Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

After all the uproar over whether Microsoft will include backwards compatibility in XBox 2, I thought it would be interesting to see in a non-console specific way what people feel about backwards compatibility. So answer for me, if you will, these questions three. Feel free to justify your answers. Please try to keep console-specific discussion out of it where possible: I'm looking at the general question of backwards compatibility.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

 

[shpankey]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Not to a large extent. It's is very small importance on my list. On the very bottom I'd say (Hard Drive is at the absolute TOP). It would be a nice feature and if it made everyone happy, I'm all for it. It would probably only come in handy for me very VERy rarely.


2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

No.


3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$40

 

[SolidSnakex]

"1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?"

It depends really. The next Xbox is the only one i'm not sure i'll buy right at launch, as i'm already sure i'll be getting a PS3 and GC2. But if I were able to trade in my Xbox 1 for an Xbox2 while knowing I could still use the Xbox games I have with the Xbox 2 that'd make it a must have at launch too.

"2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?"

It's just as desirable on both imo.

"3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?"

20-30 dollars I guess.

 

[Kon Tiki]

As the industry gets larger (more and more machines fighting for my TV), I think the less machines hooked up to my TV the better. I am one of those few gamers that still plays 8bit and 16bit games.

If a Next generation machine can eliminate one machine, It is a strong selling point. You may argue no machine has NES, SNES, SMS, Genny B/C, the xbox has taken care of all those machines.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Yes. Not a large part, it may determine what consoles I buy first.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

To the general public, yes.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$50, then again, I do not buy launch consoles.

 

[iapetus]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

No. I've already got all of the current-gen consoles, and I'll happily make room for another box somehow. I'm more interested in developer support, software line-up and the aesthetics/footprint of the box (easy stackability would be nice if I'm having to add machines to my shelves rather than replace them). I see myself as a bit of a collector, so I'd actually prefer to have the old machine as well.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

More desirable. I've got plenty of shelf space for consoles, but with handhelds it all comes down to what I can carry with me when I'm out and about, or on holiday. I'd rather carry a single device that can play all the games I want.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$5-$10 or so, I suppose. Possibly a bit more, because I'm a complete technology whore, but I'd know deep down it was a bad decision.

 

[Pug]

1. Nope but new games will.
2. Don't care, at my age even PSP's lovely screen is way to small for my eye to focus properly.
3. £1 (Becasue that how much effort it take to plug your old console in)

 

[MightyHedgehog]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

No.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

Don't really care.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$30

 

[tenchir]

I am definitely getting a GC2 and PS3 at launch simply because IF there aren't many games I am interested at launch, I can always play my old games on them till the ones I want, comes out.

I didn't buy an XBOX for nearly a full year until there were enough games that I wanted to play(about 3). I bought PS2 at launch with NO games(their launch games suck) simply because of BC and I still have PS1 games I haven't finished.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

At launch? Yes. Over time? Not significantly.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

I would treat it the same as TV-based consoles.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

About half the price of the console it is emulating(If XBOX was 100 dollar once XBOX2 comes out, then I am willing to pay up to 50 dollar).

 

[Brofist]

Yeah who cares really. If you want to play Xbox 1 games just keep your current Xbox. By the time Xbox 2 is released it'll be worth like $20 trade in anyway.

 

[AniHawk]

After all the uproar over whether Microsoft will include backwards compatibility in XBox 2, I thought it would be interesting to see in a non-console specific way who actually cares. So answer for me, if you will, these questions three. Feel free to justify your answers. Please try to keep console-specific discussion out of it where possible: I'm looking at the general question of backwards compatibility.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

1. I might sell my PS2 for my PS3 if I can.

2. I'd say more desirable. Imagine if I wanted to play Tetris on the road. I'd need 4 AA batteries, and an old GB which isn't backlit. Handhelds have advance much differently than home systems have hardware-wise.

3. $30

To directly answer the question of who cares about BC? Mostly people who haven't bought the prior system.

 

[Pug]

So technir you bought the PS2 at launch to play PS1 games? Err why didn't you just play them on your PS1 and buy the PS2 when it had the games you wanted at probably a cheaper price. If there were more gamers like you MS would include BC as standard!

 

[thorns]

As if there weren't already many 5+ page threads on this subject.. :yawn

 

[tenchir]

So technir you bought the PS2 at launch to play PS1 games? Err why didn't you just play them on your PS1 and buy the PS2 when it has the game you wanted at probably a cheaper price. If there were more gamers like you MS would include BC as standard!

