What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern)What was the first programming bookWhat was the first dedicated core router?What technological factors drove the rise of “high-speed” modems in the early 1990s?Apple II GS versus Mac Plus costWhat was the first game to use humorous progress updates?What was the first intelligent digital robot?What was the effect of the Video Game Crash of 1983 outside of North America?What was the first games console to support linking consoles together for local multiplayer?Did Nintendo change its mind about 68000 SNES?What was the first language to use conditional keywords?
Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?
Why aren't road bicycle wheels tiny?
What's called a person who works as someone who puts products on shelves in stores?
Is it accepted to use working hours to read general interest books?
What is the definining line between a helicopter and a drone a person can ride in?
A journey... into the MIND
All ASCII characters with a given bit count
SQL Server placement of master database files vs resource database files
Putting Ant-Man on house arrest
How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?
France's Public Holidays' Puzzle
Why is water being consumed when my shutoff valve is closed?
Is there a verb for listening stealthily?
Why isn't everyone flabbergasted about Bran's "gift"?
Co-worker works way more than he should
Simulate round-robin tournament draw
Is it OK if I do not take the receipt in Germany?
What do you call an IPA symbol that lacks a name (e.g. ɲ)?
Was Objective-C really a hindrance to Apple software development?
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
`FindRoot [ ]`::jsing: Encountered a singular Jacobian at a point...WHY
Is there an efficient way for synchronising audio events real-time with LEDs using an MCU?
Does a Draconic Bloodline sorcerer's doubled proficiency bonus for Charisma checks against dragons apply to all dragon types or only the chosen one?
Did war bonds have better investment alternatives during WWII?
What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern)What was the first programming bookWhat was the first dedicated core router?What technological factors drove the rise of “high-speed” modems in the early 1990s?Apple II GS versus Mac Plus costWhat was the first game to use humorous progress updates?What was the first intelligent digital robot?What was the effect of the Video Game Crash of 1983 outside of North America?What was the first games console to support linking consoles together for local multiplayer?Did Nintendo change its mind about 68000 SNES?What was the first language to use conditional keywords?
The first five generations of game consoles typically had no backward compatibility. New console, new hardware design, new games. (An exception was the Atari 7800, which as far as I know was the first console to have backward compatibility. Conjecture: this was because it was released in the aftermath of Atari's dramatic fall from leading position, creating a very strong incentive to try to recapture what they had.)
The PlayStation 2 famously had backward compatibility, essentially by incorporating a PS1 onto a chip (and of course taking advantage of the ability of a DVD drive to read CDs).
But subsequent consoles such as the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii began a strange pattern: initial backward compatibility subsequently dropped in a cost-reduced model. I can understand the desire to reduce cost by cutting features, and that backward compatibility is less important as a console builds up its own catalog, but I would also have expected the cost of continuing to provide it to keep dropping. (If it's just one cheap chip, might as well keep it.)
Conjecture: By the seventh generation, silicon process technology was not improving as rapidly as it had, so the cost of continuing to provide backward compatibility stayed nontrivial.
Alternative conjecture: Moore's law was still running fine, and the real reason for dropping compatibility was to encourage people to buy new games, which is where the profit in the console business comes from.
The first conjecture would predict temporary backward compatibility began with the seventh generation. The second would predict it could happen in any generation (except where there was something like a medium change from cartridge to disk).
So:
What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility? Did it happen before the seventh generation?
history game-consoles backward-compatibility
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
|
show 3 more comments
The first five generations of game consoles typically had no backward compatibility. New console, new hardware design, new games. (An exception was the Atari 7800, which as far as I know was the first console to have backward compatibility. Conjecture: this was because it was released in the aftermath of Atari's dramatic fall from leading position, creating a very strong incentive to try to recapture what they had.)
The PlayStation 2 famously had backward compatibility, essentially by incorporating a PS1 onto a chip (and of course taking advantage of the ability of a DVD drive to read CDs).
But subsequent consoles such as the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii began a strange pattern: initial backward compatibility subsequently dropped in a cost-reduced model. I can understand the desire to reduce cost by cutting features, and that backward compatibility is less important as a console builds up its own catalog, but I would also have expected the cost of continuing to provide it to keep dropping. (If it's just one cheap chip, might as well keep it.)
Conjecture: By the seventh generation, silicon process technology was not improving as rapidly as it had, so the cost of continuing to provide backward compatibility stayed nontrivial.
