said by C0deZer0:said by captokita:It's not that I expect a plethora of new games to come out for it, but I also don't expect it to be cut loose and treated like it doesn't exist either.
Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Sony.
They went out of their way to brag about the ten year lifespan for the PS1, but trying to find any new peripherals or memory cards for PS1 stuff after the first six months of the PS2's release was next to impossible. And despite the PSP still being well within its supposed ten-year span globally, only the Japanese release schedule really shows a significant amount of new games coming to the handheld, while it's basically treated like an abortion here in the states, in favor of their absurdly overpriced, non-BC Vita.
One reason I could see 360 owners moving on to the next system quickly, is that unlike the Xbox 1 to 360 transition, Microsoft
did keep the IP rights to the hardware in the 360, so there's less reason for them to not include proper BC for the 360 on the newer system, and get people who adopt early a good, revised system to play their current games, and maybe even with better graphics and/or load times to boot. At the least, unlike Sony nor Nintendo (to a lesser extent), Microsoft didn't take away functionality of their systems with successive revisions of their consoles.
It seems like there's an interesting dichotomy of attitudes about this concept though. Not necessarily here, but I mean within the gaming community overall. I built my PC about four years ago. I know people with more recent PCs than mine who game as well. Many of us have had trouble with some newer games (Diablo 3, and the Mists of Pandaria expansion for WoW) in terms of sucking up GPU processing power and generally causing slowdown on the system whenever the game's running, even at very low graphics settings. Whenever I've mentioned this on forums for either of those games, I get attacked, and am told that PC games should not be designed with machines that are older than 1-2 years in mind. Their solution: Go build a new PC, or don't expect to play.
Yet console developers should be expected to support those for a lifespan of up to 10 years? Why is it the attitude of "upgrade often or fall behind" is acceptable when it comes to PC gaming, yet when it comes to console gaming a console that's 7, 8, 9+ years old should still be clinging to some semblance of life?
I do think that at the very least, memory cards and peripherals for the last generation console should still be made available for a considerable length of time, and existing games should still be sold. Gamestop (evil as they may be) does a great job of this with their used game market, supporting one generation behind what's currently on the market.