Backward compatability is 'backwards' strategy, says Microsoft
Microsoft's Don Mattrick says only 5% of customers play older games on their new consoles, concluding, "if you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards."
Given that the PlayStation 4 won't run PlayStation 3 games natively, and the Xbox 360's rocky history with emulating Xbox games, it didn't come as much surprise that the Xbox One isn't backward compatible. You'll have to keep your 360 hooked up to play the last eight years of games. Don Mattrick, president of the interactive entertainment division at Microsoft, says the demand for the feature just isn't there.
Mattrick told the The Wall Street Journal that only about 5% of customers play older games on their new system, which makes the feature too costly and time-intensive to be worth it. This led him to coin the confounding turn of phrase, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards."
The transition to new architecture does make it difficult to offer the functionality. A social media research firm said a survey of potential customers showed only 12% said they would be unhappy if it didn't have backward compatibility. That makes the decision somewhat understandable, but yesterday's presentation was followed quickly by some skepticism and mixed messages from Microsoft, so it might behoove executives to be careful with their statements.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Backward compatability is 'backwards' strategy, says Microsoft.
Microsoft's Don Mattrick says only 5% of customers play older games on their new consoles, concluding, "if you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards."-
-
PS2 did PS1 well didn't it? And PS3 does PS1 and used to do PS2 for a brief time. 360 did a subset of the Xbox games.
-
I believe in the case of playstation, each iteration has contained essentially a PS1 SOC partly for backwards compatibility but mostly as a control chip for other stuff.
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
don't you need to download a patch for each Xbox game when you first try to play it on the 360?
-
[deleted]
-
right, they were basically ports, you had to download a patch to make them work iirc, which would lead to data like what percentage of owners even tried to run a single Xbox game on the 360.
-
[deleted]
-
but then you would register as one of the 5% having tried even once. This wasn't about how much time people spent playing older games, or how many older games they play. The statement was only 5% of customers play older games, implying only 5% of customers even tried to play a single Xbox game (and I would guess like 80%+ of that 5% was people trying to play Halo/Halo 2). Whether it was a poor experience or not once they tried is irrelevant, the vast majority of people didn't even care to try it.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
what solution are you proposing? You can pay Sony for a streaming version of your already purchased content, you can ask every XBLA developer to port their game (for free since you refuse to pay for that work), or ...?
-
-
So you think the games will be available on the XO?
If the games are manually ported, I suppose you might expect them to be free. On the other hand, I don't expect to get Fez for free on steam, just because I already bought it on XBLA.
Porting to a new platform is an investment that might not be worth it. Usually it would probably make more sense to use your energy on creating new titles.-
Obviously Steam and XBLA are different platforms. I've bought Zen and Pinball Arcade on PS Store and XBLA, I dont expect it to apply to the other console. I'm saying, if you do put out a new console, and you do make said game you've already purchased on XBLA / PS Store available to the new console, people will buy the future content for that title rather than say, fuck off, you're buying it all over again.
-
-
They should give developers the opportunity to bring their existing game to the One outside of the normal Wed only 1 game a week cycle. Sony should do the same for the PS4.
So if Behemoth wants to bring Castle Crashers out on XBox1 and you bought it for 360 you automatically get the new version if you bought it for 360. At the bare minimum even if you don't automatically give the new version to the customer allow the developer the say in whether or not to do so.-
-
Let the developers make that decision though.
-
-
Same reason all games are made to make money. I am not saying it would be a 100% success rate but it should at least be an option for developers.
-
I don't see where it isn't an option for developers.
-
-
-
-
-
-
You don't have to pay again, you can just play on your 360....
-
so which of my proposals are you asking for then? Every XBLA dev to port their game to the Xbox One for free?
-
-
ok so why are you complaining about MS? Your issue is with the XBLA and PSN developers who aren't willing to port their content to their respective new systems for free to please you. Both platforms have the same issue.
