[–] Silencedmajor 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Don't need to watch a video for this. Because of digital distribution the incentive now is to resell you a product you already own. The answer? Money.

[–] marmulak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yeah there is that economic incentive, and I think also it goes together with the fact that in practical terms it keeps getting easier and easier to port games to the new platform, so they don't have to go to great pains to implement backwards compatibility when the games themselves are now more forward compatible and can just have their code tweaked a little bit and get recompiled. Doing a re-release can also make it possible to add some perks that come with it being a native release.

[–] ex-redd 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

exactly. Any tech cost is second to being able to sell a new console-specifice ported clone of what you already bought--again, and again. If people love their consoles so much, at least use a computer of some sort to play the older generations (you can legally own a digital copy of the exact thing you bought in the past)

[–] totes_magotes 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Absolutely nothing. Sony has as a digital download a two game pack for old castlevania games, runs just fine on PS4.

It's not that they have limitations - it's that they want you to buy the same games repeatedly. It's a fuckin' cash cow because people are stupid enough to do it.

[–] SteelDusk 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

$$$

[–] Cooking_with_Alf 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Backwards compatibility requires a little engineering and software wizardry to include old libraries and chips that run the old stuff. This also requires supporting older generation hardware and software. The biggest reason you don't see backwards compatibility is likely this. Too much supporting old crap. There is more money in making you buy new shit every few years and support only that until the end of life cycle.

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A better question might be: why are PCs backwards compatible? After all, previous home computer makers were plenty happy to make entirely new computers that couldn't run their predecessors' software. The answer, of course, lies in the fact that modern PC software isn't hardware-dependent past the CPU supporting the right opcodes; everything else is based on well-defined APIs, so the actual hardware doesn't matter much(anymore. In the very earliest era, people didn't take long to start poking the hardware directly, forcing everybody to make their computers strictly IBM PC-compatible if they wanted to sell them at all).

[–] Thrus2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

legal contracts that the console maker made, that is what is keeping out backwards compatibility.

[–] GreatWhiteNorth 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The Xbox One has great backwards compatibility, of 360 games and Original Xbox Games. Sony and Nintendo just chose to sell the games to you again rather then make them backwards compatible.

[–] Wahaha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Remember the original Game Boy and how the Game Boy Color was backwards compatible with that thing and then the Game Boy Advance came along, and it was backwards compatible with the GB and the GBC. But then NDS hit the market and it was backwards compatible with the GB, the GBC and the GBA.

GBA to this day is my favorite gaming sysytem. It's not the NDS because let's face it, two screens are stupid. You can't look at both at the same time and as long as the hardware is fast enough to switch between screens instantenously there's zero point to having them.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)