[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

That's not a fair question.

I could say the topic is answered with this question:

If MS and Sony deliver the exact same console....all play the same exact games, are released at the same time, same price, all play DLC from the new "Sony-Live" market...the only difference is that the MS version is compatible with the 360's DLC library, and Sony's is not....how many of the current XB360 owners will jump ship to Sony Console?

I would say that is a fair question, if unrealistic. If the only deciding factor is BC support then that becomes the critical factor. What I'm trying to get from people is a gut-feeling as to a '$ value' that could be put on BC.

1) If the next Xbox does not support any DLC from xbox 360, how many xbox 360 users will consider their investment in xbox live a factor when choosing a next gen platform?

(Answer: Zero)

2) If the next xbox does support DLC from the xbox 360, how many xbox 360 users will consider their investment in xbox live a factor when choosing a next gen platform?

Answer: "More than Zero"

Of course, the DEGREE to which the DLC becomes a factor will depend on a whole host of factors...(what other differences are there between MS and Sony platforms?)

And it's that degree that is most important, where TheChefO appeared to afford it considerable importance such that he was basing his whole view of the next-gen tied to BC. How much influence can BC bring to bare? That's a question that hasn't been tackled recently. This discussion has ended up being polarised into it is essential/it is irrelevant. Now IMO where BC obviously has a positive worth, the influence is so small as to render the impact on hardware choices irrelevant. If you look at your second question, where you answer 'yes, more than zero percent', where is that 'yes' going to factor alongside all the other variables?

Let's try this another way. Given a list of design issues MS and Sony have to consider regards their products:

Cost
Performance
Exclusive titles
Backwards compatibility
Non-gaming functions
Form factor
Network services
Marketing
Friend's console choices
New experiences (Wii, Kinect)

...and whatever others you might add, where do you think BC factors in people's prioritization? Does it get high enough up the rankings that it bares any consideration at all? IMO it doesn't. Whatever could be spent in time or money on supporting BC could be spent on better marketing, better services, etc. The only way I can see BC getting any consideration is when hardware options are being evaluated and the possibility of just scaling up the existing boxes is reviewed. But in those cases it's quickly apparent that changing the GPU is going to make emulation more difficult than simple direct compatibility, and a straight scaling isn't possible. At which point you're faced with creating software emulation or adding legacy hardware into your GPU to add value that's near negligable regards people's buying choces. So why bother? This gen (and many others) has shown that gamers are happy to drop all their old games to get a new, better box. I don't believe that games bought as downloads have far more importance to gamers and they'll be more interested in keeping functionality of these games then their disk-based games. The only argument I've seen so far that Joe Gamer wants to play his old download games where he doesn't care about his disks is because Apple games run on every i***, which is a different audience and a different market, and runs on a software layer so that hardware choices are mitigated anyway. MS and Sony will have their own software platforms, same as iOS, but that's different to their consoles. Their consoles will adapt to run their software platform - their hardware choices aren't a sound basis for a future software platform.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

And it's that degree that is most important,

Agreed.

... where TheChefO appeared to afford it considerable importance such that he was basing his whole view of the next-gen tied to BC.

I personally consider it important (again, moreso for the on-line content, but also to at least some degree with physical media content). I don't believe next-gen in wholly tied to BC.

But then...I do believe that xbox-live as a network / service does very much depend on a large degree of cross-generational compatibility. And to the extent that MS values thier network as much as the console itself (and I believe they do) it will be prioritized accordingly.

Now IMO where BC obviously has a positive worth, the influence is so small as to render the impact on hardware choices irrelevant.

And this is where we differ. Microsoft especially is not just selling a "hardware choice." They are selling hardware AND services as an integrated package / experience. To microsoft you simply cannot separate the two. I believe microsoft sees the live services as possibly even MORE important than the sale of the console itself. (Of course, they both serve to support one another...at least right now.)

Cost
Performance
Exclusive titles
Backwards compatibility
Non-gaming functions
Form factor
Network services
Marketing
Friend's console choices
New experiences (Wii, Kinect)

...where do you think BC factors in people's prioritization? Does it get high enough up the rankings that it bares any consideration at all? IMO it doesn't.

IMO it certainly does.

Again, you seem to be the polar opposite of TheChefO...instead of completely basing next gen around BC...you're dismissing it altogether.

Of course...everything is relative. the costs for BC are justified to a point.

Do you really see any significant cost or time comitment (for example) to allow me to re-download and play Zune content that I purchsed last gen?

Whatever could be spent in time or money on supporting BC could be spent on better marketing, better services, etc.

Way too simplistic. Especially when you consider (for example) that BC is in and of itself better marketing. I don't care how you view it as a practical use...the marketing bullet point of BC has considerable value.

Is it also not easier to market a new console that has X thousands of arcade titles ready to play vs. a handful? MS spent this entire cycle building the content of Live...do you really think they are not going to try and leverage that next gen...that it's not a big marketing point?

[snip hardware talk...I don't think either one of us is qualified to even begin to start discussing actual costs related to support BC]

This gen (and many others) has shown that gamers are happy to drop all their old games to get a new, better box.

In no other generation have console gamers built up a library of purchased downloadable DLC as they have this gen. And this generation showed that MS and Sony see if nothing else the marketing value of launching a console with BC....because they put resources into it...concentrated early on in the lifecycle of the console.

I can tell you that I will not be "happy" to drop all my old games. If I'm forced to because I have no option, I will eventually. But if I'm forced to drop all my content...then I'm just as inclined to move to a different platform than I am to stick with my current one. And even if I stick with my current platform, I'll be more leery of buying DLC now that I'm assuming I won't be able to take it with me next gen...

The only argument I've seen so far that Joe Gamer wants to play his old download games where he doesn't care about his disks is because Apple games run on every i***....

Not just games, but other apps and media content. Movies, songs, tv shows....

[I.S.T.]