-
-
Sony confirmed the PS4 is not backwards compatible with your existing PS3 PSN purchases or discs, because of course it's not, because that's how CPU architecture changes work.
Are there alternative solutions? Sure, Sony could give away the emulated/ported/cloud streaming version. So could MS if you believe that's a realistic possibility.-
here's the actual tweet confirming it'll be done via the cloud service http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010604/PS4-will-not-support-PS3-games
If you think that'll work for free... well... good luck with that.
-
-
-
-
Why are you acting like playing games on future consoles is something new and only MS faces this challenge? You tell us, how did Sony and Nintendo manage it? PS3 plays PS1 games, Wii U plays Wii games, Wii played GC games, this is nothing new and not a big mystery. It's poor forward thinking on the manufacturers part.
Maybe less money and time spent on superfluous TV and Skype stuff, more focus on backwards compat. The onus isn't on Wolfanoz to solve MS incompetence and poor planning.-
Why is MS and Sony incompetent for making machines that are focused on playing new games rather than ones you already have?
TV and Skype might be fluff, but the choice of an AMD APU for both consoles seems incredibly sound. (If anything, if they had taken this step last generation, they would probably have been able to deliver backwards compatibility today).
On the other hand, continuing down the same technical paths of the 360 and PS3, solely to make backwards compatibility possible, would have been incredibly short sighted.
And lots of older consoles weren't backwards compatible. For example SNES couldn't play NES games, and N64 couldn't play SNES games. -
Sony managed it by including the old hardware in the new hardware. Then they realized no one actually cares about this feature and removed the old hardware from the PS3 so that the new hardware could be cheaper for the consumer and have higher margins for Sony. It didn't make any sense to incur those costs for the 5% of people who use it.
Nintendo managed it by not significantly changing their architecture because they don't care about chasing performance gains with new hardware.
Pick your poison. The new Xbox could've continued to use a PowerPC architecture, and then been harder to develop for and port for compared to PC and PS4. Who knows what other effects that would've had on the overall power level and cost of the system. But then you'd get a great backwards compatibility story for free. Would you prefer that trade off?-
They also realized they could turn it into a profit center as well and now sell classic PS2 games on their storefronts and continue to sell them weekly. They kept in the PS1 compat.
And yes, Nintendo found more things important than what MS is doing with their box with everything they are putting their resources into I guess.
I would enjoy a console focused on me being able to play games, the past ones and future ones if possible. It's not a must, but I def. don't like this hubris about how we're "really backwards".
The PC also handles it very well and continues to increase gains much higher than what consoles do. If I put in a new video card or buy a new PC, Steam doesn't tell me "Sorry, buy all your games again." The problem is shortsightedness by the console manufs. combined with them finding it a profit center and maybe a dab of just not giving a shit. The Cell processor was about the biggest mistake Sony made in their console lifetime I would say for this and other reasons and while they haven't openly admitted that, their new direction agrees. How it will affect their future with BC is unknown. Thankfully, there is still hope with Gaikei or whatever it's called. MS's "you're really backwards" comes across differently.
-
The PC also handles it very well and continues to increase gains much higher than what consoles do.
Because the PC doesn't change CPU architecture frequently like consoles, because MS + Intel won that battle long ago. Of course, if you use Windows on ARM now this actually isn't the case. If you had a PowerPC Mac before Apple made the switch to Intel you'll also have encountered this problem. My copies of Diablo 2 and other old Blizzard games have the Mac version on the same disc as the PC version. Except it's for the old PowerPC Macs. I can't install them on a new Mac, and Apple removed Rosetta (the PowerPC emulation layer) in recent versions of OSX. So now I have to rebuy Diablo 2 if I want to play it on my Mac.
