The Xbox 360 made waves back in 2005 when it was revealed that only select games from the original Xbox library would be backwards compatible on the system. A year later, the PS3 launched with a graphics synthesizer chip installed specifically for full-on PS2 software compatibility. Said chip also contributed to the exorbitant $600 price tag of the console. Meanwhile, the Wii was fully backwards compatible with all GameCube games. Fast forward to the present, and Microsoft is – more or less – done with adding titles to the forward-compatibility list (old games you play on a new system are forward compatible, whereas systems that play old games are backwards compatible), while Sony actually took a step in the opposite direction, losing back compat. Have they dropped support for the feature simply because it's not worth the effort? More important, does anyone care about backwards compatibility?
The original PlayStation 3 shipped with full support for PS1 and PS2 games, an impressive feat, but again, a costly one. A few months down the line, Sony drops the synth chip and takes on the Microsoft approach to backwards compatibility, software emulation. It was a wise move on Sony's part, considering the excessive cost of the chip. Of course, this also meant that fewer PS2 games were forward compatible on the system, roughly 20% fewer in fact. Not long after that, Sony abandoned even software emulation for PS2 games. It only does everything, except play your old games apparently.
On the other side of the backwards-compatibility mountain, we have the Xbox 360. Well into its fourth year of existence, it seems as though Microsoft has climbed far enough. And while it does have an impressive library of forward-compatible games, it's not all of them. Not to mention, many of the ones that are forward compatible are plagued with glitches.
So what's the deal? Many gamers had to sacrifice their PS2 in order to invest in the shiny, new PlayStation, only to be left with a massive library of unplayable games. Do they think that gamers don't care about backwards compatibility? Do you care? There are some classic PS1 and PS2 hits that can only be missed with the current-generation PlayStation 3. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for Microsoft, the Xbox only had a handful of big titles, making it much easier for them to cover their bases on the Xbox 360.
From a financial standpoint, it does make sense to drop backwards compatibility as a feature. Obviously, we'll never know what the sales offset is due to backwards compatibility (or lack thereof), but what we do know is that it takes time, money and effort to keep it in a console. Sure, it's a great marketing ploy to be able to say "hey, our console plays your old games," but is it really worth the energy?
A slick business move by The Big Three – Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo – was to allow gamers to purchase classics from their back catalogs for digital download. Why let gamers play their old games when these companies could get them to buy the games again? For example, Halo is available for digital download as an "Xbox Original," and PlayStation Network offers Driver as a "PSOne Classic." And while my guess is as good as anyone's, I'm betting PSN will soon be getting PS2 games for download too.
Most Xbox 360 owners were Xbox owners and most PS3 owners were PS2 and PS1 owners. I don't think there's a single Xbox owner who doesn't have a copy of Halo. Let's face it, it's pretty clear that these two companies aren't in it for your convenience; they're in it for your wallet. But what's frightening to me is that it appears backwards compatibility is becoming a dying art.
Yes, Microsoft has done a good job of adding backwards compatibility, but it's not all there, and Sony – well – Sony really dropped the ball on it. The reason Microsoft can get away with it, as I mentioned before, is because you can play about 50% of your Xbox games on your Xbox 360, which covers nearly all of the important titles. The (new) PS3, however, prohibits you from playing all your favorite PS2 classics.
I asked a good friend of mine, who happens to be the senior editor of this website, what his thoughts were on the issue. "Because the PS2 has a ton of games, and as someone who never owned a PS2, [backwards compatibility] gives me the opportunity to play all the great games I missed," he explained. "On the Xbox 360, this isn't really a problem, since I can count all the good exclusive titles on one hand. Backwards compatibility is good for people who don't own a console and would rather rent/buy the original game than buy, for a higher price, the downloadable version."
And so I ask you, my good readers, does backwards compatibility merit the efforts of these companies? Certainly in the economic situation we're in today, backwards compatibility is a great way for gamers to loosen the belt, so to speak, on the bank. Should I be able to play any and all PS1 and PS2 games on my PS3? Should my Xbox 360 play my entire Xbox library without issue? What's the deal with backwards compatibility?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brave New Gamer, Brave New Gamer. Brave New Gamer said: Breaking news: Does Anyone Care About Backwards Compatibility? http://bit.ly/7mmyZ2 [...]
