Backwards compatibility on Xbox 360

[NavNucST3]

I would stop buying PS2 games now if B/C is not on PS3.

Is this just you, or do you think others would stop buying as well (obviously this is anecdotal). If no b/c caused users to not purchase games, I would absolutely consider that a bad thing, maybe not one that changes my mind, but bad none the less. Also, why would you stop, there is still no PS3, you could have played and finished the game by the time the PS3 launches/you are able to pick one up?

 

[patsu]

Is this just you, or do you think others would stop buying as well (obviously this is anecdotal). If no b/c caused users to not purchase games, I would absolutely consider that a bad thing, maybe not one that changes my mind, but bad none the less. Also, why would you stop, there is still no PS3, you could have played and finished the game by the time the PS3 launches/you are able to pick one up?

In my view, B/C is more than a marketing bullet to sell consoles. It is also a good thing for game devs and publishers because it extends the shelf life of a game, especially in the light of online distribution (i.e., B/C sells software too).

I am a casual gamer because it takes a long time for me to finish a game (can't find enough !). I replay old games partly because I can finish them faster (and better) within the allocated free time. Plus I know the games rocked. I also have a bunch of unfinished game because they are not worth the time, or demand longer attention span that I can afford to (for now).

If I smell that PS3 has no B/C, I will stop buying PS2 games because most likely I can't finish them (or even start) by November. Since I don't have space for a PS2 when PS3 comes, it may be more worthwhile for me to save the money for the "new" platform and the new games.

With B/C, I can continue to buy any old/new games I want online or offline without worrying about space, compability, time, ...

As mentioned before, I also feel that the dynamics of B/C changes over time because of better graphics last gen, online distribution, and expanding market. History may not be a good indication of B/C value in this case.

Replaying old games does not mean dusting off 10 year old games, it could just mean playing games I bought 6 months ago (e.g., God of War 2 after PS3 launched).

EDIT: typos

 

[Fafalada]

I just don't see it being important when all is said and done. IMO, I think it looks good on paper, but in practice BC moves very very few units.

I'd like to see how long this argument would hold if new range of DX10 graphic cards on PC would come out incompatible with any games released prior to say, 2003.

Although I'll give you that 360 "compatibility" was clearly a 'looks good on paper' move.

 

[Inane_Dork]

I'd like to see how long this argument would hold if new range of DX10 graphic cards on PC would come out incompatible with any games released prior to say, 2003.

The PC is a different beast, though. It's practically the definition of backwards compatibility.

 

[mckmas8808]

How can people be against BC? How can people see this as a marketing bullet point only thing? Those people must obviously be mad that the X360 doesn't have great BC thats all.

Because let's be serious if you don't play old games then don't worry about the PS3 have good BC. What's the big deal about hating it? What's wrong with wanting to play Okami on the PS3 once it hits a bargin price? How is it better to keep my PS2 to play it? What's the positve side to this?

 

[Platon]

How can people be against BC? How can people see this as a marketing bullet point only thing? Those people must obviously be mad that the X360 doesn't have great BC thats all.

Because let's be serious if you don't play old games then don't worry about the PS3 have good BC. What's the big deal about hating it? What's wrong with wanting to play Okami on the PS3 once it hits a bargin price? How is it better to keep my PS2 to play it? What's the positve side to this?

It is not so much about B/C it self as such, rather whether there are any compromises that have to be met with the new hardware in order to have B/C. Even if you have to only add 20-40 million transistors in order to get B/C still those might have been better used in another function, or what is the effect on heat, price, overall functionality. Sure, if BC is totaly free then why not, but rarely anything is free...

 

[MrWibble]

How can people be against BC? How can people see this as a marketing bullet point only thing? Those people must obviously be mad that the X360 doesn't have great BC thats all.

Because let's be serious if you don't play old games then don't worry about the PS3 have good BC. What's the big deal about hating it? What's wrong with wanting to play Okami on the PS3 once it hits a bargin price? How is it better to keep my PS2 to play it? What's the positve side to this?

I think people are wary of BC, because they percieve that other compromises have been made to add a feature they don't personally want to use, and that the resources could've somehow been spent in a different way which would benefit them.

I think perhaps what they're not taking into account, is that the slightly increased sales, happier customers, and continued lifespan of the previous generation, will actually benefit them in the long term. The user base for the console you own will be slightly larger - this helps get titles developed for it that you might want to play. The cash-flow of companies involved will be better, this will keep them afloat and make them more willing to develop more of those next-gen titles you crave. The users who *do* play older games will be more inclined to invest in more games in the future, creating a healthier market - again, making it more viable to create new titles.

And frankly the compromises probably aren't nearly as severe as you are imagining - I doubt that if the effort was actually ploughed into purely next-gen features, that you'd actually see much of an improvement anyway.

 

[Fafalada]

The PC is a different beast, though. It's practically the definition of backwards compatibility.

