PS3 definitely backwards compatible

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_pag...b&aid=2171

[Dark Jaguar]

For me there was never any doubt. It's too good a selling point, especially in getting the system into homes at launch, to pass up. I'm fairly certain that unless MS and Nintendo WANT to fail they will be including backwards compatibility in their systems as well. I mean, Nintendo already knows the value of such a thing with the Game Boy series (GBC playing GB games, and GBA playing GBC and GB games).

[A Black Falcon]

It makes designing your next system a much bigger pain, but yes, it does seem these days that its a must...

[Weltall]

The new Nintendo console, whatever it may be, sure as hell better have a built-in GB Player, because while I don't care how hard it is to design a console, I do like having neat extras (and lord knows I play PSOne games on my PS2 at least as often as I play PS2 games on it.)

[A Black Falcon]

No, I'd rather it say an add-on... it'd add $50 to the price that I wouldn't want non-optional...

[Dark Jaguar]

The GB player if you ask me wouldn't be neccesary IF they made a slight modification to the design of the next portable and next console. First off, whatever kind of link port the controllers use, it should be the same one that the next gameboy uses to link up. Speeds would have to be increased mind you between the two, but I think it's workable to have a multi-speed port there. Second, the console should be designed to detect right from the start if one of the new gameboys is attached (and no game is in the system as well) and automatically go into Gameboy Player mode. Third, the portable should be designed to go into it's own GBP mode, maybe when a button is held down, or maybe it scans the link port before actually running the game to see if the console is trying to go into this mode. Finally, the portable should be designed, when this happens, to send all audio-video data straight across the cable and to the system (possibly also allowing controller input data to be sent back so a console controller can be used for control) and of course the console can do whatever it wants with the data, boxing it in a border, smoothing out the image, whatever. Again, this is a job for a faster data port. If this is designed from the start, the system would have a much cheaper software solution for GBplaying, and it would be using the actual Gameboy itself to play everything so no emulation or creation of identical hardware would be needed.

[A Black Falcon]

Hmm... decent idea, but that'd mean you'd be draining your GB's batteries. One of the good things about the GB Player is that it doesn't do that...

[Great Rumbler]

That's a major selling point for me, since now if I decide to get it I can sell my PS2.

[Dark Jaguar]

Think a bit harder about it. The linkup on both systems could be designed to actually power the GB through the link cable. Or, since all future GBs will be using rechargeble batteries, just plug the GB into the wall.

[A Black Falcon]

Hmm... that could work. I don't know... maybe. Especially if it could power it through the cable...

[Great Rumbler]

If they had a slot for GBA games and it still sold for $200, that would be a major selling point.

[OB1]

Nintendo really needs to sell their next system at the same price of the PS3 and X-Box 2. It's obvious from the GC launch that the price didn't matter, and it probably even hurt the system since people looked at it as the "cheap system".

[Great Rumbler]

and it probably even hurt the system since people looked at it as the "cheap system"

I say screw the people who think it's cheap, I want my $200 Nintendo system!!

[OB1]

But if not enough people buy the next console you won't be seeing many more Nintendo systems in the future...

[Great Rumbler]

Hype is what sells the console at launch and if Nintendo doesn't have the hype the N5 isn't going to sell wether it's $200 or $300.

People didn't buy the GC because it didn't have any huge launch titles, while the Xbox had Halo.

[OB1]

Halo, but that's it. Each new X-Box sold with approximately 2.5 games, compared to the GC's 1.5, if I remember correctly.

[Dark Jaguar]

Oh please, somehow being cheaper is a BAD selling point? I have a hard time believing anyone actually has such a viewpoint. Look at all the people who bought PS1 when it was cheaper than N64.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
No, I'd rather it say an add-on... it'd add $50 to the price that I wouldn't want non-optional...

I doubt it. PS2 wasn't any extra for it's PS2 capabilities. And even though it wouldn't be quite that simple for this type of compatibility, it wouldn't be very expensive and it would be a HUGE selling point if it were built-in. It would also obviously encourage sales of Game Boy games.

