Topic: Backwards Compatibility - Good or Bad?

[UncleBob]

That's a dumb question, right?  Who could possibly think having instant access to last generations best and most beautiful titles right at launch could be a bad thing?

Publishers.  That's who.

More than once, I've seen posts by people saying stuff along the lines of picking up a Wii U and playing all the great Wii games they missed while waiting for the "good games" to come out.  Perfectly reasonable.  Unless you're trying to establish a baseline of sales on a new system to justify to your internal investors and marketing team that a new system is worth developing for.

It seems like we ran into this with the DS launch, 3DS launch and now, the Wii U's launch (Dunno about the GBC/GBA launches).  Heck, even the Wii had a pretty low tie-in ratio starting out (I'm not sure it ever really got much better, but how much of that is due to BC vs. old people who bought it for Wii Sports alone is hard to say).

The rumors are that the new xBox and PlayStation won't be backwards compatible.  Are they on to something?  Did Microsoft have it right with the 360, slowly adding in BC for most of the original xBox catalog?  Or Sony, by only launching a limited amount of consoles with the feature?  Or, does Nintendo have it right, with full last-gen BC?

[smallsharkbigbite]

Backwards compatible is great for everybody.  Consumers get access to more content.  Hardware makers have games available while a lineup of next gen games is being developed. 


I think the problem is specifically for Sony/Microsoft, is that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are very complicated systems and hardware is not increasing at the level it once was.  They used to say that you needed a system 10x as powerful to emulate an older system.  The PS4, Xbox 720 will probably be 2-3 times as powerful as current gen.  And unless they used a similar architecture, it's going to be very difficult to emulate.

[Oblivion]

It's not about how much stronger the new system is, it's about the new systems having parts completely incompatible with the old hardware. For example, the PS3 uses the Cell chip. The PS4? AMD parts. Completely different architecture.


I don't care for backwards compatibility, only to make it faster when I want to play an older game.

[Ceric]

Honestly I think its a QoL issue.  Rarely is it a big reason to buy a system.  Just a Value Add. 

[Shaymin]

It's good for consumers by allowing them to keep their late purchases relevant for a longer period.


Naturally, publishers hate this.

[NWR_insanolord]

I like backwards compatibility, and want to see it when possible, but not having it isn't likely to prevent me from buying a system, and I think that's a common sentiment. Combine that with the fact that publishers want you to buy new games with new hardware, and you see why it's not a priority for console makers.

I think the model Sony took with the PS3 after they removed full backwards compatibility is an interesting one. I'm pretty sure current PS3s are backward compatible with PS1 games through emulation, including discs as well as PSN releases. This gives some level of BC, but not the most recent system, which removes a lot of publishers' concerns and lessens the technological issues.

[Ian Sane]

If I had things my way the top of your Wii U would look like a toaster with cartidge slots for NES, SNES and N64 games.  Considering all the times I've had to **** around with my old NES to get it to work a more reliable modern piece of hardware that plays that stuff would be nice.  But they would think that would cut into VC sales and they're probably right to some extent.

Backwards compatibility was a major factor in my GBA purchase.  I had never owned a Game Boy before and the GBA came out right around the time I started my career and thus had stready income for the first time.  While there were a few GBA launch titles that grabbed my interest, for me all the classic GB and GBC games were part of the purchasing decision.

But then the priority isn't to sell Wii U's to people who never had a Wii and would appreciate backwards compatibility.  The priority is to get Wii owners to upgrade and unless they trade in their old system BC is unnecessary for them.  Plus most of the world is not so videogame savy as us.  The whole reason stuff like Angry Birds is popular is because for most videogames are mindless disposable entertainment.  They don't care about playing some old games because old games might as well not exist.  The bulk of the console buyers live entirely in the present.

What I would like is retro systems that are released entirely for the niche market of classic game enthusiasts.  You can buy like the Retro Duo for example that plays NES and SNES games but it is third party and uses emulation.  I would love to have a first party option that uses the real hardware.  Essentially I want Nintendo to re-release their old systems for hobbyists, but they won't because they figure it will eat into VC sales and they don't like the used nature of that market anyway.  But I would argue that for that market VC sales are already lost in favour of authentic original copies.  There might not be enough money to justify manufacturing the physical hardware, so I don't know how feasible this even would be.  But with a lack of interest from the general public about BC, perhaps these companies should cater the functionality for the retro gamers that do.

My attitude is that if there is a market for record players for enthusiasts in a MP3 dominated world, perhaps there could be such a market for retro videogame systems.

[ejamer]

So how come publishers aren't releasing Wii games, if they believe that a meaningful portion of the Wii U market is still actively looking at older games? The combined Wii/Wii U install base is huge, and there isn't much competition on either system. Oh right... they stopped developing for Wii years ago because nobody buys third-party games on the console.