It's more than that, I have to flip my PS1 upside down to play games. I haven't finished Vagrant Story which I read in the magazine looked good on the PS2 with filtering enabled. I also heard that it will speed up loading time on games. So even without good games, aren't these enough reasons to get the system? I know I can always buy a new PS1 cheap, but even if it isn't screwy, are the filtering and faster loading enough of a reason?

It's also nice that I don't have to take out my old PS1 or GB/GBC, just to play them since they are compatible on my PS2 and GBASP.

 

[iapetus]

To directly answer the question of who cares about BC? Mostly people who haven't bought the prior system.

I thought about making a fourth question about that, but wanted to keep it down to three. I'm expecting more people to be buying the next version of a console that they already have rather than a new system (brand loyalty counts), though. And I'm always surprised by how many people say they can't go back and play older generation games because of how bad the graphics/framerate are - even to the extent of refusing to play Dreamcast games.

As if there weren't already many 5+ page threads on this subject.. :yawn

Many 5+ flamewars on Microsoft and backwards compatibility. I wanted to draw the subject out and see how it affected GA gamers in general in a way that wouldn't devolve into a single-system flamewar, and none of the other threads seem particularly apt for that.

 

[Kiriku]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

1) It may have a certain minor impact on my decisions, but it's far from being the most primary feature I look for when buying a new console.

2) From a rational point of view it's more desirable for a handheld IMO, since you don't have to carry around two or three handhelds if you got backwards compatibility. With that said, a built-in HDD to store games on would be even better in that regard (no juggling with carts/discs), but that's another discussion.

3) Always hard to say, since we never know if and how much the price increases anyway. But in your scenario, I wouldn't like to spend too much on backwards compatibility. US $20-25 at most.

 

[Chrono]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Not for the playstation, or gamecube. Xbox 2, on the other hand, would be more interesting to me if I can play xbox games like Ninja Gaiden on it. I never liked enough games on the xbox to buy it (only orta and gaiden.. maybe fable) but if there are several on xbox 2, being able to play the select games I missed from xbox is a plus that would push me into buying one.

I'm already decided on PS 3 for square_enix and Nintendo for EAD.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

I don't play handhelds a lot, so backwards compatibilty is no big deal as long as there are good games on the one I have.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

relative to the worth of the games on the past console. I'd say 50 dollars extra is the limit for me if I had to choose between two consoles, one with bc and the other without it. Of course if I'm buying a console backward compatible with one that I ALREADY have then it's not worth much. maybe 25$ just for the convenience.

 

[gofreak]

For Xbox2, backwards compatability does make a difference for me, since I don't have an Xbox. I was thinking of getting one in the next month or two, but if Xbox2 is as close as next Christmas, I could well hold off, especially since it's still priced so high here in Europe. Xbox2 being backwards compatible would help that decision..if it's not, I'm more likely to get an Xbox now, and hold off on the Xbox2 till it has a price drop, rather than get it at launch.

The hard-drive, however, hardly matters to me. I can't understand people who say it's indisposable..game consoles haven't had harddrives up to now, and they've done fine. They're useful in certain types of game, but for those types of games I'm more likely to be using my PC anyway. And with higher capacity removable media (memory cards), a harddisk could be redundant anyway.

 

[DarienA]

Kudos on setting up a survey with questions designed to support the answer you've already come to a conclusion that you wish to support.

 

[slayn]

no

don't care

$0

 

[6.8]

1) Sway? No. But it would favour a console I didn't own in the previoius generation.

2) More desirable, since handhelds have the whole interface on them. If they breakdown, you can't just repair a controller/buy a new controller, you have to do something to the unit itself.

3) $20

 

[iapetus]

Kudos on setting up a survey with questions designed to support the answer you've already come to a conclusion that you wish to support.

I thought I'd done a pretty good job of keeping the questions neutral. And I'm not sure that there is a conclusion I wish to support - in fact I'm pretty sure there isn't. I know whether I care about backwards compatibility personally, but I don't expect my answers to apply to everyone else, because I don't feel that I'm necessarily a typical gamer. Perhaps you could let me know what conclusion I wish to support and how the questions are biased towards that conclusion.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Unless games can be enhanced considerably, I don't even want backwards compatability. Tends to hold hardware back in certain areas.

In fact, if Sony and M$ don't make their next consoles media hubs in addition to game playing machines, my modded XBOX will be in heavy rotation throughout the next gen.

