7 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 19.4 ms ] thread
Im not well versed in these things, but this is a pretty official looking Nintendo account, so is it sufficient to treat this information as factual?

There are all sorts of opinions to be made about the merits of this decision, if factual. I’ll just say that as a consumer I value backwards compatibility highly and probably would not consider purchasing the next generation of this console without it.

Yes, this is Nintendo's official corporate account
Xboxes have been backwards compatible forever. PlayStation mostly, too. It would be expected for Switch to follow suit.
> PlayStation mostly, too

I really don't know much about XBox but this sounds wrong. Wasn't the PS5 the first actually backwards compatible, and only with its immediate predecessor the PS4 (Pro)?

PS2 backwards compatible with PS1, early models of PS3 was compatible with PS2.

This was achieved by simply cramming the older hardware into the newer. Quite a common strategy, really – I believe Sega did this too with Mega Drive being able to play Master System games (using a physical adapter).

Nintendo did the same for achieving backwards compatibility for Game Boy games on Game Boy Advance. Wii-GC compatibility was however achieved by the consoles using the same (but buffed) chipset. Gonna be interesting to see how they achieve backwards compatibility this time around.

> PS2 backwards compatible with PS1, early models of PS3 was compatible with PS2.

TIL, thanks!

I knew about some of the others but good to learn something new!

Well now it makes sense why they were on a crusade to purge all Switch emulators from the face of the internet.