*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[TheChefO]

Yes, I know you like repeating yourself in hope that people will just take it for granted, but let's just skip that part and get back to my question: why would they need that and what do you think they were licensing? I'm not asking about your opinion on the importance of back-compat, I'm asking really simple questions. I'll even merge them into three essential ones. 1) What specifically did MS license? 2) What's the source of the claim? 3) Why did they need the thing specified in the first answer? MS has/had a bunch of virtualization products. For example today you can run a bunch of virtual machines in Hyper-V and more than just GPU is being abstracted out. Why would MS license anything from Nvidia for the back-compat if the entire software-side ecosystem available to Xbox 1 devs was developed by MS and MS is/was in a perfect position to write a "shell" Xbox 1 games would run in, translate calls to the new GPU and patch this on the title-by-title basis to make games look right? Or even let me ask this: what kind of IP Nvidia had would make it easier and more cost effective for MS to get Xbox 1 emulation running on Xbox 360?

I don't know the specifics of the MS Nvidia deal.
http://www.1up.com/news/nvidia-licenses-xbox-tech

What is your point?

That MS doesn't/didn't need to pay a licensing fee?
How is it relevant to the discussion of BC of xb720/ps4 GPUs?

 

[AlphaWolf]

. In this case though, neither ps4 or xb720 would be held back by sticking to their architecture, and scaling/expanding them.

This presumes that scaling the current architecture is the best price to performance/power option available to them. Do you really believe that to be true? If you do, I think we can agree to disagree.

 

[TheChefO]

This presumes that scaling the current architecture is the best price to performance/power option available to them. Do you really believe that to be true? If you do, I think we can agree to disagree.

Power7 might be a better option. I'd have to see some benchmarks to feel strongly about it either way.

There are a few options in the "Power" family which could provide for a sufficient NG CPU. All of which should not have an issue with BC.

Going with something like ARM for all the cores would be a mistake. They are far weaker per thread and would require extensive engineering to come close to matching the VMX units.

Besides, the huge power savings of ARM come mostly from idle states.

Not saying they are worthless, but it would be very difficult to emulate a stronger CPU on a weaker one IPC wise.

A single added arm core would be better suited for background operations and the OS. This would be cheap, non-obtrusive, wouldn't break BC, and would add value to the ecosystem along with a stronger CPU.

The only other viable alternative would be x86 AMD, and from what I've seen lately with Bulldozer, doesn't seem like much of a win in anything. TDP is high, the chip is huge, and the IPC is weak.

So then, this leads right back to Power architecture which wouldn't be an issue for BC.

GPU-wise, both MS and Sony will be looking at ~dx11 comparable GPU's, so they will need to emulate what they can of the ps3/xb360.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is not a hardware discussion thread! It's a discussion of what BC is worth, a factor that'll influence choice of hardware.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry, I didn't see where he made a HD BRD disc set which was only compatible with the first generation BRD players and is now coming out with a new set which unlike the old set, is only compatible with players made after 2011.

He sold the same content on VHS, then DVD, and the BRD to those who could still play DVDs on their BRD players, because they wanted 'new and improved'. So yes, you can sell the same content to people over and over.

Speaking of movies, ever wonder why BRD players can also play DVD's? I wonder how well they would be selling if not for this cross compatibility...

And if $2 was all it'd take to add BC to every device ever made, they'd do it too. Ever wonder why Megadrive couldn't play Master System games, and yet people bought Megadrive? Or how PS1 couldn't play any of someone massive SNES library, but they still bought it?

And Wii would have actually had SOME decent games if they literally dropped a quadcore GC cpu and a dx9+ gpu. Let's not pretend that the cpu is the reason wii games look like ****.

But then it would have lost BC! Oh sorry, I forgot, GPUs can magically run any code for any other GPU architecture...

Lucky for all involved, such a painful transition isn't necessary this time.

You're now using a theoretical argument in hardware to support a view of BC. As you can't prove your bolded part, and plenty of people will disagree with you, it's not something to build a case for BC.

For them to drop BC and say, "OOPS! Sorry! All of that DLC you bought is now useless. Would you like to buy some more?" ... this just would not go over very well for all involved.

