*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, I think that is what all the naysayers are purporting, at least one way or another - BC doesn't add value because it wasn't available at launch. No one will actually use it. No one wants to play old games, etc, etc. It's a waste of resources that could have been spent on more powerful hardware. Blah. Blah.

I think what some are saying it would have been more valuable at launch.

My take is it depends on the individual and their gaming habits. Supposing I was moving from PS3 to Xbox One it would be a considerable selling point knowing I could pickup a bunch of 360 games I missed, probably at bargain prices.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, I think that is what all the naysayers are purporting, at least one way or another

The posts I see above all say it has value but the value decreases over time form launch because the modern library is of more interest. No-one has said it has zero value. It's value at launch is significant, but two years in it's value is reduced to nice extra bonus, and four years in is near irrelevant to most owners, goes the argument.

And that discussion, the value of BC, is in another thread. I guess I've got more post moving to do...

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Hey Shifty, this latest foray isn't about emulating CELL. This whole BC "discussion" was revived because MS actually delivered BC.

It has nothing to do with Sony, PS3, or PS4, other than it seems like it is mostly Sony fan boys who are doing the complaining, or at least marginalizing the accomplishment.

And this is the point. And as I said earlier, Sony's response to the BC announcement was quite clear. They certainly didn't say that they couldn't too, offer BC if they wanted to spend the resources to do so. In fact, they specifically stated "there are only so many software engineers to go around, and MS has a bunch of them working on BC and we have the ones left working on other things for the PS4".

Sony has specifically said that they don't have the resources to continue to move forward with (whatever it is they are doing), and also build BC, and they don't see that as important because their PS3 base has already upgraded without any BC necessity. It was almost a veiled backhanded comment at MS for wasting their limited software engineers on BC instead of "moving forward".

Of course, we know that isn't the case, because MS is not only providing BC but also working towards a entirely new UI and integration with W10, etc.. So MS isn't sacrificing "moving forward" to implement BC. But it is true, there is a resource investment in doing this. MS decided it was worth it over a year ago (if you believe the comments on Reddit from an Xbox engineer), while Sony decided it wasn't.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

The posts I see above all say it has value but the value decreases over time form launch because the modern library is of more interest. No-one has said it has zero value. It's value at launch is significant, but two years in it's value is reduced to nice extra bonus, and four years in is near irrelevant to most owners, goes the argument.

Huh? Many of the hardcore Sony's have made the case that BC has almost zero value. Just go read the E3 thread and the first pages on this, that case has absolutely been made. Your arbitrary time table is worthless, because it doesn't factor in reality. Reality has nothing to do with absolute time in years. It has to do with the ratio of XB1 software sales to 360 software sales.

You say that it would have been significant at launch, but is only a nice bonus at 2 years. Well, we're almost 2 years in and I disagree. First, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference at launch because people buying $499 consoles are early adopters who are going to buy that console regardless. Second, we are almost at your 2 year point and it is absolutely more than a "nice extra bonus" to all those 360 users that keep Xbox software sales first or second in the charts. It's vitally important to them.

And that discussion, the value of BC, is in another thread. I guess I've got more post moving to do...

This is the second time you've said this in this thread, so I'm wondering if you're moving your own posts before I'm reading them? This is the backward compatibility importance thread, right?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You say that it would have been significant at launch, but is only a nice bonus at 2 years. Well, we're almost 2 years in and I disagree.

It's subjective, of different value to different folk.

First, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference at launch because people buying $499 consoles are early adopters who are going to buy that console regardless.

Then they find very little software for it while their old machine is getting the best games of its life and all their friends are still playing on the old machine.

Second, we are almost at your 2 year point and it is absolutely more than a "nice extra bonus" to all those 360 users that keep Xbox software sales first or second in the charts. It's vitally important to them.

Are those 360 owners buying 360 software not going to switch to buying XB1 software (XB1 versions of the same games) when they own an XB1? Isn't the enthusiasm around 360 BC that people can play old titles that haven't received remakes and updates and sequels on the new machines?

This is the second time you've said this in this thread, so I'm wondering if you're moving your own posts before I'm reading them?

Yes. I've typed replies, checked the thread I'm replying to, found it's the wrong thread and moved the posts after the fact. Both times I've typed that, my replies were moved along with everyone else's.