The claim that backwards compatibility is a red flag for publishers reeks to me, just like all the other excuses thrown out when publishers simply don't want to do something.


Release good games (that aren't completely undermined by releases on other systems at the same time) and gamers will buy them. Harder than it sounds, but not as hard as publishers make it out to be.

[pokepal148]

you would think these 'next gen' games shouldn't have to compete with BC because their so much better then last gen could dream of
also it takes 3ghz of processing power to run every single snes game possible with 100% accuracy on pc for ONE GAME AT A TIME

[Ceric]

Honestly,
If you made most your profit on Hardware sales then BC makes a lot more sense.  Anything that pushes Hardware at any cost.  Its not.  Software is where the real money is.  By definition BC games are no longer in print and therefore no longer making the publisher or console holder any money.  BC is a Value Add plain and simple.  They don't make any real money off it.

[ejamer]

Honestly,
If you made most your profit on Hardware sales then BC makes a lot more sense.  Anything that pushes Hardware at any cost.  Its not.  Software is where the real money is.  By definition BC games are no longer in print and therefore no longer making the publisher or console holder any money.  BC is a Value Add plain and simple.  They don't make any real money off it.

With the uncommon exception of publishers putting out games for the old console (such as PS2 games getting released well into PS3 lifecycle), they don't make money off backwards compatibility. Sure.

But the question is about whether backwards compatibility hurts sales of new games. People don' t buy a new console for old games -- if they wanted to play an old Mario game then they'll drop $60 for a used Wii, not $300+. If that is true, then any slight bump that backwards compatibility creates in console sales can only help. Old gamers who migrate over to new hardware sooner than they would have otherwise expand the potential market and reduce the pain caused by an install base "reset". Once gamers have the console, they will buy games if (and only if) the price and quality of those games is appealing.

From the publisher standpoint, the only argument against backwards compatibility seems to be: "consumers shouldn't expect high quality experiences from early games released on the platform, but should still be willing to open their wallets and pay full price for whatever we offer".  For me, that doesn't hold any weight.

[Adrock]

Backwards compatibility can be a bad thing if newer, better technology is sacrificed for the sake of the ability to place legacy software. For example, I've read some speculation that Wii U's Espresso CPU is being held back by being based on Wii's Broadway and by extension, Gamecube's Gekko CPU. Think about that. If true, Espresso would be based on technology over 10 years old which falls in line with reports that Espresso is weak or slow. Why do that? So there can be a Wii Channel for backwards compatibility inside the Wii U? I can't comment on the validity of that claim. The point is if Nintendo (or any company) held back on more advanced hardware for the purpose of 100% fidelity with old games, that's problematic. They would be jeopardizing the future because of the past which doesn't make sense. When it comes down to it, I hope every company chooses the potential and reality of the future than the memory of the past.

[Morari]

How are these companies supposed to re-sell you digital versions and "enhanced director's cut" versions of the same games if you're still able to simply load the original up? It's mostly a cash grab, but it's also laziness in the way that the hardware is designed.

I'm pretty fond of being able to load up the same copy of Quake and Diablo that I've had since 1996 with no problems at all.

[alegoicoe]

good for gamers/recently bad for companies

[TJ Spyke]

How are these companies supposed to re-sell you digital versions and "enhanced director's cut" versions of the same games if you're still able to simply load the original up?

Same way studios like Warner Bros. sucker idiots into buying 8 different copies of each Lord of the Rings movie.

[Oblivion]

I only buy the extended editions.

[NWR_insanolord]

How are these companies supposed to re-sell you digital versions and "enhanced director's cut" versions of the same games if you're still able to simply load the original up?

Same way studios like Warner Bros. sucker idiots into buying 8 different copies of each Lord of the Rings movie.

I agree with TJ Spyke here, you'll see that kind of thing regardless of whether or not there's backward compatibility. Look at the New Play Control series on Wii: (arguably) enhanced versions of games that could already be played on the system through BC. All they need is a hook, be it new controls or cleaned up visuals or tweaks here and there.

[Ceric]

Backwards compatibility can be a bad thing if newer, better technology is sacrificed for the sake of the ability to place legacy software. For example, I've read some speculation that Wii U's Espresso CPU is being held back by being based on Wii's Broadway and by extension, Gamecube's Gekko CPU. Think about that. If true, Espresso would be based on technology over 10 years old which falls in line with reports that Espresso is weak or slow. Why do that? So there can be a Wii Channel for backwards compatibility inside the Wii U? I can't comment on the validity of that claim. The point is if Nintendo (or any company) held back on more advanced hardware for the purpose of 100% fidelity with old games, that's problematic. They would be jeopardizing the future because of the past which doesn't make sense. When it comes down to it, I hope every company chooses the potential and reality of the future than the memory of the past.