I don't know who banned The ChefO, but frankly if you were in the same room, I would kiss you. That guy needed to be shoved out the door years ago.

[jonabbey]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Because it has a history of that. PlayStation doesn't, so why would everyone expect PS4 to run PS3 content? And while I agree that there may be some expectation that perhaps now it might same as iOS and Android, I don't believe that expectation would be substantial enough for people to refuse to buy PS4 if it doesn't have BC.

PlayStation doesn't have a history of BC? Every PlayStation I've bought (PS2, launch PS3) has had backwards compatibility.

So has every PC, and every Android device, and every iPhone, and every Mac, (at least for some significant period of time with the Blue Box and Rosetta emulation layers).

Even the PS3s on the shelf today have PS1 compatibility.

I agree that BC is not infinitely valuable, but it's also not infinitely costly. If IBM makes a CPU for PS4 and they can put some SPUs on it, hurray. I expect that providing some kind of hypervisor translator for RSX gcm to whatever GPU Sony ships would be easier than handling the CPU emulation, if they've got SPUs.

[liolio]

I've a question a blend of technical and business related matter.
I assume that backward compatibility add a significant value to the product.
I assume that backward compatibility has a significant impact on the design choices.

I've no clue about the cost of running something as "onlive" but how would you react if one manufacturer were to provide BC (why not even forward compatibility) for some games through a cloud service akin to "onlive"? I would let the XBLA/PSN out of the pictures (as new hardware may run them via emulation) and consider only the most successful and most played games out there?

[jonabbey]

Originally Posted by liolio

I've a question a blend of technical and business related matter.
I assume that backward compatibility add a significant value to the product.
I assume that backward compatibility has a significant impact on the design choices.

I've no clue about the cost of running something as "onlive" but how would you react if one manufacturer were to provide BC (why not even forward compatibility) for some games through a cloud service akin to "onlive"? I would let the XBLA/PSN out of the pictures (as new hardware may run them via emulation) and consider only the most successful and most played games out there?

I've wondered that myself. The Onlive folks have been making noises about being in talks with Microsoft and/or Sony, and using an Onlive style remote rendering approach could be a way of the console manufacturers having their cake and eating it too with regards to backwards compatibility.

It could presumably be much cheaper than putting BC hardware in every unit sold while permitting them to collect a network service charge, and they'd probably be able to massively oversubscribe their rendering hardware on the theory that a relatively small fraction of their BC subscribers would actually use the service at any given time.

[liolio]

Originally Posted by jonabbey

I've wondered that myself. The Onlive folks have been making noises about being in talks with Microsoft and/or Sony, and using an Onlive style remote rendering approach could be a way of the console manufacturers having their cake and eating it too with regards to backwards compatibility.

It could presumably be much cheaper than putting BC hardware in every unit sold while permitting them to collect a network service charge, and they'd probably be able to massively oversubscribe their rendering hardware on the theory that a relatively small fraction of their BC subscribers would actually use the service at any given time.

I've rallied Shifty's opinion about how next-generation systems should be (have been)tablets.
I got sold when I saw "Onlive" run on a Kindle Fire, I would happily welcome 6/7" inches tablets as my next gaming platform and pass on the technical lacking (versus a +100 watts system) as long as I can't access really high quality games through a cloud base service.
Basically if I take Sony as an example PSV would be their "next-generation system", the PS4 would be somehow a dock station + whatever accessories they want (pad, camera, storage, etc.) and the matching cloud based architecture (actually making the PS4 system exclusive or not to Sony hardware would be a business decision not a technical one)

[AzBat]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

But what are people's expectation? Does anyone here (Joe) really think that, like, 15 million XB360 owners won't upgrade because XB3 doesn't play their old DD games? Does anyone even think a million people will be so pissed with XB3 not playing their DD games that they'll refuse to buy any console, or will abandond their Live account and buy PS4 instead?

I don't think those 15 million 360 owners will not upgrade to the 720 or PS4. I think they will just delay their eventual purchase of the newer systems. Personally I have a LOT of digital content on the 360. I would be upset if I couldn't take that with me to the 720. Would I get over it? Yes, eventually. It would just delay me from purchasing the 720 the 1st year until it's 2nd or 3rd year. That's because I have finite funds & usually I can't afford to buy the newer systems without selling OR trading in the old system. With no BC I'll be required to keep my old system in order keep using my content. Also, having BC in the next Xbox makes me feel better about the purchases I'm making today since I know I can eventually take it with me to the new system. If BC is not there, I will definitely be less likely to purchase digital content on the current system. I'm with Joe on this one. BC definitely has some value. How much exactly I have no idea, but I believe it's more than you give it credit.

Tommy McClain

[joker454]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Distilling all the arguments down, IMO this topic is answered with this theoretical question. Given 60 million XB360's by the time XB3 launches, how many of those XB360 owners will refuse to buy XB3 if it isn't BC?

Personally I don't think that's the way to look it it. Instead the question is how much more likely are people to consider switching to a different competing ecosystem if all their current digital content doesn't work on Microsoft's next ecosystem. That's what bc is all about, to make defecting to another companies ecosystem less inticing. Even if you don't end up playing any of it, just the thought of losing all your digital content means you are effectively starting from scratch, which makes it far easier to consider defecting to a competitor.

[temesgen]

Question: will VC purchases be able to be moved to Nintendo's new console? I am pretty sure they already said it will be Wii compatible but strangely GC games won't run on the hardware???

