That wasn't greed, but simply a necessarily to get the price down. Lets not forget that the PS3 lauched at something like $500 or so and then quickly went down to $300 after they have thrown the BC, the memory card slots, USB slots, etc. They simply cut corners. Also PS3 is still fully PS1 compatible, even so you can actually buy PS1 titles in the shop. Unlike PS2 titles which you can't buy in the shop as they wouldn't run as plain ROM dumps, but have to be ported to the PS3 manually (and only very few titles ever got that treatment).One of the worst imaginable things a company ever did this generation was Sony removing BC for PS3. It was mean, it was greedy, it was stupid, and it was unfair, especially since it launched with BC already. Seeing another company do that is nothing to be happy about, and much less defend it.
Wii U
Platform »
The Nintendo Wii U, the follow-up to the monstrously popular Nintendo Wii console, launched in North America on November 18th 2012.
Wii U Does Not Play GameCube Games
That is a bullshit argument. The reason people want backward compatibility isn't because they Gamecube magically vanishes when WiiU archives, but because it is a hell of a lot more comfortable to have one console connected to your TV then three. The new controllers often are also better and with the PS3 for example you have virtual memory cards, so you no longer need to buy those overpriced outdated things. You of course also get better picture quality via HDMI, that you never got with the original hardware and old hardware doesn't last forever.For people who have a Wii, then they can already play their Gamecube games on that so they have no reason to bitch.
I still have all my NES, SNES, N64, etc. around, but I don't expect to use them again anytime soon, thanks to "backward compatibility" that my PC provides (aka emulators).
@Willy105 said:So you don't think this argument works for Nintendo too? jesus, it's like you just thought "Hey let's bitch on Nintendo, but everything Sony does is completely reasonable".That wasn't greed, but simply a necessarily to get the price down. Lets not forget that the PS3 lauched at something like $500 or so and then quickly went down to $300 after they have thrown the BC, the memory card slots, USB slots, etc. They simply cut corners. Also PS3 is still fully PS1 compatible, even so you can actually buy PS1 titles in the shop. Unlike PS2 titles which you can't buy in the shop as they wouldn't run as plain ROM dumps, but have to be ported to the PS3 manually (and only very few titles ever got that treatment).One of the worst imaginable things a company ever did this generation was Sony removing BC for PS3. It was mean, it was greedy, it was stupid, and it was unfair, especially since it launched with BC already. Seeing another company do that is nothing to be happy about, and much less defend it.
@Willy105 said:I always wondered if it was actually cutting corners, or just a clever marketing strategy. Think, at the time they cut out BC, they were still selling PS2's. So if they cut out BC, people who want to play both the PS3 games and the previous PS2 library have to invest in both consoles. Then they begin to have re-releases of PS2 games (such as GOW) in HD, since many on the PS3 own slim's or some variation without BC - the audience for this game increases. The PS1 games they release on the store now will also have a larger audience, rather than people buying $1/2 PS1 games off Ebay to play on a BC console (or play from your PS1 library) - Sony wants you to repurchase from them.That wasn't greed, but simply a necessarily to get the price down. Lets not forget that the PS3 lauched at something like $500 or so and then quickly went down to $300 after they have thrown the BC, the memory card slots, USB slots, etc. They simply cut corners. Also PS3 is still fully PS1 compatible, even so you can actually buy PS1 titles in the shop. Unlike PS2 titles which you can't buy in the shop as they wouldn't run as plain ROM dumps, but have to be ported to the PS3 manually (and only very few titles ever got that treatment).One of the worst imaginable things a company ever did this generation was Sony removing BC for PS3. It was mean, it was greedy, it was stupid, and it was unfair, especially since it launched with BC already. Seeing another company do that is nothing to be happy about, and much less defend it.
Of course, it could just be cutting off cost from the PS3 by taking out tech. But this is something worth thinking about.
Same here. I never got rid of my Game Cube, mostly due to the Game Boy player add on. I usually just play my GC games on the actual GC rather than on the Wii.Fortunately my Wii is sitting right next to my Gamecube... figure I'll just stack the Wii U on top the Wii and not worry too much about it. Though, shit, it sucks when the first two eventually conk out, oh well, by then Virtual Console will have Gamecube games.
Fair enough but it means I'll need to keep my Wii and my WiiU plugged in. Play wii games on my WiiU and Gamecube games on my Wii.
Would've been cool to keep GC games compatible but would've been asking a bit much.
Well I am already happy that my Wii plays GC games, but it would have been really nice to play GC games on the Wiiu, but by that point I am feeling like my GC gameplay days are going to significantly drop off. Even today I can't believe I am still playing GC games such as Luigi's Mansion and Crazy taxi.
