Rant about the status of consoles

[BoberFett]

I'm still pissed that my Gravis Ultrasound doesn't work in my new PC.

PCs almost never get obsolete. You can always just upgrade one part and make it so much faster.

ISA/VLB/PCI/AGP/PCIe will never change. Neither will Socket7/Slot1/Socket370/Socket378/LGA775/LGA1366/LGA1156. We can always count on PCs to allow full forward and backward compatibility.

 

[Lil Frier]

Nope...the fact that you didn't buy what his friends had. Just like everyone who got something other than an iPod.

I knew more people with Zunes than iPods...just sayin'

 

[HeXen]

I have plenty of games that I can't play on my modern PC. POP: sands of time, Beavis and Butthead, my original copy of Riven, several of my other old adventure games, Advent Rising, Omikron doesn't work right...I could go on.

It's usually not the hardware but the OS. Sometimes it's resolution issues, graphical problems or controls. MS keeps changing windows so much that many old school players opt to have a separate Windows 98 rig.

Want to play your old console games...don't get rid of your old consoles. Done.

 

[gorcorps]

Consoles have almost always been that way. The Wii using the gamecube controllers was pretty rare, and I guess the WiiU can use the Wiimotes... but other than those I don't remember one generation using the old generation controllers. Plus for years there was no way to play previous gen games either. The PS2 playing PSX games was a new thing, and it lasted for a couple generations but now we're back to the way things were once everybody realized that you get new games when you get a new console.

Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but it seems like a bunch of whining over the way things have always been. What'd you expect?

 

[iluvdeal]

Cartridge based systems had to change the cartridge interface so backwards compatibility wasn't really possible, the change to discs made it physically possible going from PSX to PS2. I guess the PS2 spoiled console gamers with the expectation they could pay their old games (you could also use PS1 controllers on PS2 btw, no wonder it's considered one of the best consoles of all time). Adding backwards compatibility is likely totally dead now as they can just sell you a monthly streaming service with access to previous gen games.

As for controller compatibility, adapters use to solve many of those problems. I recall using my PSX controllers on the original xbox with such an adapter. I'm not sure such accessories exist for the current gen consoles as I haven't looked into it. You gotta give Nintendo credit in this area, amazing to think they still support, manufacture, and sell a controller from a circa 2001 system for use with their current gen system. Sony and Microsoft would have just made you buy new controllers.

 

[mizzou]

I haven't completely read your OP but...I just wanted to chime in and say that call of duty advanced warfare has completely blown my expectations out of the water on the PS4. It's so silky smooth on 1080p it makes me giddy like a kid.

I had my doubts about this next gen console because it wasn't such a gargantuan leap over the ps3....but I must say I'm impressed.

 

[zerocool84]

So I'm guessing this is the first time the OP has ever looked at consoles. Backwards compatibility is not something that has been common throughout console history.

 

[yankeeDDL]

Well, thanks everyone for the comments (even the haters).
Indeed, I never looked into consoles and I doubt I'll do so in the near future.
I would like to reply to few of the questions/comments that were posted, just to "close" this discussion:
a) A good gaming PC is much more expensive than a console.
Not really true: this PC is $488 ($588 if you also need a Windows license): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-budget-gaming-pc,4021.html
and plays well at 1080p.
I happen to have bought an R9 270X recently for my 5-years old PC and it works quite well. I can pretty much max out anything @ 720p.
And, by the way, my <$200 270X probably has more "kick" than the GPU in either the PS4 or the X1.

b) You cannot play some very old PC games on modern PCs. True. It is usually an OS issue. I leave it there to avoid another long flamed discussion

c) Can't play Commodore 64 games on a PC. Aside from the fact that you can (at least most of them), via emulator, a more appropriate comparison would have been playing VIC20 games on Commodor64 and Commodore128, all of which was possible.
In any case, my "shock" came from two consecutive consoles of the same "brand" in a time where, you must admit, "innovation" is quite different than the massive leaps that took place 25+ years ago.

d) Consoles have always been that way. True, but there also used to be a whole lot of different platforms (meaning, more competition) and, again, 20 years ago the improvements year-over-year were not comparable with what we have today.

e) I remind that my main gripes were not with the backward compatibility of the games, but with the fact that the SAME online game (e.g.: Minecraft) does not allow shared games on the two platforms.

f) You cannot play modern PC games on old PC hardware because PC games improve constantly and adapt to the power of the hardware available.
Yes, this probably means that I won't be able to play 2018 games at high settings on my current PC, but if lower settings means something comparable to what I get today, it should still be quite awesome.

g) Last but not least: it is true that much of the lack of compatibility boils down to the use of different architecture (powerPC vs x86): still, this was, obviously, a fundamental decision by MS and Sony when the development of X1 and PS4 was started. Meaning, if they really wanted to, they could have chosen differently.
And again, I totally understand and respect this decision. It just surprises me that so many people choose to follow it: that's all.