[snarfbot]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer
Distilling all the arguments down, IMO this topic is answered with this theoretical question. Given 60 million XB360's by the time XB3 launches, how many of those XB360 owners will refuse to buy XB3 if it isn't BC?

imo there are only a handful of situations where the lack of backwards compatibility would impact the sales of a new console.

say you had 360, and wanted to buy a 720, but found out it wasnt backwards compatible with 360 games, but ps4 was able to play ps3 games, maybe you might go to sony, and buy a bunch of old ps3 exclusives, in addition to ps4 launch titles. visa versa if ps3, was your console this gen.

or perhaps you owned both ps3, and 360 this gen, and ps4 was backwards compatible but xbox 720 wasnt, then perhaps microsoft may have lost a sale.

basically, its a nice feature, that looks good on the side of a box, but doesnt factor into the decision making process except in fairly limited circumstances.

downloaded games are a problem though, and id be surprised if they didnt work on next gen consoles, but if you invested alot of money into xbox live games for instance, and they didnt work on 720 it wouldnt make sense to buy a ps4 because of it, except maybe out of spite.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

And this is where we differ. Microsoft especially is not just selling a "hardware choice." They are selling hardware AND services as an integrated package / experience.

the mainstay of that network services remains though. Live! is their software platform. Where xBox started life as the DirectX box, it's now become the Live! box.

However, supporting 100% previous game downloads adds an overhead/limitation to creating XB3, and back when XB3650 and XB were being made, the software layer wasn't written with hardware virtualisation in mind. Hence MS are faced with a choice. Either lock themselves to XB360 type hardware for another generation and have your BC downloads not work on their broader software platform (Win 8 and Win Mo), or start afresh with a new software layer that is cross-device. All your old music and movies and videos and network features would still be intact. You would ahve to start your games library from scratch again. The only other option is to have hardware BC for XB360 DD content, and a brand spanking new software platform, and have the two advertised as independent. "Microsoft Live - buy once, play anywhere. Play all you content on XB3, your mobile, and your Windows PC. Except old Live! content bought on XB360, which only plays on XB3, although we're still calling it Live! content despite it working differently."

Again, you seem to be the polar opposite of TheChefO...instead of completely basing next gen around BC...you're dismissing it altogether.

As a business chooise for next-gen hardware decisions, yes. But I have reiterated lots of times that the future is 100% BC/forwards compatbility, which needs a software platform to achieve. So I am recognising the importance, but I'm taking a practical stance with how to deal with it next gen.

Do you really see any significant cost or time comitment (for example) to allow me to re-download and play Zune content that I purchsed last gen?

That's not BC. All your content will still work. That's because that's hardware independent content running on a software layer. The only thing you'll lose are the old games. That's what BC is talking about. Everything else isn't changing. I'm not advocating a sea-change from MS to ditch Live!!!! That way lies madness. Just to turn Live! into a Droid rival, MS needs to be forward looking and not limit their new software paltform by hardware choices made before such a platform was a consideration.

Way too simplistic. Especially when you consider (for example) that BC is in and of itself better marketing. I don't care how you view it as a practical use...the marketing bullet point of BC has considerable value.

I'd need to see that quantified to believe it. Out of all the ullet points,. I don't BC has considerable value. It has some, varying by shopper, but I don't feel it's ever considerable to the masses.

Is it also not easier to market a new console that has X thousands of arcade titles ready to play vs. a handful? MS spent this entire cycle building the content of Live...do you really think they are not going to try and leverage that next gen...that it's not a big marketing point?

It's a marketing point. I reckon the best ever COD:MW would draw in more initial buyers, and a few years later a wealth of Live! content will pull in the masses. But that'll be Win 8 based anyhow.

In no other generation have console gamers built up a library of purchased downloadable DLC as they have this gen.

Why should distribution mechanism affect whether could should run on different devices or not?

But if I'm forced to drop all my content...

1) Not all your content; only your games. 2) Why would you move to the rival if MS is cheaper/has better PC integration/has the exclusives you want/has your friend's on their network/has better hardware/is promising forwards compatibility for all future content because they have implemented their new software platform?
3) If Sony also doesn't have BC, why jump ship to a platform that acts in the same way? Is that just to spite MS?
4) Even if Sony does have BC, how would that benefit you next-gen?

Not just games, but other apps and media content. Movies, songs, tv shows....

They're not going anywhere. If you've been discussing this as all content going, you've been talking at odds to the thread. This thread is only about having BC of game code to run games from last gen. The media content is portable because it's just a data format. There's not reason to drop that. The apps can be rewritten if they aren't already implemented on a virtual platform, which I think they are. The only thing that isn't an easy transition to new hardware are your games. The only thing you stand to lose from lack of BC is convenient access to your old games. And in ten years time there'll possibly be an emulator that let's you play them.

Originally Posted by jonabbey

PlayStation doesn't have a history of BC? Every PlayStation I've bought (PS2, launch PS3) has had backwards compatibility.

There have been two sequels. One has BC. One hasn't. Yes, it was an option on some PS3s, but that option was dropped, so PS3 hasn't been 100% for the whole platform. 50% of the iterations haven't had BC (which I consider compatibility with putting in a game media and having it run. Emulation and such isn't designing a system with BC in mind).

So has every PC

I have a number of PC games in my cupboard that don't run on PC. MS has made clean breaks with their choices, relegating people's old software to the shelves. And that's with hardware compatibility! The downside has been gimped hardware legacies that have had a significant impact on the way the PC has developed, which consoles could really do without in order to remain streamlined and efficient.

Even the PS3s on the shelf today have PS1 compatibility.

Via emulation. And I said emulation enables people's older content to run eventually. If Sony can emulate PS2 or PS3 on their next box, they'll do it. It's a fairly cheap added feature, so why not. But they won't put in a PS2's hardware or a PS3's hardware or scale up PS3 to make PS4 if those hardware choices are inefficient/uneconomic.

If IBM makes a CPU for PS4 and they can put some SPUs on it, hurray. I expect that providing some kind of hypervisor translator for RSX gcm to whatever GPU Sony ships would be easier than handling the CPU emulation, if they've got SPUs.

