I have a fair number of XBLA games I have played over and over since their launch (some now almost 4 years): Geometry Wars series (Evolved has great local MP), Trials HD, Toy Soldiers, Peggle, Plants v.s Zombies, Fruit Ninja, Quarrel, Bejeweled Blitz Live, and so forth. Not every XBLA game will be one I wish to play again, but certainly a fair number are ones that I want to persist on because they have extreme replay value, are enjoyable, and don't "age". They are just good, fun games.
*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion
- Thread starter function
- Start date
I'm not quite sure where people are going with the persistant download argument. I play download titles on PS3 more than disc titles, and there's some I wouldn't mind revisiting from time to time. But if they don't work, that's not really Sony's fault because they were never advertised as working forever and I never bought them as expecting them to work forever. That concept didn't really exist on consoles and it's only touchies that have made it an expectastion (although hardware incompatibilties mean that's still no guarantee). If my download games don't work on PS4, I won't be so peeved as to buy an alternative console. If your Live games don't work on XB3, what then? You'll grumble, at which point MS can fairly say, "where did we advertise that they'll work on systems that haven't been invented yet?" although they may not. You can refuse to buy the XB3, until its own library is rich enough that you want to (to play Trials Super++, Plants Vs. Zombies vs. Ninjas, and Pinball Arcade Extreme). You can refuse to buy XB3 full-stop, and go buy another console that doesn't play any of your Live games.
I don't see how the negative impact of not being able to play download games is going to be sufficient to be worth considering during the design of the new hardware. Worst case scenario - a few million existing customers wait a year longer than they would otherwise before buying your console.
I don't see how the negative impact of not being able to play download games is going to be sufficient to be worth considering during the design of the new hardware. Worst case scenario - a few million existing customers wait a year longer than they would otherwise before buying your console.
Well no-one really knows how the reaction will be, but i can add a few scenarios..
Microsoft adds BC to their XBLA titles.. Sony does not. There will be a shitstorm all over Sony for letting their supporters down. We saw hate threads about the cables included with each consoles this round. Imagine how much PR punch, viral or real Microsoft could add with a "simple" addition of BC to their XBLA titles.
If i was at Microsoft Headquarters i would seriously consider the added benefits beyond just thinking about your customers.
The same goes for Sony, and thinking about it, both companies could choose to limit BC to only DD titles which would make it possible to "re-edit" those editions and maybe ease up the requirements to the hardware in terms of BC. Kind a like how it works now with IOS and Android, where it's up to the developer/publisher to update the software to run on new versions on IOS/Android.
With DD only titles the selection would be more limited and the required work to get it running on new hardware with limited BC support could/should be easier.
Oh, I absolutely expect that to happen. But what will the repercussions be for Sony? Maybe some people will defect to XB because they feel there their content is safe and reusable going forwards? Maybe lots will? But for these DD titles, we're talking about a software layer for BC, so it's still not a hardware consideration. MS can put whatever hardware they want in XB3 and potentially have their Live! Arcade titles running, assuming XNA is a robust layer. It's effectively 'free; for MS to implement. Sony are potentially looking at a large price to support their legacy download library, which is probably going to be way more than any fallout IMO.
In a digital world where you might be the odd one out, i'd suspect the fallout would be significant.
I can't see why though, except for a lack of faith in the platform going forwards. The typical PS4 buyer is going to buy PS4 to play the next-gen games, notably the 1st party titles I imagine. So PS4 doesn't play their download games where XB3 plays existing XB360 owner's download games. What's the response of the potential PS4 owners and why? Why is he going to get an XB3 instead of a PS4 when he'll be no better off? If all his PSN games ran on XB3, I could understand it!
It is more likely to do a transition towards a competitive product when the PS4 want secure the consumer's ownership of PS3 downloadable games.
If the PS4 does support BC, it maintains a value that will more likely keep the consumer attached to the platform. Thats a value that wont exist on the next XBOX since he pre owns nothing related to that platform. Remove that BC and you remove that value.
Suddenly buying an XBOX or a PS doesnt make much of a difference to him and hence it is more likely to buy an XBOX.