The problem is shortsightedness by the console manufs
How exactly is it short sighted? What should Sony have done in 1994 with the PS1? Correctly predicted which CPU architecture was and would be best for games for the next 20 years so they could get backwards compatibility at the same level as the PC? Do you know how much Intel charges for their x86 stuff (hint: it's not cheap)? And they should do all this for a feature they know a tiny percentage of customers use throughout the entire console's lifetime? Why didn't Nintendo correctly predict this from the NES era so that back compat worked through the N64 and GC rather than now just reselling you VC games?-
" What should Sony have done in 1994 with the PS1? Correctly predicted which CPU architecture was and would be best for games for the next 20 years so they could get backwards compatibility at the same level as the PC?"
Well, you can play PS1 games on a PS2 and a PS3 so I'm not sure your point there. Sony's was shortsighted for many reasons with the Cell. From developers to gamers to their own situation now having to eat crow and go back on their whole investment into Cell.
And Nintendo knows the value of their past catalog, yes, which is why you can buy NES games on the Wii U. You will not be able to buy XBOX 1 games on the XBOX One will you? Much less XBOX 360? Isn't that what he's saying, that that's a backwards idea? They don't even seem to care.-
My point is you're bouncing around between different concepts and not understanding the actual issues at play here. Sony 'solving' backwards compat by including the old hardware in the new is an untenable long term solution, as they proved with the PS3.
Then you go and contradict yourself by saying you're actually happy to rebuy old games for the right price anyway, so why should the console owner invest in true backwards compat at a hardware level? Since that's the feature that the original quote is about. -
[deleted]
-
I think he genuinely does not grok the differences in engineering, even if perhaps you were trying to make a cycle-accurate emulator between the two. It would be a simpler, easier effort to create an XBox emulator for the XBox One being that they share an x86 arch, but there is still the AMD/Nvidia GPU to wrestle with, plus testing across the several hundred games involved, and at the end of the day us nerds who play them are fewer, farther between, disjointed, and like different games in such a variety that it is way less worth their time today to even go down this road.
But we can always still play Vampire Rain on our XBox 360. Or on the PS3. That is what is really important.
-
-
-
-
-
-
The "superfluous TV and Skype stuff" is a big part of their strategy. Like it or not, competition for the hardware Americans keep in the cabinets under their TVs is getting more and more fierce. Many hardware makers are understandably looking for ways to make their device be the one that appeals to the broadest possible range of customers.
-
-
-
-
-
Sony spent $400 million to acquire Gakai's streaming game service. That's the only way they could provide any form of backwards compatibility. That shit isn't gonna come for free, it'll be in PSN+. They talked about some of it during the PS4 reveal but only in vague terms since they don't actually know how/if it'll work, when that would be, and how much it would cost.
-
-
I'm sure Sony will happily give away the ongoing cost of streaming old games to recoup their $400 million investment. I didn't say you would have to rebuy the game, I said you would have to pay to be able to use the back compat system. Whether that gives you access to your old purchases or not is an open question, but I cannot imagine a streaming game service running for free. Sony already has a subscription service they're trying to push and add value to, streaming games are a perfect complement to that and we've already seen streaming game services go bankrupt while charging a subscription. Sony doesn't have the cash to just eat the cost for goodwill. The entire point would be to allow people who care about BC to pay for it, while those who don't care, don't pay, and Sony saves money by not having to do things like include old hardware in the new like they did with the PS2 hardware in the PS3.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not too worried about the 360 games but no transfer of my Arcade purchases just seems crazy.
-
I do agree with this. If anythingn if you own the 360 version, you should at least be able to download the version on the xone for free.
-
-
No, not really. maybe some of the higher profile ones. I honestly only have like 5-6 arcade games.
-
-
Thing is how do you prove you "own" it. You could rent games from things like Gamefly or, if any still exists that rent them out, local video stores and say they own them that way. Or take advantage of Gamestop's return policy on used games by buying a bunch of games and then returning them.
-
Im talking about Arcade games, not actual discs.
-
Then people would complain about why they go to the extremes of making just Arcade games work on One but not their disc games. That or a lot of developers would be doing a lot of work to port the games for little to no new revenue, depending on the age of said game.
