Reply to comment

Matt Barton
Matt Barton's picture
Joined: 01/16/2006
Ultimately, I think it's a

Ultimately, I think it's a bad thing if it means that the designers have to compromise to accommodate backward compatibility. There's a huge advantage (IMO) of being able to start from scratch, taking from the previous generation only the stuff that works well. If you're worried about backward compatibility, there's a lot of things you'll have to put in or avoid for that reason alone. A lot of people call Windows "bloatware," for example. Well, it wouldn't be so bloated if Microsoft released a version that wasn't backward compatible with all those old devices and software.

From a marketing perspective, it's a huge deal, even for consoles. IIRC, Bill wanted the old PS3 because of it. It's a lot of trouble dragging out an older system, which you may have sold anyway to defray the costs of the new one--just to play an older favorite. I'm sure a lot of Joe Gamer types are easily lulled into thinking that a new console that can't play their favorite current gen games is a rip off--something along the lines of, "I gave those people my money and now I can't even play my games on their system." Irrational, but it's there.

So, in short, I think it's best that a new gen machine is not backward compatible. You'll suffer in the short term, true, but by the next generation, your old favorites will either be re-released or capable of solid emulation anyway. In any case, I think most of us would agree that it's better to keep an older machine than to sell it for money towards the new console.



The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.