The problem with backwards compatibility this gen has been the hardware. The Xbox 360 was vastly different from the original Xbox and uses emulation for backwards compatibility, and at points this is obvious. I get low framerates while playing the original Halo on my 360.
From what I understood, the PS3 had the hardware to be able to play PS2 games (well, the 60GB PS3s anyway), which is why it worked so well.
However seeing as the PS2 was the most popular console last gen, and I knew a lot of people that each bought around 20-30 PS2 games, I’m surprised Sony completely ditched backwards compatibility. Granted you could say that this was removed to reduce production costs, which is fair, but lots of people wanted it and Sony just stuck their fingers in their ears and did what they wanted.
I think if your console was the most popular in the previous gen (e.g the PS2), backwards compatibility is a must. That isn’t to say that if it’s the least popular backwards compatibility doesn’t matter, on the other hand.
In short, it is an important deal. People still like to play their older games if they upgraded from a consoles predecessor while you make note that if you didn’t have the predecessor you can go back and look at the awesome games from the past. People don’t play their older games much, but I think its the knowledge that should they decide to pop in Timesplitters 2 or Final Fantasy X that it’s going to work that is most important to them.
[Reply]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by bravenewgamer: I want to get your feedback on this. Does anyone care about backwards compatibility? http://bit.ly/8EVKsz...
no. no one cares. who really wants to play an old, ****ty game, when you *know* its been remade 2 or 3 times for the current console? maybe if developers quit making huge yearly franchises (Madden, COD, MoH, Halo, etc) and came out with *new* games, we might want to play our old ones.
other than some graphics and sound improvement, halo ODST is the same as halo one. You want to play halo? buy this years.
till they actually abandon a successful franchise as *done*, i wont worry about them “not being available.”
[Reply]
See, I think it’s something people say they want, but in reality, they end up not using it. At least not frequently enough to warrant it.
[Reply]
Bottom line: backwards comparability with PS2 titles may not matter to Sony as many people would just be buying those games used anyways.
When Sony has PS2 titles readied for the PSN we will see backwards comparability via emulation hit via firmware.
[Reply]
Backwards compatibility isn’t necessary. Just like TylerTreat said, most people ask for it, but don’t use it. Besides, most people that own backwards compatible games, own the original console, so there is really no point.
[Reply]
If playing PS2 games is that important to you, spend $100 or less and get a PS2. Then once you’ve satisfied your PS2 gaming, maybe you can score a PS3 for even cheaper than it is now.
[Reply]
I thought backwards compatibility would be important, but I found that I prefer playing PS2 on a native 480i/p monitor. I like having both systems to match the TV they are connected to (PS3 gets the HDTV treatment).
[Reply]
Backwards compatibility is still important to me. I still play many games from last generation from time to time. many are games that i love to replay (metal gear solid 3 & resident evil 4), and there are times that even this many years down the line, games that i am playing for the first time (shadow of the colossus). im very glad that when i decided to buy a ps3, a little more then a year after they were released, that i decided to search on ebay for the 60gb, since they were no longer in stores.
backwards compatibility is not necessarily a deal breaker. but it is very comforting to know that when ever i want, i can pop in a ps2 game and have it work without complications. i also have a 360 and am very disappointed that is cannot play all the games i have still in my library, or the ones it does are very glitchy (star wars: kotor).
i love to go back an replay my favorite games of the past when there are down months of releases in the recent gaming world. its a great feeling to replay the classics. this is why i still have every system i have ever owned, all the way back to the nes. but it is so much easier and more convenient to have a system that can play games from multiple generations.
[Reply]
At the beginning of a consoles life it can be a good a system mover to have backwards compatibility because you obviously will not have as many games available for the new system. I had a lot of PS2 games when I bought the PS3, but I didn’t buy a PS3 game because I spent all my money on a launch PS3. One of the reasons why I bought the PS3 was because I knew I could play my old PS2 games.
[Reply]
i am for 1 all about backwards-compatibitiy. im am xbox 360 fan and i would like to have the option of playing all xbox games on it. even if i dont use it all the time its still nice to have it. as far as the ps3 goes thats 1 of the few reasons why i wont get 1. i like the ps3 it has a nice few games that i would like to get but im not gona go out and pay for a blu-ray god of war when i get can get it on the ps2 for a lot cheaper. unless some little 14 year old spoiled brat wants to do that. so the ps3 is out for me.