 

[poofyhairguy]

still, this was, obviously, a fundamental decision by MS and Sony when the development of X1 and PS4 was started. Meaning, if they really wanted to, they could have chosen differently.

Not really. PowerPC development is dead. It was x86 or bust. They had to switch over.

 

[tential]

Knowing is half the battle..

Yup. All of the info is out there, he just decided to not research, then cry later.

 

[yankeeDDL]

Not really. PowerPC development is dead. It was x86 or bust. They had to switch over.

The Power8 architecture was introduced last year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8). Going the x86 has a lot of advantages, but if they wanted to stay in teh PowerPC real, and have a new custom CPU/GPU, they could have.

 

[yankeeDDL]

Yup. All of the info is out there, he just decided to not research, then cry later.

Perhaps you decided to spew hate first, and read my post later?
I have done the exact opposite of what you say

 

[poofyhairguy]

The Power8 architecture was introduced last year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8).

And its power-per-watt is terrible.

PowerPC wasn't a real option, not if they wanted a console that could even COMPETE with modern PCs and mobile devices. The Wii U stuck to PowerPC and it is obviously going to flop this generation. It is not 1996 anymore, custom silicon in consoles is dead.

No, the only other alternative to x86 was ARM. That is where all the development is in 2015. If the PS4 or Xbox 1 was PowerPC some tablet in 2016 would smoke it. That is not a position ten years consoles want to be in.

PowerPC got as far as its did because Apple was backing it in the consumer space. As soon as they moved on the architecture died for consumers. Low margin consoles weren't enough to keep up with Intel or ARM. You could make a good argument that they should have gone ARM over x86, but even in that case you lose backwards compatibility.

 

[Lil Frier]

a) A good gaming PC is much more expensive than a console.
Not really true: this PC is $488 ($588 if you also need a Windows license): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-budget-gaming-pc,4021.html
and plays well at 1080p.
I happen to have bought an R9 270X recently for my 5-years old PC and it works quite well. I can pretty much max out anything @ 720p.
And, by the way, my <$200 270X probably has more "kick" than the GPU in either the PS4 or the X1.

Yes, $588 (because we're talking vs. a new computer, meaning no salvaging old parts), and that's without a monitor, mouse, keyboard, or speakers. For a proper gaming setup, you'll also add a decent headset to that, and POSSIBLY a wired controller (or something like the One controller + Play & Charge). That could easily add another $200-400 to the cost.

Oh, and that R9 270X also costs more than the entire die (CPU+GPU) for those consoles, which I think was priced at about $110 on iFixIt, during their teardown. It's also not exactly future-proof, and you'll probably be throwing up another $175 or so in 2-3 years for the newest games.

 

[Subyman]

With a console you just slam down $500 and start playing. No researching, no tweaking stuff, no installing an OS, no trouble shooting resolutions, blah blah. That is why they've sold 10M+ of these things so far.

Maybe your problem is you have devalued the amount of work that goes into making games and making the experience smooth. $500 + games is nothing compared to how much time you can spend enjoying the thing over its 5-6 year life span. Compared to the $500 vizio it will likely be hooked up to, its a bargain tech-wise.

 

[purbeast0]

sounds like the main problem here is the OP was just ignorant about the market he was getting into. nothing wrong with that. but it just looks bad when you complain about things that are so obvious to anybody who has been in the market for more than a month. next time do at least 5 minutes of research before jumping into a new market.

 

[purbeast0]

Perhaps you decided to spew hate first, and read my post later?
I have done the exact opposite of what you say

calling people who are right about the subject at hand "haters" because they knew things you didn't know makes you look really dumb.

 

[magomago]

Lol such a big rant and you said nothing about the games I'm glad most console gamers have graduated from these arguments.

You realize the PC still does have these issues. New PCIE card won't fit into an AGP slot from 9 years ago. DDR3 is not backwards compatible with DDR2.