And if they don't, the liklihood of emulating Cell is very remote (I started a thread on that topic). So Sony either have to use Cell to emulate PS3 even if it's not the best economy for PS4, or they have to add a Cell to PS4 alongside it's other CPU, and that's a significant added cost for a feature that gets little use. Yes, it's a marketing point. Is it really worth spending...$500 million over the life of the platform to support? Now maybe adding PS3's gubbins makes sense, or can be worked reasonably well like using PS1's gubbins inside PS2. But that is a serious design decision, and not just something that can be thrown in without regard to cost because BC looks nice on a list of checkbox features.

Originally Posted by joker454

Personally I don't think that's the way to look it it. Instead the question is how much more likely are people to consider switching to a different competing ecosystem if all their current digital content doesn't work on Microsoft's next ecosystem.

See my later post where I list purchasing options and question where BC comes in the priority. And as I say above in this post, even if they lose BC on download games (everything else works, remember!), how likely is it really that people will switch. Even if XB3 has BC and all your Live! content games run on it, if the competitor is offering a better experience or better value or are competing in some other way, how much of a draw is playing the old games realy going to be? I can agree having movies and music locked to a platform will be a good incentive to stick with that platform, but this thread about BC for games. I don't think people value their games that much.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

However, supporting 100% previous game downloads adds an overhead/limitation to creating XB3...

To be clear, I'm not suggeting that XB3 needs 100% support for all legacy game downloads OOTB with no intervention from developers.

What I think is reasonable to strive for is broad compatibility, (large number of games need no updates) and then provide any dev support / tools needed for any devs that need to tweak their code to also run on the new platform.

This is typical of how hand held device ecosystems work. Many apps just "work" with no changes on new platforms. Other apps need a tweak or two so that they can be played or run on the new platform.

What happens then is by the time the console launches, many of the most popular software has already been tested / updated to ensure it runs properly on the new plaform. (Devs have incentive to do this to have their apps on the marketplace on the new platform.) Some apps won't be available at launch, but end up being fixed soon after. And yes, some apps never get patched.

"Microsoft Live - buy once, play anywhere. Play all you content on XB3, your mobile, and your Windows PC. Except old Live! content bought on XB360, which only plays on XB3, although we're still calling it Live! content despite it working differently."

Heh..well, just because it's the same ecosystem doesn't mean all software runs on all devices. All iPad apps do not run on iPod/iPhone for example. You can develop for the ecosystem, and still target individual devices or device classes.

I expect most if not all software developed for iPad 1 to run on iPad2. But not iPad software to run on iPod.

That's not BC. All your content will still work....The only thing you'll lose are the old games. That's what BC is talking about. Everything else isn't changing. I'm not advocating a sea-change from MS to ditch Live!!!!

Well that's a relief.

I'd need to see that quantified to believe it. Out of all the ullet points,. I don't BC has considerable value. It has some, varying by shopper, but I don't feel it's ever considerable to the masses.

OK, I think we can pretty much just agree to disagree on that then. I just think it has more value than you ascribe to it.

Why should distribution mechanism affect whether could should run on different devices or not?

Because psycologically, people see a physical product as different from something they download. Something that is downloaded via Live is tied to the "service" of live, vs. a material product that you put in the box is tied to that box.

Why would you move to the rival if MS is cheaper/has better PC integration/has the exclusives you want/has your friend's on their network/has better hardware/is promising forwards compatibility for all future content because they have implemented their new software platform?

I'll try and turn that question around so you can see my point of view.

If I'm satisfied with the ecosystem I'm using, and like this gen I evaluate the next gen boxes as "pretty much the same, except for the on-line ecosystem", why would I even consider switching platforms?

There's a reason why people call this gen "Play-Boxes" or "X-Stations". They are largely the same...despite the console flaming wars to the contrary.

There's a reason why I have a Wii and an X-box and not a playstation. (And why others have a Wii and a playstation, and not an x-box). I don't think it's a stretch to say Wii + X-Station is much more common in households than X-Box + Playstation. Why? Because by and large the Play-Boxes offer the same experiences as far as physical media games are concerned.

The on-line / service ecosytems though, are completely different.

So again, if I'm satisfied with my ecosystem (which includes all the content I've downloaded and own), why should I even consider jumping ship?

3) If Sony also doesn't have BC, why jump ship to a platform that acts in the same way? Is that just to spite MS?

No...if I lose my "investment" in x-box live, I am more or less forced then to seriously consider the alternative...which then might lead me to choose Sony due to other factors.

4) Even if Sony does have BC, how would that benefit you next-gen?

Because I can play some of that exclusive content from last gen that I have missed out on.

There's one other important audience that we have not yet discussed to: New customers. (We sometimes forget that there exist people in the world who don't have a console yet. )

Everyone has to buy their first console sometime....When it comes time to buy a new console for you 7 year old (or whatever)...what is more enticing? Brand new PS4 that has a handful of launch games and scant x-on-line gaming content....or Brand New Xbox 720 that has a handful of launch games...PLUS compatibility with the huge library of existing games and on-line arcade content.

This makes a huge impact on buying decision. You can quickly go to the bargain bin / older used games and stock up on quality titles on the cheap...and have access to a huge library of on-demand gaming....

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

To be clear, I'm not suggeting that XB3 needs 100% support for all legacy game downloads OOTB with no intervention from developers.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about though - determining whether boxes need full hardware support for BC?

What I think is reasonable to strive for is broad compatibility, (large number of games need no updates) and then provide any dev support / tools needed for any devs that need to tweak their code to also run on the new platform.

This is next to impossible without locking down the hardware to the old system, unless your hardware was broadly operating on a software layer. XBox did somewhat with directX, so there was a degree of portability with titles that didn't try anything ambitious. The end result was BC for titles that most people didn't care much about, so I don't really count that as a win. "XB360 - the next generation of HD gaming, fully compatible with Barbie's Horse Adventures!". I can't see that level of BC working well this gen unless games have been developed on a much higher level, which may be the case with Live! titles. Which of course means hardware BC isn't needed because the software handles that.

This is typical of how hand held device ecosystems work. Many apps just "work" with no changes on new platforms.