Alternative conjecture: Moore's law was still running fine, and the real reason for dropping compatibility was to encourage people to buy new games, which is where the profit in the console business comes from.
The first conjecture would predict temporary backward compatibility began with the seventh generation. The second would predict it could happen in any generation (except where there was something like a medium change from cartridge to disk).
So:
What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility? Did it happen before the seventh generation?
history game-consoles backward-compatibility
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
3
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
1
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
1
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
1
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20
|
show 3 more comments
The first five generations of game consoles typically had no backward compatibility. New console, new hardware design, new games. (An exception was the Atari 7800, which as far as I know was the first console to have backward compatibility. Conjecture: this was because it was released in the aftermath of Atari's dramatic fall from leading position, creating a very strong incentive to try to recapture what they had.)
The PlayStation 2 famously had backward compatibility, essentially by incorporating a PS1 onto a chip (and of course taking advantage of the ability of a DVD drive to read CDs).
But subsequent consoles such as the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii began a strange pattern: initial backward compatibility subsequently dropped in a cost-reduced model. I can understand the desire to reduce cost by cutting features, and that backward compatibility is less important as a console builds up its own catalog, but I would also have expected the cost of continuing to provide it to keep dropping. (If it's just one cheap chip, might as well keep it.)
Conjecture: By the seventh generation, silicon process technology was not improving as rapidly as it had, so the cost of continuing to provide backward compatibility stayed nontrivial.
Alternative conjecture: Moore's law was still running fine, and the real reason for dropping compatibility was to encourage people to buy new games, which is where the profit in the console business comes from.
The first conjecture would predict temporary backward compatibility began with the seventh generation. The second would predict it could happen in any generation (except where there was something like a medium change from cartridge to disk).
So:
What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility? Did it happen before the seventh generation?
history game-consoles backward-compatibility
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
The first five generations of game consoles typically had no backward compatibility. New console, new hardware design, new games. (An exception was the Atari 7800, which as far as I know was the first console to have backward compatibility. Conjecture: this was because it was released in the aftermath of Atari's dramatic fall from leading position, creating a very strong incentive to try to recapture what they had.)
The PlayStation 2 famously had backward compatibility, essentially by incorporating a PS1 onto a chip (and of course taking advantage of the ability of a DVD drive to read CDs).
But subsequent consoles such as the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii began a strange pattern: initial backward compatibility subsequently dropped in a cost-reduced model. I can understand the desire to reduce cost by cutting features, and that backward compatibility is less important as a console builds up its own catalog, but I would also have expected the cost of continuing to provide it to keep dropping. (If it's just one cheap chip, might as well keep it.)
Conjecture: By the seventh generation, silicon process technology was not improving as rapidly as it had, so the cost of continuing to provide backward compatibility stayed nontrivial.
Alternative conjecture: Moore's law was still running fine, and the real reason for dropping compatibility was to encourage people to buy new games, which is where the profit in the console business comes from.
The first conjecture would predict temporary backward compatibility began with the seventh generation. The second would predict it could happen in any generation (except where there was something like a medium change from cartridge to disk).
So:
What was the first console to have temporary backward compatibility? Did it happen before the seventh generation?
history game-consoles backward-compatibility
history game-consoles backward-compatibility
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
edited yesterday
Mark Williams
481311
481311
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
asked Apr 17 at 3:16
rwallacerwallace
11.5k558170
11.5k558170
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
3
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
1
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
1
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
1
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20
|
show 3 more comments
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
3
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
1
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
1
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
1
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
3
3
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
1
1
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
1
1
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
1
1
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20
|
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
The Mega Drive/Genesis is the obvious answer, but I can also make a case for the earlier Master System. Initial models were fully compatible with Sega's prior console, the somewhat obscure SG-1000. However, with the removal of the card slot and expansion port in later revisions this was severely eroded. Some games on cartridges may still work, but anything on a card or that requires a peripheral will definitely leave you out of luck. It has to be said that there weren't a lot of SG-1000 games seen in the West in the first place though.
What I'd suspect it comes down to is that backwards compatibility is of high utility on new consoles. Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors. However, as time goes by this utility is eroded, and any extra hardware required to support them becomes dead weight. If removing it offers any potential for a price drop, that's inevitably going to happen at some point.
