Ashley Posted February 26 Posted February 26 Title says it all really. And let me know if there's a difference to you between physical and digital backwards compatibility. 2
Glen-i Posted February 26 Posted February 26 Absolutely important. I've got a crapton of games on my Switch, and it'd be nice to have them available on one console. 2
Dcubed Posted February 26 Posted February 26 (edited) Mission critical. If they don't have full BC on Switch 2, I'm never buying another 3rd party release on their systems ever again. In this age of multiplatform releases being the norm, where all games basically play the same on every system, and with PC games now being made portable thanks to Steam Deck and other similar devices, there is no reason to choose to buy 3rd party games on Nintendo's platforms if they're not going to provide full ongoing BC. Edited February 26 by Dcubed 1
Jonnas Posted February 26 Posted February 26 Pretty vital. With the enormous backlog I have on my Switch, there's no way I'm grabbing another system if I can't bring it over. 1
S.C.G Posted February 26 Posted February 26 Switch 2 needs to be backwards compatible. There are so many great games on it, plus there will be some Switch owners who are still on their original launch model console, which I'd imagine is still quite a high percentage, so it would be nice to upgrade to a Switch 2 before the original Switch fails, as I am starting to see signs that my launch model Switch is at least wearing out potentially, as the fans don't seem to switch on as much as they used to, coupled with games taking a bit of extra time to load. So for just having a potentially more reliable console that can play both exisiting software (with or without performance upgrades) and new software, would be appealing. Plus if the Joy-Cons are improved, that would nice, I haven't had to buy another pair of controllers since the console launched, but I haven't used them much either. While if the Switch 2 should launch either at the end of this year, or the start of the next year... I still wouldn't be too surpirsed if we didn't see it until 2026, as there are still people just now buying the original Switch, so it could have some ways to go yet... in which case, I just hope my launch model Switch will hold out for another... hundred or so sessions of Smash, Mario Kart and the occaisional NSO title, or random Switch game every now and then. 1
Helmsly Posted February 26 Posted February 26 (edited) It’s the most important feature for me. I don’t think I would buy a switch 2 if it doesnt have backwards compatibility, or if I did buy it, I would do the same as @Dcubedmentioned in his post and use my switch 2 for first party software only Edited February 27 by Helmsly
Julius Posted February 26 Posted February 26 Have to agree with many others here, in that I think it's an essential feature of the Switch's successor. I genuinely don't think anything outside of very early Switch sales records get broken otherwise, and I honestly think it would struggle to get to 100 million units sold without backwards compatibility. Oh, and I think it needs to be backwards compatible in every sense of the word when it comes to Switch titles – both physical and digital. Man, imagine the uproar if it were just the one For me personally? I think it's the deciding factor on whether or not I decide to pick one up on Day 1, outside of a Switch 2 launch exclusive killer app – and I'm talking Game of the Generation/Decade buzz akin to what we had for BOTW at the Switch's launch here, more so than "just" a Game of the Year contender. 1
darksnowman Posted February 27 Posted February 27 It'll be a bitter pill to swallow if it isn't compatible with all current your Switch games.
bob Posted February 27 Posted February 27 LMAO, quite a few replies of "It's the deciding factor of whether I buy one or not"".... obviously I'll still get one to play first party or reeeeally good games"
Dcubed Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 41 minutes ago, bob said: LMAO, quite a few replies of "It's the deciding factor of whether I buy one or not" ".... obviously I'll still get one to play first party or reeeeally good games" Even if that were the case, they'd be losing out on a ton of revenue from 3rd party sale royalities. And I'm certain that I wouldn't be alone in cutting out 3rd party purchases completely on their platforms. Because they would no longer have a compelling USP to justify a purchase on their platform, while also offering significantly less value than everyone else. Edited February 27 by Dcubed 1
Sheikah Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Even if that were the case, they'd be losing out on a ton of revenue from 3rd party sale royalities. And I'm certain that I wouldn't be alone in cutting out 3rd party purchases completely on their platforms. Because they would no longer have a compelling USP to justify a purchase on their platform, while also offering significantly less value than everyone else.But think of all the extra money they'll get selling last gen's games back to you again with a lick of paint...
