backward compatibility: is it really that important?

Back when the specs of the Playstation 3, the "Revolution" and the XBox360 were originally unveiled, the idea of backward compatibility was latched on to by many as a deciding factor between the three platforms. In the reactions that followed each company's announcement, it seemed that whichever platform would be stupid enough not to include the feature would immediately forfeit their position in the console war. Because the Playstation 2 has already set the precedent (with the GBA one year later allowing the use of both original Game Boy and Game Boy colour cartridges), there is now a demand for old games to work with new consoles. The cycle between generations has roughly stayed the same, but consumers want to be given more than an incremental graphics update for their dedication to a platform. In my haste to dismiss the next generation as merely imitating computers, I missed a crucial point: is backward compatibility even necessary for a console to succeed?

It's an argument that has strong points for either case, but in today's overly fickle game marketplace I wonder if the need for backward compatibility is only a perceived one. Next Generation ran an article a couple of weeks ago, exploring this very issue. As usual they take a business-oriented approach - ascertaining whether backward compatibility is a feature worth producing just to put on the back of the box. Aaron Ruby's response to the article seemed to ring a little more true, citing the cultural signifigance of games over the convenience for manufacturers to be able to implement the feature in the hardware to decide its necessity. Of course, I have my own opinions on the matter.

Practically speaking, a console with backward compatibility increases the usefulness of the console overall from a consumer's perspective. The console's library multiplies by 100 (or some other arbitrary number), while hardware requirements have decreased. Nobody likes an entertainment center full of old consoles that rarely get touched. It also extends the life of the previous generation's games. By allowing old games to function in new consoles it exposes them to new audiences that may not have had the chance to try them out the first time around. It also gives game obsessives like me the chance to catch up on those so called "critically acclaimed" titles, without having to dig through ebay's multitude of old console listings.

Most importantly, I think it gives gamers a sense of history instead of being caught in the "now-ism" that seems to be plaguing the industry. Games did not always have to be hyper realistic or have cinema quality presentation to be absorbing. I've touched on this before, and it pains me to see a review where gaming history is cast aside in favor of some arbitrary list of features. Large scale strategy seems to only go back as far as Shogun: Total War. What about Nobunaga's Ambition? Or Grand Theft Auto's top-down origins? Or the Prince of Perisa's purist platforming action and fluid character animations? Today's hit series had humble beginnings, but it seems they have been obscured by their more accessible and attractive descendants of the recent past. PCs have had the luxury of being able to play older games through third party software and tweaking of the operating system. Consoles not so much, and as a result this "year zero" culture arises at the beginning of every generation. I think backward compatibility is an easy way to provide continuity between them. But is it essential?

I love classic gaming, but there's something about going back to old games and looking at them with a jaded eye. Like watching a favorite old movie, nostalgia influences the hindsight that it was the best thing you ever experienced. And when you do play it again, knowing what vast improvements had been made to gaming since, a bad game will be readily apparent, ruining any fond memory you may have had. This is also a great way to figure out if a game really does stand the test of time.

Though improvements to standard genres like the First Person Shooter can't be denied. In fact, they are probably the genre that pilots the industry machine. The basic mechanics haven't changed in over 10 years, but the visuals and presentation have improved dramatically. I readily admit that going back to play Quake for its single-player campaign is a waste of time after playing Half Life. And after seeing the epic battlefields of World War II unfold in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Call of Duty, I can't expect myself to enjoy the Nazi shooting gallery of Wolfenstein 3D beyond its immediate comedic value.

With the amount of sequels being produced every year, going back to a previous installment would be like going back to a previous verison of MS Windows. There are too many features that have been implemented that have become commonplace. A good example would be Diablo versus Diablo II. The game world in Diablo feels smaller, it has a less interesting soundtrack, and you have to walk everywhere. I would rather play Super Metroid than Metroid. Super Mario Bros. 3 is the lowest I'll go in the series for a serious playthrough. There is a balance between play and aesthetics that is reached; I really can't explain it. Though in some rare cases, the previous game is actually better.

Yes, please.

Er...no thanks.

Wait. That's the same game.

Mostly, though, backward compatibility can be bad for business. The good thing about making game consoles backward compatible is that you can play old games on it. The bad thing about backward compatibility is that you can play old games on it. The industry is well aware of these hypothetical lost sales. Why let people play the old game when they could be buying a brand new, "updated" version? Look at Super Mario All-Stars, Dune 2000, Metroid: Zero Mission, Sid Meier's Pirates!, Doom 3. Publishers want you to be buying new stuff, not playing old stuff.

Furthermore, the funds spent on developing the means for backward compatibility may be an excercise in futility if it's not even used. While the argument has been skewed in games media in either direction, it's tough to really get an idea of whether this is a feature that's absolutely required, or simply "nice" to have. While console developers have traditionally remained at a distance from the headaches of network code and constantly changing hardware, they are fast approaching the same realm of frustration that has plagued PC game development for years. The Xbox 360 has proven that backward compatibility can be a costly feature to implement - even partially. To ask that console manufacturers design their hardware for the future, but leaving it open to play games of the past is a tall order if a reasonable price point is to be maintained. Varying hardware configurations is a problem PC developers have to deal with all the time. With extra features being added to every generation of consoles to keep up with the trends in home theatre, is backward compatibility even a priority? Pursuing backward compatibility complicates the entire process, once again falling into the same types of traps as PCs - something that could have easily been avoided by not trying to replace them.

As for continuity, compiling gaming history onto one machine is next to impossible. Unless you're using a PC. Though even running old DOS games can be tricky without using third-party tools. The history of gaming is too fragmented: we have arcade games of varying hardware specs, Atari and Colecovision's home consoles, NES, Turbo Grafx 16, Neo Geo, Playstation - without resorting to emulation on a PC, there's no way to play these games without the original hardware. While I'm sure there are individuals that have stacks of boxes in their garages filled with these gaming relics, it isn't likely that the typical gamer would be able to experience these games as they were meant to be played. To ask for true backward compatibility is really asking for a unified platform. Being able to play a few hundred games over two generations on a single console is really insignificant next to having access to the countless games that influenced them.

I'm almost convinced that it's too late for backward compatibilty. Forward compatibiltiy, as Ricardo Sanchez put it, should really be where the focus is. Make older games easily accessible by current hardware for those that want to play them. The Classics collections like Midway Arcade Treasures and the Mega Man Anniversary Collection that have seen release in recent years is evidence enough that some are willing to invest in them. Nintendo has even gone ahead and planned a service for the Wii that allows downloads of classic games for their own platforms, those of Sega, and the Turbo Grafx 16 for a nominal fee. It may not be true compatibility (the Wii will likely be running various emulators), but it involves no modifications to the console's hardware. I'm no console hardware developer, but it seems to me it would be much easier to make old software run inside an emulator than designing new hardware to be adaptable for old programs.

It may be tough to justify spending money on a game already owned in another form, but if it means that someone will get to experience it at all, I'd consider it a small victory for the medium - not the industry. Ultimately, how backward compatibility is implemented isn't that important. What's important is that gaming's collective history isn't forgotten as the technology arms race reaches new heights of excess.