers are gonna eat it up whatever we put out because we’re Nintendo“, Nintendo probably.

I couldn't care less, I have a Switch and I can put my Switch games inside my Switch, is everyone wanting to sell their Switch? I'm not... you'd lose things regardless of the new console being backwards compatible

@CharlieGirl backward compatibility needs to be an all or nothing situation. I think digital backward compatibility but no method of allowing physical backward compatibility would cause more rage than no backward compatibility in general. Many Switch gamers prefer physical cartridges as it makes more sense on Switch since it’s the only modern console that games don’t have to be fully installed. I personally buy physical when I can. I already filled my 400 gb sd card to max and had to delete software to make space just from eshop exclusives and update data/dlc for retail games. If I bought everything I currently have digital no doubt even if I bought a terabyte sd card it would be maxed out by now. I want backwards compatibility but if it doesn’t support physical media as well there’s really no point

@GrailUK
Definitely hoping for full digital/physical BC on "switch 2"

does make me wonder though if it will still use similar carts (with the same great taste)

@stevep I see your point as somebody who still has all my old consoles dating back to Atari 2600, but it’s the convenience of having access to these titles on current hardware you are most likely keeping hooked up and actively playing so you don’t have to dig out old hardware you don’t really have the space to keep hooked up. Besides there’s only so many inputs on a tv

If he released Red Dead Redemption as a PS5 title, the expectations for it would be even higher because of the graphical horsepower the machine boasts. Since the PS5 is backwards compatible, he can release RDD as a PS4 title so people will have lower expectations for it while still not robbing Take Two of the opportunity to still disappoint them!

Reasonable thinking, but still it's up to Nintendo at the end of the day, and they have been quite good with BC historically. The question mark lies on how they'll handle eShop.

That said, with BC the Switch 2 could start with almost all the Zelda and 3D Mario games plus whatever it offers on launch period (likely a new 3D Mario). That's an insane library from day 1.

Given that you can count in one hand the Nintendo consoles that skipped BC, Switch 2 being compatible with Switch is pretty much guaranteed.

@Lightsiyd Agree with this.

I have generally bought the new-gen consoles on release. I am not sure it makes that much sense anymore - the Switch backlog is huge and quality.

E.g. bought the PS5 at launch, it was not that different to PS4 (except maybe Returnal). Later sold.

Then again, Baldurs Gate 3 has just been released....... Man! Lol.

@stevep Perhaps it's a different reality where you live, but yes, I need to sell current consoles to buy next ones or it's just way too expensive to buy from scratch. It's also harder to justify a purchase any sooner than 2-3 years after launch if I were to keep current console, since there are way more games to play and replay in the current console's library.

@Darthmoogle Oh don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right.
Especially if Nintendo are indeed serious about making the new-console process easier for customers, full backwards compatibility is the way to go.

I meant that digital compatibility is the bare minimum that I, personally, would be willing to accept.

Putting my GBA carts in my DS was a Godsend, even though I had a perfectly capable GBA. I also have the GBA player for my GC, but I can't say I used it much. Nor did I often play GC games on my Wii, but my kids did often enough.

It's a handy feature, being able to play older games on the newer hardware.

Same guy saying that red dead port needs to be $50

Clearly he's the voice of the people.

I'd love to assume it will be backward compatible, but the switch online subscription drip feed makes me pretty cynical. The Wii Shop, launched 17 years ago, puts NSO to shame. Nintendo still makes unique games but they are definitely following some anti consumer industry trends. If there is BC, I wouldn't be surprised if it requires an add-on or subscription fee.

You'll enjoy whatever the hell Nintendo tells you to enjoy and shut up.

No you don't want functioning online play and working controllers.

Nintendo has been good about backwards compatibility, especially with handhelds. Using small cartridges makes this even easier.

There is very little reason to think Switch 2 won't be able to play the Switch library. I doubt it will happen, but if the old games receive a performance boost on Switch 2, that would be fantastic.

it does not matter if their is bc or not the switch 2 will sell like crazy..

my 2 cents for whatever it is worth as of right now i am leaning against the switch 2 being bc.. or it would have been mentioned in the rumors.. i see so many youtube videos about the rumors and bc is not mentioned as a given..