Dcubed Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Sheikah said: But think of all the extra money they'll get selling last gen's games back to you again with a lick of paint... No reason why they can't still do that. BC didn't stop most publishers (including Sony) from charging for upgrades on PS5. Hell, Nintendo themselves have even done this before with the VC Wii-Wii U upgrade program. Where you could pay a fee to get upgraded versions of the Wii VC games you already transferred to your Wii U. Plenty of DS games also got 3DS remakes too. This is well worn territory by this point. Edited February 27 by Dcubed 1
Sheikah Posted February 27 Posted February 27 No reason why they can't still do that. BC didn't stop most publishers (including Sony) from charging for upgrades on PS5.I'm not talking about occasional £10 upgrades here, I'm talking about what Nintendo did over and over this gen - released Wii U games at full price on Switch. They could do that again if the next Switch isn't backwards compatible. I do think the next Switch will be backwards compatible for what it's worth but there's an incentive for them not to do it as well as do it. In fact not having backwards compatibility really helped Nintendo plug gaps in the Switch release calendar; if all Wii U games could have run on Switch from the outset I think we'd have seen more new games on the Switch.
Ashley Posted February 27 Author Posted February 27 In fairness from a business perspective it's easier to sell remasters of Wii U titles as only about 10% of Switch owners owned the Wii U and about 9.87% of those people are die hard Nintendo fans anyway. 2
Dcubed Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sheikah said: I'm not talking about occasional £10 upgrades here, I'm talking about what Nintendo did over and over this gen - released Wii U games at full price on Switch. They could do that again if the next Switch isn't backwards compatible. The only reason why they could get away with selling them at full price is because almost nobody bought a Wii U to begin with, which essentially made them new games for more than 90% of the Switch's audience. Oh, and this is hardly the first time they've re-released games that were already playable on their system... Remember the New Play Control series of GCN ports on Wii? You could also lump in the Wii U eShop re-releases of Wii disc-based releases into this category too, as well as the likes of Twilight Princess HD (which, hilariously enough, is a situation where the Wii U can potentially play three different versions of this game on the same hardware!) They will probably just do what they've done for generations. Offer upgrades for select Switch games at a discounted price. Edited February 27 by Dcubed
Sheikah Posted February 27 Posted February 27 The only reason why they could get away with selling them at full price is because almost nobody bought a Wii U to begin with, which essentially made them new games for more than 90% of the Switch's audience. Oh, and this is hardly the first time they've re-released games that were already playable on their system... Remember the New Play Control series of GCN ports on Wii? They will probably just do what they've done for generations. Offer upgrades for select Switch games at a discounted price.I'll bet you that many of those who bought the Wii U games went and bought them again on Switch.
Dcubed Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Sheikah said: 9 minutes ago, Dcubed said: The only reason why they could get away with selling them at full price is because almost nobody bought a Wii U to begin with, which essentially made them new games for more than 90% of the Switch's audience. Oh, and this is hardly the first time they've re-released games that were already playable on their system... Remember the New Play Control series of GCN ports on Wii? They will probably just do what they've done for generations. Offer upgrades for select Switch games at a discounted price. I'll bet you that many of those who bought the Wii U games went and bought them again on Switch. Many people probably did (I know I did), because the Switch offered a unique USP in the form of portability. These were the first times that you could play these games on the go. And even then, we would still have been the small minority amongst the wider audience that actually did buy these games on Switch. With Switch 2, what USP is it gonna offer over Switch 1 for said re-releases? Pretty much just higher resolution rendering and better performance; nothing nearly as transformative as portability. Good luck trying to get people to pay a full £50-60 for that alone. And unlike Wii U, Switch 1 wasn't a massive failure; so there isn't a big untapped audience just waiting to be catered to here with such hypothetical ports either. It makes no sense to eschew BC for strategic double-dip reasons this time around. They would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they dared to attempt such a thing. Edited February 27 by Dcubed 1
