*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[-tkf-]

The best sense here IMO is create the standard SKU as sans BC and add BC via a peripheral. That way everyone is catered for. Those who want BC will pay for it; those who don't care aren't lumbered with it. How is that not preferable to expensive full-BC for everyone?

Unless it's dirt cheap people will be looking at a PS3/360 that is very cheap at that time, and a complete console as well, then look to the BC option and think to themselves.. are they kidding me?

If Sony or Microsoft is serious about BC they have designed the next console with that in mind, that is, making sure that whatever components are needed are integrated to the next Console in such a way that it's not only BC that takes advantage of them, but also new stuff. How exactly they should do that, well that is a good question, i can think of some but i have no idea if they are valid.

I personally think that going this way is the best way to earn money, a digital store where my purchases keeps on living, gives confidence. That should see more money going that way.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Unless it's dirt cheap

It should be less expensive than a whole other console and only a little more expensive than including the same components on the motherboard (depending mostly on cooling I guess).

If Sony or Microsoft is serious about BC they have designed the next console with that in mind, that is, making sure that whatever components are needed are integrated to the next Console in such a way that it's not only BC that takes advantage of them, but also new stuff.

Forcing added cost and complexity, for a feature that isn't essential for a number of people (majority or minority can be argued, but I'm pretty sure it's majority for reasons gone into in the this and other discussions). Putting it into a peripheral means the options are $300 for new customers, $400 for those wanting BC, and no unwanted complexity, whereas putting BC components in every box means $400 minimum. Sort of thing.

 

[joker454]

Just fyi, I don't really think having bc should add to the hardware cost of the new consoles at all. The newer hardware will be substantially more powerful than existing consoles so bc should be doable entirely via software, especially for less taxing stuff like XBLive games generally speaking. I don't even think having bc would handicap the new consoles at all again because the power jump will be so large that no compromises should be needed on the new hardware to acomodate bc. Basically they can design the new consoles as they want, and bc would just happen via a dedicated software effort with the help of ~10x+ more powerful hardware. BC in my mind is 100% a software problem.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Just fyi, I don't really think having bc should add to the hardware cost of the new consoles at all. The newer hardware will be substantially more powerful than existing consoles.

For XB360, sure. AMD GPU to AMD GPU, and more powerful CPUs emulating pretty sissy IO cores. For PS3, I don't think it'll be that easy, like PS3 trying to emulate PS2. Cell emulation is likely to be hard/impossible (I started a thread on this), while nVidia GPU to AMD GPU could throw in various issues. Of course, if BC can be emulated in software, go for it. No-one's going to refuse a good feature! But the purpose of this thread was always to identify how important it is, as to if it's worth investing heavily in, and making hardware choices around. If it is hard and expensive to emulate the current-gen consoles next-gen, would you consider it a waste of time? Or even, stick a dollar figure on it. "BC is worth $1 billion, so if it costs $500 million to implement in hardware, it's worth doing." Or "BC is worth $100 million in first-year adoption, and as it costs $150 million to implement, it'd be better to invest that $100 million elsewhere." Or even, "BC is worth $300 million in terms of increased sales and profits, but the developers really won't like the final hardware and it'll harm the experience overall so we'll just live without it."

 

[joker454]

For XB360, sure. AMD GPU to AMD GPU, and more powerful CPUs emulating pretty sissy IO cores. For PS3, I don't think it'll be that easy, like PS3 trying to emulate PS2.

Yeah I was refering to the x360. Sony's situation is significantly more difficult because of the kooky hardware and voodoo software tricks that had to be done in games just to get it to draw. But at the end of the day they will also have to treat it as purely a software issue because they have no choice. Their (current) primary competitor can implement x360 bc in the new machine partyl because they have legions of software developers at their disposal, and partly because the x360 while very forward looking for 2005 is still a bog standard machine of simple design. Their upcoming compeitor (Apple) will already have bc when they invade the console space. So with these two behemoths entering the fray with pure software bc, Sony will have to do the same because they can't afford to bloat the hardware price/wattage of their next machine with hardware based bc. It's their own fault really but now they are stuck, they have no choice. Of course Sony can go ahead and go with no bc and nullifiy millions of peoples game libraries, but if the competition has bc then Sony will simply look rediculous in comparison.

 

[-tkf-]

Forcing added cost and complexity, for a feature that isn't essential for a number of people (majority or minority can be argued, but I'm pretty sure it's majority for reasons gone into in the this and other discussions). Putting it into a peripheral means the options are $300 for new customers, $400 for those wanting BC, and no unwanted complexity, whereas putting BC components in every box means $400 minimum. Sort of thing.

There is a major difference in this round of consoles vs history. A substantial amount of money tied up to online libraries. People expect and rightfully should, that their purchases are valid when they login. Apple store/android store / kindle / online music, movies, steam, etc. teaches the consumer to expect this.