Um... Its not.  In the hardware Nintendo Direct for WiiU  Iwata didn't know how they were going to do BC because it wasn't based on the old processor.  It was when the Chip people they were working with went "Oh this right here is the same as this." and started pointing out the similarity and adding in the few bits that would need to be specific.

Though I will point everyone to PC.  That is a platform that is severly held back because of BC.  Did you know in the Original Product Map for Intel processors we should all be on IA64 processors.  Which is a better architecture but, AMD extended x86 AGAIN to make todays 64 bits processors and Intel had to follow.  Their have been better, faster  architecture and memory designs for computers for a long time but, their not out their because of BC.  I mean a lot of the problems with WIndows is because Microsoft can't kill BC in it and move on.

[Ian Sane]

PC backwards compatibility has been the standard for so long that if Windows ditched it, I would hold off on updating as I have too much old stuff that I bring with me from PC to PC.  The software company I work for would also be pretty fucked from such a decision.  We wouldn't have the resources to port everything to the new standard in a decent timeframe.

One thing I just thought of is that BC is nice for developers that have games arriving on the old system shortly before or after the new one arrives.  Typically when the new system is out, its predecessor is regarded as out-of-date and new games that come out for the old system don't get the same amount of attention.  However if you released a new Wii game this month, during a post-launch drought for the Wii U, it might sell better to Wii U owners looking for something else to play on their new system.  No one has to hook up an old system or anything like that, it just works.  As time goes on the newer system gets more releases so the old system does not stand out anymore but for that brief six-to-eight month window when the new system has come out but not yet truly established itself, a new game for the old system can still attract some attention, at least more so than any 1992 NES or 1997 SNES game would have.  If the Wii U didn't have BC, there is no way Pandora's Tower would be getting localized at this point.  Xseed knows they can sell it to both Wii and Wii U owners, during a time where no other Wii U game will steal the spotlight.

Of course is that worth it to the manufacturer to please a small handful of devs that would benefit from it?  Probably not.

[Ceric]

PC backwards compatibility has been the standard for so long that if Windows ditched it, I would hold off on updating as I have too much old stuff that I bring with me from PC to PC.  The software company I work for would also be pretty fucked from such a decision.  We wouldn't have the resources to port everything to the new standard in a decent timeframe.

That's why people complain about Windows but, don't realize why it is how it is.  Apple actually did just that with OSX they ditched OS9 compatibility for the most part.  Then they ditched PowerPC compatibility.  Their Market share grew.  Now Apple has a large enough market share and non-Zealot following that they couldn't pull that again.

[NWR_DavidE]

If I had things my way the top of your Wii U would look like a toaster with cartidge slots for NES, SNES and N64 games.

I'm going to agree and disagree with you.

It'd be nice, I've got a small selection of NES, and a slightly larger collection of N64 games that I'd love to be able to play without having to repurchase on the VC.

However! I purchased the Deluxe version of the Wii U so that I could stand it on its end. (I feel that it does look a little nicer, and also it takes less room on my desk.) In this way, it'd be quite awkward to use the toaster method of reading game cartridges. Also, not to mention that the slots are slightly different for each different cartridge so it's not one-size-fits-all. What I suggest would be a USB breakout. Just a small box (maybe 1in x 6in x 4in [h x w x d]) would suffice with a 2 ft cable that goes to the U. Problem with this would be price. Nintendo could charge an arm and a leg since they only have to sell one accessory [as opposed to multiple games], for games that aren't even manufactured!

But that's just my $0.02. I'd love the ability to play my old games (save states and all) on my Wii U since my NES doesn't read carts right anymore (too busy to fix), and my only good N64 controller has a really loose joystick. In all honesty though, I don't see Nintendo doing this any time soon, as their VC solution works "well enough."

[NWR_Neal]

I wouldn't say I think backwards compatibility is mandatory (I believe the 360 excuse was also technological), but it is a nice thing to include. Especially with digital content being a major aspect of consoles, I absolutely want my old content to transfer over to my new system.

I bought a Vita partially because I never bought a PSP.

The Wii could play games from every single Nintendo home console, thanks to BC and Virtual Console. That is so rad and I want that to be the norm for every system. Even if I have to rebuy old games for a few bucks, I'd rather have less systems needed to play my games. My 3DS is loaded to the brim with Game Boy, Game Boy Color, NES, Game Gear, 3DS, eShop, and DSiWare games. It's the best system ever because of that. Oh yea, and it can play my DS games, too. <3 3DS.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Ian,
I've often wondered why Nintendo or other publishers don't rerelease older consoles.  Like Nintendo releasing a 25 year anniversary version of the toploader (updated with modern outputs).  They could probably sell it for something like $79 with two controllers.  Then they could also release a classics collection, I.E. Mario 3 cartridge for $19, etc.  Since there wouldn't be any real development and the cost would be neglible, it would be all profit. 