Way too much functionality to put aside.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

I care especially with PS3!! I wanna be able to play both my PSX and PS2 games!

 

[kaching]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Yes.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

Same.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$50

 

[Christberg]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

I was thinking about buying an Xbox next so yes. Now I'll hold off because I don't want games that are obsolete a year from now. As far as next generation systems go, more than in the past but still not quite so big a deal as I may have made it out to be.

Having less things plugged into your TV is always a good thing. Collectorism be damned. Cheap as heck last gen games are always nice, too.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

More desirable on a handheld because of carrying space reasons. That said, it's a pretty nice feature in home systems, too, especially for the first year- although hoestly if the GC had backward compatibility I'd still be playing Mario64 occasionally.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

The cost shouldn't be very much, maybe $10-20 tops.

 

[Leon]

.

 

[Prospero]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

1. BC wouldn't make me buy a next-gen console for which I don't already own the current model, but it would help convince me to buy a console for which I already own this gen's model.

2. I don't care about BC for handhelds, but I do care about it for consoles.

3. $50.

 

[TaleSynz]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Yes, I will buy a system that can play my older games before I buy something that can't

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

More or less the same....

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$30

 

[The Faceless Master]

1) yes

2) even

3) $50

 

[pilonv1]

1)No. Games lineups will because thats all that matters. Funny how some here are showing their alliegences stating what they will and wont buy based on a bunch of specs and history.

2)More since I'd prefer not to have a few handheld systems to carry around if I wanted to play older games.

3)Maybe $20 just to clear some space. I really dont care though since I own all three consoles and if PS2 wasn't backwards compatible I'd have picked up a cheap PSX.

 

[Yossarian]

1. It might. I cannot predict the future, but my PS1 broke shortly before the PS2 came out, so backwards compatibility was a major influence in my decision to purchase a PS2.

2. Much, much, more important. I can have multiple consoles sitting around my TV set, but when I travel, I only have room for a single portable system in my pocket.

3. Trade in value for the earlier system + $10 (the value, to me, of the space I save)

 

[User 406]

I have to agree with Darien here. I could technically answer question 1 with a straight no, even though backwards compatibility is an important feature to me. A good additional first question would be, "Is backwards compatibility important to you and why?" The other three questions can determine how much.

My answers:

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

No, although I'd be very disappointed if it weren't included. I have enough confidence in my console line of choice to keep bringing me the games I want in quantities I can't keep up with, which is the most important factor. However, I value the continuity and convenience that backwards compatibility provides, and I certainly would be less likely to buy any further games for the previous system if it wasn't available. I'd also be far more likely to switch consoles in the future if another console managed to gain an equivalent game lineup. So in a sense, the lack of backwards compatibility may not sway my next purchase outright, but it could influence one further down the line.

Fortunately, the commitment towards backwards compatibility was made a long time ago, and is in fact one of the reasons I'm loyal to the brand.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

I'd say equally. I don't have a handheld, but if I did, the same thoughts would apply.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

The standard answer here will probably be $50, since that's approximately the expected price for the older system at the time the new system comes out, but I'd prefer to approach this question a different way. Given two console brands with equivalent game lineups and features, I will pick the one that better supports my library of games from beginning to end over the one that does not, regardless of price.


BTW, Iapetus, if you haven't played it already, download Escape Velocity Nova NOW. Every fan of Elite needs to check it out. http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/games/evn/

 

[PanopticBlue]

1)No, it would be nice certainly but I will buy any and all forthcoming console and handhelds regardless of backwards compatibility. Hell, I bought a PSone after I bought a PS2...and I still had my launch psx.

2) Er maybe...I would still have bought a GBA at launch regardless.

3) $30 - $40

 

[P90]

After all the uproar over whether Microsoft will include backwards compatibility in XBox 2, I thought it would be interesting to see in a non-console specific way who actually cares. So answer for me, if you will, these questions three. Feel free to justify your answers. Please try to keep console-specific discussion out of it where possible: I'm looking at the general question of backwards compatibility.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

1. Yes, but see #3.

2. The push goes to the home console as there are only so many slots in an entertainment center and input jacks on a TV.

3. Assuming said system has more exclusive quality content other than just Halo and Halo2 to be BC with, $50.

Moral of the story: PS3 and Revolution are on my "to buy" list. Xbox next is not.

 

[P90]

2. Don't care, at my age even PSP's lovely screen is way to small for my eye to focus properly.

So true for me, too. Some aspects of getting old suck.