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
|
show 2 more comments
The Mega Drive 1 and 2 can run Master System software via the Powerbase Converter. Neither the Nomad (the portable Mega Drive) nor the Mega Drive 3 are capable of doing so without further internal modification.
I therefore posit the Mega Drive.
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
add a comment |
Both the Amstrad CPC series of machines and the Sinclair Spectrum exhibited backwards compatibility.
The Amstrad CPC 464, 664 and 6128 were each compatible with their predecessors, as were the subsequent plus models, despite adding extra capabilities.
Similarly the Spectrum 48k model was compatible with the 16k model, and the 128, +2 and +3 models all offered new and better hardware while maintaining backwards compatibility.
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
add a comment |
The Nintendo consoles were generally not backward compatible between different models NES->SNES->N64->GameCube. The exception being the Wii, which could play GameCube games, and the Wii U, which could play Wii games.
However the handheld consoles generally maintained backward compatibility for one generation (2 in the case of the 3DS). So GameBoy->GameBoy Colour->GameBoy Advance->DS/DS Lite->DSi->3DS/2DS were each compatible with the preceding generation of device.
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9708%2fwhat-was-the-first-console-to-have-temporary-backward-compatibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Mega Drive/Genesis is the obvious answer, but I can also make a case for the earlier Master System. Initial models were fully compatible with Sega's prior console, the somewhat obscure SG-1000. However, with the removal of the card slot and expansion port in later revisions this was severely eroded. Some games on cartridges may still work, but anything on a card or that requires a peripheral will definitely leave you out of luck. It has to be said that there weren't a lot of SG-1000 games seen in the West in the first place though.
What I'd suspect it comes down to is that backwards compatibility is of high utility on new consoles. Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors. However, as time goes by this utility is eroded, and any extra hardware required to support them becomes dead weight. If removing it offers any potential for a price drop, that's inevitably going to happen at some point.
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
|
show 2 more comments
The Mega Drive/Genesis is the obvious answer, but I can also make a case for the earlier Master System. Initial models were fully compatible with Sega's prior console, the somewhat obscure SG-1000. However, with the removal of the card slot and expansion port in later revisions this was severely eroded. Some games on cartridges may still work, but anything on a card or that requires a peripheral will definitely leave you out of luck. It has to be said that there weren't a lot of SG-1000 games seen in the West in the first place though.
What I'd suspect it comes down to is that backwards compatibility is of high utility on new consoles. Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors. However, as time goes by this utility is eroded, and any extra hardware required to support them becomes dead weight. If removing it offers any potential for a price drop, that's inevitably going to happen at some point.
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
|
show 2 more comments
The Mega Drive/Genesis is the obvious answer, but I can also make a case for the earlier Master System. Initial models were fully compatible with Sega's prior console, the somewhat obscure SG-1000. However, with the removal of the card slot and expansion port in later revisions this was severely eroded. Some games on cartridges may still work, but anything on a card or that requires a peripheral will definitely leave you out of luck. It has to be said that there weren't a lot of SG-1000 games seen in the West in the first place though.
What I'd suspect it comes down to is that backwards compatibility is of high utility on new consoles. Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors. However, as time goes by this utility is eroded, and any extra hardware required to support them becomes dead weight. If removing it offers any potential for a price drop, that's inevitably going to happen at some point.
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
The Mega Drive/Genesis is the obvious answer, but I can also make a case for the earlier Master System. Initial models were fully compatible with Sega's prior console, the somewhat obscure SG-1000. However, with the removal of the card slot and expansion port in later revisions this was severely eroded. Some games on cartridges may still work, but anything on a card or that requires a peripheral will definitely leave you out of luck. It has to be said that there weren't a lot of SG-1000 games seen in the West in the first place though.
What I'd suspect it comes down to is that backwards compatibility is of high utility on new consoles. Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors. However, as time goes by this utility is eroded, and any extra hardware required to support them becomes dead weight. If removing it offers any potential for a price drop, that's inevitably going to happen at some point.
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
edited Apr 17 at 13:59
a CVn
1,4361826
1,4361826
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
answered Apr 17 at 4:40
Matthew BarberMatthew Barber
62125
62125
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
|
show 2 more comments
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
4
4
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
"Their games library is small and there's a lot of extra utility in enabling the machines to access the software for their immediate predecessors." Just watch out so you don't fall into the OS/2 trap: OS/2 was so good at running DOS (and to some extent Windows) software that there was little incentive for developers to target it, as opposed to targetting DOS/Windows and letting OS/2 do the heavy lifting of providing OS/2 compatibility.
