*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[Prophecy2k]

Some PS3's had BC. Many were sold without - many buyers didn't care to not be able to play their old games. I didn't need BC to convince me to get a PS3, and neither did my friends. The added cost of BC was a deterrent. If the only PS3's had BC and they all cost more because of it, initial sales would have been much lower than they were. The BC SKU was dropped after one year.

I disagree with this in part Shifty, whilst there were alot of buyers that weren't interested in BC and so went for the cheaper option, the 60GB BC PS3's sold out rather readily if i remember correctly. Not just because it was BC, but also because it was the SKU with the bigger HDD, more USB ports and all round more features.

I bought mine towards the end when they'd decided to drop BC and discontinue the BC SKU's and i had a seriously difficult time finding my 60GB BC model. I remember for a time after they'd sold them all the 60GB versions were going for rediculous prices on ebay, so the demand was there.

Sony discontinued the 60GB BC model most likely becuase it was meant to be the premium model, but unlike MS Sony were actually losing more money on that model than they were on the 40GB and 20GB models. Since towards the end it was the only model with BC, they had to kill it off quickly becuase they were already losing too much on the other models, so to keep supplying 60GB's to the market would have been suicide.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wonder if it's possible to design a console with an "add-on" slot for BC purposes so that those wanting BC could simply buy the "add-on" component. The "add-on" board could effectively be a cell/RSX or 360 APU and associated RAM. Not sure how feasible something like that would be. If they could put something like that out at a low enough price (again this being the real clincher) then it would afford a good solution for the BC problem.

It would be, although I don't know at what price. Effectively you'd only need a super simple BC mobo, with all the devices shared on the host console. It could be sold near cost so not cost a lot (if PS3 costs $150 when PS4 launches in 2013, say, losing the PSU, optical drive, HDD, etc, the raw gubbins could maybe be sold for...$75??) which is the difference between a BC enabled SKU and one without anyhow, but without the hassles of SKU management and trying to match demands.

Found this on SNES that reckons BC would have added $75 to the cost of SNES for BC, so an optional adaptor was designed but not released (ot cites no references though). Given SNES success, the cost of adding BC would have been massive, while it clearly wasn't necessary for success.

 

[function]

One thing that might make an add in board impractical would be the cooling requirements - even after the next shrink the PS360 will still need a heatsink and fan (or ducted airflow from something else), and that would require a fair amount of space being reserved, along with a requirement to not mess with airflow through the system for everything else when it was present. The add in board would also need a fair amount of power. The cost and form factor impact of making an add-in board capable system could be significant, even with the BC processors themselves not accounted for.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's a good point I hadn't considered. The result would be more an external box cabled up, perhaps, or some sit-on box.

 

[ERP]

I think it's dangerous to project what other people want from anecdotes.
For example I buy a next gen console for next gen games, I largely don't care about my existing library, I rarely replay old games anyway.
That doesn't mean the same apply's to the rest of the buying public, nor do anecdotes that counter it, discount its position.
I do think the social parts of the 360/PS3 now increase the importance of backwards compatibility, but I think with the right level of interaction between new and old consoles that could be alleviated.

The real question is what is an acceptable cost for backwards compatibility, is it $50, $100?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's very true, and true of many discussion in general. The anecdotes are only there to prove the existence of the different sides of an argument IMO, not to prove one side right. Regards the manufacturers, considering the whole life of the platform don't they kinda need it to be $0? Hence creating an expansion, which should also benefit from cost reductions of the original hardware as the old console approaches <$100. Embedding the BC in the new hardware is going to make the cost of its addition relatively high, either in terms of terms of legacy development limitations or extra silicon and it's inclusion. I don't think there's any way to establish a dollar value for BC, so shifting it to a peripheral means it can be handled comfortably and balanced for worth. If necessary the BC component can be sold at a loss to promote migration, then phased out. Or kept at a constant price throughout the life of the console to make a little profit later on (I wouldn't mind paying £40 to get PS2 compatibility in my PS3 now to play BGDA and SWBF, on account of no sequels*). I suppose the main reason against a complex peripheral is as an attack vector for piracy, and maybe interface complexities with the rest of the system that they'd rather do without. But certainly, out of the choices of:

1) No BC at all for lowest cost to console developer
2) BC accessory with added complexity
3) Expensive full hardware BC using original hardware
4) Legacy hardware BC tied to old designs

2 strikes me as the best option by far. MS and Sony can get engineers working on a BC board now independent of choices made regards the next console hardwares.