True, but that's no worse than other upgrades, like VHS to DVD. And the console companies are aware that the future is a DD ecosystem so are implementing software abstraction layers to implement that across future hardware, which is how ecosystems are achieved. PS3 and 360 launched before the likes of ubiquitous iOS and Android devices, and they weren't built with forwards compatbiility in mind because it's never been an issue with consoles, and now they have to weigh up the value in supporting outdated designs in their new hardware or going with something that makes more economical sense (if the two are different, though if scaling the old design is the best economy then that's an easy choice).

BTW, did you know in the first generation DVD players, Sony actually put in two lasers? One for CDs, the other for DVD's. Why would they do such a wasteful thing?

Again with your polarised view. No-one's saying BC is bad, but it's a matter of value and economy. If adding a bit of hardware increases the value of your system that outweighs the cost, you do it. If BC isn't that important, then you are better off dropping it. You repeat that BC is important but don't present a case proving it, only citing past examples where BC has been included as an option. 360 has pretty much tripled it's userbase since last time, without BC. BC does not make or break a system.

This would be the only medium, and only disc generation where BC was just tossed aside and told "FU!" by the platform holders and this at a time when they were pushing console and user specific DLC more than ever!

I'm sure customers will understand that the Arm cores were just "A bit more affordable" or "slightly cooler".

Except we've already presented a solution - optional BC that shifts the costs to those who want it.

No, People BUY stuff because they want to OWN it.

Not true. On an intellectual level when people discuss it, they think they value ownership. But most cases, by a long chalk, the purchase of something is for fairly short-term interests. Most of what you buy and own in your life you end up not wanting, and if you lost it then good riddance. Lofts are full of junk people own and don't want. Draws are full of old nicknacks. I've got games spanning back to the Master System and Amiga that I own but don't want. I want them to go away and clear room, but I have the hassle of trying to get rid of them that deters me from doing something about it!

When people try a game demo and decide to buy, they are not thinking, "I am wanting to own this for my whole life," but, "I want to play this game." A person may conciously tell themselves they want to own it, but the root of their actions is to play the game. If the game was made available to play for free streamed from a server, most would choose that model and not own the game. If the entire PS3 or 360 catalogue was available to play for free, how many people would still go and buy the games for the sake of ownership??

The model you are inferring is a rental model. One which PSN and XBL, DO NOT HAVE.

No, because rental means what you buy has to be returned. Everything you buy to play on your PS360 runs on your PS360 and will continue to do so. No-one is taking that away from you. It's ownership with obsolesence.

It's not setup to rent a xbl arcade title for a week, play it, beat it, and off you go.

It's not. But at the same time if that's how 95% of content buyers operate then there's no need to care about BC because they clearly won't be fussed, having completed all their DD content the week they bought it.

Imagine if Phillips (or whoever it was that made your VHS player) came to your house, and took back all of your VHS tapes with them when you bought your first Phillips DVD player.

Good! those tapes are sat here taking up space uselessly. I don't want them.

Of course that bares no relation to DD content bought to play on a 360 or PS3, because that still works. It's mine to download again when I want it and use on my PS3, until it dies and I can't buy a replacement.

That's what this idea of zero BC is akin to, in this, the golden age of DLC.

Ha ha ha! This golden age of DLC has only just become so. When these consoles were being designed 8 years ago, it wasn't a consideration, so they weren't designed with an idea of all your download content working forever, and no-one bought a console expecting that. Now times have changed and it's all about software platforms, both MS and Sony are creating their own DD platforms to work the same as iOS and 'Droid. They're called Live! and PSNet (or whatever Sony go with). You'll buy boxes that'll be Live or PSNet compatible. XB3 and PS4 will be such boxes. They'll have software abstraction layers making content portable, solving the issues of hardware BC for that content. Disc based games won't be forwards compatible, but they'll be sold as XB3 and PS4 games, and not Live! and PSNet games. These future platforms don't have to be based on choices made 7ish years ago. *IF* there's a good economy in scaling the current hardware, and it remains price and performance competitive, or if adding hardware to enable the content to carry over is cheap enough and interest is large enough that it makes good business sense, then it's a possibility that next-gen will support current-gen content not designed to be forwards compatible. But even then, what about the generation after?? Has that got to be stuck with legacy hardware as well to be bitewise compatible, or have MS and Sony got to invest in writing emulators? Whereas if we just drop low-level code and move over to abstractions, then every future platform will support BC. That's why the future is software layers, and a clean break next-gen to implement that is as a good a place to start as any.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Interesting thread...