– a CVn
Apr 17 at 14:00
1
1
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
@aCVn The difference was that game consoles were about hardware while OS/2 was about software. In order to make best use of new hardware (sound chips, video modes, etc.) you needed to target the new hardware directly. Whereas OS/2 as a vehicle for a better multi-tasking, reliable, etc. operating system could provide benefits without software being written to target the specific hardware (which was largely the same as DOS & Windows machines of the same era).
– manassehkatz
Apr 17 at 14:28
2
2
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
Being into retro-gaming, I question the statement "this utility is eroded" as the new console gains native titles. If I had my druthers about it, my library of games would remain well-supported on the updated console. For example, I really like that my early PS3 can play my entire PS1/PS2 library. To some people, the old games don't just belong in a trash heap, nor do I want to keep re-purchasing them as "remastered" editions.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:04
1
1
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
@BrianH: "Utility" is a term which here means "profitability." If you are playing your old games, you are not buying new games, which means less money to fund the development of new games, and ultimately less reason for gamers to buy new consoles. Not to mention the licensing fees they get out of developers.
– Kevin
Apr 18 at 7:00
1
1
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
@mana back in the day, we sometimes called OS/2 "half an OS".
– Robert Columbia
Apr 18 at 18:57
|
show 2 more comments
The Mega Drive 1 and 2 can run Master System software via the Powerbase Converter. Neither the Nomad (the portable Mega Drive) nor the Mega Drive 3 are capable of doing so without further internal modification.
I therefore posit the Mega Drive.
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
add a comment |
The Mega Drive 1 and 2 can run Master System software via the Powerbase Converter. Neither the Nomad (the portable Mega Drive) nor the Mega Drive 3 are capable of doing so without further internal modification.
I therefore posit the Mega Drive.
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
add a comment |
The Mega Drive 1 and 2 can run Master System software via the Powerbase Converter. Neither the Nomad (the portable Mega Drive) nor the Mega Drive 3 are capable of doing so without further internal modification.
I therefore posit the Mega Drive.
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
The Mega Drive 1 and 2 can run Master System software via the Powerbase Converter. Neither the Nomad (the portable Mega Drive) nor the Mega Drive 3 are capable of doing so without further internal modification.
I therefore posit the Mega Drive.
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
answered Apr 17 at 3:57
TommyTommy
16.5k14782
16.5k14782
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
add a comment |
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
3
3
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
At first blush this seems like it'd be invalid because of the extra hardware, but I recalled something about the Converter being extremely simple, and from some quick research it does seem to be for the most part a mechanical adapter. It does enable the SMS mode on the Megadrive, but it's the console itself that has the support.
– Matt Lacey♦
Apr 17 at 4:07
3
3
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
Yes, it's basically just a pass-through. The reason why it doesn't work in some models is because the pins in the cartridge port aren't wired up.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 4:31
1
1
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
In some parts of the world, the Powerbase Converter was marketed as the Master System Converter instead. Much clearer marketing!
– Kaz
Apr 17 at 6:40
1
1
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
For the record, if the extra passive adaptor is a problem then the Game Boy is a later option; the Game Boy Micro does not support original Game Boy or Game Boy Color titles, only Game Boy Advance titles, but it retains the original branding.
– Tommy
Apr 17 at 12:13
add a comment |
Both the Amstrad CPC series of machines and the Sinclair Spectrum exhibited backwards compatibility.
The Amstrad CPC 464, 664 and 6128 were each compatible with their predecessors, as were the subsequent plus models, despite adding extra capabilities.
Similarly the Spectrum 48k model was compatible with the 16k model, and the 128, +2 and +3 models all offered new and better hardware while maintaining backwards compatibility.
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
add a comment |
Both the Amstrad CPC series of machines and the Sinclair Spectrum exhibited backwards compatibility.
The Amstrad CPC 464, 664 and 6128 were each compatible with their predecessors, as were the subsequent plus models, despite adding extra capabilities.
Similarly the Spectrum 48k model was compatible with the 16k model, and the 128, +2 and +3 models all offered new and better hardware while maintaining backwards compatibility.
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
add a comment |
Both the Amstrad CPC series of machines and the Sinclair Spectrum exhibited backwards compatibility.