* Yes, that has caused me to just see what the price of a 2nd hand PS2 is on eBay!

 

[ERP]

Actually I think the peripheral is an interesting idea.
I'm not sure how cheap it could really be, because of the limitations with fast external connections anything that didn't just eliminate the HD/Optical drive would be difficult.
Physical packaging is also an obvious issue as is positioning it for sales and marketing.

Another question is are you willing to compromise the hardware choices (perhaps not taking the best available component) in order to achieve backwards compatibility?

Anyone given the choice of Backwards compatibility or not will take it if it's free, but it's not free.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Actually I think the peripheral is an interesting idea.
I'm not sure how cheap it could really be, because of the limitations with fast external connections anything that didn't just eliminate the HD/Optical drive would be difficult.

Yeah, there are a number of options as to how you'd implement it, perhaps worth discussing in the tech thread.

Another question is are you willing to compromise the hardware choices (perhaps not taking the best available component) in order to achieve backwards compatibility?

Anyone given the choice of Backwards compatibility or not will take it if it's free, but it's not free.

that's my main beef. I don't think legacy hardware is a good choice, whereas TheChefO was adamant PS3 and XB360 designs could be cheaply scaled up. In his view the compromises of this would be insignificant. Certainly regards PS3 I think the compromises could be crippling. MS's CPU was suitably generic and the GPU suitably forwards thinking that they may be able to accomodate BC in hardware, to a degree. But it's never straightforward, and there'll be quirks and issues. A clean slate desgin will make the engineers much happier! Only if BC can be proven as extremely valuable does it warrant investigation on the engineering level, which is what this thread should have identified if it were possible. Sadly we can't come to a consensus, and the inclusion and engineering issue of implementing BC remain just an option of manay for the console companies to worry about.

 

[dobwal]

BC is nice but hardly necessary especially in the first year. You honestly think that early adopters paid $500-$600 dollars in the first year of the PS3's life to play currently owned titles that they already had the capacity to play, just on a new console. Early adopters tend to the least demanding of all buyers. They paid $400-$600 for early iterations of ps360 consoles that mainstream buyers wouldn't buy until prices reached $200-$400 range and had been upgraded to be far more feature rich (bigger libraries, HDDs, and other non gaming content and capabilities) than their earlier brethen.

BC didn't make this generation of old to new console transition easier because the vast majority of those that transition to newer consoles didn't do it within the first year but in the following years when BC was either long forgotten or stripped out as a feature.

 

[bkilian]

The EU launch PS3 had FULL BC, not partial. It emulated the EE chip and had a GS on-board. Mine is a 60GB EU and i bought it when i did because if i'd waited any longer i would have gotten one of the none BC EU units that were only available after they decided to drop BC altogether.

My 60GB EU launch unit plays any PAL PS2 disk i put in it. So it's full BC not partial.

No, it was definitely "partial". There was a list of games on the sony site that would not work on the EU PS3. It wasn't a long list, but it was a non-zero length list. Therefore partial.

http://archive.videogamesdaily.com/news/200702/106.asp

Also, there were a number of "supported" games that didn't work properly, some froze and you could never finish them, some ran at 15fps instead of 60, and others had stuttering and gameplay problems.

 

[Phil]

Who buys first gen consoles?

Hardcore gamers. Why do they buy it? To play new, awesome games...

Why do other gamers wait? Cost, or because there isn't enough awesome games out there for you to buy.

IMO this is the central point. Who buys first gen consoles? Hardcore gamers. Why do other gamers wait? Cost.

From a hardware manufacturers view though (e.g. Sony, Microsoft), they want to make a big impact as possible - in other words; get as many sell-throughs as possible to start that snowball of sales that results in good marketing that in turn also increases media presence, good PR and strenghtens crucial (expensive) support for the system.