@Grumbel said:
@DeeGee said:That is a bullshit argument. The reason people want backward compatibility isn't because they Gamecube magically vanishes when WiiU archives, but because it is a hell of a lot more comfortable to have one console connected to your TV then three. The new controllers often are also better and with the PS3 for example you have virtual memory cards, so you no longer need to buy those overpriced outdated things. You of course also get better picture quality via HDMI, that you never got with the original hardware and old hardware doesn't last forever. I still have all my NES, SNES, N64, etc. around, but I don't expect to use them again anytime soon, thanks to "backward compatibility" that my PC provides (aka emulators).For people who have a Wii, then they can already play their Gamecube games on that so they have no reason to bitch.
Well congrats on illegally downloading roms I guess? But this whole idea of 'comfort' blows my mind. I don't think you know what that word means, since it doesn't make sense here. How can having two consoles next to your TV be uncomfortable? Does it make you itch or something?
My TV has my 360 and my Wii next to it. I have no problem with this. Hell, there's space for a PS3 if I ever decide to get one. You must be obsessive compulsive I guess.
@Grumbel said:
@Willy105 said:That wasn't greed, but simply a necessarily to get the price down. Lets not forget that the PS3 lauched at something like $500 or so and then quickly went down to $300 after they have thrown the BC, the memory card slots, USB slots, etc. They simply cut corners. Also PS3 is still fully PS1 compatible, even so you can actually buy PS1 titles in the shop. Unlike PS2 titles which you can't buy in the shop as they wouldn't run as plain ROM dumps, but have to be ported to the PS3 manually (and only very few titles ever got that treatment).One of the worst imaginable things a company ever did this generation was Sony removing BC for PS3. It was mean, it was greedy, it was stupid, and it was unfair, especially since it launched with BC already. Seeing another company do that is nothing to be happy about, and much less defend it.
The weird thing to me is that the PS3 should be powerful enough to emulate PS2 games even without the PS2 hardware inside. PC's have been capable of running PS2 games through emulation for years. Most games don't work very well, and most get terrible framerates, but those emulators are reverse engineered, SCE with access to the exact design specifications of the PS2 should be able to emulate the PS2 much more effectively.
But people are complaining about not being able to use the GameCube controller, and considering most PS3s can't even play PS2 games, I don't really see why you would use it as your shining example of backwards compatibility. In any case, I don't see why people are so upset about this. "I can't play games that'll be 10 years old by the time this comes out unless I don't sell the thing I already have." And selling a console in the first place just seems batshit crazy to me. I've still got my N64 hooked up and ready to play games any time I feel like some Mario Tennis.@TehFlan said:
I'm surprised anyone expected them to put GC controller ports or memory card slots on the thing. That wouldn't make sense.Why would you need GC ports and memory card slots? My PS3 can play PS1 games just fine without any of that, thanks to virtual memory cards stored on the HDD and compatibility between the controllers.
Also: Don't talk about illegal activities. Kind of against the forum rules.
That's the exact reason why we needed Nintendo to release one of these:
@DG991 said:
@fisk0: But then people might not buy the HD re releases!!!
It is business
Yeah, there are lots of reasons for not to do it, I'm just wondering if the fact that they removed the PS2 hardware from the PS3 is the thing that really makes it impossible.
They could make it something of an subscription service that only PS+ users get access to, requiring PSN authentication and the latest firmware, giving people an incitement not to use custom firmware and to sign up for PlayStation Plus, in exchange for regular updates for the emulator to increase compatibility with more titles.
As there's a few cube games I want to play now that I have the Wii, this will definitely not make me want the Wii U on it's own. Considering how stupid easy the tech is in the Gamecube, it'd be easy to put in but figuring that they want to have the controller/memory (original stuff) plugged in instead of just doing it all digitally.
Put a PS1, PS2, PS3, Gamecube, SNES, N64 along with a dozen controllers next to it and see how comfy that is. Most TV's don't even have enough inputs to handle that and most TV shelves won't fit that many either. The point of backward compatibility is simply to have less stuff around and to be able to use the latest tech. Not having to buy PS1 memory cards thanks to PS3 not needing them is awesome. I'd like that for my Gamecube too, but WiiU can't do that (and Wii can't either).My TV has my 360 and my Wii next to it. I have no problem with this.
If that is to much to comprehend for you, sorry.
It has nothing to do with marketing as PS3 backward compatibility was actual costly hardware inside the PS3, they even tried to keep it going by replacing some PS2 hardware via software emulation, but that wasn't working perfectly. And when they through out all the PS2 hardware from the PS3 there was nothing left to run PS2 games.I always wondered if it was actually cutting corners, or just a clever marketing strategy.