I'm going to for the most part take TheChefO's side...that is, that BC should and will be an important aspect of next generation, at least for the DLC.

Folks are just now getting used to the idea of "owning" content for which there is no physical media. I happen to agree with TheChefO that when people buy something...even DLC...they take with that the notion of ownership....that is, it's theirs for life even if they may only "use" it for a short period of time.

I might buy a track off off iTunes, and listen to it seadily for 3 weeks and never touch it again for 10 years. But 10 years down the road if I do want to listen to it...I feel I should be able to...after all I *bought* it once already.

When there is a lack of physical media, consumers have a much harder time understanding the concept of "incompatibilty." Sure, they can see that a VHS tape won't play in a DVD player and more easily come to grips with that. But a set of electronic bits that they can't see or touch? Much more difficult to comprehend.

"I bought these iTunes tracks back in 2008...I can't play it on my new Sony MP3 player?! I *bought* it!!" (DRM issue.)

In short, I think anyone who disrupts the cocept of "ownership" is taking a very large risk of alienating the user base. People may lose confidence in the platform and no longer see investment in a specific platform as a reason to continue using that platform. And that's the last thing these companies want.

What if Apple decided to come out with "iTunes 2012", and this version of iTunes along with iPad3 and iPhone5 no longer supports any apps or music that are supported by the current generation. Apple claims that the new apps and music format will be "so much better", it's worth the switch (and the reacquiring of content).

Is it not obvious that Apple would have in just in one fell swoop wiped out the single largest advantage they have in the marketplace? A legion of users who have invested in their ecosystem and DLC...who "take it with them" from generation to generation?

As mentioned by someone else in this thread, one of the key things that Microsoft (and to an extent Sony) can leverage this gen is its live user base. The less disruption (real or perceived) that MS puts on its live user base going from one console to the next, the more MS can use this to ther advantage.

...On an intellectual level when people discuss it, they think they value ownership. But most cases, by a long chalk, the purchase of something is for fairly short-term interests.... I've got games spanning back to the Master System and Amiga that I own but don't want. I want them to go away and clear room, but I have the hassle of trying to get rid of them that deters me from doing something about it!

I'm willing to bet that the real deterrence that prevents you from doing something about it is either

1) You have an emotional connection to the itmes and/or
2) You can't bring yourself to just get rid of things that you had bought with your hard earned money and highly valued at one time.

The reluctance to "get rid of stuff" is extremely common for one of the above two reasons. Even though people may understand that they haven't used or even looked at something for 10 years, they think "I might want to some day, and/or I paid good money for this...I can't just put it out at the curb!".

I think the same psychology applies to DLC. Even though people know they haven't used something...and likely will not use it to any significant degree....they still think they might.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What if Apple decided to come out with "iTunes 2012", and this version of iTunes along with iPad3 and iPhone5 no longer supports any apps or music that are supported by the current generation. Apple claims that the new apps and music format will be "so much better", it's worth the switch (and the reacquiring of content).

If Apple come out with iTunes 2012 and they alienate their customers, that's bad business as they'll lose their customers.

Now if PS4 launches without BC support for PSN titles, are they actually going to lose customers? Because unlike iTunes which is a software app, a console is a whole new device and people don't expect new devices to run the same stuff as their old devices unless advertised as such. People buying a Mac didn't get upset over not being able to run their old PC software. People buying a new Pc don't get upset over being unable to run their old DOS games (for which that nuiche market is sreved by software emulation via DOSBox et al). People buying an Xbox don't expect it to run their PS2 games. They know the difference between incompatible products. TheChefO reckons that people buying a PS4 expect it to be an upgrade similar to getting a new PC to replace your old one, but I don't think that's true. The PlayStation hasn't supported a 'Droid type common marketplace. This is something new, that's only just starting to create a concept of transportability of content. We've had plenty of download services before that have left people without content they've bought, like Sony's defunct Connect service. This has made people wary of buying into a software platform that might die, and so that mindset has been created. But it didn't exist when people were buying this-gen consoles. I doubt it exists now much. If a poll were made asking the general public when they bought a console this Christmas if they expected all their games and stuff to run on the next console they bought, would the majority answer 'yes'?