Edit: Another way to think of 'value' that perhaps is less personally subjective is to think of it as impact on the system. How many more XB1's would be sold from day one if it featured full BC versus how many more with BC coming 2 years later?

For me, it seems a given that the impact would be far greater the early BC is available. I think if XB1 could sell 10 million in year 1 without BC, it could have sold 5 million more with BC (where BC is the only difference). If XB1 can sell 10 million in year 3, the increase of adding BC to that box would likely only increase sales by a million. Made up figures for illustration, of course.

 

[DrJay24]

There is no future in BC.

That's why no-one buys, or ever plays, older games on PC.

Or you can turn it around, people game on PCs because they like to have access to older games. That is not necessarily true for consoles. I for one would not recommend a XB1 to play indie and retail releases between 2005-2013 when I could recommend a PC and Steam sales for most of the same games along with countless others. I would not even recommend XB1 BC for 360 exclusives at this point since the list is sparse and there is no guarantee it will be exhaustive, buying a 360 would be the best idea.

The best use for BC on a console is catching up on older games that one might have missed. Few people replay old games, those people exist (many of us) but they are not driving console sales. The same core gamer that bought a XB1 at $499 during release year is also the same crowd that would use BC to replay 360 games. At this point Sony and MS are trying to get to $299 and mass market adoption as fast as possible. I don't see BC entering into that equation much - just price and advertising.

As Joker noted, the BC news has been reported far and wide. The sales response on Amazon is nothing short of amazing.
.
.
.
#34 behind two PS4 SKUs.

 

[temesgen]

I think what some are saying it would have been more valuable at launch.

My take is it depends on the individual and their gaming habits. Supposing I was moving from PS3 to Xbox One it would be a considerable selling point knowing I could pickup a bunch of 360 games I missed, probably at bargain prices.

Or if you've made a significant investment in the 360 ecosystem and knowing that XB1 has BC you won't have to start completely over, the true value of replaying old games might hard to measure but the perception helps consumers who are on the fence choose to continue with the platform. 1 year, 2 years, 5 years doesn't matter as much as the the percentage of your previous install base who are considering leaving for the competitor.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's subjective, of different value to different folk.
Then they find very little software for it while their old machine is getting the best games of its life and all their friends are still playing on the old machine.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Isn't that the case every generation? The old consoles are just getting their best games when the new consoles come out and are only getting ports or remasters of prior generation games or games originally targeted for the prior generation hardware. I don't get what this has to do with BC?

Are those 360 owners buying 360 software not going to switch to buying XB1 software (XB1 versions of the same games) when they own an XB1? Isn't the enthusiasm around 360 BC that people can play old titles that haven't received remakes and updates and sequels on the new machines?

I'm not sure I'm tracking you. Yes, and yes? But I don't see how that has any impact on your statement that I was responding to that BC actually is more important now than it would have been at launch. The population of consumers that will buy a console at $499 at launch aren't going to be nearly as concerned about BC as the population of consumers willing to buy a console at $349. I think that's just pretty obvious, isn't it?

Not to call anybody out, but when talking about buying an XB1, a good friend of mine said he wouldn't do the "trade in" deal to get $100 or more off the purchase because there were too many games he had purchased on the 360 that he didn't want to lose access to. He eventually bought a XB1 when he was able to afford to do so, without the $100 trade in bonus. If the XB1 had backwards compatibility to all those old 360 games, he would have taken advantage of the trade-in deals and gotten a XB1 probably a year or so earlier.

So it absolutely matters. And it matters more now, than it did at launch. New adopters will buy anything at any price. The XB1 has gone from a minimum cost of entry of $499 to $349 and actually, if you are a 360 user, it's gone all the way from $499 to $249. BC is huge to the people who will make a purchase at $349 or $249 rather than $499

Yes. I've typed replies, checked the thread I'm replying to, found it's the wrong thread and moved the posts after the fact. Both times I've typed that, my replies were moved along with everyone else's.

Sorry, your comments confuse me after the fact, I want to make sure I'm responding in the correct thread and you've got a bunch of comments out there saying that "but this is the wrong thread for this.." which maybe it was initially, but then you moved those comments to the correct thread and when I'm reading the correct thread, I'm thinking "why is this the wrong thread for this??"