The Amstrad CPC 464, 664 and 6128 were each compatible with their predecessors, as were the subsequent plus models, despite adding extra capabilities.
Similarly the Spectrum 48k model was compatible with the 16k model, and the 128, +2 and +3 models all offered new and better hardware while maintaining backwards compatibility.
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
Both the Amstrad CPC series of machines and the Sinclair Spectrum exhibited backwards compatibility.
The Amstrad CPC 464, 664 and 6128 were each compatible with their predecessors, as were the subsequent plus models, despite adding extra capabilities.
Similarly the Spectrum 48k model was compatible with the 16k model, and the 128, +2 and +3 models all offered new and better hardware while maintaining backwards compatibility.
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered Apr 17 at 18:20
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
481311
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
add a comment |
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
1
1
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
This doesn't quite answer the question, which asks what consoles (not personal computers) had backwards compatibility at initial release but then later dropped it.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:23
1
1
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
For what it's worth, later models of the Spectrum lost a lot of backwards compatibility with the early 48K machines because of hardware changes made to cut costs. They were still home computers rather than console though, even if heavily marketed as games machines during their latter years.
– Matthew Barber
Apr 17 at 22:28
add a comment |
The Nintendo consoles were generally not backward compatible between different models NES->SNES->N64->GameCube. The exception being the Wii, which could play GameCube games, and the Wii U, which could play Wii games.
However the handheld consoles generally maintained backward compatibility for one generation (2 in the case of the 3DS). So GameBoy->GameBoy Colour->GameBoy Advance->DS/DS Lite->DSi->3DS/2DS were each compatible with the preceding generation of device.
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
add a comment |
The Nintendo consoles were generally not backward compatible between different models NES->SNES->N64->GameCube. The exception being the Wii, which could play GameCube games, and the Wii U, which could play Wii games.
However the handheld consoles generally maintained backward compatibility for one generation (2 in the case of the 3DS). So GameBoy->GameBoy Colour->GameBoy Advance->DS/DS Lite->DSi->3DS/2DS were each compatible with the preceding generation of device.
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
add a comment |
The Nintendo consoles were generally not backward compatible between different models NES->SNES->N64->GameCube. The exception being the Wii, which could play GameCube games, and the Wii U, which could play Wii games.
However the handheld consoles generally maintained backward compatibility for one generation (2 in the case of the 3DS). So GameBoy->GameBoy Colour->GameBoy Advance->DS/DS Lite->DSi->3DS/2DS were each compatible with the preceding generation of device.
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
The Nintendo consoles were generally not backward compatible between different models NES->SNES->N64->GameCube. The exception being the Wii, which could play GameCube games, and the Wii U, which could play Wii games.
However the handheld consoles generally maintained backward compatibility for one generation (2 in the case of the 3DS). So GameBoy->GameBoy Colour->GameBoy Advance->DS/DS Lite->DSi->3DS/2DS were each compatible with the preceding generation of device.
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
answered 2 days ago
Mark WilliamsMark Williams
481311
481311
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9708%2fwhat-was-the-first-console-to-have-temporary-backward-compatibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@Raffzahn why have you removed "temporary" from the title? Your new title is a different question than the one OP asked.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 10:36
3
@Raffzahn Consoles initially released with backwards compatibility, where that backwards compatibiilty was lost in a later model of the same console. The third paragraph of the question already explains this quite clearly.
– Chris H
Apr 17 at 11:24
1
@Wilson Interesting, that's the style I did learn was right for titles. Like irst and last word always capitalized, propositions, articles and conjunctions never and short words (up to 2 leters) as well not. And so ar I do belive above is a title, or isn't it?
– Raffzahn
Apr 17 at 11:26
1
I think your "alternative conjecture" is most certainly a major factor. It's similar to the music industry selling you the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then MP3, then streaming subscription.
– Brian H
Apr 17 at 15:07
1
The PlayStation 3 and Wii examples were a fair bit different. The PS3 dropped PS2 backwards compatibility early in its lifetime as a major cost reduction. It basically required an entire PS2 to be embedded in the PS3. Removing it and replacing it with crude software-based PS2 emulation and then dropping it completely saved Sony a lot money. The Wii's GameCube compatibility basically only required underclocking the Wii's CPU and GPU and additional connectors for GC controllers and memory cards. Late in the Wii's lifetime these connectors were removed to save a few bucks.
– Ross Ridge
Apr 17 at 18:20