Then there's the fact that Microsoft would probably still charge them to "patch" the game to be able to run on One (assuming that his will still be the case. But seeing as they still require publishers to be even consider putting a game on the system I would be surprised if that policy would change)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Yeah my friend wanted to resell his PSP to get a Vita and they only offered $25 bucks for it at Gamestop which is retarded. So there's no real benefit to trade in a system to get a new one.
-
I'm not too hung up on BC either.
I can see where it would be kind of nice to have only one thing hooked up to the TV. Also, when your PS3/360 decides to shit the bed, I would be pretty cool to just be able to play them on your current system than have to hunt down a working system (especially many years down the road). -
Old hardware fails, services can go kaput (look at the shutting down of Xbox Live for the original Xbox). Your discs will still be around but what happens to digital purchases after that if you can't download them?
They're guaranteed more money by re-releasing the most popular games for the new systems and having people buy them all over again. Nintendo has been doing it for years. Time for Sony and Microsoft to jump on board. -
[deleted]
-
At the start of a new console cycle we all would like free BC if they could do it, because it means we can instantly buy the new console, discard our old one, keep playing our old and great games.
By the middle to end of that console cycle we couldn't care less about most of the emulated games but right at the beginning it's that one sticking point which would take a lot of us from "oh maybe / eventually" to "day one, no problems"
-
[deleted]
-
ALL-IN-ONE!! Yeah, except your huge game library, it's not invited.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
When it comes down to it, what motivation do they have to develop BC?
Its apparently complicated to pull off, not to mention they can't resell you games later.
-
-
I recognize that I am a minority, but I used my Wii a TON for playing Gamecube games. My Gamecube broke just a couple weeks after I got my Wii, so without BC in the original release Wii I would have had to have paid a ton of money to find a working Gamecube.
The convenience factor of BC cannot be understated, and ignoring users from your previous generation console who want to get engaged with your new system but don't want to abandon their old beloved games seems extremely short-sighted. -
They all seem to ignore the fact this is the first time many console users have a built up digital library (PSN / XBLA) may end up losing all access to those titles in the future. A lot of those digital games which are already HD, and some are visually timeless. There's too many unknowns. We've already seen Xbox Live for the first Xbox go away, and access to certain released XBLA games come and go after rights change or expire.
It's a shame there's no effort made towards discussing the preservation of the smaller, digital games when saying no one cared about BC in the past when the situation was totally different. To me, it would be just as bad as buying new PC and losing my Steam account.
-
I've mentioned this before, but wouldn't Steam users find it odd if the SteamBox 1 came out, then the SteamBox 2, but oh, the SteamBox 2 only plays games released after the SteamBox 2 came out. None of your older games.
It's a mistake in planning and forward thinking on behalf of the manufacturers that even Nintendo gets right. It's like they never even contemplated it while designing the systems. Well, MS did with that whole "forward thinking software" or whatever that was supposed to make games even better when you play them on the next console. What happened to that idea?
Sony makes attempts then found out they could turn it into a profit center. Noone plays old games.. Yeah, ask Nintendo or Sony how those sales on classic games are going they do weekly in their stores. Some games Sony releases were never released in the US so the market for playing the classics is most def. there, they all want to turn it into a profit center and remove the ability to purchase 2nd hand.-
Nintendo doesn't get it right all the time. Software sure but you can't play SNES games on a N64 or put N64 into a GCN. They re-released some games or offer them online which gets around it.
Now don't forget even though the Wii-U can play old Wii games, it was a pain in the ass because they tie it to the console not an account.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/fourth-times-the-charm-nintendo-eases-wii-u-transfer-issue-with-store-credit/
Going forward for Sony or MSFT things should be easier for BC if it's going to keep the same style architecture in the next-next generation.-
"Going forward for Sony or MSFT things should be easier for BC if it's going to keep the same style architecture in the next-next generation."