Ceric,
PC may be held back from a technical standpoint, but losing BC would make any new PC useless for me.  Heck, I think 90% of the time I use a PC for personal reasons it could run on Windows 2000.  And computers are silly fast anyway for almost anything you do.  Businesses or power users might like a bump in power but realistically most people don't even use their current computers to their full potential.

[thedefalcos]

What I would like is retro systems that are released entirely for the niche market of classic game enthusiasts.  You can buy like the Retro Duo for example that plays NES and SNES games but it is third party and uses emulation.  I would love to have a first party option that uses the real hardware.  Essentially I want Nintendo to re-release their old systems for hobbyists, but they won't because they figure it will eat into VC sales and they don't like the used nature of that market anyway.  But I would argue that for that market VC sales are already lost in favour of authentic original copies.  There might not be enough money to justify manufacturing the physical hardware, so I don't know how feasible this even would be.  But with a lack of interest from the general public about BC, perhaps these companies should cater the functionality for the retro gamers that do.

My attitude is that if there is a market for record players for enthusiasts in a MP3 dominated world, perhaps there could be such a market for retro videogame systems.

Actually, the guys on the NWR podcast had a fantastic idea that would solve that problem.  Just come out with a system that has internet connectivity so that you have to buy the games from the eshop. So, no slot for a catridge/disc, but at least you still get the feel of those old game consoles without the price tag and hassle. It would appeal to people like me who don't care to buy a 3DS just to play retro mobile games (which is really the only reason why I'd buy it) and it would also appeal to people who will NEVER buy a new home console (think atari flashback). You could mass produce them for super cheap (with better screen tech and smaller for handhelds) and make quite a bit of money on the hardware, too.  Maybe even go the Kindle route and put advertisements for Wiiu/3DS stuff.

I think it was Metts who said that they could make them limited editions so it won't affect long term sales of newer consoles. I would buy ALL of them. Seriously.

[Ian Sane]

What I would like is retro systems that are released entirely for the niche market of classic game enthusiasts.  You can buy like the Retro Duo for example that plays NES and SNES games but it is third party and uses emulation.  I would love to have a first party option that uses the real hardware.  Essentially I want Nintendo to re-release their old systems for hobbyists, but they won't because they figure it will eat into VC sales and they don't like the used nature of that market anyway.  But I would argue that for that market VC sales are already lost in favour of authentic original copies.  There might not be enough money to justify manufacturing the physical hardware, so I don't know how feasible this even would be.  But with a lack of interest from the general public about BC, perhaps these companies should cater the functionality for the retro gamers that do.

My attitude is that if there is a market for record players for enthusiasts in a MP3 dominated world, perhaps there could be such a market for retro videogame systems.

Actually, the guys on the NWR podcast had a fantastic idea that would solve that problem.  Just come out with a system that has internet connectivity so that you have to buy the games from the eshop. So, no slot for a catridge/disc, but at least you still get the feel of those old game consoles without the price tag and hassle. It would appeal to people like me who don't care to buy a 3DS just to play retro mobile games (which is really the only reason why I'd buy it) and it would also appeal to people who will NEVER buy a new home console (think atari flashback). You could mass produce them for super cheap (with better screen tech and smaller for handhelds) and make quite a bit of money on the hardware, too.  Maybe even go the Kindle route and put advertisements for Wiiu/3DS stuff.

I think it was Metts who said that they could make them limited editions so it won't affect long term sales of newer consoles. I would buy ALL of them. Seriously.

I wouldn't buy that in 100 years.  My problem is that I have a bunch of old games and like collecting them but having functional hardware that plays them can be tricky.  The NES in particularly is horribly unreliable.  If I just wanted to play the games I'd just use the VC.  I want to play the old cartridges that I still buy from flea markets and used collectible stores and such on a regular basis.  Your suggestion is like saying I could use iTunes to listen to old music.  That's not the point.  I want a record player to play old records.

I should also point out that I'm being a major purist here.  There are old games that are no longer currently available in any form because of licensing issues.  Emulation is also spotty and going with the legitimate hardware is a way to know for certain that you're playing it as originally intended.  The games industry just does not take old content seriously enough to put in a proper effort.  We get spotty emulation or re-releases with new features that screw up the balance of the game or have updated graphics and stuff like that.

However if this "VC Box" ALSO had cartridge slots that would be pretty damn cool.  I'll buy that and then Nintendo can still sell the downloads if they want to.

Ian,
I've often wondered why Nintendo or other publishers don't rerelease older consoles.  Like Nintendo releasing a 25 year anniversary version of the toploader (updated with modern outputs).  They could probably sell it for something like $79 with two controllers.  Then they could also release a classics collection, I.E. Mario 3 cartridge for $19, etc.  Since there wouldn't be any real development and the cost would be neglible, it would be all profit. 