 

[Metal_Spirit]

Sony could have backwards compatibility with PS3 and PS2. All it was required was a little utility to recognize de originals on the drive of the PS4. Then PS Now would do the rest by allowing free access to the title.

But i doubt Sony would want this... They are re-selling their old titles on PS Now.

 

[London Geezer]

Sony could have backwards compatibility with PS3 and PS2. All it was required was a little utility to recognize de originals on the drive of the PS4. Then PS Now would do the rest by allowing free access to the title.

But i doubt Sony would want this... They are re-selling their old titles on PS Now.

They could charge for titles we are not in possession, while allowing free access if we insert the disc - or have the digital version, which would be on record somewhere on the PSN... But with a monthly subscription system, I'm not sure how that would work.
Are they charging for individual games on PSNow?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Isn't that the case every generation? The old consoles are just getting their best games when the new consoles come out and are only getting ports or remasters of prior generation games or games originally targeted for the prior generation hardware. I don't get what this has to do with BC?

Because the best games on the old machine give reason to stick with it rather than get the new machine. If you could play the best old-gen games on the new machine, there'd be less reason to hold off buying it later.

I'm not sure I'm tracking you. Yes, and yes? But I don't see how that has any impact on your statement that I was responding to that BC actually is more important now than it would have been at launch. The population of consumers that will buy a console at $499 at launch aren't going to be nearly as concerned about BC as the population of consumers willing to buy a console at $349. I think that's just pretty obvious, isn't it?

I agree with this observation. However, I think those people looking at a $349 console now are also looking at its library and what's to come on it, rather than looking to buy a new machine to play their old games. Last gen is done effectively, save for niche titles and cross-gen mainstream franchises like COD and FIFA. Only for those keen to play an old game 5 years later will BC in a new machine have particular interest.

Actually, the request site has some interesting insight, although I don't know that I make sense of it. The major titles are big RPGs and shooters. I guess the shooters to still play with ones friends (although why fifteen flavours of COD are wanted, I've no idea!). The big RPGs like Skyrim, RDR and Fallout...? There are new RPGs to replace them.

Sorry, your comments confuse me after the fact, I want to make sure I'm responding in the correct thread and you've got a bunch of comments out there saying that "but this is the wrong thread for this.." which maybe it was initially, but then you moved those comments to the correct thread and when I'm reading the correct thread, I'm thinking "why is this the wrong thread for this??"

Yeah, I should probably stop 'thinking allowed' while posting and moderating at the same time!

 

[temesgen]

Sony could have backwards compatibility with PS3 and PS2. All it was required was a little utility to recognize de originals on the drive of the PS4. Then PS Now would do the rest by allowing free access to the title.

But i doubt Sony would want this... They are re-selling their old titles on PS Now.

this is where we might be able to get somewhere the discussion, ask yourself why would MS invest money in developing BC only to give it away for free on XB1? It doesn't make you money in a direct way, in fact it makes it more difficult for you to monetize old IPs thru HD remakes. For me MS made the investment in BC to incentivize current 360 owners to stick with the XBOX platform rather than "start over" with the Playstation. If I'm a 360 owner who primarily plays Gears, COD and Halo online and I'm on the fence with the XB1 and PS4, I may very well choose to stay with XBOX if its cheaper, comes with 2 or 3 titles I want and allows me to keep enjoying my online multiplayer titles with friends and when HALO eventually does come out I can play it.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Or if you've made a significant investment in the 360 ecosystem and knowing that XB1 has BC you won't have to start completely over, the true value of replaying old games might hard to measure but the perception helps consumers who are on the fence choose to continue with the platform. 1 year, 2 years, 5 years doesn't matter as much as the the percentage of your previous install base who are considering leaving for the competitor.

Not to mention that the entire point of the Xbox division is to get people locked into a ecosystem. It's to try to get you to buy everything, games, music, movies, etc.. through their portal. So it makes a tremendous amount of sense to demonstrate to people that their digital purchases will transcend generations and still be available.

This is the whole point of W10 and XB1 integration. To make sure that everybody moves "to the cloud" and moves to "digital purchases" through a store that they reap the commissions for.

MS providing BC is just another way of saying "Trust us, we'll make sure you can still play your games." And although it was difficult in the past, and still a bit difficult now with the 360-XB1 transition, everything going forward is going to be software based and there's no technological reason why all of these games won't be available to you on the XB4.