Yeah, give us a backwards compatible Wii U 2.
With a Blu-ray disc drive, core gamer games and room for new creative games.
(let me dream, ok)

this ceo needs to really sow his mouth shut after the red dead fiasco.

It's a serious NOPE for me if the new machine is not backwards compatible.

switch 2 out i would replace my original to OLED

The only way Nintendo's next-gen console will feature backwards compatibility is if the new hardware could still handle Switch software capability. If not then I think bc could be done for but I don't think Nintendo will risk losing bc and go all out on the new hardware angering fans of those who still can't let go of their current library. I believe Nintendo will have to keep bc for maybe two gens before they ditch it for an all new take later on. In the past, backwards compatibility was not possible cause each region had its own region lock practices whether by design or by using internal chip and due to the refresh rate differences between PAL and NTSC but nowadays refresh rate are no longer tie to regions but instead to preferences and consoles are now region free so I say having bc in this time and age make sense. Handheld gaming devices back then had bc cause most if not all of them are region free and are not tie to PAL and NTSC refresh rate so I say the next Nintendo console may had bc, it wouldn't make sense to ignore it.

Nintendo actually has a long history of delivering backwards compatibility, especially in their handheld systems. This supposed concern that some publishers/developers have about backwards compatibility limiting sales is bunk. First, virtually all modern day platforms (Xbox, PS, PC, iOS) have it, and companies still sell games there. And secondly, having bc vastly increases the install base into which previously developed games can be sold.

@jake1421 NSO is a service, not a shop. The Wii Shop is just an earlier version of the eShop. What you're trying to compare was Virtual Console and NSO and yes while VC does seem better with its offering it also lacks a lot of features NSO brought to the table. Like they said you can have one or the other but you can't have both. Also VC existence was build on the foundation of backwards compatibility for the Wii. The Wii was natively bc with GameCube but not for NES, Super NES, and N64. To make up for the lack of hardware bc for those platforms Nintendo just offered games from their catalog as digital download.

At first it was only just NES, Super NES and N64, but Nintendo never thought that Sega, SNK, Microsoft, Commodore, and Hudson would want to jump on the bandwagon giving us Sega Master Systems, Game Gear, Sega Genesis, Turbo Grafx-16, MSX, Commodore 64, NeoGeo AES, and Arcade games so that's how VC made its starts. The Wii VC would had been fine with just NES, Super NES, and N64 but having more third party offerings from other platforms was a big deal back then. It was literally Nintendo embracing digital download at the time. The only companies that didn't join in on the VC fun was Atari and Coleco. VC's few issues was that it only offered games from a particular region only meaning like in the past only games in your region will appeared on your VC service so if the Japanese side got Fire Emblem, then you're not getting that game on your side as it was never release outside Japan. The only exception to that rule was games that either already had some kind of translation solution or could be play without any regional hiccups such as Super Mario Bros. 2 (The Lost Levels), Sin and Punishment, and Puyo Puyo Tsuu.

Other disappointing features also points to the lack of online play, no leaderboards, no achievement systems, all downloads are tie to the console so no account system to back anything up, and retro games are tie to one fix price per platform regardless of their quality meaning NES games will always be $5, Super NES games will always be $8, and N64 games will always be $10. No sales ever happen and most rubbish games such a Urban Champion and Milan feels like they aren't worth the price while games like Ogre Battle 64 and Final Fantasy VI feels like a steal leading to Square Enix eventually delisting them for some reason.

Must have BC. Optimized isn’t necessary but at least let us play what we got already on the new one. It also prolongs the eshop life to another generation.

@Serpenterror yes I mean to compare to Virtual Console and NSO. Personally the online friend co-op stuff does not make up for the lack of games.

Switch Owners: Rockstar hates us, they refuse to put in the effort to port their fun open world games like GTA V even though it would run just fine on the console.