Because they're running on a software layer. That is what's needed for a proper ecosystem. PS3 wasn't designed around a software layer. Live!'s download titles might have been. I don't know what limits are imposed by XNA. But if so, MS are freed from worrying about hardware BC choices. They just need to develop XNA for whatever hardware they'll use and maybe devs will recompile.

OK, I think we can pretty much just agree to disagree on that then. I just think it has more value than you ascribe to it.

Can I ask why you think that? The reason I don't think it holds value is because of console history and people buying new boxes without BC, and people with BC not using it massively especially after launch and the library has a lot of new content on offer.

Because psycologically, people see a physical product as different from something they download. Something that is downloaded via Live is tied to the "service" of live, vs. a material product that you put in the box is tied to that box.

Maybe. But I don't think that's ever been tested. We've never had download games on console before. We've never tested console owners to see if they think the games are part of Live!/PSN or part of their XB360/PS3. I see them as part of PS3 - PS3 games to run on the PS3 system. I also expect PSS games to replace these next-gen. Are there any XB360 Live! download titles that also run on PC, where you buy it once and run it on both platforms?

If I'm satisfied with the ecosystem I'm using, and like this gen I evaluate the next gen boxes as "pretty much the same, except for the on-line ecosystem", why would I even consider switching platforms?

Is there absolutely nothing another console could offer that'd draw you away? A better set of online services? The same services without a subscription cost? A much cheaper console, and cheaper versions of the same game? The same games in better quality? I can think of lots more variables that'd affect my choice more than playing the old games.

There's a reason why people call this gen "Play-Boxes" or "X-Stations". They are largely the same...despite the console flaming wars to the contrary.

And yours and TheChefO's argument has been based largely on next-gen being mostly the same. Well for starters, one will offer Kinect 2. That could be enough to draw everyone away from PS despite PS4 being derivative hardware of PS3 and every title being BC, no? Then the ecosystems will be very different. MS's Live! content will be portable across MS devices, which is great as long as you're happy to own a Windows phone and Windows TV/media PC. What if you own an Android phone and Google TV and Sony is offering PSN games developed in PSS that run on all your devices? Including content portal so your music and videos bought over PSN run on all Ultraviolet enabled devices? Would you still stick with the MS ecosystem, or decide to cut your losses and move to the other platform? Again, lots of variables. And the portability of content is different to the issue of BC. BC only affects the games. And I'd even go so far to say that that makes the pursuit of BC even less important. If you have a lot invested in Live! content, and XB3 doesn't run your old Live! games, are you really going to abandon all those Live! music and movie titles you've bought? Or will you moan and gripe and then end up buying new stuff and forgetting about it a year or so later?

So again, if I'm satisfied with my ecosystem (which includes all the content I've downloaded and own), why should I even consider jumping ship?

Ecosystem isn't BC. BC is only download games.

No...if I lose my "investment" in x-box live, I am more or less forced then to seriously consider the alternative...which then might lead me to choose Sony due to other factors.

Okay. What if everything in Live! stays exactly the same, and you have the whole ecosystem, except you don't have access to the old games on your XB3, is that going to be enough to make you consider PS4? If there are factors about PS4 that would have you consider it, abandoning Live!, why wouldn't you consider those factors if XB3 does play your old Live! games?

eg.
"XB3 has Live! with my existing account, where I can access all my Live! content. It has great exclusives, Kinect 2, content compatibility with my Win mobile. PS4 has some great exclusives, their new Movation controller, and Android device compatibility for media. I'm going to stick with XB3 because it plays my old download games."

and

"XB3 has Live! on my existing account, where I can access all my Live! content. It has great exclusives, Kinect 2, content compatibility with my Win mobile. PS4 has some great exclusives, their new Movation controller, and Android device compatibility for media. I'm going to ditch my Live! stuff and swap to PS4 because XB3 doesn't play my old download games."

I can't see why anyone's thought process would follow the latter example.

There's one other important audience that we have not yet discussed to: New customers. (We sometimes forget that there exist people in the world who don't have a console yet. )

BC's even less important for them. They have no library to worry about. Maybe advertising 10,000 games available at launch would impress, but normally your launch-day customers are hardcore gamers who know all about this. The time you start appealing to new, non-console owning customers, is when you have new content that the old boxes couldn't offer. After all, if Jane Gameless didn't care to get an XB360 for all the Live! games, why would she care to get XB3 for all those same games? The first year of next-gen will be selling to hardcore gamers buying new boxes for COD, Gears, and Uncharted type games. During which time the new software platforms will fill up with cross-device compatible games, so come the first price drop and the masses start to consider getting a console, you can advertise however excessively many titles you have on your service. Maybe, if Ms push a revolutionary new Kinect 2 experience, they'll be selling to new customers from the off. But then the draw of Kinect 2 will be that great that the existing Live! titles, not Kinect enabled, will be pretty irrelevant. Wii wasn't sold to the masses on account of being fully BC with GameCube!

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Isn't that what this whole thread is about though - determining whether boxes need full hardware support for BC?

I would say it's about the degrees of support for BC.

I will say that no, full hardware support for BC is not a requirement for next gen. However, I do say that BC does add value (so the more BC you have, the more valuable the BC is).

Where we differ is that you don't really see any level of BC as valuable. I see the value of BC as dependent on a host of other factors.

This is next to impossible without locking down the hardware to the old system, unless your hardware was broadly operating on a software layer.

Do you really feel there is not enough of a software layer (APIs, etc.) that arcade titles are coded to that they can't be transferred to a next gen box?

PS3 wasn't designed around a software layer. Live!'s download titles might have been....

OK...my assumption on this is that the arcade titles are designed largely around a software layer.

Can I ask why you think that? The reason I don't think it holds value is because of console history and people buying new boxes without BC, and people with BC not using it massively especially after launch and the library has a lot of new content on offer.

Both XBox 360 and PS4 had BC. You can't know how many sales where the BC was a factor.