I figure they think it would eat into sales of re-releases or just wouldn't appeal to a big enough market.  Nintendo is very much into big mainstream hits so some fringe product that appeals to geeks does not seem like it would be on their radar.  Someone like Reggie probably has no idea about any retro videogame scene at all.  The funny thing is that someone is making money of off systems like the Retro Duo and replacement SNES controllers and replacement NES cartridge connectors.  There clearly is SOME market and, if not embarassingly overpriced, an official Nintendo version of that stuff would probably squash the third party stuff.  If you were interested in a Retro Duo and a new legitimate Nintendo version of that product existed isn't that the one you would get?  Let's not ignore the used game systems that sell on eBay that Nintendo currently gets $0 from.  The products exist and someone is buying them and Nintendo doesn't make a dime off any of it.

[Louieturkey]

It makes you wonder if anyone has ever gone to Nintendo and asked to license their old tech to be able to sell a retro console of their own.  If I had the money, I'd love to look into what they'd say about that.  You could sell an officially licensed NES/SNES/N64 3 in 1 system.

[lolmonade]

Backwards compatibility is great for consumers, bad for console makers. 
 
There's a level of expectation that's built up over time when you continually offer something over several console generations.  Sony is the culprit of starting the expectation of backwards compatibility with the Playstation 2, but it was a great value proposition to consumers at the time: "Hey, not only can you play all these awesome new games we'll have coming out eventually, but you can catch up on the games you may have missed out last generation if you made the mistake of not buying our first console!". 
 
They of course offered backwards compatibility for PS1 AND PS2 games in the PS3 initially, but caused a big uproar when it was revealed that the PS2 backwards compatibility would be cut in an effort to make the PS3 more price competitive.
 
Nintendo followed suit with the Wii and the Wii U, and they must believe it's a good enough value proposition to feature it (until they decide to remove the hardware to cut costs).  For the Wii, it made sense to include the backwards compatibility for the Gamecube as a value addition considering it wasn't near the capability of the PS3 & Xbox 360.  It makes sense for nintendo to include backwards compatibility in the Wii U, not only because it uses the same controllers, but if you look at any store right now, there are more Wii games than Wii U games, many of them Nintendo titles.  Also, Nintendo has largely played on consumers sense of nostalgia with their franchises, which is why ways to play classic titles like the virtual console have been such staples of their product offering as of late.
 
I think streaming service backwards-compatibility may work better in Sony's favor in the long run.  It makes internet connection the only big bottleneck.

[NWR_insanolord]

The main difference for Nintendo is their hardware inherently supports backwards compatibility, like the PC. The Wii's basically an overclocked GameCube, and the Wii U uses an evolution of the same stuff. The only reason the later Wii models and the Wii U aren't compatible with GameCube games is the cost of keeping in the controller/memory card ports. The DS and 3DS continued the same line of hardware as the GBA. With Sony and Microsoft it's a lot harder to include it because of how drastically their hardware changes from generation to generation.

[dack25]

BC is pretty cool but now that I think about it I don't really use it much for my 360 when I didn't buy the original Xbox. Actually part of the reasons why I initially chose a 360 over the PS3 was because I wouldn't be able to use all my old PS2 games on it. Looking back at it, it was a silly reason and I ended up trading it in to get more games for 360 off the bat. Since I've had a PS3 I've probably bought three HD collections and a few other digital versions of older games that might have saved me a couple of dollars here and there. For the Wii though, being a GCN owner it is convenient knowing I don't have to hook up the older system and the controllers still serve a purpose.

[rlse9]

Backwards Compatibility is one of those things that always seemed great in theory to me but that I've rarely actually put to use.  After buying a DS (and not having owned a GBA) I bought a total of 2 GBA games and played little of either.  Having a considerable amount of Gamecube games, including a couple I don't think I ever even played, the only Gamecube game I've really played on my Wii was finally beating Wind Waker.  In theory, I think it's something I would use, but in practice whenever I sit down to play a game (or when I'm out buying a game) I always choose something for the newer system.

I can see Backwards Compatibility being good for Nintendo, had they been able to attract people to the Wii U that didn't own a Wii (probably not many of those out there in this case, but maybe more true with Wii/Gamecube).  With a lack of games out there for Wii U currently, I'd think there would be people buying Super Mario Galaxy, Skyward Sword, etc. since they're such great games and still easy to find in stores.  The problem for developers isn't gamers choosing older games over newer games, it's Nintendo system overs choosing Nintendo games (new or old) over 3rd party games.

[LABcrab]

Backwards compatibility is of great importance to me, and makes me want to purchase a Nintendo system.

First, with the Game Boy Advance, friends gave me many Game Boy games: Super Mario Land, Tetris, Baseball and so on.  They (as well as Game Boy Color) were still sold and rented in stores, making it easier for Nintendo to clear their inventory by making the Game Boy Advance compatible with nearly all non-Advance games.  Furthermore, it was easier to link games like Pokémon and Tetris with friends.  The great amount of games and accessories compatible with the Game Boy Advance increased Nintendo sales and rentals.