Also Switch Owners: How dare Rockstar release a port of a highly acclaimed open world game for $50!

I can't help but feel a sense of hypocrisy that most of us are happy to pay $59.99 for Skyward Sword HD from Nintendo, which is just as "upscaled" and "HD" as running it on an emulator, but many of us appear to be big mad that any other company would dare to do the exact same thing and sell their game for $10 less.

We really need to stop thinking people that play video games are some sort of hive mind.

Who keeps buying Mario Kart? New Switch owners.

Who would pay $50 for Red Dead? Folk who haven't played it.

Jeez, anyone would think it's a closed economy or something the way some carry on.

I will allow Rockstar the same courtesy as I give Nintendo. If they made a good game, they have every right to sell it for what they want. I'll decide if I want to buy it or not. I bought Dying Light and Dragon's Dogma on Switch. Because I had never played them. And I absolutely loved both! I'll buy Red Dead for exactly the same reason. However, I'm not exactly bursting with confidence it will be complete on cart, so I may think sod em.

No one is under any obligation to buy it. If you have already played it, wait for it to drop in price and play something else. Not buying it doesn't mean you don't like the company any less lol. Besides, I don't think Rockstar need the 'support' lol.

Gah, I cannot abide drama over nowt.

@Astral-Grain I mean, I don't know what to tell you. Other than, you know, to point out the obvious: that you clearly haven't been paying attention if you never noticed all the people complaining about the Zelda remasters being obscenely overpriced.

@StrawberryTurtle the one at fault there was Sony for not making the ps4 and ps5 backwards compatible with the ps3. Not Take-Two

@Astral-Grain I'm sorry, did you say most of us were happy to pay $60 for Skyward Sword HD? I'm not gonna speak for everyone else, but I sure as heck wasn't seeing anyone licking Nintendo's boots over the $10 price increase from the original game's launch for $50 on the Wii, and I definitely wasn't too thrilled about the $100+ price tag to buy both the limited edition Joycons and amiibo that launched beside the remaster, not when the Wii version could be bought in a limited edition bundle with a Wii Remote and Symphony of the Goddess CD for an extra twenty bones.
Now compare that to this release. They gutted the multiplayer, there aren't any enhancements being made to the game whatsoever beyond including the DLC, and you can play this on Xbox for $28 if you buy the Game of the Year Edition off of Amazon, and that will include the DLC that's included with the Switch version and the multiplayer that's excluded from it. Yes, people are right to complain about this one. At least SSHD added motionless controls and runs at 60fps.

When a console first launches, new games are scarce and its the benefit of playing last generation games maybe in higher resolution that sells systems.

More system sales means more third party developer support and a more successful console.

While I'll probably buy a switch 2 one day, I definitely won't at launch unless there's backwards compatibility.

@Kestrel I mean, I don't know what to tell you. Other than, you know, to point out the obvious: that you clearly haven't been paying attention if you never noticed full priced ports like Skyward Sword HD sell incredibly well, despite many people's complaints saying they are overpriced.

People will vote with their wallets just as they always do.

Just let people enjoy the things they like.

@KayFiOS Would you actually want those things you're asking for, even it if made the game a worse experience on Switch?

I played RDR online back in 2010 and I can tell you it's boring and I imagine it would only be worsened by Nintendo's multiplayer network. I've also never heard anyone tell me they enjoyed or miss that experience.

It's also a bit counter-productive to be disappointed there are no additional visual enhancements and HD textures when it still looks great on Switch and the hardware wouldn't be able to handle any additional visual enhancements.

On a related note, can you name me one open world Switch game that runs at 60 FPS?

@Astral-Grain Hope you didn't sprain anything moving those goalposts so fast.

@Kestrel Aw, thanks for your concern.

I’d be shocked if it wasn’t backwards compatible, in fact I’m hoping some Switch games get optimized for the new hardware lol

@jake1421 I believe there's a lack of games cause now it's just a service and not a platform. VC allow publishers to put their old games on the shop for purchase but NSO only allows for those to be play and not many devs want their games to be given away for free play through a sub. This is why Square Enix and Konami hardly ever support NSO. I could see why Nintendo would offer NSO this way but if they won't allow a purchasing option on NSO then I don't see the service having anymore games or platforms coming in.