Sheikah Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Dcubed said: Many people probably did (I know I did), because the Switch offered a unique USP in the form of portability. These were the first times that you could play these games on the go. And even then, we would be the small minority. With Switch 2, what USP is it gonna offer over Switch 1 for said re-releases? Pretty much just higher resolution rendering and better performance; nothing nearly as transformative as portability. Good luck trying to get people to pay a full £50-60 for that alone. And unlike Wii U, Switch 1 wasn't a massive failure; so there isn't a big untapped audience just waiting to be catered to here either. Well there's a pretty big factor - not being left behind. Many people will pick up the Switch 2 and put their original Switch aside - they won't want to take two consoles out and about with them. I'm not saying it would be a straight re-release but imagine a situation where Nintendo take forward, say, Mario Kart 8 on the Switch 2 (with a name change), and release a ton of new tracks for it, and add a lick of paint. They wouldn't have put the effort into making a properly new game (as before), but the fact backwards compatibility isn't there makes it much easier for them to do this without just making this an upgrade/DLC. Whereas if Switch 2 could play Switch 1 games, many people would scratch that Mario Kart itch by just continuing to play 8 DX, and may well expect the new tracks to continue to come to it. Again, I do think Switch 2 will have BC, but there's clearly some advantages again should they choose not to include it. Most people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games after all. Edited February 27 by Sheikah
BowserBasher Posted February 27 Posted February 27 I guess I’m in the minority as someone that thinks it’s essential to them. Maybe it’s because I have kept all my old Nintendo consoles that it doesn’t bother me too much if there isn’t. It’s a nice feature to have but I think the constant change in the media that Nintendo uses makes it a little harder. But not impossible obviously. I mean they managed to make the Wii compatible with GC disks and they were two different sizes. To me the important part is that I should be able to easily access digital games Ive bought, mainly those that were only digital games. I have a few games that I bought on sale that I should be able to keep whatever the next console is. And this of course doesn’t even touch on VC NSO stuff. So to me, whilst it’s a welcome feature it wouldn’t be a deciding one for me.
Hero-of-Time Posted February 27 Posted February 27 5 hours ago, BowserBasher said: So to me, whilst it’s a welcome feature it wouldn’t be a deciding one for me. Same for me. I doubt I'll be trading my Switch in and so I have no issues if the next console is backwards compatible or not. It would stupid if it wasn't and Nintendo would rightfully so get a lot of pushback, but for me personally, it has no bearing on whether or not I buy their next console. That hinges on what new software they will be offering.
Dcubed Posted February 27 Posted February 27 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said: Same for me. I doubt I'll be trading my Switch in and so I have no issues if the next console is backwards compatible or not. It would stupid if it wasn't and Nintendo would rightfully so get a lot of pushback, but for me personally, it has no bearing on whether or not I buy their next console. That hinges on what new software they will be offering. Well, I guess for you; you're already only using the Switch for 1st party games, so the idea of having no BC wouldn't affect you as much as it would me. I actually do enjoy playing 3rd party games on the Switch when they run well and take advantage of its unique features (and I do take advantage of that portability quite a bit); but these kinds of games are becoming vanishingly rare now. So if Switch 2 ends up having no BC, I'll just switch over pretty much all of my 3rd party game purchases to PC/Steam Deck from here on out; and join you with Switch 2 being a first party only machine. The age of the 3rd party exclusive, or even the 3rd party multiplatform game that makes unique use of Nintendo hardware, is all but dead now. So Nintendo better have a reason for me to keep buying 3rd party games on their console if they're not planning on keeping compatibility going. Edited February 27 by Dcubed
Hero-of-Time Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Well, yeah, that's why I said "for me personally". Buying 3rd party games that arent exclusive to Nintendo has never been appealing to me, especially on the Switch. The handheld side of things is a non issue as I don't have to fight for the TV and the games tend to run better elsewhere. My other consoles have always been the better option for such games due to better performance, better online features (not that important to me now) and the added bonus of trophies or achievements.
WackerJr Posted February 28 Posted February 28 Like most responses, I personally would love it but it won’t be the deciding factor for me. I still have a backlog of Switch games. I’ve had this issue on other consoles, but when I couldn’t play them on the system I had out they tend to get pushed the back and in most cases I’ve been too lazy to break out the old console to play it. The portability of Switch may help, as I still occasionally play 3DS / DS games as it’s little effort to simply pick up that console.
Recommended Posts