So less than 10 hours a year per user since introduction...
Utility of Backwards Compatibility
- Thread starter London Geezer
- Start date
That's still more hours than other console users spend playing BC games.
And it's still plenty of hours to be ranked within the Top 10 Daily Played Games on Xbox One.
That's still more hours than other console users spend playing BC games.
And it's still plenty of hours to be ranked within the Top 10 Daily Played Games on Xbox One.
I suppose we'd have to compare revenue on remasteres.
So compare revenues on 2 different games, where one is the revenue from a remaster and the other is the original revenue from an X360 game? I don't see how you can compare revenue on something people already own to something people won't have owned already. So I can't see what you could compare that would be apples to apples.
Also, who ever said anything about revenue? Why did you bring revenue into the discussion when it's not even mentioned and has served any part of the discussion?
as far as I know the XB1 was not designed for BC, this used to be the main argument against BC, compromising your design to keep compatibility (or having software emulation that is of bad quality, not the case here)
so I don't see much you can say against it, I think it's a huge success regardless of not being played anywhere near as much new games, it's a big differential, and it renewed interest in the XB1 when it was announced; I think it's not perfect, ideally it would run all games;
unless MS is expending an absurd amount of money compared to the return they have (considering even the good publicity that came with it), I think it's a win win.
Sony not even supporting the PS1 emulation they had on PS3 for titles bought on PSN is pretty horrible.
so I don't see much you can say against it, I think it's a huge success regardless of not being played anywhere near as much new games, it's a big differential, and it renewed interest in the XB1 when it was announced; I think it's not perfect, ideally it would run all games;
unless MS is expending an absurd amount of money compared to the return they have (considering even the good publicity that came with it), I think it's a win win.
Sony not even supporting the PS1 emulation they had on PS3 for titles bought on PSN is pretty horrible.
Well I guess I'm the above average use case here as I've really come to enjoy having BC. With Scorpio even more so if some of the enhancements reported are to be believed.
If it doesn't compromise performance of the hardware for next/current gen, I don't see how you can be against it whether you play or plan to play BC titles. Knowing the option is there if you want to is a definite consumer benefit.
If it doesn't compromise performance of the hardware for next/current gen, I don't see how you can be against it whether you play or plan to play BC titles. Knowing the option is there if you want to is a definite consumer benefit.
Well.
Having seen the work that they actually put in the game, no.
This game would never have looked this good if it was just the PS3 game running in 4k.
This is why people buy remasters.
It depends what the cost to operate is. Having sunk the cost to implement BC, the ongoing costs might be minuscule and covered by the sales of BC titles so worth maintaining as it's a good image. Without knowing what it costs, we can't guess what the value is. On the flip side, Sony has some BC titles and they really aren't getting much investment, suggesting there's no good sales data and other metrics to show their BC option isn't worth investing in.
This tinfoil-hattery irks me. Seeing a fact you don't agree with and then making connections and coming up with conspiracy theories is a complete dead-end for rational discussion. If there's evidence of conspiracy, that's worth considering. But see.
If you look at the actual discussion, as we've had here in this forum, there's been great debate about BC's value. Jim Ryan just sided with one of those valid opinions. Independently we have stats showing use isn't high. Even MS's own stats show it's not high. If the average console gamer spends over 10 hours per week (lots of different stats here) on gaming, BC represents a small percentage. Back of the envelope maths...30,000,000 XB1's x 10 hours per week x 52 weeks x 2 years = 3.12x10^10 hours. 508,000,000 / 3.12x10^10 = 0.016 == 1.6%
Very wild maths, but you'd have to have something extraordinary to end up with BC being a signigicant percentage. Then factor in that of the 10 hours or whatever the average person may have played BC, that'll be revisiting that one special game and then they forget about it.
Furthermore, the distribution isn't being considered at all. It's quite possible that only 1/10th of the userbase really is playing BC, for 10x as long as the average. It could be hugely important to this niche and they could be very vocal, or not.
I think, as we've said in the other long discussion I'm sure, that BC is a factor that will have differently value, like a particular platform exclusive. Most games couldn't care less for Uncharted, but for a percentage it's enough to sell a console. BC hasn't got massive appeal and doesn't matter to the vast majority of gamers - it's nice to have and they may dabble if its available - but will matter a lot to some gamers. And if BC were handled differently, as on PC where the old games at least improve, it'd increase in value.
That to me is logical, fits the data, fits the discussion, and doesn't need to fall back on conspiracy theories and claims of shady dealings.
Not to quote myself, but to elaborate further, one of the games included in the collection was a PS Vita game, which has been completely re-made for this remaster. And it looks insane, together with the rest of the collection.