It's subject to same "sacrifice" considerations - there's a lot of legacy crap in PC hardware that wouldn't really need to be there and can be quite useless in new software.

The way I see it - bw compatibility makes Playstation a platform instead of several products that maybe just happen to share a name. It makes the last gen viable longer, and new gen transition smoother.

 

[Titanio]

I just don't see it being important when all is said and done. IMO, I think it looks good on paper, but in practice BC moves very very few units.

The opposite in my experience. Particularly for parents, even if it doesn't end up getting used a lot by those actually using the system (i.e. the kids). Some moons ago I worked in retail, and one of the most common questions was about playing PS1 games on a PS2, people wanting to confirm that before buying. No joke, but I even had questions about whether PS2 games would work on "the next one". It mattered usually for parents more than anyone else, though, perhaps in the hopeful assumption that these games they were buying now would be played forever, but it did matter to them. I don't know if it would have broke the deal if the answer was "no", but the more you can answer in the affirmative when selling something, the better - it's a nice reassurance.

Platon - if the suggestion is that something will be downgraded to accomodate BC, that's just being baselessly pessimistic, for now at least. I think Sony figured it into their plans before setting the spec, and there's no indication they've had to change anything to 'fit it in'.

 

[Platon]

Platon - if the suggestion is that something will be downgraded to accomodate BC, that's just being baselessly pessimistic, for now at least. I think Sony figured it into their plans before setting the spec, and there's no indication they've had to change anything to 'fit it in'.

I didn't say they did, just saying that B/C is not all roses and stuff, that there are reasons to concider whether B/C should be there or not. However, just because it was planned that does not mean that compromises did not have to be met. If what KK said is true that this B/C will cost them, you already have an effect there, and ususally in the end it will be the customer that pays it...

 

[rabidrabbit]

The biggest deal in BC for me is the smooth transition to next gen.
After a few months I've owned the PS3, after I've played through all my unfinished PS2 games, I don't think I'll be using that feature much unless there is some exceptionally good game coming for PS2.
I certainly don't use the PS2 backwards compatibility any more at all,a fter owning the console for some 6 years, I don't think I used the PS2 BC after I finished FFIX (a PSOne game) on my new PS2.

Would I be disappointed if PS3 didn't have backwards compatibility? Yes I would.
Would I buy the PS3 if it didn't have backwards compatibility, or had very limited bc? Yes, I would.
I'd use my old PS2 to play the games, even though it would be most inconvenient and clutter my living room. I'm not even sure I'd be able to connect the PS3 and PS2, along with all my other equipment at the same time any more.

I don't see the backwards compatibility as such a big selling point, but I do see it as a big customer service point that is appreciated after the purchase.

I think this gen the bc feature is more important to me than it was for PSOne. The PS2 has more games I absolutely want to play, and many of them are released close to the November PS3 launch, or even months after (FFXII?).
Also the PS2 has many games I know I'll want to revisit years from now. With PSOne there was less such games, and the PS2 has aged much better than PSONe.

 

[rabidrabbit]

A bit off-topic, but was the "PSOne hardware" inside the PS2 ever used for PS2 games?
I think it was said you could for example process the audio on the PSOne chip(s) on PS2 games, was SSX dts processed on the "PSOne inside PS2"?

 

[Phil]

Looking back at a collection of 20 PSone games and some 30+ games for PS2, I will be very damn happy to see PS3 being fully backwards-compatible and not making my past purchases and investment a dead-end. I still have the occasional games that I like going back to and that won't change in next-generation either. I guess I could still use my PS2 for the older games, but having just one console hooked up is so much easier and convinient. Besides, any piece of electronic equipment has a life-span and so I'll be happy to replace the old and breaking PS2 with something new and shiny that will ensure gaming for another 5-6 years...

 

[Phil]

A bit off-topic, but was the "PSOne hardware" inside the PS2 ever used for PS2 games?

The PSone chip is the IOP (Input/Output Processor) of the PS2.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's subject to same "sacrifice" considerations - there's a lot of legacy crap in PC hardware that wouldn't really need to be there and can be quite useless in new software.

That's a good point to the argument I hadn't considered. Like Inane_Dork I was thinking PC is a different beast as it's about upgrading your current system to play your current games better. But yes, in the context of the argument BC on PC is holding back from peak performance. By a long chalk I'd say. Still, I guess there's fair argument that that is the PC platform, and the console platforms, which don't follow the same upgrade cycle, could be kept totally focussed on delivering the best solution regardless of BC. Though as yet no-one actually given some real evidence to the idea it's costly to next-gen hardware. All that's been said so far is 'what if clocks are kept low' and the like, with no explanations why that'd be the case.

 

[heliosphere]

Though as yet no-one actually given some real evidence to the idea it's costly to next-gen hardware. All that's been said so far is 'what if clocks are kept low' and the like, with no explanations why that'd be the case.

