On an offhand note, I think there are fewer and fewer 'classic' games these days.

Way back when, games were simpler (usually), often colourful, and addictive. Most games also didn't require 20+ hours to complete, so if you felt like playing it again, it wouldn't take forever to complete The graphics didn't 'age' in quite the same way 3D ones do. They were already lower resolution and basic to begin with, so yeah....

But I'd hate to see BC disappear. Even though I pretty much don't play any older game anymore (on the PS2), it is always nice to have the option, and lots of people do pop an old game into their system just for kicks.

I agree, while BC is great, and it's nice to have, we have a slue of games heading our way. I'm doing a listing for the 360 at the moment, and there's 385 games, NOT including Japan and US centric game titles. Which if added, would take the listing well over the 400 mark, and that's just games scheduled for '08 - '09 and a few for '10. Not including all those yet to be announced or brought to life during that period.

I think we might find many gamers are simply spoilt for choice these days. Whereas many years ago, our choices were few and far between, we spent 20 plus hours inmost games, and did so over and over again.

These days, many younger gen gamers give a game a few hours, beat it (so called beat it that is) and then trade it in for the next big thing or simply trade it in to say they have X number of games or have played X number of games for bragging rights.

Not exactly good gaming in my book. BC is great, but so is the price of say a 1st-gen Xbox. We can pick one up here in Australia wfor the cost of ONE normal game ($85)and thus have access to every game that came out on the 1st-gen console.

I have mine resting under my 360, and can run both at the same time, switch between console while both are playing a game, for comparison reasons etc, and enjoy the fun of both consoles. All for the cost of one normal priced game.

Or is that too hard or complicated for many gamers now, do they expect instant service on all things and demand the best at all times.

I think XboxOZ360 has a point about having older systems, especially when you start looking at backward compatibility sheets for all three major systems. For example, PS3 60 and 80 gb will play most PS2 titles, but with major features left out or unusable (Shadowhearts lottery). The exact same is true for the Xbox; the example I always like is that Ninja Gaiden (for Xbox, not 360) will work, but you can't play the hidden game included. All in all, not a big deal.

However, the point I would like to make is that technology will, invariably, break down at some point in the future. And while it can be repaired, the cost will increase and the availability of repair technicians will decrease. I think it would behoove the big three to make backward compatibility a necessary feature in order to preserve their history. Think about how many games have fallen by the wayside because of the incessant march forward of technology. Would we still have Super Mario Bros. without the Gameboy or VC? Would Sonic have survived without the Gamecube or VC? Granted, the Sonic Collections were multi-system, but they came from a virtually (lol) dead console series.

My point is, you don't stop playing a game just because its old (hell, look at Zork and StarCraft), you stop playing it because the hardware fails or the next-big-thing comes out. Every other major industry has a historical aspect that is preserved as a way to show how we came this way. Gaming (both PC and console) has a need to preserve its heritage, even if we have to include the likes of the Sega 32x and Nintendo Virtual Boy.

Now that I've been on the soapbox, I think BC is absolutely awesome. That's why I have the 80 gb PS3 in my living room. It was really fun to fire up Final Fantasy X and plow through it again. And having all my saves on the hard drive and not on a memory card is freaking amazing as I always hated to delete saves. Now, I just put them in a folder and back it up. I really don't think its a lot to ask to include backward compatibility as a) it increases the available game library; b) makes people go back and play those older games that are often better than the crap being put out today (I'm looking squarely at Sonic the Hedgehog for PS3); and c) why shouldn't the next generation pay homage to its predecessor's by playing their titles? It's not laziness, its preservation; besides, we pay almost $60 US for new titles here in the States (and I know a lot more in other countries), so why shouldn't you demand the best you can get from companies that charge you so much?

to your comment about the lottery in SH. i have the 60 PS3. i have all 3 in the series, and many more PS2 games. the lottery workes perfectly. as well as all the other PS2 games. case in point i have never had BC problems with MY PS3