No company should focus simply on the fact that the hardcore will buy the first wave (and hardcore is a very subjective term to use). The meat of the sales is beyond the early adopters willing to spend more and every manufacturer wants to expand on its user base, meaning getting it's core-base of loyal users to upgrade as quick as possible. The best way to do that is to make it attractive for them: It's easier to sell to the existing crowd if you can effectively sell them 2 systems in one.

The best thing about upgrading to a new system each generation is that at that point, the old system is usually getting old, slowly breaking, becoming very noisy etc. Replacing the old system with a new yet backwards-compatable one always beats having to replace your old one or feeling cheated into buying the new one but losing your old games that you might still be using.

Of course it always depends on the cost to include BC. Sony has effectively built 3 consoles within the last nearly 18 years, 2 being BC at some point with the majority of titles. One would think that with a growing userbase and now a online eco-system attracting more and more people, they would account for that element one way or the other when designing current and future hardware. At least to the extend that it shouldn't be impossible (in other words, businessmodel breaking) to include if necessary.

 

[Prophecy2k]

BC is nice but hardly necessary especially in the first year. You honestly think that early adopters paid $500-$600 dollars in the first year of the PS3's life to play currently owned titles that they already had the capacity to play, just on a new console. Early adopters tend to the least demanding of all buyers. They paid $400-$600 for early iterations of ps360 consoles that mainstream buyers wouldn't buy until prices reached $200-$400 range and had been upgraded to be far more feature rich (bigger libraries, HDDs, and other non gaming content and capabilities) than their earlier brethen.

BC didn't make this generation of old to new console transition easier because the vast majority of those that transition to newer consoles didn't do it within the first year but in the following years when BC was either long forgotten or stripped out as a feature.

I think you may have a very limited view of the types of people that become early adopters. Just like me with this generation, there will be many that will sell their previous consoles, most of the old SW collection and a whole load of others stuff just to be able to jump on board for the next-gen console. It's also well understood that in terms of SW availability the first 18 months of a console's release are the absolute leanest in terms of quality releases, and if next-gen is anything like this one, many gamers will go long periods of time without having much to play that is of sufficient quality to deserve their money. It's in this period that BC is useful because those gamers that blew their load buying new expensive boxes, can at least play some of their old games in the interim. The main point here not being the latter state of such gamers, but for such gamers at the point of making the decision whether to jump on next-gen or not, BC can be a deciding factor in their decision to wait till the prices drop and more next-gen games are released, or sell up house and home now and jump on board for the promise of awesome next-gen software, whilst also being able to continue playing their current gen backlog whilst they wait.

Not all early adopters are filthy rich. Some just can't help themselves but want to have the latest shiniest newest things.

I agree with you that BC isn't a necessity, but i think it finds it's greatest importance in the first few years of a new console launch. After that it's irrelevant.

Edit:

I heartily agree with Phil. He basically said what i was trying to get at, but far more eloquently and succinctly ;-)

 

[Prophecy2k]

No, it was definitely "partial". There was a list of games on the sony site that would not work on the EU PS3. It wasn't a long list, but it was a non-zero length list. Therefore partial.

http://archive.videogamesdaily.com/news/200702/106.asp

Also, there were a number of "supported" games that didn't work properly, some froze and you could never finish them, some ran at 15fps instead of 60, and others had stuttering and gameplay problems.

I stand corrected

Cheers bkilian... I didn't actually realise this

Edit:
*looks at his 60GB EU launch PS3 in the corner of his room*
I don't feel whole anymore

 

[dobwal]

I think you may have a very limited view of the types of people that become early adopters. Just like me with this generation, there will be many that will sell their previous consoles, most of the old SW collection and a whole load of others stuff just to be able to jump on board for the next-gen console. It's also well understood that in terms of SW availability the first 18 months of a console's release are the absolute leanest in terms of quality releases, and if next-gen is anything like this one, many gamers will go long periods of time without having much to play that is of sufficient quality to deserve their money. It's in this period that BC is useful because those gamers that blew their load buying new expensive boxes, can at least play some of their old games in the interim. The main point here not being the latter state of such gamers, but for such gamers at the point of making the decision whether to jump on next-gen or not, BC can be a deciding factor in their decision to wait till the prices drop and more next-gen games are released, or sell up house and home now and jump on board for the promise of awesome next-gen software, whilst also being able to continue playing their current gen backlog whilst they wait.