Maybe. But I don't think that's ever been tested. We've never had download games on console before.

Right...and it is simply my opinion, and I can certainly speak for at least myself...that I expect a significant number of Live titles (not necessarily all) that I purchased on Live to be able to be played onthe next gen.

Is there absolutely nothing another console could offer that'd draw you away?

Sure there is. But if I'm already entrenched in an ecosytem and a games library, it's going to take MORE to draw me away than it would otherwise. That's all I'm trying to get across. There is value in BC...but as someone else said, it's not infinite.

And yours and TheChefO's argument has been based largely on next-gen being mostly the same.

To a degree, yes. The same degress that people call Sony / MS devices this gen "X-Stations".

Again, lots of variables. And the portability of content is different to the issue of BC. BC only affects the games.

OK...I was originally talking about all DLC. But we can focus on games.

Okay. What if everything in Live! stays exactly the same, and you have the whole ecosystem, except you don't have access to the old games on your XB3, is that going to be enough to make you consider PS4?

It could. Not having access to my old games implies that current live library is not available on XB3 either. Is PS4's library starting "afresh" too...or if I pick up a PS4 do I get access to the entire PS3 library as well?

If we limit the discussion now to strictly games then I can more readily see your point of view.

However, I still ascribe more value to game BC than you do.

You have said my validity of my argument centers around the next gen consoles being "similar". I can just as well say the validity of your argument centers around the next gen consoles being "different."

Maybe we can say it this way:

The more that the next gen consoles are "similar" to each other, the more BC has value. The more that they are different from one another, the less BC has value.

Can we live with that? Then we're left at theorizing how different the next gens will be from one another.

BC's even less important for [new console consumers]. They have no library to worry about.

I disagree completely there.

You are assuming that only "hardcore" gamers will buy the new console near the launch window...and not "new" gamers. You are also assuming that new gamers, who even if they do not choose the next gen and choose the cheaper current gen, won't consider next gen compatibility when they buy in.

[function]

If Xbox 3 doesn't let you co-op with and multi-player against all the Xbox 360 owners on your friends list it fails badly as platform who's primary purpose is to support Live. You get your expensive new console home, put it in the old console's place, and find out that not only does your old content not work but the "beacon" that your friends are heading to is simply highlighting your new found exclusion.

Never mind, you can simply dig out your old console (unless you sold it), swap out your new console under the telly for your old one, set up a network bridge or run an ethernet cable through the house, and bam who needs BC to keep up their social gaming and justify that $60 a year Live Gold.

I'd happily pay a premium for a BC console or see the overall power of the system reduced in other areas to allow this. In a theoretical IBM/AMD next gen Xbox I'd be very happy to see a few mm^2 dedicated to supporting BC, and MS could always cut it out once the transition is complete a few years after release.

Put it this way: if they don't, they lose me as a customer and lose my annual Gold subscription (for which they basically do f. all).

[tcrews]

To throw in my two cents.....I don't care if the next one has BC or if it does. If (and that's a bit IF) having BC affects the advancement of the next system then definitely leave out BC. I'll still have my 360 for a while after I get the NeXtBox, just like I had my Xbox after the 360 came out. My TV/Surround system has enough inputs to cover both as well as the new one will most likely have built in WiFi, so no need to run an extra cable (though I can do that two.....).

I can't think of a game I want to pull out from my Xbox library that I want to play now....so for me, BC is only important during the first 6 months or so of a Console's life (while the new library of available titles builds). After that, it's on to the new, better, new generation games. My 360 can last long enough to cover that and then I'll sell it like I did my Xbox. DLC doesn't bother me because it's for the game I'm "not" playing anymore anyway.

If BC negatively affects the future systems advancement.....I do not want it. If it's a non-factor than having it is fine.

I've had friends move from PS2 to X360 without care that they lost their old game library, I've had friends move from Xbox to X360 and ditched all their Xbox games without a care.

BC will not (in my opinion) be a factor in people upgrading or not. Hype, wanting the new console/games and getting the latest and greatest is going to be the major factor.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

The more that the next gen consoles are "similar" to each other, the more BC has value. The more that they are different from one another, the less BC has value.

Can we live with that? Then we're left at theorizing how different the next gens will be from one another.

Definitely. That's what I was getting at. BC has value - how much is hard to pin down. As the system approach equivalency, the differentiation of BC becomes a larger factor.

I disagree completely there.

You are assuming that only "hardcore" gamers will buy the new console near the launch window...and not "new" gamers.

I am, although we have to be clear about the foggy definition of hardcore. I'm thinking gamers with lots of games experience will spend the higher entry cost of launch hardware. These'll be tech enthusiasts and CODers who want the latest and greatest. I do consider it unlikely that someone ponying up substantial amounts at launch will be desperate to play their old games, except when there are few new titles and the old platform still has a relevant catalogue. At that point BC is a valuable convenience, saving early adopters from needing to run their old machines alongside the new. this has been mentioned before in this thread - the value of BC decreases during the life of the console. If the hardware cost is high to include in the beginning, it's probably better to bite the bullet and drop it, or suffer considerable losses like Sony. Then again maybe such drastic measures as including the old hardware are needed to get people to switch in those opening 12 months? Although if it were me, I'd spend that money on securing new games rather than implementing BC in hardware! I'd also go with a plug-in board type thing. PS3 could have had an optional PS2 plug-in board routed through its HDMI. Include it in the box, sell it as an upgrade, and remove it in later years for cost reduction.

[function]

If someone wants to play games with all their friends, and that's important to them, then making a clean break with Live across generations can't be compensated for by paying for an exclusive game, spending more on existing marketing, or doing an extra FLOPz.

A clean break across Live makes switching to a competitor easy and potentially much, much cheaper for the gamer.