Thsi si what I am really hoping, and no, Nintendo does not always get it right, but they also don't say, "You're really backwards" when it comes to the topic. They understand the value of their past library and try very hard to make that still available even today. For $.30 I can buy Super Metroid and play it on my Wii U.-
so you're actually completely ok being forced to rebuy your old content for the right price
-
-
no I just understand what the number 5% means. There was a non-trivial effort put into enabling Xbox games to run on the 360 without having to rebuy them with real backwards compatibility. Which is what this article is about. Hardware backwards compatibility is completely different from offering the ability to rebuy old games via emulation or an HD remake. People complaining about backwards compatibility are complaining that they can't use their existing purchases on the new hardware. They're not complaining that they can't rebuy it on the new hardware. They're explicitly complaining that they don't want to rebuy it. They're completely different things that you seem to think are the same while people in this very thread demonstrate how untrue that is.
-
-
That's not really true. You can play all your Wii VC titles in the Wii emulated mode. The additional price is for updated versions. Sure, transferring the Wii to the Wii U was a bit of a PITA, but it was free and it had Pikmin.
-
but aren't the Wii VC titles NES/SNES games you rebought on the Wii VC? It wasn't backwards compatible with our old NES/SNES purchases.
-
There was no NES/SNES/GC upgrade pricing for the Wii because the Wii was the first to have a VC.
-
You're talking about stuff that isn't really relevant to what's going on here.
This is how this started http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=30207802#item_30207802
It's a mistake in planning and forward thinking on behalf of the manufacturers that even Nintendo gets right. It's like they never even contemplated it while designing the systems
Nintendo wasn't any more forward thinking than anyone else. They dropped true backwards compatibility and instead had you repurchase games you once paid for before. Because they understand the costs of true hardware BC and what the market is willing to do. The Wii U happens to run the Wii VC games because they didn't switch architectures because they're not chasing high performance games. I already asked him if this was a trade off he was willing to make for true BC, I don't suspect the answer is 'yes I'm happy with that trade off'-
The Wii U plays Wii games because it has a Wii built into the system. It plays Wii Disk or Wii games you've purchased and transferred. You go into Wii mode which essentially boots the Wii up.
I don't care how we get to play our old games. Stream them, repurchase them, the issue I have is this carefree and near PS3-launch hubris he's exhibiting by claiming BC is backwards thinking or whatever. Just that mindset that the old library is not worth playing as only 5% cared. Maybe only 5% cared because you half assed it and the service weasn't up to speed? I disagree with his idea that "people don't care about old games". Ok, maybe MS old games, but Nintendo and Sony disagree as they continue to sell them in one way or another. MS seems to imply they see zero point at all. None. Streaming, repurchasing, anything much less a free transfer.
That's my issue, the mindset. Not how it's technically handled. I can't understand the mindset of someone that is ok with never being able to play the past games they've paid for and supports that for everyone.
I would have much rather seen MS say, "We know our past catalog is full of great titles people enjoy playing and we're looking into how we can make that happen." instead of "you're really backwards."
-
-
you had to rebuy Metroid on the Wii VC even if you owned the original Metroid cart because the Wii didn't have the hardware back compat you want out of the new consoles
-
That is true, and I will leave it with this as I think we've both beat this horse to a fine mist. If down the road MS introduces a streaming solution, which I have no doubt they will, I'll be super happy. I really enjoy some of the older games and as someone who only owned a 360 for a few months, I want to be able to play some of those titles one day is all.
-
yep, I mean I will be sad if I have no way to go back and play Geometry Wars 2 and Trials HD and whatnot other than plugging in my old 360. I suspect playing something twitchy like that over a streaming service won't be very satisfying either. But there're good reasons that that is the case and I can't really argue with the business justifications that lead to this state. That's why Sony and MS are in very similar situations in this regard. It's unfortunate compared to the more stable architecture behind the PC but maybe that won't be a problem going forward if consoles are going to stick with x86 for new generations.
-
-
-
-
The Wii U plays Wii games because it has a Wii built into the system. It plays Wii Disk or Wii games you've purchased and transferred. You go into Wii mode which essentially boots the Wii up.
