Do you still have all your old games from past generation consoles? Do you still want to play them? Do they even work in the next-gen console you have? No matter what your answer to any of those questions, you should check out this week's Soapbox.
The Sess sits down to talk about the PS3 Slim's lack of backwards compatability, and uses that as a springboard to explain that while he loves playing old games once in a while, re-releasing them through digital download formats gives developers a chance to go back and fix the small bugs that originally existed in the game. Check out the video below and see if you agree with Adam, then let us know in the comments below.
Subscribe to G4's Sessler's Soapbox Podcast by clicking your preferred service:
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 1–20 of 258
12345678910…12132
Bloodthr0e
The bottom line is that there are people like me who are willing to pay $50-100 more for a console if it has the backwards compatibility. That's why I got a more expensive fat PS3 instead of a slim. So if people are willing to pay extra for it, why not make both consoles with backwards compatibility and consoles without it, and make more money?
scorpian876
YEAH I AGREE! IT IS NICE TO PLAY OLDER GAMES THAT YOU ENJOYED SO MUCH IN THE PAST!
I KNOW WHEN I SEE A GOOD GAME, I SEE HOW MUCH EFFORT THEY PUT IN MAKING A VERY GOOD GAME! AND I CAN TELL IF A GAME IS NOT VERY WELL MADE,ADAM SESSLER AND MORGAN
WEBB SAVES THE DAY FROM PEOPLE MAKING A TERRIBLE GAME, THANK YOU X-PLAY! FOR SAVING THE DAY!
FrontLineSpartan119
Well said Sessler. Backwards compatibility hits close to home because there are dry spells of new releases. Or sometimes games don't always live up to my critical acclaim of hype. So it's not always a bad thing to search through GameStop, Hastings, or any other video game store in the mall for old gems like Mercenaries, Freedom Fighters(which is so rare apparently I can't find it anywhere for Xbox) just to relive the days before games were a whopping 60 dollars and gamers only cared about graphical power.
The only real bad thing is once you do go back and play an average old-gen game, you're so comfortable about expecting high-polished graphics, fast load times, and intuitive gameplay that you can't appreciate where and how games evolved to where they are now.
sporkassassin
I have mixed feelings about backwards compatibility. first off i dont have a lot of money to waste so there is often a long stretch between new games during which i play the old games i have loved forever. that said i dont think re-releasing old games is a bad idea hell i would give my right arm for an updated version of ff7 (so long as i can find a way to play one handed no gift of the magi bs)
second i can hold on to an old system if i need to so really all backwards compatibility offers is as adam stated the convenience of having one console. oh and to anyone truly passionate about not re-buying old games i invite you to type emulator into your favorite search engine before letting your love of old games make the decision of which new console to buy. ultimately bc is nice but thats all it is.
Basilisk1991
I disagree with you Adam, Backwards Compatability (BC) is something I enjoy, look, let's say you get a dvd player, you're not just going to throwout the old VHS tapes. Having the ability to go and play my old SNES games like Super Metroid without having to pay money or wait for downloading is nice, I still love my PS2 games, but I need to keep the system on account of the fact that my PS3 is not BC with the games, The Wii play Gamecube games, and the 360 plays SOME of the better old Xbox games. (The PS3 can play PS games fine, but no PS2 games, WTF?!)
napkinshower
i agree. but downloadable games cost money. i dont have the money. and i have the disc so why would i download. logically correct right?
fenrir_tenhoor
I'm gonna start a fight with this but i think that backwards compatibility really is just a waste of time, now hear me out. Most who play the back ward compatible game usually already have the original medium that said game came on. The other people are people looking for nostalgia, which kinda gets ruined in the fact of playing the game with a current gen controller. If you really want that warm fuzzy felling like when you first played the game you have to play it on the controller that you played it first, whether that be a fight stick ( yeah I know, you can buy some of those for current gen consoles, but that's not my point) or one of the old school controllers. I don't know about you but the Wii-mote just doesn't feel like an old NES controller. If I wanna play the original Super Mario Bros. I'd rather just drag out my old NES then get it from the Wii virtual console.
Crash486
I think I'm going to disagree with this soapbox. Backwards compatibility is a HUGE selling point, I don't know how many times I've heard my friends say "I wish I had known they were taking backwards compatibility out of the ps3, I would have bought one sooner." It wasn't that the backwards compatibility wasn't a good selling point, it's that it wasn't a good enough selling point paired with a small library of next gen games to compensate for the huge price tag. I think if the new slim was priced at 300$ with the emotion engine, they'd be selling off the racks faster than they could stock them.