Getting early adopters to continue with your next system drags others in their network across too, when they're ready to switch in a year or two. If a few $$ on BC can get 1 in 10 (for example) additional gamers to continue with your platform and donate hundreds of $$ in money-for-nothing Live fees then the BC will have paid for itself many times over.

I'm not sure how many ultra hardcore iPhone 4 owners would buy iPhone 5 if they lost the ability to speak to and text none iPhone 5 owners. A somewhat extreme analogy perhaps, but connectivity is a core functionality of Xbox Live and you can't easily compensate for that with a little extra eyecandy or a few $$ saved (people wouldn't spend hundreds on Live subscriptions if you could).

And, on another note, I'd love a game of Xbox 1 Rallisport Challenge 2 right at this very damn minute but my Eggboxen is in a crate somewhere and it'd take up a whole damn shelf under the telly if I decided to man-haul it into the living room. And I'm tired tonight, and simply don't want to move. Thank god for Steam - the ultimate in tired-man convenience gaming.

[Cheezdoodles]

Originally Posted by TheChefO

None.

That's the point.

The architecture of both ps3 and xb360 is scalable.

Cost of BC? Zero.
_______________

In the case of ps3, Sony literally had to have the ps2 chipset in addition to the ps3 chipset. This added cost did nothing for ps3 games as the architecture was so different to ps3 that the hardware (and cost) was there solely for the purpose of playing old ps2 games.

Xb360 had a purely software solution which did incur one cost element on top of the engineering cost which was licensing the nvidia gpu tech for emulation.
_______________

Contrast this with xb720/ps4 potential designs:

Take the Cell, put 4 of them together, viola, ps4 cpu. Then, grab whatever gpu they like and minimal effort will be needed for emulating RSX.

Take the xenon, put 4 of them together for a total of 12 cores and viola, xb720 cpu. The grab the latest ATI GPU which should have minimal problem emulating ATI's prior chip.

Both efforts are low cost as both companies already own the designs of the cpus.

Nextgen the GPU will be leaned on more for gpgpu calculations etc anyway so the cpu "power" is not a major concern.

The above examples are simplified, but essentially, doing just this simple scaling, would result in suitable CPU's for nextgen. Anything more as far as customizations would be icing on the cake.
__________________

As for whether or not my xb360 can play SNES carts, no ... but I can sell, trade, lend, lease, store, or play them whenever I please. One more thing, you don't see SNES carts topping the charts much these days either ... Nor would I expect it in the future...

I fully realize the DLC model, but there is an assumed responsibility with DLC by the platform holder to "take care" of the digital media which was purchased.

And as I said above, as much as they may WANT to, they will have a very difficult time in selling all the same old digital remakes (or HD versions) AGAIN to a userbase that was just screwed out of their prior purchases.

Best case scenario for them is less purchases by the same number of people. Worst case scenario is less purchases by less people.

And what would this sacrifice be for?

Ur forgetting that there exist cheaper and better CPU solutions than putting 4 cells together

[jonabbey]

Are there cheaper and better CPU solutions for them than evolving their current processors? That's not at all clear to me.

If you assume that backwards compatibility has no or low value, then perhaps there is. What do you suggest?

[function]

Sony appear to be in a sticky situation, but I don't see why MS would need to use Xenon+ to maintain BC. Ignoring the possibility of pure software BC for a moment, could IBM design MS a powerful, OoOE core that could also run (or support fast emulation of) Xenon without having to include an entire complete copy of Xenon? To me it seems reasonable but then again I'm something of an ignoramus.

In the PC space modern CPUs can run old code without dedicating 100+ mm^2 to including complete copies of older processors. Any additional features you might need to add to the CPU to support BC you could remove from later revisions of the chip if the die area was deemed unacceptable in return for back catalogue sales and Live use at that point in time.

[Phil]

Great arguments there Joe, I completely agree.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I do consider it unlikely that someone ponying up substantial amounts at launch will be desperate to play their old games, except when there are few new titles and the old platform still has a relevant catalogue. At that point BC is a valuable convenience, saving early adopters from needing to run their old machines alongside the new. this has been mentioned before in this thread - the value of BC decreases during the life of the console.

I think Joe covered this one pretty much at the beginning. The value of BC is dependant on how much you've invested into the consoles eco-system.

Sure, a customer that hasn't bought much will not have much to lose by either non-BC or switching to another platform. I'd argue though that it's been the aim of both Microsoft and Sony to build up a successfull ecosystem through PSN and live in order to keep a userbase attached to its brand even over a transition to new hardware.

I also believe that the factor of building up a social-network within that eco-system will become a factor. On older platforms, the majority of gamers played multiplayer games through splitscreen modes on a single tv. This generation (and partly last, starting on Xbox) however has enabled players to play with your friends through the network and build up a social network. BC in this case not only helps as a marketing bullet point, but also in smoothening the transition between who upgrades at launch and who might follow a bit later while still being able to play among each other.

IMO this is also something that applies to casual gamers as well. Imagine a casual gamer in his local game store being told that his investment is worthless when progressing to the next console or being told the opposite.

I also agree that the importance of BC is growing due to these reasons and I do agree that the graphics have reached a level where the jump to next console will not be as large as previous generations (due not only to economic constraints but also rising costs/risks in game development). This also makes it easier to go back to play "old games" - rather than comparing going back from PS3 games to PS2 or even PS1 games. I still go back to quite a few PSN games here and there that are not graphically impressive (compared to the newer games) but still work - these games would be just as fun even on newer PS4 hardware and better looking games around.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

If the hardware cost is high to include in the beginning, it's probably better to bite the bullet and drop it, or suffer considerable losses like Sony. Then again maybe such drastic measures as including the old hardware are needed to get people to switch in those opening 12 months?

Sony didn't suffer considerable losses because of BC. It's also rather difficult to argue how much of a positive having BC had at the time. Who knows - maybe without BC, the losses would have been even bigger after 5 years within the cycle due to loss in marketshare despite the lower initial BOM figure?