Not all early adopters are filthy rich. Some just can't help themselves but want to have the latest shiniest newest things.

I agree with you that BC isn't a necessity, but i think it finds it's greatest importance in the first few years of a new console launch. After that it's irrelevant.

Edit:

I heartily agree with Phil. He basically said what i was trying to get at, but far more eloquently and succinctly ;-)

I don't have a limited view. I have a more general view, where a significant portion of next gen console weren't financed through the sale of previous gen console and were only possible strictly because of BC.

Early adopters tend to be more cash or credit rich. That being said, there are a bunch of consoles that go on Ebay that sell for double to quadtruple the retail price during next gen launches but I don't assume that a rather significant portion of early adopters are filthly rich and have money to throw around either.

Did a portion of people fund their next gen purchase by selling their previous gen console? Yes, of course. Those include people who sold their PS2s and GCs to buy a 360 where BC wasn't even applicable. There also existed a portion of people that funded that next gen console purchase by selling their last gen library given that previous gen consoles retail prices are going to be low and that a sudden dump of used consoles are going to drive used prices lower. Furthermore, the games that tend to have the highest resale value often have the highest replayability. While I will agree that there exist a portion of gamers where BC is a necessity, I doubt that portion of people are going to significantly affect the sales of a console where BC isn't available.

It's also well understood that in terms of SW availability the first 18 months of a console's release are the absolute leanest in terms of quality releases, and if next-gen is anything like this one, many gamers will go long periods of time without having much to play that is of sufficient quality to deserve their money.

The lean first 18 months is why less than stellar launch and early titles get plenty of sales. The 360 had an attachment rate around 5 within the first year it launched even with less than stellar titles. The reason being and which almost all data suggest is that early adopter are the least demanding of all buyers. They pay more for consoles, consume low quality ware and accept less feature rich versions.

If you are well aware of that the first 18 months won't have enough titles and you going to have to lean on your previous gen library then why not wait 18 months? I am sure if you are well aware of the first 18 months of next gen scarcity then you are well aware that console tend to be cheaper, more reliable and richer in features 18 months later.

 

[AzBat]

I will reiterate one point made before. You can't sell or trade your current digital game library. It's exactly worth ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, etc. If you can't get anything for it most people will want to keep a way to keep using it. Either they keep their existing console & have less money to use toward trading in toward a new purchase or they could trade it in with the idea their new console can still play their digital game library. One option will make me wait longer until I can afford the new system & the other option allows me to get an earlier jump on the next generation with a possibility of me buying higher margin software.

Just remember: your digital library is worthless.

Tommy McClain

 

[Rodéric]

Just remember: your digital library is worthless.

And I was thinking I bought entertainment to be entertained...
(In which case the money was well spent and no other value was expected.)

 

[AlphaWolf]

You mean I can't have my cake and eat it too?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You mean I can't have my cake and eat it too?

When designed with that in mind, yes. I asked about PSP emulation on Vita and Faf said PSP was accessed reasonably high-level, making emulation possible. This may well be the case with Live! Indie titles on XNA too. When BC isn't possible, then at least you had the value of the product you bought and played when you bought and played it. If you buy a game, play it, and decide it wasn't really worth the money but will be once you've played it again in five years time, then I can agree that lack of BC removing that option is going to harm the value of the product you have purchased, and perhaps you should be able to negotiate a partial refund for the partial value of the game you never received from subsequent playthroughs ('I bought Deathspank for £12 but only got £8 worth of enjoyment from it and was entitled to £4 worth of enjoyment from a later playthrough but a lack of BC on PS4 prevents that'). I also guess everyone who buys an online game should get their money back to some degree when the servers are pulled and they can no longer play it, if they feel they haven't got as much from it as they reckon they should have had.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I've got boxes of old PC games that mostly wouldn't run on current OS's. I should get a big rebate.

 

[jonabbey]

Ars Technica has coverage of a study that purports to quantify the impact of backwards compatibility in new hardware:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...kward-compatibility-could-cost-sony-sales.ars