The joys of digital purchase, now they get to pay for it. It's much easier to understand that this blue box with a PS3 logo doesn't work with a PS4.

They will have to create and require a new login If they want to distance themselves from the old consoles digital platform.

I still believe bc can be done, but it will take some skill and the leaks better be wrong

 

[Jedi2016]

Make it optionally BC. That wouldn't add to the cost for users who don't want BC, and would enable those who value BC to run a BC system.

That, I can agree with. And it's something I would buy. Because I do want to minimize how much space all this stuff takes up, but I also want to keep my old game collection.

Wouldn't it be great if that device/peripheral/whatever was completely backwards compatible? With PS1 and PS2 titles as well.

 

[AlphaWolf]

There is a major difference in this round of consoles vs history. A substantial amount of money tied up to online libraries. People expect and rightfully should, that their purchases are valid when they login. Apple store/android store / kindle / online music, movies, steam, etc. teaches the consumer to expect this.

People keep reiterating that digital means you can use it on every future platform forever or something, but where does it say that? What's special about buying digital? Inability to resell it? Why should they care? They don't benefit from the used market much. If they don't offer BC, you can choose to not buy their platform (and be in the same situation anyway because the other platform isn't going to have BC for your downloads either), but really how many people will choose to do that, mostly I expect some people will make angry noises but buy it anyway because if you want to a game on a console, you buy what they make.

 

[-tkf-]

People keep reiterating that digital means you can use it on every future platform forever or something, but where does it say that? What's special about buying digital? Inability to resell it? Why should they care? They don't benefit from the used market much. If they don't offer BC, you can choose to not buy their platform (and be in the same situation anyway because the other platform isn't going to have BC for your downloads either), but really how many people will choose to do that, mostly I expect some people will make angry noises but buy it anyway because if you want to a game on a console, you buy what they make.

Because that is what they expect and get today, right now?

It's not that simple, and i know that, on the IOS/Android platforms it's a combination of the platform and the publisher/content providers to keep the games/content going. As long as the platform makes it possible apps/games/content can be updated and provided.

Maybe we will see a shift where it's up to the actually publisher/developer to provide the update to the old games that makes them work on the new platform. But in the games market that will never happen, they would rather just resell it on a new platform.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Because that is what they expect and get today, right now?

If I went out and bought a PS3 today, it wouldn't play any of my PS2 games. That's probably what you should expect.

 

[Gubbi]

So with these two behemoths entering the fray with pure software bc, Sony will have to do the same because they can't afford to bloat the hardware price/wattage of their next machine with hardware based bc. It's their own fault really but now they are stuck, they have no choice. Of course Sony can go ahead and go with no bc and nullifiy millions of peoples game libraries, but if the competition has bc then Sony will simply look rediculous in comparison.

Sony could stick 8 SPUs on their PS4 CPU for fairly low cost, - they'll be tiny at 32nm. They might even prove usefull for PS4 games.

Other than the SPUs the PS3 is a bog standard PPC CPU + non-unified shader GPU.

Cheers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony could stick 8 SPUs on their PS4 CPU for fairly low cost, - they'll be tiny at 32nm. They might even prove usefull for PS4 games.

But still at added cost and complexity, for the system and developers.

Other than the SPUs the PS3 is a bog standard PPC CPU + non-unified shader GPU.

An nVidia GPU coded to the metal. Emulating that on an AMD GPU might not be very straightforward at all.

 

[Prophecy2k]

But still at added cost and complexity, for the system and developers.

If the SPU are on the CPU die then the only complexity is in engineering such a chip. What ipact that would have on the overall system design is unknown by all except those that would be hired to peform such a task.

On the other hand i don't see how having additional SPUs on your CPU die would add extra complexity for developers though? None would be forced to use them, especially if all you're doing is bolting them onto the intended reasonable performance standard CPU cores you would have had either way. The SPUs would be there for any that did desire the extra boost in performance however, and would benefit the system if only for security and BC alone (which of course is only two of the many things that could be done with them in a PS4). That's also ignoring the fact that all existing multiplatform & middleware game engines already run on SPUs.

So long as the primary CPU cores are fast enough to let devs get their games up and running quickly, I'm at a loss to see how having additional SPUs on the CPU (or even GPU) die would add complexity for the developers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the SPU are on the CPU die then the only complexity is in engineering such a chip. What ipact that would have on the overall system design is unknown by all except those that would be hired to peform such a task.

That's true, but it's also not particular cheap and easy. It's not like a $10,000 job. Chip design and manufacture is pricey, as I understand it. It'd be akin to having to design a new Cell, only with several x86 cores instead of PPE.

On the other hand i don't see how having additional SPUs on your CPU die would add extra complexity for developers though? None would be forced to use them, especially if all you're doing is bolting them onto the intended reasonable performance standard CPU cores you would have had either way.