As mentioned by someone else in this thread, one of the key things that Microsoft (and to an extent Sony) can leverage this gen is its live user base. The less disruption (real or perceived) that MS puts on its live user base going from one console to the next, the more MS can use this to ther advantage.[/quote}And I don't disagree with that. However, how much value has that really got? If the choice becomes XB3 with a marginal improvement and BC, or PS4 with a massive improvement in new games and no BC (with PSN or Live! content) are gamers not going to switch?

What TheChefO isn't ascribing is a relative value to BC. Is it an advantage? Yes. How much of an advantage? Worth basing your whole next-gen architecture and business model on? Worth limiting what you can do with a new cross-platform architecture designed specifically for the purpose? I'd say no.

I'm willing to bet that the real deterrence that prevents you from doing something about it is either

1) You have an emotional connection to the itmes and/or
2) You can't bring yourself to just get rid of things that you had bought with your hard earned money and highly valued at one time.

Absolutely, unequivocally not. They're a waste of space. I'm still awaiting the day we can do away with environment-trashing solid media and access everything from the net on demand!

And whether people hoard stuff or not isn't really the issue. I mean, we know everyone has clear-outs, so it's not like people can't let go. The question is how much keeping that stuff is worth. If people could choose to keep their old content on the new console, versus not, they'd choose yes as it's a free extra even if useless. But when you ascribe a cost to that - let's say next-gen launches without BC and a $50 attachment allows BC - how many will actually want that BC device? PS3 has dropped BC without suffering. Apple have managed to grow their market share despite Apple's not allowing people to use their existing PC software. People are certainly willing to drop the old to embrace the new if the new is better. Where BC would be an advantage, I can't see any evidence that a lack of BC in next-gen will have any notable affect on platform sales. All the other factors - price, software library, services, peer-pressure, marketing, etc. - greatly outweigh the impact of BC IMO, and hardware design should focus on those aspects of the platform without caring about BC unless that can be added as a freebie.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If Apple come out with iTunes 2012 and they alienate their customers, that's bad business as they'll lose their customers.

Now if PS4 launches without BC support for PSN titles, are they actually going to lose customers?

The risk all depends on how much people have invested in PSN titles / PSN DLC. I think it's pretty obvious that Microsoft has more at risk than Sony.

Because unlike iTunes which is a software app....

No, The Apple econsystem is a combination of Apple hardware plus the iTunes software and the DLC available through App World.

... a console is a whole new device and people don't expect new devices to run the same stuff as their old devices unless advertised as such.

Of course. the point is, people can feel alienated if the new devices aren't advertised as such. That's the whole point.

I think we all agree that if the next iPhone were not advertised as supporting the vast majority of DLC (media and apps) that current iPhone users have invested in....that's a huge risk.

People buying a Mac didn't get upset over not being able to run their old PC software.

Right...but I think it's pretty obvious that people already expect that iPhone 5 will support the apps they've downloaded for iPhone 4.

People won't expect PS4 to support Xbox Live content...but they will have a reasonable expection for it to support PS3 DLC content.

People buying a new Pc don't get upset over being unable to run their old DOS games....

Right...there are time limitiations.

People DO get upset when the new Windows 7 PC is not able to run the same version of MS Word that they bought and had running on their old Vista box though.

People buying an Xbox don't expect it to run their PS2 games. They know the difference between incompatible products....

I'm not sure what your line of argument is here. Yes, people know the difference between incompatible products. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what kind of expectation people will have about the next generation product from one vendor, utilizing content from the previous generation.

If Microsoft comes out and says "nope...not supported". People will understand that. That doesn't mean they will like it. And that does mean that everything people have invested in the previous version means nil when considering a next-gen platform.

TheChefO reckons that people buying a PS4 expect it to be an upgrade similar to getting a new PC to replace your old one, but I don't think that's true.

I don't think that's completely true either.

However, people will expect at least some level on continuity when it comes to the network. This goes doubly so for the Xbox platform. I don't think that's even debatable, really. The only question is what level of continuity?

If a poll were made asking the general public when they bought a console this Christmas if they expected all their games and stuff to run on the next console they bought, would the majority answer 'yes'?

If a poll were taking asking the general public when they bought a iPhone 4 if they expected all their apps and music to run on an iPhone5 when it came out, would the majority answer 'yes'?

I think that answer is Definitely.

