Read @iroboto posts where it's all about the legal aspects, which is something Microsoft went through in 2015 to be forward looking.
Business ramifications of Backwards and Forwards Compatibility *spawn*
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Read @iroboto posts where it's all about the legal aspects, which is something Microsoft went through in 2015 to be forward looking.
Well, in reality short of putting in am actual PS4 in PS5 with everything unmodified (and even then you can't really guarantee that there are absolutely no issues), anybody guaranteeing that everything will work 100% is just smoking crack and consumers should really be aware of that.
Indeed.
which is why this process is just due work. MS went through it a little earlier; I’m also sure they set a “date” in which all games need to be forward compatible with contracts etc. back in 2015. When Phil discusses no generations I’m sure he was referring to this process. There were likely changes made to ensure these games continue forward to each platform. Respective royalty and clauses etc.
I don’t see anything here worthy of discussion, but perhaps as Shifty points out, perhaps not expect the whole BC catalog right away. Some of these things will take time, more likely on the contract side than the technical side of things.
I doubt MS is going around issuing decrees about XSX compatibility. Their BC effort has mostly been an internal effort and thus far they have made it a point not to bother original developers with code modifications. I think MS just got lucky. Their drive for virtualisation in the original xbox one was mainly due to their ill-fated obsession with an "all-in-one entertainment center" and, as Don Matrick said, "if you want backwards compatibility you are really backwards and just need to buy a 360". Well, turns out that the in-built layer of abstraction means that software is no longer married to hardware. Eurogamer's quip that the XSX BC is now baked-in at hardware level tends to confirm the limited input requirement from original developers. If MS did not misguidely try to execute their all-in-one plan, they very likely would not have been able to make BC happen and their will be no emphasis on BC in the first place coming into this new generation.
They built In BC hardware for Xbox One porting over some hardware from 360. This is OT though. As this has no relevancy for PS5. I’m not sure how they do their BC.
IF PS had the same break as MS, BC on the PS5 would not require more extensive code modification. I think Sony is in fact legally compelled to leave it to developers to make the call wrt BC as there is likely the issue of infringing on IP that is more prevalent on the PS5. I am sure that they would rather have ensured and streamlined BC themselves than leave it to third-parties.
HBRU
Regular
I'm the only one thinking that BC will happen without code modification only on vanilla PS4 games without PRO enhancement ? This because I think they build an emulator where to run PS4 games. Well I hope that also... so developers have a bit more incentive of upgrading to real PS5 standards the PS4pro enhanced games. Wishful thinking.
HBRU
Regular
A legal/contractual constraints on HW specifications that can or cannot runs certain software is there between Sony and some pubblisher ? That would then also be there at PS4-PRO release time ?!? So don't think those constraints are there.
They're not. You're not altering the original software so there's no licensing issues. Reason why MS had to go through those legal hoops years ago is because they use software to wrap the original licensed 360 games to "act" like One games which they didn't have licenses for.
This doesnt apply only to Sony but all contracts.
There could be a matter as to what "platform" means in the legal contracts. When developers signed a contract for a game to be published on a platform, what were the expectations at the time? Older contracts may have only meant the current hardware ecosystem and might have legal questions as to future hardware ecosystems. Would any game developer releasing a game in 2013 for consoles have an expectation that it would still be releasing and working in 2020 let alone in 2027? Or what about 2034 if forward and backward compatibility is delivered?
There could be a matter as to what "platform" means in the legal contracts. When developers signed a contract for a game to be published on a platform, what were the expectations at the time? Older contracts may have only meant the current hardware ecosystem and might have legal questions as to future hardware ecosystems. Would any game developer releasing a game in 2013 for consoles have an expectation that it would still be releasing and working in 2020 let alone in 2027? Or what about 2034 if forward and backward compatibility is delivered?
Last edited:
When it comes to sales and distribution on a platform/console without a license for that platform/console, absolutely. I'd hope there's contracts in place that prohibit platform holders to repack and sell games on platforms they have no licenses to. Look at Geforce Now as was pointed out earlier. Publishers were OK with their titles being in the beta program because there would be no money changing hands. As soon as it became a paid service, some pulled out because there were no contracts in place for that type of distribution/license.
Right, but I was more thinking along the lines of PS4/XboxOne platform vs PS5/SeriesX platform, where it's definitely the same family but legally would be assumed to be different platforms? Thus it would require more favorable terms for both sides to be expected to move forward a generation. Or do the contracts include multiple generations going forward?
I believe the contracts MS adjusted around 2015 enables repackaging for future BC platforms as well as changing the terms to music rights of use to be broader and a bit more expansive, which makes it cost a bit more to the developers so the artists make more as well.
Now the terms for being on a cloud streaming service even if it's only PSNow or xCloud, that definitely falls outside the original scope of the contracts in 2013.
I'm curious as to how current 2020 contracts are worded. Do they treat the streaming platforms as a separate clause? Are they still an entirely separate contract all together?
I believe the contracts MS adjusted around 2015 enables repackaging for future BC platforms as well as changing the terms to music rights of use to be broader and a bit more expansive, which makes it cost a bit more to the developers so the artists make more as well.
Now the terms for being on a cloud streaming service even if it's only PSNow or xCloud, that definitely falls outside the original scope of the contracts in 2013.
I'm curious as to how current 2020 contracts are worded. Do they treat the streaming platforms as a separate clause? Are they still an entirely separate contract all together?
I'm not sure how that would be enforced. The license agreement isn't broken as the title isn't distributed for anything but ps4/xbone. I'll give sony/ms benefit of the doubt and assume ps5/xsx are licensed to support ps4/xbone titles.
The contract from above aligns somewhat with the introduction of 360 BC titles on xbone. And again, that had to be done because MS were using software to "spoof" the game as a xbox one game. And if I'm not mistaken, the whole thing started because MS wanted to "end" console generations. If there are no new generations and the software has to work with whatever hardware comes out, MS will need to make sure their wrapper works with everything going forward. Sony on the other hand will just keep baking the same old 36cu chips until the sun explodes.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Definitely, but one of the advantages of consoles and why their performance relative to roughly equivalent parts in a Windows PC is better, is because layers and layers of abstraction have been removed. Backwards/forwards compatibility comes with a cost and that is abstraction = performance hit.
I may be the exception (?) , but I would.
So you think that MS should fund everyone of those games to get remastered?
The investment in BC has been large but that doesn't mean it's larger than cost of a handful of proper remasters.
The overall benefit that BC gives is broad and deeper in comparison. Also the R&D output seems to have wider usage also.
We all have memories linked to games we played. Who is to say which games have merit? Are your opinions on what games should have a remaster the same as mine ?
The money and time MS spent on BC is less than a single remaster of any substance would cost and its going to continue to bear fruit for generations to come. Once Xcloud is avalible MS will be able to have a huge library of games that cross generations for people to buy into be it purchase or subscription. When the series x gives way to the 5th generation or even 6th generation of xboxs all these games will still be available to play.
There are hundreds of nes games out there. Are they all good ? hell no but for every SMB or Contra or Zelda there are Athena and commando and the like that someone like me has great memories of and play them from time to time.