The Wii is also a great example of this.  i had Donkey Konga, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, F-Zero GX, Luigi's Mansion and many other games for the GameCube.  It's no longer necessary to keep the GameCube around for these games if the Wii is compatible with them.  Therefore, the GC can be sold or traded in at the store.  Even better, GameCube controllers can be used for the Virtual Console's many games, including titles from the NES, SNES, Nintendo 64 and even Sega games.  Those GameCube controllers sure get a lot of value!  It makes me wonder why Nintendo stopped manufacturing them so soon.  As for the WaveBird wireless controller, it was a great product but given little chance to live, even if Nintendo could still sell them now.

Lastly, the 3DS being compatible with DS games is a great feature to have.  It's also better implemented, unlike the older DS with single-player GBA support, because multiplayer is possible with DS games on the 3DS!  Currently, my only 3DS game is Mario Kart 7, but i have nearly a dozen of older DS games.  These are still sold in stores, so just like the GBA and older GB games, Nintendo will be able to clear out DS games more easily because the 3DS is compatible with them.  Backwards compatibility is a win-win for everyone!  :-)

[UncleBob]

Just bought a copy of the full version of the original Wolfenstein 3D (which, oddly, according to the PCGamer disc that it's on, is rated E for Everyone.  I don't think that's right.).

It won't run on my Win8 Laptop.  Sadface.  Guess I'll have to figure out how to make it work, probably using DOSBox or something.

[TJ Spyke]

Just bought a copy of the full version of the original Wolfenstein 3D (which, oddly, according to the PCGamer disc that it's on, is rated E for Everyone.  I don't think that's right.).

It won't run on my Win8 Laptop.  Sadface.  Guess I'll have to figure out how to make it work, probably using DOSBox or something.

I remember last year I had a urge to re-play RollerCoaster Tycoob. It plays on my Windows 7 laptop, but the expansion pack Corkscrew Follies doesn't for some reason (the disc is fine, it just won't play with Windows 7). I don't understand why since the base game does work.

[pokepal148]

Just bought a copy of the full version of the original Wolfenstein 3D (which, oddly, according to the PCGamer disc that it's on, is rated E for Everyone.  I don't think that's right.).

It won't run on my Win8 Laptop.  Sadface.  Guess I'll have to figure out how to make it work, probably using DOSBox or something.

I remember last year I had a urge to re-play RollerCoaster Tycoob. It plays on my Windows 7 laptop, but the expansion pack Corkscrew Follies doesn't for some reason (the disc is fine, it just won't play with Windows 7). I don't understand why since the base game does work.

whats  roller coaster tycoob

[TJ Spyke]

LOL, stupid typo. RollerCoaster Tycoon.

[Shorty McNostril]

A possibly silly question, but the compatibility options didn't help?

[MukiDA]

Backwards compatibility is an easy choice: Yes.
Consoles have 4-7 year life cycles at this point. By the time you hit the end-of-life, the entirety of the last gen's system fits on a rather tiny system-on-a-chip, that, at the end of the day, isn't expensive. Most of the other big expenses from the last gen, e.g. storage, you're gonna need anyway.
So why yes? Simple: Make your system an easier choice.
The PS2 was a dead-simple choice. Controllers worked, games worked, power plug worked, hell, even the video cable worked. It was a straight-up box replacement. You put your PS1 box in storage, you connect the PS2 to the exact same cables.
The Wii was the exact same way save for power/AV. Gamecube goes out, Wii goes in.
The thing is, you remove some of the choice from the matter. For the average Wii gamer, switching to the U once you've spent the money is dead-easy. Even with the Virtual Console shenanagans, there's something to be said about the peace of mind achieved from not having to turn on the old system for any reason, even nostalgia. It makes installing the new system easier.
Then comes the actual money advantages. If you do your backwards-compatibility RIGHT, you can start selling digital copies of your old games. For any company with established franchises, this is free money. Think about it. You burn through the next Zelda game and suddenly you get that nostalgia craving for the older titles. It should be ARBITRARY at that point to buy them all at your liesure.
This, I think, is Nintendo's biggest failing, and Sony's from the looks of it. They look at backwards compatibility as a revenue drain (why buy new games when I can play all the old ones?) instead of another revenue stream(why scrounge Gamestop's bargain bin when I can look through a buncha classics on the eshop/PSN? ) Heck, the first thing to die in a new console generation are a good deal of estabilished franchises that have trouble making the jump to higher requirements for graphics and gameplay that a new gen brings. Why not make it TRIVIAL for the customer base that ENJOYS the latest edition of your fantasy/sci-fi/shootin'/strategy/whocares epic to go back and see where it all started?
The thing is, consoles are closed platforms. Once a system generation is over, if production stops, any official avenues to a GENERATION of games become flaky. It's why I'm less inclined to pick up console versions of games I can find on Steam. I'm not sure, but I can imagine that consumers are becoming more aware of this. You'll note that even on Apple products, so long as you stay in the eco-system most of the dozens of apps you bought still work fine years later, and maybe even look nicer on the new device. Without backwards compatibility, a new generation is essentially starting from ZERO, and companies who don't see this are doing a diservice to both their customer base and themselves.
I could go on about this for pages but I'll cut the rant off there.