And of course, the XB4 probably won't even exist, it'll all just be a software based emulator that is accessed through an app on any agnostic hardware device.

If you look at it in that perspective, you get it. Again, Sony isn't doing this. Sony simply doesn't even have the ability to attempt to do what MS is trying to do because Sony doesn't have a gazillion PC's out there as their market base. Sony has to continue to rely on hardware sales to stay in the gaming business. MS, on the other hand, wants to do everything they can to turn gaming into a software business so that the hardware is essentially meaningless.

Creating BC is a big step in making that point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Win 10 ecosystem is different to console BC. As you say, there might not even be an XB4 because it probably won't be needed. If it exists, it'll just be a Windows box. BC as discussed here is emulating an alien architecture on a new box, or building a new box around the old architecture. Building an abstracted ecosystem is somewhat different - that's more an alternative strategy to the classical console business.

 

[temesgen]

Not to mention that the entire point of the Xbox division is to get people locked into a ecosystem. It's to try to get you to buy everything, games, music, movies, etc.. through their portal. So it makes a tremendous amount of sense to demonstrate to people that their digital purchases will transcend generations and still be available.

This is the whole point of W10 and XB1 integration. To make sure that everybody moves "to the cloud" and moves to "digital purchases" through a store that they reap the commissions for.

MS providing BC is just another way of saying "Trust us, we'll make sure you can still play your games." And although it was difficult in the past, and still a bit difficult now with the 360-XB1 transition, everything going forward is going to be software based and there's no technological reason why all of these games won't be available to you on the XB4.

And of course, the XB4 probably won't even exist, it'll all just be a software based emulator that is accessed through an app on any agnostic hardware device.

If you look at it in that perspective, you get it. Again, Sony isn't doing this. Sony simply doesn't even have the ability to attempt to do what MS is trying to do because Sony doesn't have a gazillion PC's out there as their market base. Sony has to continue to rely on hardware sales to stay in the gaming business. MS, on the other hand, wants to do everything they can to turn gaming into a software business so that the hardware is essentially meaningless.

Creating BC is a big step in making that point.

I agree with you that its about the ecosystem, its the wrong thread but IMO PS Now is an investment in part in the next generation which may very well be a streaming cloud based service rather than a traditional console. That said we're in agreement about the motivations.

 

[goonergaz]

Not to call anybody out, but when talking about buying an XB1, a good friend of mine said he wouldn't do the "trade in" deal to get $100 or more off the purchase because there were too many games he had purchased on the 360 that he didn't want to lose access to. He eventually bought a XB1 when he was able to afford to do so, without the $100 trade in bonus. If the XB1 had backwards compatibility to all those old 360 games, he would have taken advantage of the trade-in deals and gotten a XB1 probably a year or so earlier.

That's exactly what we're saying - but you're saying it's more important now for some reason. Let me tell you, if XBO had BC at launch I probably would have got one - but now I'm not fussed...I'll see how I feel when RDR is working, if there's an improvement (and no news of a HD remake) then I might jump - but by the time I get one I'll pay less than half I would have at launch.

this is where we might be able to get somewhere the discussion, ask yourself why would MS invest money in developing BC only to give it away for free on XB1? It doesn't make you money in a direct way, in fact it makes it more difficult for you to monetize old IPs thru HD remakes. For me MS made the investment in BC to incentivize current 360 owners to stick with the XBOX platform rather than "start over" with the Playstation. If I'm a 360 owner who primarily plays Gears, COD and Halo online and I'm on the fence with the XB1 and PS4, I may very well choose to stay with XBOX if its cheaper, comes with 2 or 3 titles I want and allows me to keep enjoying my online multiplayer titles with friends and when HALO eventually does come out I can play it.

Which is all well and good but on XBO you have the Halo MCC for all your Halo needs and GoW remake on it's way...and of course at launch there was the £10 upgrade offer on CoD.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I agree with this observation. However, I think those people looking at a $349 console now are also looking at its library and what's to come on it, rather than looking to buy a new machine to play their old games. Last gen is done effectively, save for niche titles and cross-gen mainstream franchises like COD and FIFA. Only for those keen to play an old game 5 years later will BC in a new machine have particular interest.