Right, and this is what Sony did with the PS3 and PS2 hardware. They very quickly reversed that decision and appear to be happy with the results because very few people actually care about it, even though Sony obviously has a great old library. It would appear people are more interested in spending real money purchasing an HD remake than trying to play blocky, low res 10+ year old games.
I don't care how we get to play our old games. Stream them, repurchase them, the issue I have is this carefree and near PS3-launch hubris he's exhibiting by claiming BC is backwards thinking or whatever. Just that mindset that the old library is not worth playing as only 5% cared.
I don't think this is the attitude at all. You're conflating hardware back compat with having HD rereleases and such. His comment was obviously a little abrasive while trying to be clever but the reality is few people care about true hardware back compat. All the platform owners have this data.
If you're willing to rebuy your old games I suspect you will have more than a few opportunities to do that across every console. MS has already done at least one HD remake on the 360, Sony has done a bunch on the PS3. Assuming those sell well I don't see any reason to think the practice won't continue into the next generation. They're using data to say people don't care about using their old discs on the new console. If other data says people do want to pay for and play HD versions of those old games (which is distinctly different from putting in the old disc and playing in its old low res form) then I can't imagine why developers wouldn't make such remakes or why the platform owner would stop them.
Putting in your old discs and having them 'just work' is expensive to make happen, hamstrings future development, appeals to a tiny share of customers, but costs everyone (the platform owner and every customer bears the brunt of the cost even if they don't care about BC, that's why Sony removed the PS2 hardware from the PS3). Playing HD remakes means only the people who care about going back to those games have to pay, they get a new/upgraded experience while they're at it, and new stuff isn't held back by (potentially poor) decisions of old. That's the same idea behind Sony using a paid streaming service to serve those people with back compat if they want it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Same here.
-
-
I am the 5%.
Joking aside, I see the wisdom in cutting BC. Designing hardware that can run old games and support cool new technologies forces manufacturers to keep one foot in the past when, realistically, most gamers want new games to show off their shiny new platforms. I've noticed over the last several years that many gamers burn through new games quickly. A Tuesday rolls around, they pick up the new releases, and clear their plate by the time more must-have games hit (virtual) shelves. These gamers, at least, don't look back. They want to consume new stuff and leave the past in the past.
I replay old favorites more than I pick up new games, mostly because of time. I do that by hanging on to my old hardware, though. I have to imagine more gamers than ever before will choose to keep their 360 and/or PS3. This generation has lasted so long, and so many games have been released in so many formats, that I can't see many gamers willing to part with all the games they've accumulated for what will probably only be a few bucks in store credit at GameStop.
If you want to play old games, just hang on to your old hardware. I love older, classic games, but they shouldn't prevent hardware makers and developers from pushing technology forward.-
Look further into the future though: http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=30207733
What's going to happen? Will we have to hope for some reverse engineering and emulators to keep all those digital games alive illegally on the PC? There's no guarantee they'll be accessible on the console you bought them on x years from now.-
What are the options though?
We could stick with the same architecture forever. Sony could be stuck with the Cell forever now to ensure good PS3 back compat. That doesn't really seem like it's doing the best thing for the future at the cost of the past.
The platform owner could try to implement a general purpose emulation layer. Beyond the engineering cost of this, if you look at the hardware required to emulate an old console on PC, there's no way a next gen console will have the power to emulate the previous generation successfully.
The dev could port their game to the new system. This is obviously perfectly feasible but you're never going to get everyone to do this and you're unlikely to get them to do this work and not charge a fee for the 'feature.'
The platform owner could try to port at a higher granularity like the Xbox 360 did for Xbox games, targeting whole engines. Like leaving it up to individual devs, this doesn't hit everything, and is still error prone as noted in posts above.