 

[GashPrex]

Who cares? I don't

 

[Lyte Edge]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Nope.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

I'd prefer to have it on both. It's not a crucial feature, but it's nice to be able to sell off the older hardware and free up some space. I also like that the PS2 lets you increase load times and smooth out the look of most games, and the GBC/GBA let you add color to B/W GB games.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

No idea; maybe another $50. Somehow I don't think whether it would increase the price or not would even affect the prices of the new consoles anyway. If a new system would cost $300, and taking out the backwards compatiblity would save the company $50 per system, I doubt they'd make it $250...why not profit off the money saved?

In any case, the average consumer DOES care, at least, they do for consoles. It was definitely a big factor in the PS2's inital launch success. I still get a large number of customers that have no idea that both the GBA and PS2 can play older games, though.

 

[DarienA]

I thought I'd done a pretty good job of keeping the questions neutral. And I'm not sure that there is a conclusion I wish to support - in fact I'm pretty sure there isn't. I know whether I care about backwards compatibility personally, but I don't expect my answers to apply to everyone else, because I don't feel that I'm necessarily a typical gamer. Perhaps you could let me know what conclusion I wish to support and how the questions are biased towards that conclusion.

Simply put iap it's an old psych trick to word the topic of a survey negatively towards the item you are really set against. So in this instance Who cares has the obviously meaning do you care... but with the underlying psychological meaning of bah who cares?

In the end I think few people will say they'll flat out NOT by a console because of a lack of BC, but that BC would be a nice feature for space/ease of use reasons.

Coco makes an interesting point that brings up the Legacy issue that PC hardware manufacturers deal with(and have done so by elimination pieces of the years... ISA slots, floppy's now becoming an option).

BC does lock you into having to support "legacy" devices... an depending on what's going on in upper management or the R&D department. IF there is down the road a sudden huge shift in philosophy... OR if you go from creating everything in house to pulling your pieces together off the shelf... or pulling your off the shelf pieces from a new provider then yeah you can create series legacy support issues for yourself.

In the PC industry that's more of a problem because of the "general" usage of PC's. However with a gaming console I can't see how locking yourself in to a legacy track could hurt such a narrow focus machine... but then again who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Finally the lack or addition of BC is also a psychological selling ploy. Whether it means much to EVERY purchaser it's a feature that can be touted as "available" on this machine... and not on that machine.

 

[heavy liquid]

1. No. But I realize that I'm not a casual gamer.

2. Equal.

3. Like a lot have said, it's hard to put a figure on it. I'd say anywhere up to about $50.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

1)It will sway it merely in my time frame for jumping to the next version. If they have good games I'll trade in the old one faster and buy it probably if it's BC. On the other hand, it effected my purchases this gen not at all. I didn't rush to get a PS2, the GC didn't have it and I bought the Xbox first.

2)Same deal.

3)Not much.

 

[Gek54]

I loved replaying my old PSX games with faster loading and improved graphics.

 

[cja]

1. No. Most overrated feature on a console.

2. More desirable. You don't want to be carrying two handhelds around but having a couple of extra boxes under the TV is hardly a problem.

3. 10 pence, but only if they accept a grimy coin with a bit of gum on.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Who cares? I certainly do. Xbox will not live forever, its DVD drive and most likely and certainly its HDD will fail at one point.

Also, its simply a question of space, if i can keep my xbox library and play it on xbox next, im getting rid of my old xbox, rather than having PS3 + GCN2 + xbox next + xbox, you know how much space that takes? We dont all have the luxary of having messy rooms full of consoles.

I would pay an additional 50$ easily. But i thought MS had almost an infinite ammount of money to pour over the xbox division to make xbox next compete against PS3, now they dont even want to invest into emulating xbox or implementing the chipsets in it for BC?

 

[iapetus]

Simply put iap it's an old psych trick to word the topic of a survey negatively towards the item you are really set against. So in this instance Who cares has the obviously meaning do you care... but with the underlying psychological meaning of bah who cares?

Ah, so not the questions themselves but the title. I'm with you now. I'm sorry, I can't resist an opportunity for wordplay - I'll rename the thread for the sake of neutrality, though. I'm genuinely interested in the answers people have to give rather than having any particular viewpoint I want to encourage - it's not like Microsoft are paying me to conduct a survey with particular results, after all.

In the PC industry that's more of a problem because of the "general" usage of PC's. However with a gaming console I can't see how locking yourself in to a legacy track could hurt such a narrow focus machine... but then again who knows what tomorrow will bring.