From an engineering perspective, inheriting old design can be hellacious. Sometimes its mostly a money grab (controller), but its not the exact same controller...there are more additional features. You may use that 10 year old controller, but its going to lack a lot of other features that modern day controllers have people enjoy.
But in other instances, such as backward compatibility, a new design can become 100 times more complex. Assuming hardware challenges are overcome, you are now faced with a software dilemma of designing and texturing a world for 512MB of ram and 8GB of ram. When you design for such a disparity, someone is going to be disappointed...and best not to have people that just bought your brand new console be angry.


I'd reccomend to get a used Xbox 360 to play Xbox 360 games. If your son is 9 years old, then he'll probably get 1-2 years of fun out of it before all his friends graduate to PS4/Xbox1 (i.e. parents buy a new console).
You said the xbox been our for 9 years, I can't imagine why you'd pay anywhere near full price at this point. Just make sure the console is a Jasper or later unit, and you won't have RROD issues.

 

[yankeeDDL]

calling people who are right about the subject at hand "haters" because they knew things you didn't know makes you look really dumb.

Not true. Tential wrote a short, offensive post, with no information, only hate. And the post was plain wrong. I was referring (and quoted) him, nobody else.
So what does your message make you look like?

 

[yankeeDDL]

Lol such a big rant and you said nothing about the games I'm glad most console gamers have graduated from these arguments.

You realize the PC still does have these issues. New PCIE card won't fit into an AGP slot from 9 years ago. DDR3 is not backwards compatible with DDR2.

...

I tend to agree, in general.
I think it makes also a difference how much time you actually plan to spend playing.
I never really had a problem playing with a PC (back in the days) and I looked in the console only ... well, I explained it already in my first post.
Thanks for your comment though.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just to jump in with an observation; does anyone else feel like backwards compatibility is vastly overrated? I mean, I've been gaming on consoles since the early 90s, and I still have fond memories of games from every generation. And you never really want to stop playing those old games, even when the new stuff comes out. Sure, I was bummed that the N64 couldn't play my SNES games, but I could swap out the cords easily enough. And the PlayStation? Well, yeah, it's sweet, but what if I want to play some GoldenEye? You can't just abandon your favorites. For a while, my bedroom was a maze of wires between a handful of consoles, because, come on, there's too many good things out there.

So imagine my excitement when it was revealed the PS2 was going to be backwards-compatible with PlayStation titles. I can keep playing Gran Turismo 2 and Twisted Metal 2 and Ape Escape and Tekken 3 and Driver 2? Awesome! And then, as time went on, Gran Turismo 3 came out. Tekken Tag Tournament came out. Twisted Metal Black came out. Grand Theft Auto 3 replaced Driver 2. Ratchet and Clank replaced Ape Escape. Tony Hawk kept getting updated. SSX replaced Coolboarders. And gradually, every game that would keep me coming back to the PS1 got replaced.

Fast forward a few years, and now the PS3 is arriving. And it's backwards compatible too! And it didn't even have all the great catalog titles that the PS2 had, so obviously I'm going to keep playing these! But by now I had a new widescreen TV to take advantage of the increased resolution offered by the PS3 (not to mention Blu-ray), and now my old games look... well, terrible. Even with upscaling. And the new games coming out look pretty good. And titles like Soul Calibur or Skate make it impossible to go back to the mechanics of Tekken or Tony Hawk. And games like Red Dead Redemption just completely redefine what a video game story means to me. And seemingly overnight, my entire back catalog is not only obsolete, but I no longer want to play them any more and risk ruining the nostalgic memories I have of their greatness. All the excitement backwards compatibility offers, and I used it maybe 5 times tops in the last generation.

And technological innovation ruins things too. I mean, obviously if you go back to the first generation of polygon-based games now, they look just atrocious. Virtua Fighter looked stunning compared to the hand-drawn graphics of Street Fighter 2, but it has aged horribly by comparison. Mario 64, Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, they all seemed like technical revelations compared to what had come on the SNES, but they look really, really bad by today's standards, whereas the hand-drawn graphics of Super Mario World hold up beautifully. And none of that matters, because when you hook your SNES or N64 up to your big shiny new flatscreen TV, they look TERRIBLE! They're outputting a signal that is no longer standard, so without a lot of costly conversion equipment, you're getting a muddy mess of smeared graphics that don't look anything like what you remember seeing on your 40 year old tube TV.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream based on rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that recall the memories you had of the magic these things offered when you first experienced them. Leave them in your memories and go build some new ones with the new games that are coming out.