But then you add cost to the system for no gain. If the gains from BC are worth it, great. If the returns from BC aren't, then it's a waste of money. And let's be clear, I ahve already said i quite like the idea of including a Cell/SPEs in PS4. I think that'd provide a great processor for media funcitons as well as BC. Some suitable libs from Sony for audio engines and the lack would mean they could be accessed by all devs. It would still be a significant engineering feat though.

So long as the primary CPU cores are fast enough to let devs get their games up and running quickly, I'm at a loss to see how having additional SPUs on the CPU (or even GPU) die would add complexity for the developers.

If they're not using them, it won't. But for those who want to use them, if they have direct access, then they'll be writing x86 code, GPGPU code, and SPE code which they didn't even like this gen.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Of course I agree with you shifty that it wouldn't be a simple nor inexpensive feat (although the degree to which is pretty much up in the air). We're also assuming that the main cores are actually x86, which of course there have been rumours, but there's always a chance that the rumours are incorrect.

Ultimately it does boil down to cost vs benefits for Sony, and considering the benefits as stated being; BC (huge for me but perhaps not so for the masses), security, media functions, addtional processing resource for devs in PS4 games, versus the costs of possible added development complexity (you made a poignant point there), engineering cost and complexity, its really for Sony to decides which fares the better choice with respect to their overall corporate strategy with PS4.

Alas, I would assume that if Sony's intention was to have SPUs on PS4, they would have been better using a primary IBM CPU, as at least forthe CPU design they would have had to deal with only one coorporate interface. If the rumours are true (and i hope they're not) and they're going x86, then i cannot imagine that designing a system between three different companies (i.e. IBM-AMD-Sony) would be an easy, cheap nor simple exercise.

 

[-tkf-]

If I went out and bought a PS3 today, it wouldn't play any of my PS2 games. That's probably what you should expect.

I think you know what i meant when i wrote:

It's not that simple, and i know that, on the IOS/Android platforms it's a combination of the platform and the publisher/content providers to keep the games/content going. As long as the platform makes it possible apps/games/content can be updated and provided.

Maybe we will see a shift where it's up to the actually publisher/developer to provide the update to the old games that makes them work on the new platform. But in the games market that will never happen, they would rather just resell it on a new platform.

Not a single line where i say that a PS2/XBOX game should be able to run on PS3/360. It´s all about what is the norm on digital platforms, today. Microsoft and Sony can't expect to be the special case when the competition is doing "BC".

 

[bkilian]

BC in my mind is 100% a software problem.

Heh, you wouldn't believe how often we hear "The rest is just a software problem" from the hardware guys.

Considering the amount of effort required to get BC working from XBox 1 to 360 (Trust me, it wasn't a simple thing) and we still never got it working perfectly, being a software problem doesn't mean it will necessarily be worth solving.

 

[joker454]

Heh, you wouldn't believe how often we hear "The rest is just a software problem" from the hardware guys.

Considering the amount of effort required to get BC working from XBox 1 to 360 (Trust me, it wasn't a simple thing) and we still never got it working perfectly, being a software problem doesn't mean it will necessarily be worth solving.

Oh it's definitely not a simple problem to be sure! But I do believe it's doable. I look at all the emulator software out there written by regular joe's in their spare time and much of it is quite elaborate, so I'd have to think that Microsoft could pull it off if they wanted to. Plus there are two additional differences when comparing emulating Xbox 1 on Xbox 2, compared to emulating Xbox 2 on Xbox 3. The power gap is trememdous now because the current hardware is so damn old, so the Xbox 3 will have plenty of power to emulate Xbox 2. Also, Xbox 3 hardware should be closer in principal to Xbox 2 hardware, whereas Xbox 2 hardware was somewhat different from Xbox 1 hardware.

The question is as you say, is it worth doing. In the end it depends on the competition. I do think iOS has changed expectations there, and I don't think it will go over well with consumers if their entire digital library is rendered useless on new hardware. Plus if Apple does enter the console fray and has bc, then it will just make any non bc hardware out there look bad. Plus I will still always argue that bc is a very strong incentive to keep someone locked into your ecosystem. No bc means it's simple to start from scratch with a competitor.

 

[-tkf-]

Plus I will still always argue that bc is a very strong incentive to keep someone locked into your ecosystem. No bc means it's simple to start from scratch with a competitor.

Among photographers this is what the lenses do. Nikon/Canon/Sony/etc.. at some point you end up having invested so much in lenses that going to another brand is pretty much out of the question.

Microsoft & Sony is far trying to do it with other stuff, like music and video, at some point they can't ignore games.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Here's a difference:

Find your copy of COD4: Modern Warfare, the biggest 360/PS3 game of 2007. Go online. Look at how many people are playing it now versus how many people were playing when it came out.

Now put your iPod on random. How long does it take for a song you bought 5 years ago to come up?

That's why BC doesn't matter for game consoles.