I would not say that in the console case it is as certain...because the DLC era on consoles is just starting to blossom. However, it is clear to me that people expect their DLC to be usable from one generation to the next within the same ecosystem.

Games on physical media is a different story. I think people are less apt to automatically expect that will automatically run on next gen. (But there is SOME value there as well.)

If the choice becomes XB3 with a marginal improvement and BC, or PS4 with a massive improvement in new games and no BC (with PSN or Live! content) are gamers not going to switch?

It's not simply about gamers switching to the next generation or not. It's about keeping your gamers from switching to the next generation of a competitor, rather than retaining them for yourself.

What if the choice is XB3 or PS4...both with a similar improvement over the current gen...only with XB3 I get a good level of continuity with all my DLC from my XB360, and with PS4 I get none?

What TheChefO isn't ascribing is a relative value to BC. Is it an advantage? Yes. How much of an advantage? Worth basing your whole next-gen architecture and business model on? Worth limiting what you can do with a new cross-platform architecture designed specifically for the purpose? I'd say no.

I absolutely agree with you that there is a relative value as well as a cost that is associated with BC, and BC can't just be looked at in a vacuum relative to other potential features.

...But when you ascribe a cost to that - let's say next-gen launches without BC and a $50 attachment allows BC - how many will actually want that BC device?

I know I bought the Atari 2600 expansion module for ColecoVision back in the day!! And I'm quite sure it cost more than $50...and that back in 1980s. In fact, this expansion module was a pretty large reason for the initial success of ColecoVision.

On the other hand, the expansion module to make ColecoVision compatible with the Apple II computer...pretty much lead to Coleco's complete and utter demise. Risk and reward.

PS3 has dropped BC without suffering...

I do want to make it clear that my main point is about the DLC, and not as much about physical media games. For physical media the need for BC is very highly dependent IMO, on the other differentials between the old and new generation hardware. I think MS and Sony both handled the physical media BC about right last time....and that was when there was quite an obvious gap between graphics between generations. There was emphasis toward the beginning as users migrated over, but became less important over time.

I don't think we'll see that large a difference in the graphics this time around...so I do think BC of physical media will hold a bit more value this gen than last gen. (But that doesn't mean that I think a significant level of BC is a given for physical media...it's all dependent on the costs.)

....I can't see any evidence that a lack of BC in next-gen will have any notable affect on platform sales.

That's because you're looking through the eyes of last gen... in the PS2 - Xbox360 gen, there was relatively little investment in DLC and in "the network" in the prior (PS2 and Xbox 1) generation to carry through to the next generation.

That has changed now...particulary for Microsoft.

 

[manux]

I honestly don't care anymore about backwards compatibility.Earlier I thought I would when I bought ps3 but I ended up using BC only once(gt4).

I would really actually prefer to either a) have subscription based service where digital content follows you as long as you have paid or better yet b) rebuy remakes remastered to utilize new hardware better. Digital content typically(not always) is simpler games and those should be either fairly easy to emulate/simulate or remaster.

Call me rich bastard but remakes are so much better than looking at blurry mess on huge screen. For a lot of games playing old versions doesn't even make sense because there is the yearly update to new version anyway happening(nhl, fifa, cod and so on.)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

On one hand...

I honestly don't care anymore about backwards compatibility....

On the other...

I would really actually prefer to either a) have subscription based service where digital content follows you as long as you have paid...

And there we go. The issue with respect to this generation of consoles is that people ARE buying digital content, although it's not a true subscription service of course. People do generally expect that the digital content they buy will follow you to the next generation of a device on which it was purchased. (Whether or not its subscription based or not.)

OR...they expect that they can get a "free" or at most "nominal cost" upgrade to the "same but better" content on the updated platform. (If I buy Trials HD on the 360, I want to know that I could either:

1) Play the exact same Trials HD on the 720
or
2) Play the "720 version" of Trials HD on the 720 at no or only nominal "upgrade cost".

So if you were a x-box live user who bought lots of content, you most certainly would be concerned about the backwards compatibility of that content.

 

[manux]

I don't honestly care if I cannot play any game on ps4/xbox720 that I have bought so far. I can always play the game on my old consoles if I so choose to. But based on historical data on My behaviour I'm not going to play those old games at all.

On the other hand I'm very curious about buying mgs series remake and I'm ashamed of not already having ico and shadow of colossus remaster.