Think of it as an opportunity cost. However b/c is achieved (software emulation, PS2 on a chip, some combination of hardware and software) there is a cost involved. That cost is paid in engineering time (Sony has to commit money and engineers to b/c that could otherwise have been spent improving something about the PS3 hardware or software) and potentially in a per-unit manufacturing cost (if hardware is involved). It's also possible that hardware compromises would have to be made specifically to support b/c but I don't think that's really a big concern in this case. One way or another there's a cost involved in providing b/c and ultimately consumers will end up paying it. If they want b/c and the cost is reasonable that's fine. For those of us who don't really care about b/c it's a cost we're paying for something we don't particularly want or plan to use.

 

[mckmas8808]

Think of it as an opportunity cost. However b/c is achieved (software emulation, PS2 on a chip, some combination of hardware and software) there is a cost involved. That cost is paid in engineering time (Sony has to commit money and engineers to b/c that could otherwise have been spent improving something about the PS3 hardware or software) and potentially in a per-unit manufacturing cost (if hardware is involved). It's also possible that hardware compromises would have to be made specifically to support b/c but I don't think that's really a big concern in this case. One way or another there's a cost involved in providing b/c and ultimately consumers will end up paying it. If they want b/c and the cost is reasonable that's fine. For those of us who don't really care about b/c it's a cost we're paying for something we don't particularly want or plan to use.

But at the end of the day does that really matter? Some people want a Revolution, not because of the new controller but because they want to play a new Mario and Zelda game. Those people would be "paying" for the R&D into the Revmote that they really don't want. In the end is this a really bad thing for those customers? IMO I say no. Learn to like the Revmote, if not don't buy the system.

And the same applies for the PS3 to a lesser extent. For some reason if a customer makes him or her self believe that they are paying dearly just for some relatively cheap BC in the system, then they just shouldn't buy the PS3.

 

[Phil]

Think of it as an opportunity cost. However b/c is achieved (software emulation, PS2 on a chip, some combination of hardware and software) there is a cost involved. That cost is paid in engineering time (Sony has to commit money and engineers to b/c that could otherwise have been spent improving something about the PS3 hardware or software) and potentially in a per-unit manufacturing cost (if hardware is involved).

Not necessarely. The potential added costs in adding B/C could simply be offset by adding value to the console as a whole which will most likely result in higher interest and higher sales.

 

[expletive]

Just as a side note on BC for the PS3. I cant find it but i listened to a podcast where they pointed out that the BC slide from the KK press conference specifically mentions that games must conform to the PS2 TRC (?). Which is to say that the games need to have been coded 'by the book' using the SDK. In the podcast they seemed to feel that some of the better games may be doing something that dont conform to the TRC in order to squeeze out more performance out of the PS2. They surmized that this would make, according to developers they spoke to, quite a few existing PS2 titles incompatible with the BC strategy on the PS3. I'll try and see if i can find the slide they were referring to but i thought that was interesting.

EDIT: Here it is:

Very interesting to see if there are in fact PS2 games that wont be BC and which games those are, they could end up being the best ones graphically.

 

[NavNucST3]

I think people are wary of BC, because they percieve that other compromises have been made to add a feature they don't personally want to use, and that the resources could've somehow been spent in a different way which would benefit them.

I think perhaps what they're not taking into account, is that the slightly increased sales, happier customers, and continued lifespan of the previous generation, will actually benefit them in the long term. The user base for the console you own will be slightly larger - this helps get titles developed for it that you might want to play. The cash-flow of companies involved will be better, this will keep them afloat and make them more willing to develop more of those next-gen titles you crave. The users who *do* play older games will be more inclined to invest in more games in the future, creating a healthier market - again, making it more viable to create new titles.

And frankly the compromises probably aren't nearly as severe as you are imagining - I doubt that if the effort was actually ploughed into purely next-gen features, that you'd actually see much of an improvement anyway.

But my question is how do you quantify that? Like I said earlier, that just because there are more sales of the game does not mean it is a direct correlation to b/c, its not like the previous gen consoles, magically disappeared and all users of it bought the new console.

Nothing about Heisenberg says that one thing is more severe than another, it simply mentions that we cant't "do" one thing without effecting another, so its not the severity, its just that spending time on A alots you less time to do B. Also the effort at first may seem to make little to no difference, but if you are trying to get to D, maybe you get their more efficiently had you not spent so much time on A.

Not to argue with the devs, I am sure someone spent time going over b/c and its benefits, but its still a new thing on consoles. Until we start doing "Exit Polls" at game stores and online, I don't know how either side can "win" this argument, neither of us have quantifiable proof either way, but outside of the "Its just the xbox people..." arguments, I think this has been a healthy learning experience for me.

EDIT: If it helps anyone understand me better, I am also against titles going past III, maybe IV...sports games get a slight pass, but not by much.