It has to be for me, I've accrued a sizable digital Library on Switch... will be quite disappointed if I'm expected to start over. Even the Vita had digital PSP BC.

I think the benefits of backwards compatibility far outweighs any potential demerits. This prez is right in that if Nintendo can implement it, they certainly should.

The Switch has been one of Nintendo's most popular consoles ever, and I would hope they will do everything possible to bring this 100-million-plus user base along into the next generation. We need an iterative upgrade, not a radical break. People have invested so heavily into the Switch, not everyone will be willing to make the jump to a brand-new platform. Nintendo should reward their customers' investment, and give all our purchases longevity.

A Super Switch with BC would ingratiate and thrill millions. OTOH, I can't imagine the wave of disappointment and anger around here if Nintendo omits the feature.

@PeteW That was true for some consoles but not all. Back then gamers were more focus on getting high cutting edge hardware in their console rather than dealing with backwards compatibility. It wasn't until the PlayStation 2 that bc finally became important. When Sega made the Sega Genesis, the console itself could be backwards compatible with Sega Master Systems games but you will need to buy a converter to bypass the Genesis slot to get to the SMS hardware inside but Sega did not market this product or feature very much so most gamers who bought into the Genesis only buys it cause it look better than NES games. The lack of interest for bc was the reason Sega didn't see the need for it when Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast launch. Nintendo however only embrace bc through handheld support so Game Boy, GBC, GBA, DS, and 3DS all got those treatment. The only two Nintendo consoles before the Wii that kinda sorta got bc back then was the Super NES and GameCube through Super Game Boy 2 and Game Boy Player adapters respectively though the library those support are all from the handheld lineup and not the consoles.

@Serpenterror if 3rd parties don't get a cut that's ridiculous. Publishers and gamers unite to demand better from Nintendo!

Apples iPhone didn’t become the most successful product in history by binning off the previous gen version for the next one. Progression is KEY in the modern world. Switch 2 will have most games not available on original switch, but those original switch games should 100% be available within the switch “family” on the new hardware.

If by giving customers what they want means milking a 10 yr old game and selling a port of a 2 generations behind game at almost full price… sure, whatever helps you sleep at night

@jake1421 This is why cloud gaming and digital game service doesn't work in the future cause not many devs want their game to be free unless they get a cut of the profit. Nintendo's NSO is literally similar to what Ouya was doing just without the purchasing option. The sad or scary truth about NSO is that Nintendo could pull the plug on the service at any time if the service isn't successful enough or if there's ever a huge decline of subscribers. This is really how the future of gaming really works now. Killing VC was a big mistake, of course devs could still release those same games from NSO on the eShop if they so choose whether through compilations or like what M2, HAMSTER, and Digital Eclipse are doing as retro archive.

These 3rd Parties who don't want backwards compatibility on Switch 2 aren't afraid of legacy titles overshadowing new releases - they're just afraid that they can't do a 4k "remaster" of their existing Switch titles, since most will be hesitant to double dip on a title released 3 to 6 years ago just for some added fidelity.

Greed is at the root of their complaint. I'd love to know which 3rd Parties said it, although I have a few suspects.

That VGC article about Switch 2 suggested that 3rd party developers were somewhat against backwards compatibility because they were afraid that people playing old generation games in the current generation hardware via backwards-compatibility would hurt new game sales, but here it seems like Zelnick isn't really concerned about that at all.

I guess I can't be surprised here: PS5 and XBS are fully backwards compatible but Take Two was pretty quick to resell a new version of GTAV for the 3rd time anyways. There is no doubt they'll be reselling old Switch games on Switch 2 regardless of whether Switch 2 is backwards-compatible with Switch or not.

And anyone who thinks Nintendo is the one pushing for a lack of BC is insane. Why wouldn't they want to bolster their new system's Day 1 library with their vast catalog of popular Switch 1st Party titles?