[Leo13]

I bought a Wii U on launch day. The Backwards compatibility allowed Nintendo to make extra money. I took my old Wii and gave it to my parents. Consequentially, their Christmas (which would not have included any video games) turned into the purchase of 3 Wiimotes (I still have 1 sibling who lives with them) and 5 wii games (all of them are Nintendo designed and published games). Plus the fact that I ended up buying Pikmin 2 on the Wii with the sole desire to determine if I want to drop $60 on Pikmin 3 (I do). So backwards compatibility gave them controller sales and wii game sales that they wouldn't have had without it and it didn't take away from the Wii U console or game sales.
Win-Win

[Leo13]

I just wish Nintendo would also either print more of the discs from the best Wii Games or make it so that I could download them. i bought a Wii late in the life so I missed on games like Metroid Prime 3/trilogy and wario ware smooth moves. You can't just go to Walmart and buy them (I checked Amazon today prime trilogy is $199). I'd love it if they pulled it back out and put the discs back on the shelves or just put it in the wiiware shop.

[pokepal148]

I just wish Nintendo would also either print more of the discs from the best Wii Games or make it so that I could download them. i bought a Wii late in the life so I missed on games like Metroid Prime 3/trilogy and wario ware smooth moves. You can't just go to Walmart and buy them (I checked Amazon today prime trilogy is $199). I'd love it if they pulled it back out and put the discs back on the shelves or just put it in the wiiware shop.

just reprint xenoblade doggone it

[Louieturkey]

I just wish Nintendo would also either print more of the discs from the best Wii Games or make it so that I could download them. i bought a Wii late in the life so I missed on games like Metroid Prime 3/trilogy and wario ware smooth moves. You can't just go to Walmart and buy them (I checked Amazon today prime trilogy is $199). I'd love it if they pulled it back out and put the discs back on the shelves or just put it in the wiiware shop.

just reprint xenoblade doggone it

Agreed on both accounts.  More people need to enjoy these games.  Though I'm afraid they are working a HD remakes of each of these as the reason why they aren't making more of them.

[Ceric]

BC Compatibility is not as cheap as you might think considering that Sony dropped it from the PS3 and they were still making PS2s...

[TJ Spyke]

BC Compatibility is not as cheap as you might think considering that Sony dropped it from the PS3 and they were still making PS2s...

IIRC, all that did was save them about $2 per system.That was hardly bankrupting them to keep it in.

[pokepal148]

even without bc the slim still costed about 300$

[Ian Sane]

This, I think, is Nintendo's biggest failing, and Sony's from the looks of it. They look at backwards compatibility as a revenue drain (why buy new games when I can play all the old ones?) instead of another revenue stream(why scrounge Gamestop's bargain bin when I can look through a buncha classics on the eshop/PSN? ) Heck, the first thing to die in a new console generation are a good deal of estabilished franchises that have trouble making the jump to higher requirements for graphics and gameplay that a new gen brings. Why not make it TRIVIAL for the customer base that ENJOYS the latest edition of your fantasy/sci-fi/shootin'/strategy/whocares epic to go back and see where it all started?

The thing is that they're kind of right in that it is a revenue drain.  The Wii can play every Gamecube game and yet Nintendo felt the need to re-release many Gamecube games as NPC titles.  That seemed very unnecessary since if you wanted those games you could play them, even if the Wii was your first console.  But Nintendo didn't promote the feature or make accessories or the old games available.  The reason why is that they can't double dip.  It should make no difference to them if some new Nintendo customer buys the Wii or Gamecube version of Pikmin for their Wii.  They make a sale either way and it would actually be cheaper for Nintendo to just make new copies of the Cube version instead of dedicate development resources to creating a new version.  But then they won't sell a SECOND copy of Pikmin to someone who already owns the Cube version.  THAT is why they, and Sony and MS, don't like BC because it only sells to new adopters but with a re-release they can sell the same game multiple times to the same person.

They don't want to give us a service, they want to exploit us.  There are enough double dipping suckers out there to make it worthwhile.  They make more money from double dips and neglecting BC probably is not enough of a disservice to actually lose any sales anyway.