[Reply]
B/C is important to me. It’s not a dealbreaker if it misses for Xbox 360 but PlayStation 2 did it so well that I somehow expected that PS3 has it as well.
I’ve got a B/C-able launch day PS3 and I’m very happy to play certain PS2 games on it. Later, when Sony removed the B/C from the hardware I wouldn’t have shelled out 600 bucks for it anymore.
[Reply]
i have a 60gb ps3 and tried ps2 games for a very very short time before i thought, hold on these look crap on my new 42″ 1080p screen and i have not played any for the last 2 1/2 years. And ps1 games are fully compatable with the ps3 so drop that one please. For gods sake get over it, if you want to play ps2 games buy a ps2 they can be bought for next to nothing and as for original xbox games do the same for about £10 you can play the few old xbox games without a glitch in sight.
[Reply]
Backwards compatibility has been relegated to a topic that fanboys use to piss on the PS3. Listen here: I own a launch PS3, own many PS2 games, and have used BC only a handful of times. They look terrible on an HDTV and the gameplay seems antiquated. It’s not worth having; I’d say that having 4 USB ports is more useful that BC in the launch systems.
I also have a friend who has PS2 games and had resisted getting a PS3 because the new ones have no BC. Then he realized he hadn’t touched his PS2 in over a year, so he got a Slim.
Lastly, I have a friend who never owned a PS2 and had gotten a PS3 even though he had a library of XBox games. He never plays his XBox anymore either so I doubt that BC would appeal to him in the 360, and he has no interest in picking up any dusty old PS2 games. You buy a new system to play games made for that system.
So from my perspective, it doesn’t matter at all. Not even enough to write an article about it. Barely enough to write a post to explain how unimportant it is. Enough said.
[Reply]
well, wii did not give us promised dvd playback, xbox 360 phased out emulattion without telling anyone , and no internet explorer in xbox live…and sony lied about adding emulation on ps3, umd transfers on psp go, and home is still in a beta with no end in site..
in short liars all of them. people want emulation in the begining to offset high cost of the console to the hard core. you can sell your old rig and subsidize the initial shock purchase of a new console(360-$500 us, sony ps3-$300 us, wii$250 us)
[Reply]
Backwards compatibility is not important. There are 150 million people on the planet who own a PS2, so if they want to play their PS2 games they just have to plug in their PS2…..it’s really that simple.
It would be nice to be able to play my PS2 games on my PS3 but it’s not a big deal, i still have my PS2 as will most PS3 owners so it’s not like i have a library of un – playable games.
[Reply]
I missed out on having a ps2, so if I could get a ps3 that also plays ps2 games I would be very happy. Hopefully by the time I get around to buying a new computer ps2 emulation will be possible on the pc.
[Reply]
SONY FTW! XD
[Reply]
First of all, it was a smart financial move for sony to drop bc due to the extra cost it was brining to the PS3 and considering in some european countries the PS2 still out sells the xbox 360 it is straight profit for sony to sell PS2’s in its 10th year of developement. Secondly, who cares!!! Theres a reason why they say “next generation”. Why would you want to play outdated ps2 games when there are so many great “next gen” ps3 titles?? I mean i have a BC ps3 and havent played one single ps2 game on it. For those so worried about playing your huge library of ps2 games well if you have the games you probably still have a ps2!! Play them on your ps2!! Or a new slim model is 99$!!
[Reply]
‘Most Xbox 360 owners were Xbox owners’.
The Xbox360 owners that I know never owned a Xbox whereas I owned an Xbox and don’t own an Xbox360. I’d bet that a not small number of Xbox360 owners were previously PS2 owners (the same goes for Wii owners).
‘I don’t think there’s a single Xbox owner who doesn’t have a copy of Halo.’
I don’t. I bought an Xbox because it wasn’t that dear when I bought it, Microsoft had bought Rare and I fancied playing Outrun 2 and Max Payne 2 on a console. Not all Xbox buyers are Halo fans.
[Reply]
[...] Does Anyone Care About Back Compatibility? RSS Feed | Commments Feed [...]
[...] ebay, playstation, ps2, ps3, sony, trophy) i stumbled across this gem from bravenewgamer.com. brave new gamer is talking about backwards compatibility in consoles and is making a valid point. go ahead and read it; it’s informative. kind of [...]
[...] And here In hindsight, I can see where I got off on a tangent. I could write for weeks on different parts of the above, and maybe I will! [...]