I understand Sony have already used it as an excuse for not providing more than two controller ports - but then that's probably more to do with PR and damage control than actual technical damage caused by BC.

Finally the lack or addition of BC is also a psychological selling ploy. Whether it means much to EVERY purchaser it's a feature that can be touted as "available" on this machine... and not on that machine.

True, but every machine's going to have something along these lines, and if BC isn't being included it's probably - directly or indirectly - going to result in another feature that can be pushed as an advantage (whether that's a more powerful and entirely new architecture, a lower manufacturing cost, or an earlier launch date). And if it doesn't, there's always Blast Processing...

 

[JJConrad]

I have to agree with Darien here. I could technically answer question 1 with a straight no, even though backwards compatibility is an important feature to me. A good additional first question would be, "Is backwards compatibility important to you and why?" The other three questions can determine how much.

Doesn't the third question basically answer how much? I'm a little confused abou the people who are claiming that BC has no sway on them, but are then willing to pay as much as 25% more for the console because if it.


1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Depends on the system. BC for the PS3 is more important than the Xbox2 because there are more games I'd be interested in using it for. Who would really give a damn if the N-Gage 2 had it or not?
There are more important things; Games, Price, & Power would be the top 3 (with Games having far greater swaying power). I would place BC ahead of having a HD, CD/DVD playback or someone of the other non-sense things we argue over here. If all things were equal, yes, BC would sway me.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

I would say more... at least for me. I've found that I don't play any of my old Gameboy games too often, anymore, while I've found myself getting several collection discs in the last few years.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

Again, depends on the system. But seeing as most companies don't pass these extra expenses on to the consumer... If Sony (or anyone) came back and claimed that they were charging us an extra $50 just because of BC, I'd give 'em a great big F U!!

Maybe $25...maybe.

 

[Carm]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

No b/c, no sale. Although I may give Nintendo a pass next gen, depending on if they wise up about online play.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

Less desirable on handhelds, for the simple fact that I don't purchase them, unless the GBA Player counts in some way.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

Half of the cost of the last gens price when the new gen is released (est. $50).

 

[anotheriori]

1) No, Just a convience if you missed out pick up an old Xbox/ps1 don't hear people complaining about n64 bc.

2) Same

3) The cheaper the price the better.

 

[----]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Yes. For many many reasons. Having features like DVD playback and backwards compatibility takes the risk out of buying a new piece of hardware. There is always the possiblity your next video game console may not be viable on the market for more than 15 months.

Sony instilled their previous Playstation owners with confidence in PS2 when they released the first fully backwards compatible game console out of the box. Consequently Sony was the first console manufacturer to maintain control of the home console business 2 generations in a row. Nintendo has maintained BC through all versions of the Gameboy and as a result their control of the market has been unshakable to this point.

Backwards compatibility instills confidence in a company and their hardware and it instills loyalty towards their brand.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

Both are extremely desirable. It is a little more desirable on a console because software and accessories for consoles cost more than they do for handhelds.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

$30-$40 Even if they had to sell a DVD dongle type of add-on to justify the cost and discourage people from using the Xbox 2 for playing Xbox 1 games I'd be a lot happier than if the console didn't have BC at all.

 

[human5892]

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

Yes -- I plan on getting the Revolution, but if it does not feature BC, I may wait a while and finish off old GC titles before I shelve it. If it features BC, I will buy it immediately.

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

They're both equally desirable.

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

If it did without benefitting the console in any other way (i.e., the PS2's PSOne chip doing other things), I would be willing to pay an extra $50. If the BC tech had other functionality besides BC, though, this becomes sort of an irrelevant question.

 

[Tenguman]

After all the uproar over whether Microsoft will include backwards compatibility in XBox 2, I thought it would be interesting to see in a non-console specific way what people feel about backwards compatibility. So answer for me, if you will, these questions three. Feel free to justify your answers. Please try to keep console-specific discussion out of it where possible: I'm looking at the general question of backwards compatibility.

1) Will the presence or absence of backwards compatibility in any way sway your next console purchasing decision?

2) Is backwards compatibility more or less desirable on handhelds as opposed to TV-based consoles?

3) Assuming that backwards compatibility increases the price of a console (not always true), how much extra would you be willing to spend for that functionality?

This isn't the best place to take this poll. You'd get much broader and more accurate results by polling customers at different eb and gamestop locations.