[pokepal148]

This, I think, is Nintendo's biggest failing, and Sony's from the looks of it. They look at backwards compatibility as a revenue drain (why buy new games when I can play all the old ones?) instead of another revenue stream(why scrounge Gamestop's bargain bin when I can look through a buncha classics on the eshop/PSN? ) Heck, the first thing to die in a new console generation are a good deal of estabilished franchises that have trouble making the jump to higher requirements for graphics and gameplay that a new gen brings. Why not make it TRIVIAL for the customer base that ENJOYS the latest edition of your fantasy/sci-fi/shootin'/strategy/whocares epic to go back and see where it all started?

The thing is that they're kind of right in that it is a revenue drain.  The Wii can play every Gamecube game and yet Nintendo felt the need to re-release many Gamecube games as NPC titles.  That seemed very unnecessary since if you wanted those games you could play them, even if the Wii was your first console.  But Nintendo didn't promote the feature or make accessories or the old games available.  The reason why is that they can't double dip.  It should make no difference to them if some new Nintendo customer buys the Wii or Gamecube version of Pikmin for their Wii.  They make a sale either way and it would actually be cheaper for Nintendo to just make new copies of the Cube version instead of dedicate development resources to creating a new version.  But then they won't sell a SECOND copy of Pikmin to someone who already owns the Cube version.  THAT is why they, and Sony and MS, don't like BC because it only sells to new adopters but with a re-release they can sell the same game multiple times to the same person.

They don't want to give us a service, they want to exploit us.  There are enough double dipping suckers out there to make it worthwhile.  They make more money from double dips and neglecting BC probably is not enough of a disservice to actually lose any sales anyway.

but a year or so from now where will you be getting your wii games
used
nintendo has the best strategy for bc on the wii
just silently pull it out at a time when everybody who wants it owns the system

[Ceric]

BC Compatibility is not as cheap as you might think considering that Sony dropped it from the PS3 and they were still making PS2s...

IIRC, all that did was save them about $2 per system.That was hardly bankrupting them to keep it in.

In raw chip cost.  It probably made the whole process of making a PS3 more streamlined, was one less bit of the supply chain that could break, and something that doesn't need supported and tested.  Consider thats $2 per system that means without all the other non-raw parts cost benefits that they could have potentially saved 146 Million Dollars.  That is not chump change.  Especially since we know that the PS3 sold for a lost at least part of its life.  I honestly don't think the number of sales they would have made with BC still in would had made up the $146,000,000.  The Cheapest PS3 I could fine on Amazon that I know is still made is  $264.99 and that is the newest flimsy redesign.  So lets just say its pure profit.  They just appear in stores from the Ether.  That would be 550,964 additional PS3s over the lifetime of the system.  That be .7% more PS3s.  Sony would also not have sold as many of their PSN re-releases of Older games.  Their attach rate for New Games would more than likely go down. 

It all comes down to, as much as we don't like to admit it, Game companies are businesses and Capitalistic way of thinking makes us strive for bigger profits and that is what a company will do.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I figure they think it would eat into sales of re-releases or just wouldn't appeal to a big enough market.  Nintendo is very much into big mainstream hits so some fringe product that appeals to geeks does not seem like it would be on their radar.  Someone like Reggie probably has no idea about any retro videogame scene at all.  The funny thing is that someone is making money of off systems like the Retro Duo and replacement SNES controllers and replacement NES cartridge connectors.  There clearly is SOME market and, if not embarassingly overpriced, an official Nintendo version of that stuff would probably squash the third party stuff.  If you were interested in a Retro Duo and a new legitimate Nintendo version of that product existed isn't that the one you would get?  Let's not ignore the used game systems that sell on eBay that Nintendo currently gets $0 from.  The products exist and someone is buying them and Nintendo doesn't make a dime off any of it.

The ironic thing is re-releases led me to pick up at least 3 systems and at least a hundred games of the past.  I started buying VC games, then realized Nintendo would never release them fast enough and they would never release many of the games I want to play.  I think they could make $100 million easy on it, but they'd have to use the Disney re-release approach.  Release a limited amount, like 2 million NES systems, add some cool collector packaging, and then people would scoop them up.  Since the NES is so cheap they could probably make a profit of $40-50 an NES which would add up to $80-$100 million on hardware.  Then re-release about 20 games from the era at a price of $20 could add to the profit.  They could also encourage 3rd parties such as Konami to rerelease say Contra and make even more $.  The key would be to keep it limited, so the NES systems sell out quickly and it doesn't really affect current console demand.  Then you re-release a SNES in 5 years, etc, keeping the re-releases limited. 


Most of the games, I'd re-release are so popular they probably wouldn't even affect re-releases.  By that I mean, most people that would actually buy a VC release of Super Mario 3 probably already own a version of that game for some system.  Embarrassingly, I have Super Mario 3 for NES, GBA, Super Nintendo, Wii x2(I bought the digital version and disc release).  I don't think I'd buy it again for Wii U, but I'd strongly consider it for the 3ds if they released a digital version.  People like to play these games on new systems and generally the price isn't too prohibitive to re-buy.