So to sum it up, removing BC will give birth to the following reactions:
Some will buy the next XBOX out of dissatisfaction towards the PS4 not supporting their old content
Others will buy the next XBOX because of trust that their purchased content will be more likely to be supported by the "next" next XBOX too.
Other PS3 owners will be indifferent between a PS4 and next XBOX so may either end up buying or not buying a PS4
Also lets not forget that if the PS4 is not compatible with PS3 games the Playstation Store will automatically have less content to offer for PS4 than the next XBOX if the next XBOX does happen to be compatible with 360 games.
Thats another competitive disadvantage right there
Except the value doesn't much come from the old games IMO. The PS3's owners friends and trophies are on PSN. His favourite 1st party franchises on Sony exclusives (unless he's just a COD/FIFA player). The whole of the rest of the systems will be different, possibly at different prices, different features, different interfaces. Certainly my choice of getting a PS3 instead of an XB360 had nothing to do with it playing my old PS2 library, as it doesn't feature BC. BRD playback and game expectations were big deciding factors. If XB3 and PS4 are identical apart from BC, then I can see it making a difference. Otherwise, I think BC is a low priority feature. Well, I've said this before in this thread. If I had to make a random guess, I doubt 10% of potential buyers will even notice. That's likely higher in the first year. With a strong launch library, I think it'd be immaterial. We might have plenty of PSS content that's cross platform (Android, Vita, PS3, PS4) by then too. I'm still unconvinced that the hardware choices should be made with trying to get BC working. If it can be done in software, great, but don't sweat it.
not only that but for PS3 owners buying content will be less "worth it" if they cant use it with their next console. If I wouldve had the knowledge and patience I would`ve never bought GoW for the PS2 but the HD-Remake.
Heck even uncertainity is a factor, I wouldve bought a couple more games on PSN if I knew it would work on PS4 and maybe even Vita - now Im stuck between buying a physical disc or from PSN and doing neither
Heck even uncertainity is a factor, I wouldve bought a couple more games on PSN if I knew it would work on PS4 and maybe even Vita - now Im stuck between buying a physical disc or from PSN and doing neither
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that BC is the one and only reason anyone would choose a certain platform, though i absolutely think it could be case for some. But, on the other hand, it adds real value to the console that does support BC, even if just limited to DD purchases. More content on the get go, yes you want your customers to buy the new games, but you still make money on the old games and the new games should be able to sell even with older games for sale. Real PR value, "XBOX 3rd supports your purchases from your 360.
If MS/SONY and Sony chooses to go with limited version, that is DD BC and nothing else, they could in theory do it cheaper? They would not have to support every game ever made, just the DD software, they could add limited HW support and the tools needed to take advantage of the HW and provide software etc to the developers. Later the same software and HW could be used for PSN PS1 like software sales with old PS3/360 games.
And I've never said it doesn't add value.
It's just not much value to most people, IMO. In PS3's case, I don't think so. All download titles save Minis have the same hardware access as disk games, I believe. On XB360, I think all Indie titles run on the XNA framework, so should be portable. Live! Arcade games can be full access, so something like Trials HD will need good hardware compatibility/emulation. In MS's case, they can build a derivative hardware (GPU compatibility from AMD to AMD can be preserved. CPU can be either PPC still, or emulated as Joker says on account of Xenon being weak) so that may be possible. At which point, they'll probably have reasonable disc-based BC as well.
The evidence is that people who keep playing the same games over and over for years on end are a minority. The evidence is that being BC with old software adds only a tiny bit of market value to gaming hardware, that amount of value becoming vanishingly small the older the software is.
The important thing is the difference between value added (as reflected in how much more revenue it generates) versus cost of implementation. It's nearly zero, possibly negative, for recent-generation titles and only turns positive as you move into software that's so old it can be easily emulated, like all the games on Wii's Virtual Console service.
People are acting like digital is different, but it's not. We went through this exact same argument at the start of this generation. There was much anger when people discovered how paltry the 360's BC list was. Proclamations that hardware BC and the huge PS2 library guaranteed success for the PS3. Much rage when Sony announced newer models of PS3s would not play PS2 games. People said the exact same things about wanting to be able to play Chaos Theory or Silent Hill 2 or whatever on every system forever, world without end, amen. Anger when MS announced Xbox Live would no longer support Halo 2. And it all subsided within weeks, because, now I'm a broken record, there just aren't that many people who keep playing the same game over and over for years and years on end, or that many games that have a life more than two years beyond release.