I disagree. If only for the fact that I'm really annoyed that I didn't grab all the Games With Gold for the 360 that were available as digital download licenses. Many of them, like Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, I didn't bother with because I already had the game. Well, shit. Really? I passed over "buying the game for free" because I already had it, yet now I learn that had I actually "bought it for free", I'd have a digital license to the game so I could instantly swap between an XB1 game and that 360 version.

It's still pretty cool that I can put in my Bioshock Infinite disc in the XB1 and play it, without having to load up my 360 and deal with it and be segregated from my friends and messaging and whatever, but wow... it would be so much better if it was a digital license and I don't have to go into my closet and pull out the disc, etc..

If MS made a program so you could turn in your physical discs for digital game licenses it would be the biggest boon to console gamers anywhere.

This, of course, is what their initial vision for the XB1 actually was. But all the DRM outcry made them backtrack. However, as I've said, MS has slowly been working towards reversing all their previous reversals. Make no mistake that BC is a huge part of moving the Xbox platform towards MS' ultimate goal which was their original vision that was confounded and confused by their messaging.

 

[joker454]

Then arguably it's not that important as a platform feature. I get how it can be very important to an individual who needs to sell their 360 to finance their Xbox One purchase and still has 360 games they want to play. That's a a given.

It's importance will vary based on timeline. At launch I'd argue it's the *most* important feature, and given that it was the #1 most requested feature according to Microsoft it seems like others agree. At the present it's not as important as it would have been at launch, but it still is very important. This is also once again reflected in user requests as seen here:

http://www.drmgamecast.com/2015/05/the-15-most-requested-features-for-xbox.html

...where it remained the #3 most requested feature one month prior to their e3 announcement of Xbox 360 bc.

What are the issues of PS4's design that mean it's unsuitable to emulate a 7 core Cell-powered PS3? Or is PS3 emulation on PS4 plenty possible but Sony's engineers just can't/won't do it (after spending ages trying to emulate PS2 on PS3 in software and finding only moderate success, similar to MS's moderate success emulating XB on XB360 which only worked with some titles)?

You could also ask why has Sony constantly had cool hardware ideas in the past and yet often poorly software supported them. Who knows what they are thinking software wise, it wouldn't be the first time they made a poor software related decision. As far as actually succeeding in emulation, the way I figure it is that just about every console and arcade game has been emulated on pc by amateur programmers in their spare time for no pay and with no documentation. Given that I figure a multi billion dollar corporation with access to some of the best programmers in the world and full documentation of all the hardware should be able to pull it off.

First, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference at launch because people buying $499 consoles are early adopters who are going to buy that console regardless.

One thing I'd add here is that one of the reasons new consoles are mostly bought by early adopters is that those are the ones that are willing to and can afford to have multiple consoles around. Many can't do this and lack of bc means they will wait before jumping into a new hardware launch. With bc I'd argue that you would get more than just the typical early adopter types jumping in since anyone could then sell them old console to help finance the new and still play all their old games.

 

[temesgen]

That's exactly what we're saying - but you're saying it's more important now for some reason. Let me tell you, if XBO had BC at launch I probably would have got one - but now I'm not fussed...I'll see how I feel when RDR is working, if there's an improvement (and no news of a HD remake) then I might jump - but by the time I get one I'll pay less than half I would have at launch.



Which is all well and good but on XBO you have the Halo MCC for all your Halo needs and GoW remake on it's way...and of course at launch there was the £10 upgrade offer on CoD.

again the point is whoever is sitting on the sidelines has more motivation to invest. It doesn't matter if its year 1 or 7, its about the current number of folks who haven't decided to move on yet and giving them a reason to stick with you/come over to your side. Its also important if your ecosystem is losing consumers to a competitor. Of course the earlier the better but that is because earlier inherently means more consumers are in transition. Currently MS has a decent number of 360 owners who are not buying XB1 or PS4, they are still using their 360 to play We'll see in the coming months if it's successful but for me the motivation/intent behind it is clear.

 

[goonergaz]

This, of course, is what their initial vision for the XB1 actually was. But all the DRM outcry made them backtrack. However, as I've said, MS has slowly been working towards reversing all their previous reversals. Make no mistake that BC is a huge part of moving the Xbox platform towards MS' ultimate goal which was their original vision that was confounded and confused by their messaging.

Yes, it was much easier to completely reverse everything than just be clear about their intentions.