Honestly, we have no idea what the policy for sonys or microsoft digital content is and what the porting effort to new console is. I'm just guessing the porting effort is neglible and DD content could be remastered/recompiled and redownloaded to new console. The cost for porting could be covered from the psn/live fee... For full disc only games BC doesn't make much sense and there I only see the remastering+rebuying as real option(outside some sony/ms titles that might be made "BC" for marketing purposes)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Honestly, we have no idea what the policy for sonys or microsoft digital content is...

Yes, but I have a pretty good idea on what users expect it to be.

In short, I'm putting my stake in the ground and saying that at least Microsoft (not too sure about Sony) will

1) Make considerable effort to ensure that your Live identity and Live content purchased on XBox 360 will be usable on Xbox 3.

2) Will use this as as a large marketing point for the next generation.

I also happen to believe that MS will make at least a similar effort with physical media game compatibility next gen vs. this gen, but I don't view that with as much importance. (The importance of any physical media compatibility depends on a host of other factors...)

 

[manux]

Yes, but I have a pretty good idea on what users expect it to be.

In short, I'm putting my stake in the ground and saying that at least Microsoft (not too sure about Sony) will

1) Make considerable effort to ensure that your Live identity and Live content purchased on XBox 360 will be usable on Xbox 3.

2) Will use this as as a large marketing point for the next generation.

I also happen to believe that MS will make at least a similar effort with physical media game compatibility next gen vs. this gen, but I don't view that with as much importance. (The importance of any physical media compatibility depends on a host of other factors...)

I'm not doubting there will be effort to have old stuff running on new consoles.I'm just doubting manufacturers will actually do what sony did with ps3 which is to add significant hardware to just help emulation.

I'm betting on combination of emulator/simulator stuff to run simpler games(similar to psp titles running on ps3/NGP) and very selective recompilation+emulation technology to run more complex games(similar to xbox360 BC). And to complement these I'm sure we will also see remakes that will be sold separately. I'm not expecting 100% BC not by far.

edit. If you read my first post it was about my personal wish mostly, not what I would expect from next gen. There is difference there.

 

[hoho]

What if Apple decided to come out with "iTunes 2012", and this version of iTunes along with iPad3 and iPhone5 no longer supports any apps or music that are supported by the current generation. Apple claims that the new apps and music format will be "so much better", it's worth the switch (and the reacquiring of content).

My GF has an older generation ipod touch that doesn't support ios5 and thus a whole TON of apps. Quite a few that used to be supported there got updates and dropped support for older ios versions so she can't update them to get new features or get bugs fixed.

So yea, Apple kind of already has done that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The risk all depends on how much people have invested in PSN titles / PSN DLC. I think it's pretty obvious that Microsoft has more at risk than Sony.

Only if the consumers flatly refuse to buy XB3 if it doesn't run their existing DD content. But if people don't care that much, MS can drop BC and still get the same customers. We need a measurement of importance and impact of BC on purchasing decisions.

No, The Apple econsystem is a combination of Apple hardware plus the iTunes software and the DLC available through App World.

No, the hardware is irrelevant. Apple can release iTunes on any platform, any hardware. They choose not to in order to tie customers into their platform, which is good business, but they have a software layer to enable cross-device content to be supported so if one day they decide ARM is no longer the best option for them, they can switch. If they decide to release iTunes on Android, they can. The Apple ecosystem is a software layer that Apple doesn't allow anyone else to run on non-Apple hardware.

Right...but I think it's pretty obvious that people already expect that iPhone 5 will support the apps they've downloaded for iPhone 4.

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.

People DO get upset when the new Windows 7 PC is not able to run the same version of MS Word that they bought and had running on their old Vista box though.

Does that stop them buying Windows 7?

I'm not sure what your line of argument is here. Yes, people know the difference between incompatible products. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what kind of expectation people will have about the next generation product from one vendor, utilizing content from the previous generation.

It's about whether PS4 is seen as a follow on in the same family as PS1, 2, and 3, or whether they have all been discrete products. I believe they are seen as discrete products without an expectation that each one can run the same content as the previous. Unlike iPad which is just an annual upgrade/refresh.

If Microsoft comes out and says "nope...not supported". People will understand that. That doesn't mean they will like it. And that does mean that everything people have invested in the previous version means nil when considering a next-gen platform.