You really think every game you've bought on Steam is guaranteed to work with every future version of Windows and OSX?Why is your opinion the only one that matters? So we have to go by your definition of being bored of a new game?
I have some very old games on Steam that runs on Windows 7, because like i suggested, publishers have constantly updated the "binaries" to keep pace with Windows. Which is a GOOD IDEA since they can keep on selling their old stuff.
People buy old games, looks at steam, how much they play is more or less useless as long as the games sell.
And Digital is different, the mindset is changing among users and it should, we are told that once we buy something, it is forever ours and it will stay in the cloud until hell freezes over,
Thing is we actually don't have that much evidence for this because the situation is different for two reasons. For one digital download libraries are large now on consoles, that's a new thing to this generation. Prior to this gen people didn't amass game digitally. More importantly though are the non core buyers which wasn't as much of an issue on past gens. This gen the 360 with Kinect has amased a large amount of non core buyers and I think these people will be the most vocal in wanting their old games playable on the new machine. I think when you and Shifty say that bc isn't important, you are only thinking in terms of that new core buyer who will buy the consolle regardless. More and more this type of buyer is mattering less and less as they are in the process of being replaced in relevancy by non core buyers.
For purposes of console bc, I'd say simply supporting last gens software would be enough as a first step. You just need to make the transition from old to new easier. In any case it will be intersting to see how this plays out.
Define "very old". My first Steam purchase was Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight (a relatively recent release on Steam, but an old game). It runs but crashes a lot, and the cutscenes display in a tiny window (and quickly lose a/v sync). I'm sure LucasArts did precisely nothing to update it. Most games from the early days of DirectX just don't run well, if at all, on newer versions of Windows. The only reason why games like Jedi Knight run at all is due to Microsoft's backwards compatibility modes in newer versions of Windows, not publishers spending money to have programmers go back to the source code and making new binaries.
What kind of games are you seeing getting supported with real patches more than a year after they come out? Other than MMOs and games with real currency shops, obviously.
Quake is old?
As for patches, you know what, i have no idea i just run the games, if it's the platform or the publisher/developer that makes them run, in principle i don't know and i should not care. But afaik there has been examples of games that was patched to run on steam/windows.
And I've never said it doesn't add value.
In PS3's case, I don't think so. All download titles save Minis have the same hardware access as disk games, I believe. On XB360, I think all Indie titles run on the XNA framework, so should be portable. Live! Arcade games can be full access, so something like Trials HD will need good hardware compatibility/emulation. In MS's case, they can build a derivative hardware (GPU compatibility from AMD to AMD can be preserved. CPU can be either PPC still, or emulated as Joker says on account of Xenon being weak) so that may be possible. At which point, they'll probably have reasonable disc-based BC as well.
I have no idea about the value for most people, that is to be determined later. But i am convinced that the PR value would be pretty high.
With limited BC i dream about Sony/Microsoft providing the needed tools to more or less re-compile the games to the new hardware. And with a combination of software and hardware emulation end up having the DD titles run on the new platforms. So no realtime emulator and therefor no support for disc based games.
There were over a thousand games published for the PS2. Zero percent of your PS2 library will run on the PS3.
So what? You, -tkf-, and AlStrong keep saying this like it is totally obvious that changing the storage media changes people's desire to play a game more than a couple times. I don't see it. If a PS3 game that won't run on the PS4 is sitting on someone's physical bookshelf, gathering dust five years from now, having no influence on his decision to buy the next-gen machine, why should I believe that if it were stored in a virtual library, he'd suddenly be filled with a burning desire to play it?
I mean, I just don't take that for granted the way you do. I don't see how a digital library as opposed to a physical library radically changes the appeal of content to the degree that something that never mattered before is going to become crucial. Do you think the people who buy Black Ops on PSN are going to care more about the game in 5 years than people who bought the disc?
Similar threads
- Locked