 

[Lil Frier]

It depends on how you determine its value in the first place. To me, there are 2 reasons I would like it:

1. When I get a new console, I always get rid of its predecessor. So, when I got my One, I sold my Halo 360 and all of the games in a lot on eBay because I knew I had no use for the games anymore. If the One was backwards-compatible, I might have kept a few of them, but it wasn't that big of a deal.
2. At a console's launch, it isn't uncommon for the library to be kind of weak, so backwards compatibility could keep overall manufacturer game sale a bit higher, as folks bought 360 games to play on the One while waiting for games not-yet out. Luckily, I didn't get my One until April of last year, so I had Titanfall and Forza from the start, Kinect Sports was out, like, the weeks after I got my console, and Watch Dogs wasn't far behind. If I had gotten the console at launch, there would have been one game for me to play, really, and I'd have missed my 360 games more.

Of course, after about a year, the library's deep enough to where many won't care. So, I agree it's probably not worth the investment because it's probably only really useful for people during the console's first 6-12 months, before new stuff removes a lot of desire for old game playing.

 

[purbeast0]

Just to jump in with an observation; does anyone else feel like backwards compatibility is vastly overrated? I mean, I've been gaming on consoles since the early 90s, and I still have fond memories of games from every generation. And you never really want to stop playing those old games, even when the new stuff comes out. Sure, I was bummed that the N64 couldn't play my SNES games, but I could swap out the cords easily enough. And the PlayStation? Well, yeah, it's sweet, but what if I want to play some GoldenEye? You can't just abandon your favorites. For a while, my bedroom was a maze of wires between a handful of consoles, because, come on, there's too many good things out there.

So imagine my excitement when it was revealed the PS2 was going to be backwards-compatible with PlayStation titles. I can keep playing Gran Turismo 2 and Twisted Metal 2 and Ape Escape and Tekken 3 and Driver 2? Awesome! And then, as time went on, Gran Turismo 3 came out. Tekken Tag Tournament came out. Twisted Metal Black came out. Grand Theft Auto 3 replaced Driver 2. Ratchet and Clank replaced Ape Escape. Tony Hawk kept getting updated. SSX replaced Coolboarders. And gradually, every game that would keep me coming back to the PS1 got replaced.

Fast forward a few years, and now the PS3 is arriving. And it's backwards compatible too! And it didn't even have all the great catalog titles that the PS2 had, so obviously I'm going to keep playing these! But by now I had a new widescreen TV to take advantage of the increased resolution offered by the PS3 (not to mention Blu-ray), and now my old games look... well, terrible. Even with upscaling. And the new games coming out look pretty good. And titles like Soul Calibur or Skate make it impossible to go back to the mechanics of Tekken or Tony Hawk. And games like Red Dead Redemption just completely redefine what a video game story means to me. And seemingly overnight, my entire back catalog is not only obsolete, but I no longer want to play them any more and risk ruining the nostalgic memories I have of their greatness. All the excitement backwards compatibility offers, and I used it maybe 5 times tops in the last generation.

And technological innovation ruins things too. I mean, obviously if you go back to the first generation of polygon-based games now, they look just atrocious. Virtua Fighter looked stunning compared to the hand-drawn graphics of Street Fighter 2, but it has aged horribly by comparison. Mario 64, Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, they all seemed like technical revelations compared to what had come on the SNES, but they look really, really bad by today's standards, whereas the hand-drawn graphics of Super Mario World hold up beautifully. And none of that matters, because when you hook your SNES or N64 up to your big shiny new flatscreen TV, they look TERRIBLE! They're outputting a signal that is no longer standard, so without a lot of costly conversion equipment, you're getting a muddy mess of smeared graphics that don't look anything like what you remember seeing on your 40 year old tube TV.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream based on rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that recall the memories you had of the magic these things offered when you first experienced them. Leave them in your memories and go build some new ones with the new games that are coming out.

i've been saying this for generations.

BC is a feature that 95% of people want but about 5% of people use and actually care about.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Just to jump in with an observation; does anyone else feel like backwards compatibility is vastly overrated?

Non-gamers have expected it for generations. Heck Atari got a huge backlash when it released the 5200 that it could not play 2600 games. They fired their president of consumer electronics for it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HC8EAAAAMBAJ&q=fired#v=snippet&q=5200&f=false

I would be bigger on BC if it did more, like emulators.

If the Wii U would have upscaled Wii games to 1080p like Dolphin does I would have bought one day one. If the PS4 could find a way with all that power to emulate and upscale PS1/PS2 titles it would make it more appealing. Once you got to polygons in games old sucks and higher res is better period.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I only care about BC initially so I can sell my previous console before the value drops too far. After a few months I hardly touch old games anymore.