The PS1 games they release on the store now will also have a larger audience, rather than people buying $1/2 PS1 games off Ebay to play on a BC console (or play from your PS1 library) - Sony wants you to repurchase from them.You can play any PS1 game on any PS3. No need to use the shop, you can if you want, but nobody is forcing you.
There are two problems, first one is that the PS3 isn't very powerful, it is actually quite weak as far as general purpose computing power goes. What makes the PS3 powerful are the SPUs, but those aren't general purpose processors and thus likely not of very much use for emulators. The second problem is that the PS2 has an equally weird architecture and emulating its vector processor with a general purpose one isn't very fast either.The weird thing to me is that the PS3 should be powerful enough to emulate PS2 games even without the PS2 hardware inside.
Could you in theory maybe somehow get it emulator to native PS2 speeds (via dynamic recompilation or whatever)? No idea, but it is certainly not an easy task.
When the emulator is good enough to actually run a game at all, you should no longer need official specs to optimize it. They wouldn't hurt either, but it goes to show that doing an PS2 emulator that actually performs as good as a real PS2 isn't that easy. Also keep in mind that a emulator that runs some things barely wouldn't be good enough for PS3 backward compatibility, you would need one that runs almost anything as good or better then a real PS2.PC's have been capable of running PS2 games through emulation for years. Most games don't work very well, and most get terrible framerates, but those emulators are reverse engineered, SCE with access to the exact design specifications of the PS2 should be able to emulate the PS2 much more effectively.
Hopefully you'll still be able to use Gamecube controllers with the games that support them. I have a hell of a time playing Smash Brothers with anything else.You won't. It really wouldn't make sense to remove GC compatibility and then spend money on providing controller ports. You should however be able to use the Classic Controller. In the very best case, maybe they could provide a USB adapter for the Gamecube controller, but its Nintendo we are speaking of, so I very much doubt it.
@Grumbel said:
@fisk0 said:There are two problems, first one is that the PS3 isn't very powerful, it is actually quite weak as far as general purpose computing power goes. What makes the PS3 powerful are the SPUs, but those aren't general purpose processors and thus likely not of very much use for emulators. The second problem is that the PS2 has an equally weird architecture and emulating its vector processor with a general purpose one isn't very fast either.The weird thing to me is that the PS3 should be powerful enough to emulate PS2 games even without the PS2 hardware inside.
Could you in theory maybe somehow get it emulator to native PS2 speeds (via dynamic recompilation or whatever)? No idea, but it is certainly not an easy task.When the emulator is good enough to actually run a game at all, you should no longer need official specs to optimize it. They wouldn't hurt either, but it goes to show that doing an PS2 emulator that actually performs as good as a real PS2 isn't that easy. Also keep in mind that a emulator that runs some things barely wouldn't be good enough for PS3 backward compatibility, you would need one that runs almost anything as good or better then a real PS2.PC's have been capable of running PS2 games through emulation for years. Most games don't work very well, and most get terrible framerates, but those emulators are reverse engineered, SCE with access to the exact design specifications of the PS2 should be able to emulate the PS2 much more effectively.
That was a great, somewhat in depth reply, I guess you could be right. Thanks.
Kind of wondering what the early EU PS3:s that were using software emulation due to the exclusion of the Emotion Engine played like though.
For hardware profit conscious company like Nintendo, it probably was borne out of cost profit analysis, where adoption of the new console due to a specific feature is weighed against the potential revenue generated by making older games available through other means, such as their eShop.
Why not? It would actually be quite trivial, if they would have had Gamecube compatibility in the WiiU, which should be to hard, all they would need is to release a simple USB adapter for reading NES, SNES and N64 cards, maybe even Gameboy stuff if you would go all the way. And while at it, provide a thing into which you can plug the old controllers as well. None of that is either hard or expensive, those adapters go for like $10 a piece. if you stick them all in a box you could have a universal compatible-to-almost-anything adapter and sell it for $50. Nintendo could totally do it if they actually wanted and homebrew people actually do build that stuff, while I don't expect such a thing to sell like crazy, it would make a great product when released on some anniversary of NES, SNES or whatever. I mean, heck, they actually sort of had that already with the GamecubePlayer and SuperGameboy (not quite the same as they where actual Gameboy hardware, not just adapters), so it wouldn't even be that far fetched.Well I don't expect a new Nintendo console to be backwards compatible with all past Nintendo consoles.
But yeah, selling you ROM dumps of games you already own makes them more money, so I don't expect such a thing to ever happen.