The platform owner could offer a streaming OnLive type service to access older hardware. This seems the most reasonable but is cost prohibitive to offer for free. It also doesn't avoid the issues around how this will work in 10-20 years if the original services the game was dependent on (ex XBL) aren't around.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Look, it's not backwards if I poured thousands of dollars into your eco system in what is considered the longest console generation in gaming history.
-
Oh, and my live subscription conveniently carries over but all my bought shit doesn't.
And look, I don't give a shit how you solve it, be it an extra chip, add-on, emulation, streaming... that's your problem.
In today's digital eco systems you can't pull that shit. The old console rules do not apply anymore, people are invested in Xbox Live Arcade/On Demand, not the Xbox 360 itself.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
How long will MS be manufacturing 360s? I have 30+ games and my Xbox is 4 years old, seems like I might need to buy a spare 360 at some point just to be safe. Then of course how long before 360s get locked out of Xbox live preventing the transfer of dlc/xbla stuff? My sega genesis still works, Herzog Zwei must be played once a year to appease the German Gods of War.
-
-
-
-
play some mother fucking Fatal Frame and The Suffering! and Links 2004
-
-
Echoes of derelict515 vis-a-vis Win32: http://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=29906691#item_29906691
-
I have no idea why you think this is related
-
-
I agree with this actually. I was always so worried about this feature in consoles but in reality I hardly ever used it.
-
I'd rather they used the resources to make the new software better sooner.
-
-
-
You know, as much as I thought I was going to want BC on my 360 and PS3, I really didn't use it. I can count the BC games that I played on both systems on one hand. I'm sure you can make an argument that if BC had been more robust on the collective consoles it might have been more appealing, but in my case I doubt it.
I would have played the fuck out of some RalliSport Challenge 2 and that would have been it. -
-
-
-
Yeah but did you own it before or after it was RE-released from GOG? That is not just backwards compatibility. It is no different then games being released for the Wii virtual console. Great more people are trying out the game but it there was also some testing through GOG to get it working and installing on PC.
-
-
Yeah bu the whole resurgence happened because the game was re-released on GOG. It has always been available but most people are to lazy to look for it or go through any extra headache to get it working. The resurge of interest on it isn't entirely because of the backwards comparability of Windows at this point it could have been ported to run on android if they wanted.
Also the difference between the system architecture of the PS3/PS4 and 360/XBox One is way more then just the steady evolution of PC hardware. Unless that system on a chip rumor had held true the chances of backwards compatibility were slim.-
-
if you would like to propose a solution for binary compatibility across CPU architectures I'm sure a few people would be interested
-
-
I mean, I get being disappointed, but I don't get the 'I'm taking my ball and going home' response if you understand the issues in play here. Sony and MS have the exact same problem in this regard.
-
No nononono. I don't own a 360, don't plan to own a XBone. "You are backwards." is what got to me. I *do* believe in playing old games and turning people on to old games (cough, play Terra Nova and Vietcong); he just came out of the blue and said not only that he doesn't care about such things, but I'm dumb because I do.
-
-
-
Yeah. I mean, I miss some exclusives, but generally I don't MISS them, if you know what I mean. Already having a PC game available or coming that is similar or better, with few exceptions.
Mostly I'd be interested in niche Japanese games that no one would ever port like Godhand, Ken's Rage, Ookami...Brave Fencer Musashi maybe.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
clearly MS believes the same thing, that's why things like Halo Anniversary exist and why significant effort was spent to enable back compat for Xbox games on the 360. He made a silly comment specifically about hardware back compat because it's expensive to do and for little gain as it turns out. You guys can turn it into a big thing about 'Microsoft hates gamers and old games and everything I love' if you want.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
But that can't happen with the Xbox One. You wouldn't be able to buy a re-release of some obscure game because they'd have to put a ton of resources into porting the whole thing. Virtual Console stuff is trivial because of how easily it is to make an emulator for the NES and SNES, but when you're talking about playing good old Oddworld Stranger's Wrath on the Xbox One there's no chance in hell it'll happen.
-
-
-
-
-
-
what are you going to do with all your PSN purchases?