I know that some people will point to the Switch not being backwards compatible with Wii U, but that was an entirely different situation for a number of reasons, with the three biggest ones being:

1) The Switch's cartridge slot is a radically different from the Wii U's default use of optical discs.

2) The Switch's control scheme doesn't support Wii U's uniquely asymmetrical gameplay.

3) The Wii U flopped, hard, and thus, a lot of that system's titles never sold many copies to begin with.

All other post-N64 system's and handhelds that had a matching medium featured day 1 BC (ie Wii had BC with GC, Wii U with Wii, the DS had BC with GBA, 3DS with DS). The only reason why Switch didn't have BC with 3DS was the Switch's lack of a second screen.

Since Switch 2 will suffer none of these issues, history would strongly suggest that BC will be a major part of Nintendo's next gen strategy.

Be like USB2 to USB3 where you can still use same ports with some modification that when a USB3 is used access and more option exists for it.

@HolyGeez03
Nintendo was good with backwards compatibility, but they weren't excellent with it. Nintendo never took advantage of digital backwards compatibility, looking back at how the Wii U could natively run GameCube games and the 3DS could natively run GBA games.

The lack of GameCube titles being re-released on Wii U (despite GC controllers being released for Smash) and the Ambassador-only GBA games on 3DS were two of their big mistakes with backwards compatibility.

I'll have to do a bit of research on this one, but the Switch could've been backwards compatible with 3DS (specifically, New 3DS) considering the CPUs' architectures are probably similar, but with a severe age gap in between.

Overall, Nintendo is okay, but I might argue that Microsoft has done better, even though some of it is emulation and not true backwards compatibility.

@StrawberryTurtle what’s up with the laughing face?

Microsoft did it with the series X? Almost every game from original Xbox and following consoles can be played on series X with enhancements.

@Astral-Grain Once again, you seem to like speaking for everyone in the room, like with your comment that everyone happily paid $60 for SSHD, which... are you sure you're not confusing everybody with absolutely no human on earth? People bought it, but that doesn't mean they were happy with the price.
Back to RDD, you may have found the online boring, but I've seen a few people discussing this port who weren't happy with the online mode being completely removed. Also, you seem to forget that this isn't just the Switch we're talking about, this affects the PS4 version as well. If these decisions only affected the Switch version, then it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but this is a PS3 title ported to the more powerful PS4, which could certainly get visual enhancements like Dark Souls Remastered (which, on Switch, was just regular Dark Souls iirc). As is, it's an inferior port, and you can spend less to play a better version of it on modern hardware. From what I heard, the Xbox Series X|S enhances the game, and on Microsoft's storefront, only costs $30.

Since everyone is yelling about backwards compatibility, I like to start yelling about download play to come back.

I think Nintendo is working on this one. They’ve been dropping hints about the last couple of years to make sure the next Switch will play the games.

I don’t know why there’s so much concern that Nintendo won’t do backwards compatibility for their next console. They have a fantastic track record of at least supporting the preceding machine’s games on new hardware- nearly every console since Wii and DS has had BC (plus GBA before those), it’s only the Switch that bucked the trend and it’s understandable why that was the case.

If anything they have more of an impetus now than ever to include BC since they want you to stay subscribed to their online service. If they turn around and say you have to keep your old machine around to get full use of the service and keep playing your Switch library online then you’re going to introduce inconvenience which is not what any company wants to do when encouraging you to stay subscribed to something.

@Chris55 the Switch is going to adopt this model. Nintendo doesn’t make consoles, they make gaming devices running on mobile-type hardware. I wouldn’t be surprised if a Tegra X1 is somehow added into that next unit if Nvidia’s new SOC can’t run it; which would be it bit unlikely unless their APU is WILDLY different.

@KayFiOS I won't speak for everyone, just the 3.91 million people that bought the "overpriced port" of a game.

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1385992/zelda-skyward-sword-hd-unit-sales/

It's amazing someone would get so worked up just because a product they don't like is on sale next week and others are happy and excited about it.