@Grumbel said:So where's the part where Nintendo makes people sell their old systems even though it's established that the new ones will not play those games? Or are we talking about people who never had the old system, in which case this argument makes no sense?@Forum_User said:its a greed thing, no question. No one sells you what you already paid for like Nintendo. I played halfway through Pokemon White before i realized it was for the most part no different from Pearl. the plan it to slightly improve (graphically) dozens of GC games, then sell them to you as digital downloads. Nintendo probably calls it free money.Where did this expectation of being backwards compatible two generations come from?Playstation3 can play Playstation1 games just fine. Also Wii and Gamecube are essentially the same hardware, just one is faster clocked then the other, so whatever can run Wii games should be able to run Gamecube games with very little extra effort. Essentially, since PC emulators can do it, there really isn't a good excuse for WiiU not being able to do it, as it either means Nintendo is just lazy or the hardware is quite a bit less powerful then hoped.
If people are going to buy games they already have just because they're too lazy to connect another piece of hardware or something, it's pretty funny to put all of the blame on Nintendo for cutting costs.
So where's the part where Nintendo makes people sell their old systems even though it's established that the new ones will not play those games?The point here is that backward compatibility doesn't generate money for Nintendo. People who already have the old system just gain a lot of comfort by backward compatibility, that's no money for Nintendo. People who don't have the old system might end up buying used games, that's not money for Nintendo either. So in essence, the only way to generate money via backward compatibility is when the old system is still alive enough to sell new games for it, which is probably the case with the Wii and certainly not the case with the Gamecube. Thus no backward compatibility, as the only one who would win would be the consumer.
Well, adding GameCube would just make people buy less games for the system if they buy and have tons of old games for the hooked up new system. I know I would.l at least.
td;dr fuck you, Sonic games are for casual gamers, Wii games suck in general.
So where's the part where Nintendo makes people sell their old systems even though it's established that the new ones will not play those games? Or are we talking about people who never had the old system, in which case this argument makes no sense? If people are going to buy games they already have just because they're too lazy to connect another piece of hardware or something, it's pretty funny to put all of the blame on Nintendo for cutting costs.when i buy the next xbox, i dont keep my old one. i know very few people who hang onto their old system when they get the next one. The economy is crud, and people like to get that free 30 bucks towards replacing their old system when they trade it in.
And its not always easy for people to dis and reconnect their systems. maybe your entertainment system makes it simple, but what if you only have two wall plugs, and your tv is shoved someplace thats easy to see but hard to get to? Now your struggling to unplugging the power and the A/V. And if you live with multiple people, you would have to do it every time, and someone else would keep changing it back. Your calling people who dont want to be inconvenienced lazy... but tell me you dont get pissed when you loose the remote and have to walk to change the channel.
Nintendo could have easily put that extra gig of software in to allow backwards compatibility and raised the price of the system to compensate( you know, like PS3 version1 and 360 did) . But thats only one extra 30 dollars they can charge. But this way, they can charge +20 bucks a game instead of +30 a system.
Its all about their cockiness. PS3 and 360 HAD to add backwards compatibility to compete with each other. Its would have been stupid for either of them not to. But there is no competition for the Wii U, so they can do what they want and you'll still buy it.
i find it funny you think Nintendo is trying to help you. Cutting cost? no. cutting costs would have been letting you do as much as possible with your system. If you have to buy something else to make up for what was "cut" for pricing... your being sold the chance to spend more money.
PS3 did it. Xbox did it. Its common sense to allow your system to do what others can. Its common sense for your more advanced system to be able to run less advanced programs. like say computers. It would be absolutely stupid for your new PC to be unable to play doom.@Sevan said:
its a greed thing, no question. No one sells you what you already paid for like Nintendo. I played halfway through Pokemon White before i realized it was for the most part no different from Pearl. the plan it to slightly improve (graphically) dozens of GC games, then sell them to you as digital downloads. Nintendo probably calls it free money.Great little conspiracy theory there. What you call greed is what I call common sense. For people who don't have a Wii, they get the option to buy loads of new updated Gamecube games that they've never played. For people who have a Wii, then they can already play their Gamecube games on that so they have no reason to bitch.
I mean, I doubt they'll even sell Gamecube games at all digitally, but even in the off chance they did, it's nothing but a good thing. Who are these idiots who will buy a new copy of a game they already own?
whats going on here is Nintendo doesnt want you to go to your neighborhood gamestop and buy Smashbrothers for 10 bucks with none of that money going to them... even though they already got their money from that game and its now 6 or 7 years old. Its a business strategy, but its not the thing you would do if you truly appreciate your customers.
Nintendo knows you will pay full price again to play their exclusive titles (see Zelda OoT coming out on 3DS). thats all thats going on here.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment