History of Backwards Compatibility
Introduction
I'm something of a gaming geezer.<br>At the time of this writing I don't own a PlayStation 3,<br>Xbox 360, or even Nintendo Wii.<br>Heck, by the time you're reading this I might be busy not-owning the PlayStation 4, Xbox 720, or WiiII.<br>Although not an active participant in this generation of gaming there's still something about it I admire:<br>all the competing consoles offer backwards compatibility with their previous incarnation.<br>This is the first time in the nearly 40-year history of console gaming it's happened.<br>Hardware manufacturers tried it for various reasons in the past, but not until 2006 was it a standard on all consoles.
This would have seemed impossible ten years ago.<br>The idea that a new game system would support old games was by far the exception instead of the rule.<br>How did backwards compatibility suddenly become an expectation for gamers and why are vendors now obliging?<br>Let's take a walk through the history of backwards compatibility to see how we got where we are today.
OK, so what qualifies as "backwards compatibility"?<br>For this article it refers to a new game system being able to natively play the games from the manufacturers previous system.<br>Whether it's accomplished through hardware or emulation doesn't matter.<br>If a cartridge adaptor is required that's fine.<br>The key is being able to put the actual cartridge or CD in the newer<br>system and play it.<br>Yeah, you can play Genesis games on a Dreamcast with an emulator but you can't exactly stick a Genesis cartridge in and play it.<br>On a similar note, third party (sometime pirate) adaptors to play one system on another<br>don't qualify either.<br>And last but not least, dual or combined systems like the TurboDuo or X'eye<br>aren't included because they weren't new consoles; same deal for<br>computers like the Coleco ADAM that happen to play cartridge games. I think everyone understands what I mean by "backwards compatibility"<br>but I'll still get some email like "well your whole article is totally invalid because you didn't include Amstrad Mega PC which could play Genesis games."<br>This is strictly looking at backwards compatibility from one system generation to the<br>next, not a broad examination of systems that can play other systems.
Note : I see the terms "backward" and "backwards" used about equally when referring to this subject.<br>I be no english scholar so I can't say which is correct.<br>I only went with the 's' version because it just sounds right.
History
In the early 1980s Atari had a chokehold on the infant console gaming market.<br>Coleco and Mattel produced technically superior competitors but the Atari 2600 managed to dominate them both.<br>Brand recognition played a major role, "Atari" was synonymous with home gaming.<br>Despite their apparent strength, Atari recognized that the 2600 was getting stale.<br>There was only so much the system could do and it wouldn't be long before someone knocked them off.<br>The Atari 5200 was their attempt to get ahead of the curve. Due to a<br>redesigned cartridge slot, it could not play play 2600 games though. Gamers<br>were not warm to this, they didn't like the idea that their 2600 games<br>were now unusable. Those that didn't own a 2600 were reluctant to buy<br>this newer system with few games available. This was the first time a major gaming company tried<br>something like this, there was no precedent or experience to leverage.<br>It wasn't long before Atari conceded to customer demand and released an<br>adaptor to play 2600 games on the 5200.
The poor Atari 5200 never stood a chance though.<br>It was as much a victim of the 1983 video game crash as it was a cause.<br>This was also the first time a game company had to figure out how to balance pimping their new system with supporting the previous one.<br>There must have been a tug-of-war going on at Atari.<br>One group pulling to expand the "next-gen" system with another pulling for the resident cash cow.<br>The result was that neither were well supported and both crashed, hard.<br>This may go a long way towards explaining why future console manufacturers<br>were quick to move all resources to their latest, greatest system.
The video game market bottomed-out in 1984.<br>Against the odds Nintendo resuscitated things in 1985 with the NES.<br>Like "Atari" a few years ago, "Nintendo" became synonymous with home gaming. Atari<br>wanted that title back and hoped the Atari 7800 would be their<br>savior.
Unlike the 5200, this new incarnation could play Atari 2600<br>games without an adaptor. I guess that was nice and all but it did<br>virtually nothing to sell the system. The 2600 had been dead for two<br>years, an eternity for a game system. The 7800 looked crude compared<br>to the NES but Atari thought their past reputation would carry<br>it. The 7800 never managed any impact on the gaming market, I found<br>mine sitting on top of a dumpster if that's any indication.
The 7800 wasn't the only console to be crushed by Nintendo in the<br>mid to late 80s. Sega's Master System was the second runner-up to the...