I would also say that the backwards compatibility's importance is dependant on the success of the previous console. For instance, the PS2 was a monstrously successful console. Just about everyone I know had a ps2 and to this day has a ps2 library. And, I wouldn't exactly consider ps2 backwards compatibility "dated" seeming as to how they're still releasing new ps2 games. In fact, some of my favorite games that I still replay on a regular basis were released on the ps2. I play through Shadow of the colossus maybe three times a year.
While I do agree with you that its nice for companies to re-release games on new platforms with a little bit more polish, I have to believe there are just too many obscure titles out there that will never get re-released. Not to mention, are you really going to re-purchase a game that's sitting on your shelf just because your new system doesn't play it? I think the target audience for the re-release are people who missed those titles initially and have heard through the grapevine that they are amazing titles, and they should be played before the sequel is released (god of war in this case).
I'm speculating here, but I think one of the major reasons Sony has discontinued the ps2 backwards compatibility is because they're still making a good amount of money off of ps2 sales. Why give it away for free with your new console when your market will potentially buy both, or at least the cheaper one?
alja001
i love the idea of remaking games for next gen. consoles. i think it would be great if they did a remake of jak and daxter or ratchet and clank (the first one)
thafuture
I like the concept of backwards compatibility as relating to the Playstation in general. Nintendo has alot of continuing series so the games you love from them in the past at least have some kind of upgraded version out now and microsoft really didnt have alot of games that you would like to go back and play but the PS2 in particular had alot of games that you could probably play generations down the road and still love them and the PS2 also had a couple of games that I feel got screwed up when the series move the next generation
metalmanny
Adam Sessler - "We can somehow improve the past. Except it's just in games."
Truer words were never spoken.
EternalYoshi
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this topic. I feel that having backwards compatibility is important for rewarding customer loyalty. Removing it does not offer consolidation to those who purchased the older games. Not everyone will like buying older games they still have physical copies of if they no longer have consoles.
Another problem I have is that not all games can be re-lreleased on the newer platform due to the transfer of IPs. Goldeneye is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Also, lawyers are a lot more active now so any game that has content that is based off of existing properties such as the music in Earthbound, it can prevent the game from ever being released on the new hardware.
Problem #3 is that breaking it can cause problems when the console and/or game is no longer in circulation. This causes the games and/or consoles to become very rare and expensive. Earthbound Cartridges go over $100 now. This indirectly promotes piracy as some games like Chrono Trigger go for prices higher than the console itself.
Problem #4 is Old consoles don't last forever. They will eventually stop working like my N64. Not to mention that the battery for the cartridge can die, preventing data from ever being saved again. There is a way to replace it, but you risk permanently damaging the cartridge. As for discs, having to rebuy the games you own the disc to is not fair if the older console is no longer functional.
DBHIROKI
damn it i forgot to put in dark!
well it suppose to PERFECT DARK SO YEAH!!
DBHIROKI
Backwards compatibility is an pulse espically when ur last systems dies on you! i love playing old school games yet im only 19 these new ones are repetitive with sequels and rarely any innovative game. Today's games are too scripted with routine actions and reponses from AIs don't get me wrong i often buy new games but i onle love MGS4 rite now! but i will always love GoldenEye and Perfect as the best shooters i have ever play and halo and suck u whiney little kids! GOSH I HATE PLAY XBOXLIVE WITH ALL THEM KIDS!!!!
ChaosBladewing
Entitlement problem...?
Your milage may vary I suppose, but I view this that I am a paying customer of several businesses. As a consumer I want backwards compatibility in my systems. Consumers drive the market, not businesses deciding what they feel like doing.
but I digress, my original point was not so much price of backwards vs. novelty of backwards or anything like that, my point is that as a paying customer, indeed as we all are paying customers, we do have a right to want something from a business. If we are a large enough majority, then we can drive the market to make backwards compatibility worth while. If not, well, business is business, and I can accept that too.
My overall point though is there is nothing WRONG with customers wanting something like backwards, internet connection, multiplayer, etc, etc. They have a right to want it, and btw we arent necessarily a minority Adam...
Also, businesses that are reading this (doubt it, but whatever) entertainment industries are among the first to go in economic hardships, so just dont pull to much crap. Many people here may claim to be indeed video game addicts, but you will shocked by what even they can live without if you piss them off enough and then try to sweep it under the rug like this.
nero_wolfe1
I have always been a Playstation Fan.Loved that it played PS1 games. I still play my old PS1 Resident Evil along with a few others on my PS2. I have receintly purchased an X-Box 360. Don't get me wrong, it's a great system, however I chose it because PS3 was NOT backward compatible, otherwise I would have got a PS3. I concluded if I had to buy all new games, I might as well get a totally different system. Basically, Playstation lost a loyal fan because of no BC.
Tehlawgiver
I care, Adam.
One of the few times I disagree with you.