I hope they seriously consider such an addition, because Nintendo definitely needs to extend beyond the dwindling numbers of die-hards who will buy any of their consoles and branch back out, attack Sony and MS with something new: compatibility with the most popular handheld ever.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, Weltall, you're right -- it would be a big help for sales, and that might make them seriously consider it... and it WOULD be cool.

DJ... have you seriously ignored this for several years now? Given the sales and everything, its quite clear that the lower price hasn't really helped the Cube... as they say it probably hurt it. Why? Because people look at a cheaper product and see 'cheap! lower quality'! Its why lots of game prices are higher than they need to be -- people generally judge poorly games that start at $20 or $30. Same with consoles... not to the same degree, but it sure doesn't help when mixed with Nintendo's bad image in the last few years, the innefective marketing, etc...

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
DJ... have you seriously ignored this for several years now? Given the sales and everything, its quite clear that the lower price hasn't really helped the Cube...

That's really poor reasoning.

For all you know the Cube could be selling MUCH worse if it was more expensive..

[OB1]

The Nintendo faithful would buy a new Nintendo system for just about any price, so that's not really an issue. However when a casual gamer goes to Best Buy to buy a new video game console that he or she hopes will last them for a few years, which one are they going to buy? The super-popular $300 PS2, the "most powerful" $300 X-Box, or the $200 E-Z Bake Oven? They're gonna look at the cheap-looking Gamecube and think "Hey, for just a $100 more I could get a much more powerful system!", and that's most probably what happened. In the first few months of the GC/X-Box launch, each GC sold with an average of 1.5 games while each X-Box sold with an average of 2.5 games. How is that possible when the X-Box is $100 more than the Gamecube? It's because more adults bought X-Boxes than Gamecubes, and adults have a lot more money to spend than little kids. If they don't know a lot about games they're gonna ask the Best Buy (or whatever) clerk which system is more powerful and/or has the best games.

[Dark Jaguar]

Just because you can come up with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's automatically prooven. Proove it.

[OB1]

That's with one "o", DJ. :D

Of course I can't actually concretely prove anything, but it does make a lot of sense.

[Dark Jaguar]

So did a geocentric universe.

[OB1]

[Great Rumbler]

A strange fact is that if you mark something up higher than it usually is someone will buy it.

[OB1]

The Gamecube being $100 cheaper obviously didn't help Nintendo at all against Sony and MS even though those systems were $300, and people bought more games with their new X-Boxes than they did with their new Gamecubes. How do you explain that, DJ??

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, that price advantage didn't help the Cube much at all to most everyone who bought one. It helped a few people (like me, who bought it with one game right after launch and didn't buy another game till christmas almost two months later...), but I'm sure far more than that avoided it because 'cheaper means lower quality'...

[Private Hudson]

Originally posted by OB1
The Gamecube being $100 cheaper obviously didn't help Nintendo at all against Sony and MS even though those systems were $300, [b]and people bought more games with their new X-Boxes than they did with their new Gamecubes. How do you explain that, DJ?? [/B]

That's ridiculous. For all you know the reason half the people bought the GCN is because they were after a console, but didn't want to shell out much money.

Wow, funny, that makes sense, too.

[OB1]

Yes, and those were the parents who didn't want to spend too much money on video games. There are basically two main camps that bought Gamecubes: the Nintendo faithful and parents (for their kids). Big Nintendo titles sell very well the first week of release and then drop considerably the following weeks, and that is because die-hard Nintendo fans buy their games as soon as they can, often on the day of their release. Mature-rated games sell poorly on the system while games targeted towards a younger audience sell well, so you can deduce from that that aside from the "die-hard" Nintendo fans most people who own a 'cube are relatively young. Software sales for the GC are also much lower than that of the PS2 and X-Box, which also proves that most GC owners can't afford to buy many games each year (kids). Nintendo didn't attract the adult gamer to the Gamecube, and that is one of the (if not the main one) reasons why they're #3.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, I thought we'd agreed on that a year ago! I mean... its quite obvious that price did not help them to any significant extent, and the point that people see cheaper products as lower quality is absolutely true!