Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: BlackGriffen on December 13, 2004, 12:03:43 PM
Title: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: BlackGriffen on December 13, 2004, 12:03:43 PM
There is already strong anecdotal evidence in favor of backward compatibility (see Gameboy and PlayStation lineages). It is not, however, essential all of the time (see NES/SNES, etc). Here, I intend to outline the case for why backward compatibility is crucial for Nintendo in the transition to the Revolution.
The primary advantage seems to be obvious - it gives the revolution a large library from the get go. While this is helpful, I would argue that it is not the primary benefit of backward compatibility. Think for a moment what happened near the end of the N64's life. On the whole, it just died. New games and probably also sales both just tapered off into oblivion long before the GC came out. It may not be obvious, but that hurt the GC. Nintendo, without a stream of games, just fell off of people's radar. This hurt Nintendo's image coming in to the new generation, and thus hurt the GC. I won't claim that what happened to the N64 was because of the necessary lack of backward compatibility. I will argue, however, that a lack of backward compatibility could do the same to the GC. The reason why is the real reason for maintaining backward compatibility: maintaining software investment. Both developers and fans invest a lot of money in game software. Maintaining backward compatibility helps to protect any investments made late in the console's life cycle. Gamers don't have to worry about whether or not they'll be able to play their brand new games in a few months time without the inconvenience of changing TV hookups. This is even more critical for developers because it makes them able to continue developing software for the old console right up until the end without worrying about the user base evaporating completely in a couple months - keeping a healthy perception of the console and the company that makes it in the public mind.
That, in short, is why backward compatibility is critical for the Revolution: without it, the GC will likely falter, pundits will hail the death of Nintendo at the hands of Sony and MS, and the Revolution launch will be blunted because of it.
Sadly, backward compatibility for the Revolution is not sufficient to prevent the GC from faltering; many believe that it already has. Still, it is best not to make the situation any worse than it already is. Sony, and probably even MS can handle the PR hit from breaking backward compatibility. Nintendo cannot.
Interestingly, this argument tells you exactly how far your backward compatibility should extend in a console: 1 generation (or however long it takes to protect the investments based on game life cycles). The library argument, if it were the primary reason, would advise maintenance of backward compatibility forever. This argument puts a limit on how much backward compatibility is worth the effort, and how much is not. Granted, there is some small benefit in more backward compatibility, but it is small compared to the first generation.
BlackGriffen
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: Ian Sane on December 13, 2004, 12:20:11 PM
I agree completely that the N64's sudden death seriously hurt the Cube. With the N64 it was one day it just went "THUD!" and suddenly there were no more games coming out. This unfortunately happened around the same time the Dreamcast died so Sony just dominated gaming media. Nintendo was out of sight and out of mind and they've never really gone back in. They disappeared and no one noticed when they came back. It doesn't help that people assumed that the Cube would have the same lame third party support and huge release gaps that the N64 had and then Nintendo went and proved them right by having only one playable third party Cube game at E3 followed by a huge release drought in early 2002. But anyway I agree that Nintendo disappearance for six months hurt. I also think they lost some fans during that time who grew bored of waiting and went somewhere else.
I agree that the Revolution has to be backwards compatible and that Cube games, even if Nintendo's the only one making them, have to made right into the Revolution launch. I think for the Rev to even succeed Nintendo has to do nearly everything perfect and not give anyone an excuse to criticize. Backwards compatibility is thus needed. Regardless of anything the PS3 is going to have backwards compatibility and the Revolution can't have missing features. The Cube was all lame excuses. No one is going to accept any excuses even if they're worthwhile with the Revolution. It's like if Nintendo gives anyone a reason to not care then people aren't going to care. So something as trivial as no backwards compatibility can seriously hurt the perception of a console that is going to have probably the steepest uphill battle ever.
Title: RE:The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: StRaNgE on December 14, 2004, 08:24:25 AM
i hope they go through with it , would be nice to chunk my old systems and only have the new one yet still be able to play the games of old without waiting till they put them out on a gameboy. lol
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on December 24, 2004, 08:25:59 AM
Yeah. From the get-go.
Instead of asking people in polls on your website if you'd like to see it, making it unbelievably obvious that you plan on doing it no matter what.
From the get-go.
Title: RE:The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: Morien on December 30, 2004, 02:01:41 AM
Quote Originally posted by: BlackGriffen The reason why is the real reason for maintaining backward compatibility: maintaining software investment. Both developers and fans invest a lot of money in game software. Maintaining backward compatibility helps to protect any investments made late in the console's life cycle. Gamers don't have to worry about whether or not they'll be able to play their brand new games in a few months time without the inconvenience of changing TV hookups
Oh, how I would love to play my N64 games.... Just think... Ocarina of Time (version 1.0 with red blood and chants), Majora's Mask (without sound glitches, crashes and extremley expensive price tags on ebay), Goldeneye, Conker, Mario 64 for crying out loud...
I'll be the first to say that I would rather play games legally on a console then having to resort to glitchy emulation. And I would pay for an adapter too. Especially if N64 style controllers were released for use with it on the Gamecube (and all for a reasonable price). MY N64 CONTROLLER(S) ARE DEAD!
Sigh. All that money spent on N64 games.... down the drain...
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: KDR_11k on December 30, 2004, 05:01:50 AM
Nintendo of Europe once polled whether people would be interested in an "N64 player" accessory for the GC but FAIK the overwhelming response was "no".
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: Savior on December 30, 2004, 06:29:42 PM
The Problem is it might need two Drives. One for DVD/Revolution games and one for GCN games. I do want it though
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: KDR_11k on December 30, 2004, 10:20:03 PM
Nope, if it's going with caseless BRDs you'd merely need two lasers (or you are Sony and build an easily breaking lens apparatus) in the drive.
Title: RE:The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: Savior on December 31, 2004, 06:44:05 PM
Didnt the Panasonic System, use two Drives?
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: KDR_11k on December 31, 2004, 08:59:26 PM
Nope. Maybe two laser assemblies but you only need one motor and stuff.
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: norebonomis on January 01, 2005, 08:32:11 PM
one. i think the n5 (i know it's called revolution now but i sill like n5) should play dvds two. i think the n5 should be backward compatible. three. to be ultra-backward-compatible nintendo should set up a (think iTMS) online game store where you can download older games; including nes, snes, n64, gb, gbc, gba, ds, etc. , and play them off of a hard drive. i don't know how feasable this is, but i think the medium-core to hard-core gamers would enjoy it. nintendo could then boast the biggest game library of any console ever made.
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: KDR_11k on January 01, 2005, 08:49:55 PM
3. You mean like the iQue?
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: nickmitch on January 02, 2005, 06:26:03 AM
Buying DS games and downloading them on the revolution wouldn't work because you would lack the touch screen.
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: norebonomis on January 02, 2005, 07:29:54 AM
oh true, forgot about that, unless the revolution has some kind of compatible computer
Title: RE: The Case for Revolution Backward Compatibility
Post by: Zach on January 02, 2005, 01:18:10 PM
who is to say that the revelution wont have a touch screen of some kind?