One of the biggest reasons (no, not the games for the actual system) I love my Wii is because of the GC BC. It's awesome. It's convenient.
I want to sell my PS2... but I can't do that thanks to sony.
Thanks Sony.
NCC1701E
I'm all for BC. Having said that, I hardly used the feature in my launch PS3...having more bang for your buck is always a good thing. Since then, I bought a Slim...without BC of course. Don't really mind it.
However, it is kind of odd to see that one can still create a PS2 memory card on the Slim...what would that be good for other than possible digital downloads of PS2 games from the Store? I'm thinking something is in the works.
flipsez
I think I agree on a couple of things. Backwards compatibility isn't a selling point and it doesn't make sense to increase the overall cost of a system to suit the needs of a small minority for whom backwards compatibility is a deal-breaker.
And I also agree that releasing old games in the future as downloadables is the best answer for this. Some complain about having to pay money for a game they already bought, but this doesn't make sense. If I bought any new game today and it broke after the warranty had run out, would I really expect the company to give me a new game for free? No I'd buy the same game over again to replace it and wouldn't think twice about expecting the company to pick up the bill.
But I guess that brings me to my own delima. I've got an old Sega CD, the games have been scratched to hell, and I don't know how much longer I can play games on the old dusty system before it breaks down. I want to keep playing the original Lunar, but I know either the game or the system is gonna give out soon.
But some may wonder, well why don't you just buy the more common PS1 version or the Gameboy Advanced version. I would answer that as far as I'm concerned THEY ARE NOT THE SAME GAME. Both of these games have the storylines "upgraded" Sure they had slightly better graphics and combat systems, but they also made the storyline more kiddy, from my understanding. Now please let me make myself clear, this post is not about Lunar, and don't not argue with me about Lunar. Even if my viewpoint is wrong about Lunar and anyone is free to disagree with me (just not here), I think my point is still valid.
And my point is that there have already been instances in gaming history were the same developers have remade a game and unintentionally made it worse. It has definitely happened. Does anyone remember the remake of Super Mario Brothers for the SNES? I believe they used SMB3 animations on a SuperMario 1 game. I don't recall anyone being "even more engaged" by the new version. Ultimately, the Wii downloads showed that the original NES version is what people want.
So here's where I disagree with Sessler. There are definite artistic aspects to gaming. Two of these I have mentioned. The visual presentation (mario), the storyline (Lunar), and some even have complaints about altering the original soundtracks of other games as well. If you alter these things too much, people tend to agree that it is not the same game. "This is not the game I fell in love with."
Now back to my problem. My games are breaking down. I just want to keep playing them. I can't use online emulators because they're illegal. NOW, you want ME to my trust in developers who have failed in the past to "update" their games while keeping in the spirit of the original, and have that be the only access I have to that downloadable game.
JUST GIVE ME AN ORIGINAL DOWNLOAD! I understand that new controls need to be mapped to an old format, sure do that. But it seems that Sessler is far too willing to let developers push that inch till they have run a whole mile with it. Some of us like the bugs in an original game. Sometimes people used them as cheats to make the game more fun. If they're feeling artistic, release the original alongside their upgrade and see what the masses choose. But Sess shouldn't encourage them to mess with an original, unless we can also get the original, just in case they screw it up.
See unlike Sess, I don't have absolute faith in the developers to not screw up a core concept of a game. And look, sometimes they can do an excellent job. I was actually one of the many people who got excited when I heard the now debunk rumor that Final Fantasy VII was being rereleased with updated graphics on PS3. And if they can, I still want them to try. However, I don't have complete faith that they will not screw up some of the best moments of the game. That's why I still want Sony to release the original Final Fantasy VII for download. Let the consumer decide what they like more. I hope my point is clear on this.
Anyway, one final problem I do have is that letting developers remake the game has a greedy market component. Like I said before, I am willing to pay money for a downloadable game to replace a disc or cartridge version, but the price must still be reasonable. My worry is that if every game is "tweeked and upgraded", then it will give game companies an excuse to charge 20$ instead of 5$ for a downloadable game, even if the labor to do so is not worthy of a 15$ price increase. And they can be assured of a huge profit, if they ensure that their version of the game is the only one available. All in all, the whole idea of only releasing "upgraded games" is looking more and more sinister to me.
Cadaverous17
I agree with Adam, but the problem is that quite a few people are not able to obtain DLC and downloadable games due to the fact that we do not have an internet connection in our homes. Don't get me wrong, i do like the idea of downloadable content, but i hate the fact that downloadable games will take over gaming and discs will stop being made. What will gamers do when the disc is gone and we can't download them. In all fairness, i think they should continue making disc games, but also should continue making downloadable games and DLC, that way satisfying both groups of the gaming market
Displaying 1–20 of 258
12345678910…12132