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Although if it were me, I'd spend that money on securing new games rather than implementing BC in hardware! I'd also go with a plug-in board type thing.

I'd argue that new games are less of marketing bullet point than having BC at the start of new hardware, especially next generation. Unfortunately, there's also no guarantees that good games sell more than bad games - there's potential that they do, but it's not only dependant on that. Securing new good games, might not be worth much if a large part of your current base is unwilling to 'upgrade' due to costs and lacking BC.

The way I see it: The transition to new hardware is always a huge risk. It takes a huge investment on the hardware side and none of the hardware vendors want to start from scratch. This is why they've been investing in providing an eco-system and IMO, they'd be stupid not to everything possible to make the transition as smooth as possible and give every incentive there it to their customers to upgrade and stay loyal to the eco-system.

You argued that people on consoles have different expectancies than people upgrading on PCs. I disagree. This might have been 2 generations ago (although IMO Sony helped to change this by providing in BC in their consoles over the years), but this is changing. One of the biggest reasons Windows is still the most popular OS is because people don't like change and rather stay on something they know and because they can keep using the programs they are used to and have purchased - despite perhaps arguably better alternatives outthere. It would be stupid of them to ever give up that advantage by starting over fresh. The same applies to consoles: why give up this advantage?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by function

If someone wants to play games with all their friends, and that's important to them, then making a clean break with Live across generations can't be compensated for by paying for an exclusive game, spending more on existing marketing, or doing an extra FLOPz.

That's a fair call for the convenience. If your XB360 owning mates are playing Gears Horde, and getting an XB3 prevents you joining, that's incentive not to upgrade. That's one reason why a decent cross-hardware platform is needed. Of course, when Freddy 360 is playing COD:MW2 on 360 and Joe Xbox is playing the far better COD:MW3 on XB3, the value of the game wins out often enough I think. Again, I don't think it worth making hardware choices over such an issue as I don't think it'll break you sales. If you can't Live! game with your mates on the same games on XB3 because it lacks BC, you're not going to jump to PS4 where you can't chat with them or compete with gamer scores and you lose your media content. People are already sufficiently tied into Live! to be able to live without BC games I reckon.

A clean break across Live makes switching to a competitor easy and potentially much, much cheaper for the gamer.

I'm not sure how many ultra hardcore iPhone 4 owners would buy iPhone 5 if they lost the ability to speak to and text none iPhone 5 owners.

BC is only about the games, right? Everything else about Live! remains intact whether there is BC in XB3 or not.

And, on another note, I'd love a game of Xbox 1 Rallisport Challenge 2 right at this very damn minute but my Eggboxen is in a crate somewhere and it'd take up a whole damn shelf under the telly if I decided to man-haul it into the living room. And I'm tired tonight, and simply don't want to move. Thank god for Steam - the ultimate in tired-man convenience gaming.

Sure, but it's not worth MS adding full 100% BC to every XB360 just for those rare ocassions some gamers like to go retro. I'd love to pay CON or BGDA on PS3 seeing as no-one's created good successors this gen. And SW Battlefronts2. But I appreciate it's a high cost for a low use, and if the software companies actually delivered next-gen sequels to their top-selling games, we wouldn't be stuck looking back! I can look forwards to when technology is sufficiently advanced to allow software emulation without the cost of hardware BC choices.

Originally Posted by jonabbey

Are there cheaper and better CPU solutions for them than evolving their current processors? That's not at all clear to me.

If you assume that backwards compatibility has no or low value, then perhaps there is. What do you suggest?

That's tied in to tech discussion about costs of processors and choices. you relly want to go to the next-gen ahrdware thread to discuss what are the alternative CPU options to Cell++/Xenon++

Originally Posted by function

In the PC space modern CPUs can run old code without dedicating 100+ mm^2 to including complete copies of older processors. Any additional features you might need to add to the CPU to support BC you could remove from later revisions of the chip if the die area was deemed unacceptable in return for back catalogue sales and Live use at that point in time.

AFAIK x86 has a lot of bloat for legacy reasons, and it could run smaller and cooler with a clean design. I don't know how much, but my first Googling found this from 2007:

But with each generation of extensions to the x86 ISA, more and more complexity is added to the chips, and support for the older feature remains to guarantee software compatibility.
"There's no reason whatsoever why the Intel architecture remains so complex," said Simon Crosby, chief technology officer at virtualization software start-up XenSource. "There's no reason why they couldn't ditch 60 percent of the transistors on the chip, most of which are for legacy modes."

I don't know how true that is, or how much still remains with the latest round of Intels, but I think it sufficient to show it's a considerable amount of baggage.

The choice of CPU and how BC can be executed is something of a technical thread, not really fitting here which is just trying to add a value to BC, rather than trying to solve it. But I think the x86 example shows the cost of legacy systems. Sony and MS trying to start their future software platform based on tech designed 7+ years ago without the examples of iOS and Android to compare to is asking for legacy troubles. MS may be safe if Live! game development is sufficiently high-level enough, although that won't solve BC of disk games like COD and Gears which affects your original point of wanting to game with your friends on the older system. The only solution for being able to support all games is iffy emulation or expensive, typically cumbersome legacy hardware.

[rekator]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Distilling all the arguments down, IMO this topic is answered with this theoretical question. Given 60 million XB360's by the time XB3 launches, how many of those XB360 owners will refuse to buy XB3 if it isn't BC?

If that's a negligable amount, then the value of BC is shown to be not very high.

For me is simple, If there no BC for physical games and digital purchases, I have no reasons to don't go away, due to the fact I have no longer interest in capitalize my purchase on the Xbox system.
In all case I have to rebuy contents ,I have already buy, so why not go to others? I'm probably go to system with no more hardware attachment, so PC or Onlive and Co.

I can always play my ten year ago game on PC, and with HD mod for some, so console need to do the same.

BC seem to be need for the two first years of gen transition, after is not so important, look at Sony with PS3.