So, I'm very happy to pay for the work that has been done here, which would not have happened otherwise.
A piece of the discussion we have not yet touched on (remaster vs. BC) really comes down to whom is responsible for it. It would appear in earlier statements that the BC team makes MS currently the largest software publisher there is, IIRC. While remastered games are entirely the responsibility of the developers and publishers themselves.
It's entirely possible they Sony (and previously MS) has no interest in taking on such a role, which is why they've naturally preferred the hands off approach with remasters. It Sony is commiting to a large number of funds for 3rd party marketing rights, MS is likely funnelling their equivalent funds to BC.
It's entirely possible they Sony (and previously MS) has no interest in taking on such a role, which is why they've naturally preferred the hands off approach with remasters. It Sony is commiting to a large number of funds for 3rd party marketing rights, MS is likely funnelling their equivalent funds to BC.
Metal_Spirit
Regular
Latest numbers from Major Nelson...
510 Milion hours... According to my previous calculations thats about 3.6% usage....
Better, but Major Nelson tried so much it made things a bit worse. He claimed 50% of the users used the feature...
Well.. 3.6% from 50% takes (worst case scenario) about 0,072% from each user... and thats 0,0 something....
I love Backwards compatibility... I think Sony are beeing hypocrites here... They sell ps2 and PS3 games, and they also remaster a lot, with little graphical changes...
I would love this on PS4 (I own both consoles)!
Regardless... i´m just talking about real usage... and it really is low.
510 Milion hours... According to my previous calculations thats about 3.6% usage....
Better, but Major Nelson tried so much it made things a bit worse. He claimed 50% of the users used the feature...
Well.. 3.6% from 50% takes (worst case scenario) about 0,072% from each user... and thats 0,0 something....
I love Backwards compatibility... I think Sony are beeing hypocrites here... They sell ps2 and PS3 games, and they also remaster a lot, with little graphical changes...
I would love this on PS4 (I own both consoles)!
Regardless... i´m just talking about real usage... and it really is low.
Last edited:
I don't have any understanding for people that dislike the feature of backwards compatibility. It is free! It's been great to go back and play some older games. No I don't play them all the time! Not many people will have a high percentage of use for BC in comparison to current games but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy having that option. It's about keeping and building your library of games. Every once in a while my brothers and I will get together and fire up are old Atari. We may only do this once a year or less but when we do it's a blast. We dont want to just throw our Atari in the garbage because it's rarely used...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I wonder what reason a publisher would have to withhold permission? I remember there was an interesting article somewhere on the process Microsoft used for BC on Xbox One but I can't track it down. Could this be a case of Microsoft needing source code and this not being available?
I don't know that anyone's against BC. However, there are people who don't care for old 320x200 display graphics and there are people who think the money spent on BC should be spent elsewhere on something of more value to the majority gamers.
But if it cost you to maintain that Atari, would you? Because BC isn't free. It either affects the design of the console in having to use legacy architectures, or it adds overhead to the way the hardware is used that decreases what you can get from the console. Is it worth losing 3% of your game performance in the hundreds of modern games you play so that you can spend 4 hours one afternoon visiting an old game?
These values are going to be different for each gamer. The choices the console makers need to make are based on cost to implement, negative impact to their audience, and positive impact from BC fans. To make a good business decision, the statistics of BC use are essential knowledge (along with other research).
No source code is needed. What is needed is permission to redistribute the game as it has to be repackaged. The X360 artifacts must be wrapped into an Xbox One executable along with the X360-BC Engine set to run with that game in its virtual harddrive image.
Only true if you assume 50% of all Xbox owners and 100% of BC users bought their Xbox ones at the end of 2013.
All you can truly pull from this data is that on average, BC users devoted about 34 hours to BC based gameplay on the XB1s. And even that is rather simplistic since gamers aren't some homogeneous group of individuals who gaming habits diverge very little between individuals.
BC games come free on Xbox Live which would help explain why 50% of Xbox one users have taken advantage of BC games. But I'd bet a small population of users are driving a significant chunk of that 508 million hours played, which is probably typical of console gaming in general.
Last edited:
Every BC game is basically re-published and IP and middleware licensing and contracts have to be reworked. Seem like a lot of games weren't structured for long shelf lives so it has become an impediment to BC on the XB1.
Technically the most powerful graphics hardware available are inhibited by backward compatibility. Maybe, the Xbox One hardware wasn't designed with console BC in mind but it mostly derived from an arch that was designed with keeping compatibility with older PC games and APIs.
Similar threads
- Poll