How much do people have invested in terms of their buying choices? Would Joe Gamer refuse to buy XB3 to play COD:MW16 because it doesn't play Geometry Wars? Should MS be worrying about providing full BC because otherwise they'll lose all their 50 million customers and be starting from scratch?

I don't think that's completely true either.

However, people will expect at least some level on continuity when it comes to the network. This goes doubly so for the Xbox platform. I don't think that's even debatable, really. The only question is what level of continuity?

The network remains. That's a given compatibilty because it's a software layer, a set of protocols. You won't need a new online ID. How many XB owners refused to buy XB360 because it didn't play XB games? Or did they feel it a comfortable upgrade path and were happy to move on and get the better games of the new generation of hardware?

If a poll were taking asking the general public when they bought a iPhone 4 if they expected all their apps and music to run on an iPhone5 when it came out, would the majority answer 'yes'?

I think that answer is Definitely.

Yes, because iPhone set a precedent. It's the same hardware moderately upgraded each year, and not a completely new toy. That's the way the mobile market has developed. The console space is a different market with different expectations.

I would not say that in the console case it is as certain...because the DLC era on consoles is just starting to blossom. However, it is clear to me that people expect their DLC to be usable from one generation to the next within the same ecosystem.

Only in the mobile space. If consoles are seen as discrete items, then it won't matter. Going forwards this will definitely change, and MS and Sony are taking this into account. How important is it for the next generation of hardware though? Why do you think people who bought PS360 this gen, with no prior expectations about DD content carrying over to their new console, will not only be upset by not being able to play old content on new hardware, but will actively avoid buying the next console because it lacks BC?

What if the choice is XB3 or PS4...both with a similar improvement over the current gen...only with XB3 I get a good level of continuity with all my DLC from my XB360, and with PS4 I get none?

What if the choice is XB3 or PS4 where neither has BC for your content but you still have your network and friends on XB? What if PS4 has BC with PS3 titles - are you going to switch platforms? What if the choice is XB3 has BC but costs $100 more than PS4? There are sooooo many variables, the importance of BC can't be held as quintessential IMO.

I do want to make it clear that my main point is about the DLC, and not as much about physical media games.

So from a design standpoint, you want MS and Sony to ignore any hardware options, no matter how economic or what bang-per-buck gaming performance they'd give you, in order to run multiple $5 games you've bought? For me, like I wanted PS2 emulation on PS3, if it's in, great, but if it's not, I won't change my purchasing decision. I don't play most of the games I've already completed. AFAIK most people don't even finish most of the games they buy, let alone revist them! So tying your hardware to legacy doesn't make sense to me. A future software platform is essential, but that has to be cross-device (console, mobile, computer, set-top box) which needs a software layer, which is what everyone is doing. So the future in my mind is forget the hardware you have made, design the best hardware every time you release a new device (handheld, tablet, console) and give it a software layer so it runs all the code. It will be important next-next gen. People will expect their PSN games to run on their Vita, PS4 and Android, and their Live! games to run on Windows mobile, PC and console. But next-gen it won't be important. DD was too young for people to expect that, and few will change their buying habits because the next XB or PS doesn't run their old download games, any more than they'll be upset and COD:MW1 not running on the new consoles.

My GF has an older generation ipod touch that doesn't support ios5 and thus a whole TON of apps. Quite a few that used to be supported there got updates and dropped support for older ios versions so she can't update them to get new features or get bugs fixed.

So yea, Apple kind of already has done that.

Everyone does it eventually. Within 5/10 years, your technology is redundant and only good for running as a legacy device. Who is going to shed tears if Android v9 doesn't run Angry Birds? We'll have moved on by then. Other content like movies and music should be on long-lived services like M* Unlimited, so people won't worry about upgrading their devices and losing favourite content. I don't believe games are so treasured except by a very small minority, who's buying choices will lbe swayed by far more important factors than whether a console is BC or not.

 

[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.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I also have a gen1 touch. It was released in 2007. I even had to buy an upgrade to get it to run any apps.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My GF has an older generation ipod touch that doesn't support ios5 and thus a whole TON of apps.

That's not the issue. No one is saying that xbox 360 users are expecting that all new content made available on the 720 shuould also be made available in some form on the 360.

 

[upnorthsox]

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.

You won't know that until after you launch your non-BC console, hence risk.

 

[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?