Whymustitbe wrote:
Do you think that Apple, a billion-dollar company, could have built an emulator to run 32-bit games?
Sure. Absolutely. Now think through the implications of this added work.
This means an incremental cost to develop the increasing numbers of guests of the past, the costs to back-port fixes and updates such as SSL/TLS into each of these past guests (nothing is ever static in security, and many apps need network connections), regression testing and packaging work, and to inevitably see incompatible changes either blocked or see app-breaking compatibility changes to keep older guests working, and also to constrain what new work can provided.
And this work all to benefit those not really spending money to keep their apps updated, too.
And quite possibly to the detriment of new work and new updates for the folks that are buying.
I have worked in an environment that did what you are suggesting with long-term (a decade or more) upward compatibility too, and it’s a great trap for a vendor, and more subtly a great trap for the customers—as they both realize that some other platform quite possibly from some other vendor—some new console, for instance—has outstripped their current product choices.
Enterprise environments see this same conflict quite commonly, too. Many would prefer to never upgrade. But they also want fixes. Non-trivial fixes tend to be incompatible, or expensive or impossible to back-port. And they want newer features. Which pretty soon means upgrades.
Want this game? Stay on an iPhone or iPad or iPod touch running an older version. Or buy a console, and run your games there for as long as that console continues to work, and for as long as the network services and license services for networked games and licensed games remain available and compatible.