Let people enjoy the things they enjoy.

If you don't enjoy it, all you have to do is not buy the game.

the man is right

@larryisaman they recently figured out that their customers are willing to pay for ports of last generation games at full price. They could port all the switch games at full price. That’s a good reason not to include backward compatibility.

If Nintendo accounts are important a digital library connection matters right? I'd assume so. Physical sure, but digital for Nintendo accounts is a factor to think about, what will sync or not. Why continue with them?

If Switch Online makes sense so less 'virtual console is different/redone again' as that's a lot of effort. You'd expect it to work still there and more systems/not more systems maybe? How they go about it to emulate Switch 1 or not even?

PS5 I have wondered with the 'remakes for casuals and upgrades from PS4-5 for hardcore fans'. That's the way I've thought about it. How many use the upgrades. Who just buys the other anyway because they have the benefits/don't care for the upgrade paths (free or paid).

I'm on PS4/Xbox One still. I only care for third parties so far (no joke I literally haven't cared for PS4 first party as 2016+ I started collecting retro and not playing 70% of the first parties besides Knack/Gravity Rush, Xbox One I mean I picked up a few, not many and there isn't many to pick up for it anyway). If they move on sure but we haven't seen many exclusive nor game design changes (HDR/cinematic graphics/4K and more aren't good enough if we still see eh game design, still techniques of old even why bother) so I haven't moved yet. Sure some performance differences but not enough to bother me at all. Switch I'm not buying up Wii U games or PS3/360 games I am new games or ports I 'don't' own yet if it's 'more suitable to' if it isn't then well why would I. RE5&6 on PS3 for cheap physical yes. Switch digital codes no thank you there and with how big the games are even more so as they aren't on the card.

I myself only got a Switch in Christmas 2021 (so yes BC makes sense for me then well waiting again, I can but I'd have to to justify games or prices or hardware to move on to it), Wii U in Feb 2018, Vita in Jan 2017/2022 and 3DS in Jan/Feb 2020 so to me I'm late to many of them. Switch is still new to me in many ways I've barely played a game with the IR or the cursor (Pikmin 4 will solve that can't say for IR unless maybe Brain Training cheap some day). But still a PS3/360 handheld experience is still cool to me just finding games I don't own on other systems of course.

For Take Two I would wonder if they would care for backwards compatibility or not but if they do fair to hear from them on that. Other companies different story of course.

Third party publishers I do wonder if they do want it for money or upgrades paid or free. While first party different story how customer ideals they want to be seen as besides the hardware side 'if' they choose to of cartridge size, if we see bigger Switch style cards/space for them or we see new ones again/software wise it won't show up.

If the 3DS little plastic extension to not fit in the DS besides the 'not compatible messages' of the Gameboy Color on Gameboy OG likely (or it just not displaying at all on DS).

With some gens it's clear with others not for backwards compatibility. PS1& 2 sure, 2600-7800 no besides the 5200 gap. Gameboy group of systems I'd say yes. DS/3DS and GBA (I never had a GBA game till years later so never used but I can tell many people did experience it).

For GameCube/Wii/Wii U would have been great but only the 1 for security or not, disk reading lasers or not I do wonder. Maybe the hardware just wasn't working. Or the GBA on 3DS ambassador situation and why never saw GBA on 3DS again.

But hey at least we have seen 3 systems of GB/GBC/GBA and Xbox OG/360/One/Series there even if limits compatibility there and less so on Gameboy series. Even if GBC and GB are close enough devices (not the same but close) then the larger gap of Xbox hardware differences. PS1 and PS2 on PS3 but mostly PS1 on later models all the way through.

PSP to Vita as digital not physical backwards compatibility offering. Which we would expect in some cases for some systems likely I guess if changed platform formats which we don't usually see of course.

Neo Geo Pocket/Wonderswan BC were fairly expected why they were.