-
-
-
I agree with this.
-
I guarantee in a few years they'll sell emulated "classics" just to grab the extra cash off that, but offer no backwards ownership rights on it.
-
so exactly what Sony did this generation?
-
btw here's how that strategy was received:
http://www.gamerankings.com/ps3/971800-god-of-war-collection/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/ps3/998181-the-ico-and-shadow-of-the-colossus-collection/index.html
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/06/17/god-war-series-worldwide-sales-show-god-war-iii-at-the-top/
http://www.destructoid.com/ico-shadow-of-the-colossus-collection-tops-charts--212666.phtml-
Those were also full retail disc games on an SD platform turned into $20 HD digital releases on the new system, in addition to the disc compilations. Games from a system which (PS2) had no online account that digital licenses and achievements the same games could already be attached to.
It's not just Sony either, Capcom and Ubisoft did the same with Resident Evil and Prince of Persia.
But Who's going to bother porting a $10-15 XBLA game that's already HD and sell it for a much lower price than the original like that? What full retail 360 games are going to be worthy enough for remastering on the X'one? What can that offer already being in HD? Anisotropic filtering and clearer textures? Slightly better framerates? Unless they're doing a total overhaul / remake, which isn't the same as the PS3 examples, there won't be as much of a demand for rereleased "classics" on the new platform.-
And the obvious overhaul example on the 360 is Halo Anniversary. I can see more of that kind of thing happening if there's a demand for it, but it will probably be just as rare.
It's also unique in that it has the new art and visuals running on top of the same classic game, and original assets you could swap back to on the fly. While the PS3 HD releases were mostly the original stuff in a higher resolution without the completely overhauled visuals. Arguably a lot less work and resources doing it one way, and that way was acceptable for the SD to HD conversion, not so much in the HD to slightly better HD transition.-
sure, all your points are reasonable, but what's the result? You're saying there won't be HD remakes. Well we know we can't do 'real' back compat. So that leaves what as our options? Keep the old hardware around or play via a streaming cloud service if you're willing to deal with the downsides of that system.
-
The result is we need people from Microsoft and Sony out there stating their intent to preserve their online digital libraries of games and our account purchases and alleviating some concerns, maybe even attempting to solve these problems rather than saying who cares? Because people will care. Eventually.
Problem is we're in uncharted territory right now, for the first time a large digital library of console games may possibly be lost to us for good. it's going to be years before we see how it shakes out, and few on our end will be saying much of anything until the time comes and the digital games or online services for the previous generation of hardware start to disappear forever. The less interest all parties show in keeping those digital games and libraries alive in the new systems, the less likely it is that I'll ever buy another game from these companies digitally. If the generation of hardware after this new one has enough architecture changes as well we could be going through the same process yet again.
-
maybe even attempting to solve these problems rather than saying who cares?
I mean, there is a known solution. Emulation is it. Current hardware just isn't capable of doing it well even if someone puts in the engineering work to make a capable general purpose emulator.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It costs money to port. It's not reasonable to expect devs to spend a lot of time and money making a port for free.
-
-
I still have my original PS3 that I bought a month after release, and I can count on one hand (actually about half of one hand) how many PS2 games I've played on it. Backwards Compatibility is overrated and I don't blame them them for not trying to include it on the next gen systems.
-
I don't think I've ever put a previous generation game disc into a console of mine... so yeah, I actually prefer not having to pay for such a feature. Too bad for people who like to retro it up at times. I liked the rumors at one point that claimed that there would be a more expensive version of xone released with B/C, and a cheaper one without it. But I guess if the 5% figure is correct, there's no money to be made in that.
-
Daniel. I see what you mean... Louis`s bl0g is nice... last saturday I bought a top of the range Lancia since getting a cheque for $9700 this-past/4 weeks and-also, ten k last-month. this is really the easiest work I've ever done. I actually started 6 months ago and almost straight away started bringin home more than $70... p/h. I work through this website,, Exit35.com
-
