Instead of, you know, allowing backward compatibility? That's retarded.
So the PS3 had backwards compatibility by having some PS2 chips inside. That made the launch consoles 600 bucks and the price cuts only went down when they made revisions that didn't have those chips in, hence no more backwards compatibility. The 360 did use emulation, but it was buggy and initially only actually supported backwards compatibility of a select list of games. By the time MS had given up on the project it had never had backwards compatibility for the full list of games. In fact the final list was about 50% of xbox library and MS realized by that time nobody cared about backwards compatibility since the 360/PS3 generation was in full swing so everybody was playing 360/PS3 games.
So then, if you were in a console maker's decision, you can learn from the past. Once again make the console more expensive because you had to put more chips to make it backwards compatible, or do some emulation which can be buggy and even after 2-3 years of revision by the very same guys that made the original hardware to emulate, still isn't perfect. Remember, during those times, you had been paying a team of coders to work on the emulation so thats just more money you spent.
Or maybe, the one being retarded is the one that thinks you can just flip a switch and turn backwards compatibility on without any extra cost.
Log in to comment