GameCube, Wii, Wii U I mean popularity or not who used GameCube unless you already had one and Wii to Wii U I mean it was clear there as Wii U flopped but regardless of the Wii library being bigger who used their Wii still for GameCube controller compatible Wii games. I have for some. I don't have a Classic Controller so why not if have the GameCube option.

Xbox OG on 360, less OG Xbox on Xbox One/Series but many 360 on Xbox One/Series. Series having all Xbox One no issues unlike the 360/Xbox One backwards compatibility differences of title support and online required backwards compatibility then hardware or software in other ways.

Switch 2 Backwards compatibility digitally and physically is AN ABSOLUTE MUST!!! Too many great games to leave behind!

@sixrings They got away with that on Switch because the Wii U was such a massive flop. There was a huge audience of people who didn’t buy a Wii U but would have been interested in those games if they had- that won’t work a second time when the Switch has been so popular.

If anything making the next console backwards compatible lets them upgrade older games for a fee and continue to market them without making full ports which would be far cheaper and easier.

I'm heavily invested in the current Switch ecosystem, so I really hope that Nintendo will incorporate backwards compatibility into their next system. I fear they will lose a lot of goodwill if they don't (they certainly would with me).

The fact that their online offering is subscription-based gives me some hope here (it removes the incentive to attempt to re-sell us old games as they've done in the past).

@Chris55 100%. I’ve stuck with iPhone since iPhone 4 because I’ve invested so much into that ecosystem that it just doesn’t make sense to move to Android or whatever, even if I’d like to.

It’s the same reason Phil Spencer said they lost the “console war” that really mattered with the last generation since that’s when digital really kicked off. So many people bought a PS4 over Xbox and spent so much on their digital libraries that it just makes sense to get a PS5 since your PS4 games carry over.

I personally have no problem with backward compatibility. Heck, playing Super Smash Bros. Melee on my Wii (now destroyed due to a lightning strike) was how I was able to tide myself over for Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

And since there were some knockout gems on the Wii U, they are absolutely deserving of getting a second chance on the Switch. They've already done so, too, with games like Bayonetta and Bayonetta 2, Super Mario 3D World, and Assassin's Creed III, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag.

I especially would love to play The Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD on the go. If they did it with Skyward Sword, then there should be no reason why they shouldn't get two of the greatest Zelda games of all time on that system.

Why wouldn't u not want back compability. I have to kept a PS3 PS2 console to play my old games cos PS4 wont run them. Got a white Wii cos play gamecube

Nintendo has usually had some sort of backwards compatibility with their handheld systems. I'm really hoping the Switch successor will have BC as well, mostly because I can't be arsed to keep multiple systems hooked up to my screen. I sitll have my Wii U, but I rarely boot it up, even though I have quite an extensive library of games left to play on it.

Having BC is a must for Nintendo considering the Switch library they have built not doing so isn't going to help their long term business to keep Switch owner coming back. Sure they will have remastered games on Physical cart and that is a big selling point as well. With 130mills users are they willing to take that risk? Sony is waiting in the wing here for those 130 mills if Nintendo does a debacle.

@Serpenterror I guess it's true that we didn't care for backwards compatibility in those days.

The thing is, the difference between each generation back then was massive. I remember being amazed when going from snes to n64. Then ps1 to ps2.

Now look at the difference between ps4 and ps5 and tell me people would really be willing to pay £500 for graphics you have to really analyse to spot the difference if bc wasn't there.

If Nintendo wow us in some other way (graphics or some other must have innovation), I guess it may compensate for a lack of backwards compatibility but if not, I'll wait for a few years until there's a decent choice of games.

Give consumers what they want, says the moronic hypocrite who’s trying to palm us off with a lazy AF port of a 13-year-old game for $50.

Physician, heal thy own ass.

Of course it's essential. It's a literal no-brainer! This is a minor issue for the other consoles, so why would it be such a big deal for Nintendo?
What better idea to play a legacy Pokémon game with more polished visuals or your Animal Crossing file in the new console to celebrate its arrival? Absolute no-brainer.
In terms of future releases, you know people this will motive Nintendo to make a big jump in content for the new games in their respective franchises.