*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[swaaye]

I don't understand why it's too much to ask to keep the old console around if you treasure a few games on it.

 

[joker454]

I don't understand why it's too much to ask to keep the old console around if you treasure a few games on it.

Ideally you sell off your old hardware to partly offset the cost of buying the new console. If you can't do that because you need to keep it around to play some old games you really like then that just makes the new console that much more expensive to buy.

 

[function]

I don't understand why it's too much to ask to keep the old console around if you treasure a few games on it.

If your games (or content) are digital copies tied to your account that may not even be an option.

Fortunately I kept my Rallisport Challenge 2 DLC and the Xbox it was downloaded on, otherwise that content (for the greatest racing/driving game of all time) would be lost to me forever!

 

[swaaye]

If your games (or content) are digital copies tied to your account that may not even be an option.

Those kinds of account limitations are DRM and that is of course why DRM is evil. Google Android Market is how this should be done, with you logging into your account and being able to install your apps on any devices you want.

Rallisport Challenge 2 is an awesome racer, btw.

 

[TheD]

I don't understand why it's too much to ask to keep the old console around if you treasure a few games on it.

Because they can die.

I have had 2 PS1s die in one way or the other and a PS2.
One of the PS1s is from 1997 and the other from 2001 and they both died just recently and with not much usage in years.
Just because a console has worked for a few years does not mean it can not die at anytime.

 

[AlNom]

Ideally you sell off your old hardware to partly offset the cost of buying the new console. If you can't do that because you need to keep it around to play some old games you really like then that just makes the new console that much more expensive to buy.

So long as Rock Band + DLC stays on current gen, this will never be an option for me. Wonder if they'll allow current gen controllers to work on a new platform.

 

[mrcorbo]

So long as Rock Band + DLC stays on current gen, this will never be an option for me. Wonder if they'll allow current gen controllers to work on a new platform.

Amen!

 

[BadTB25]

I don't understand why it's too much to ask to keep the old console around if you treasure a few games on it.

I love having BC on my new consoles. It's why I bought my MGS4 bundle PS3 (BC with PS2 and PSX)

I still have my old Saturn, DC (both Japanese and US), Gamecube, and Xbox. If I had good enough BC for these consoles, I would get rid of them.

Unfortunately, I have a lack of shelf space on my entertainment center, so only my Xbox360, Xbox, PS3, DC (US), and GC are connected at the moment.

 

[swaaye]

I have Xbox, Dreamcast, N64 and 3DO around right now. The fam also has SNES and NES but they don't get any use anymore and should just get sold off. I got rid of Cube and Wii years ago. PS1 many years ago...

Most consoles get emulated at some point and then you can play the favs on any old PC. That's when I start considering getting rid of the original machine. In fact, a modded Xbox replaces a lot of old consoles.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's probably right. I was only speaking from a personal point of view. Am just a bit surprised that most people are so willing to completely drop all older games in favor of the "next gen" stuff.

It's a matter of time as much as anything. Many people don't even have the time to play and complete the contemporary games, let alone go and revisit games from yesteryear.

To use the tape analogy, I don't know anyone that threw out their entire VHS collection the day they bought a DVD player, or anyone that threw out all their DVDs when they went HD-DVD (oops) or BluRay. And while I can't prove it, I don't think any of the people I know would have upgraded if they'd had to do this. And yes, I know the situation with games isn't directly comparable, but overlap is important.

I have a mass of VHS tapes still. I have no video to play them on, and haven't used a VHS player since we bought DVD. There's always a cross-over period, during which those who don't want to move on will stick with their old stuff until such time as the switch makes sense. And then everything they used before is either sold, dumped, or collects dust. Thanks goodness for digital copy eliminating hard copy, and hurry up the day when we no longer have assorted dust collectors!

Half of the games I have on Steam I've never actually played. I'm sure there are people that have "jumped in" on Xbox Live marketplace specials and not yet played the games or not yet played them to their satisfaction or who simply don't like the idea of them or anyone else never playing the game they've bought and kept again.

Perhaps, but I don't think it bothers them enough to not leave them behind. There wasn't a lot of feet scraping in the EU regards PS3 because it lacked BC and everyone loved the PS2 collection. For those happy with their PS2, they waited until PS3 got something they wanted.

And again, the point that doesn't seem to get mentioned is that owners of the new system may still want to play a game in co-op or in a Live party with their last gen friends. In the critical early adopter first 18 month phase this is more likely than at any other time, and given that the 360 isn't going to be aborted like the Xbox 1 (it's still selling and still making lots of money) a period of transition is more likely than ever.

I agree with this, but highlight the point above. Most people happy to play a game on the old generation still, and not seeing anything on the new box for 18 months that they want to play, will just wait, leaving only the early adopters, who are keen to play the new games, to worry about library. And they have the option of keeping their old console around for 12-18 months for when they want to revisit the old games with their backwards friends. Where is the engineering and business sense in designing a platform around a need to appease only the first 18 months worth of customers? Again, PS3 shows dropping BC, although it generated internet grumblings, didn't noticeable ruin their console's chances.

"Most games" don't matter. It's the games that are special to you or that your friends are playing that matter. And to some folks the principle of continued access and ownership matter even if they don't desperately need the product.

"Some folks." What percentage, as to know whether they are vital to support when designing a new box, or whether they are such a fringe case that they wishes are too costly to consider?

Given the choice between Steam like persistence or Xbox 1 like scattering to dust and ashes, which would I choose? No contest. And the more your have invested the more likely you are are to stay

Sure, as would everyone. But that's not the choice. If the choice is a choice between having all your games and hardware half as capable as the competition because of backwards technology, or losing your old games but seeing your favourite franchises reborn in the best possible quality, which would you pick?

And again, Live and PSN are more than just digital stores! A good group of folks to play games with is priceless. Well, maybe not priceless, but worth £40 a year to millions of gamers and over half a billion dollars a year to MS.

Live! and PSN are staying though. They are just a network and load of protocols. You'll still be able to see what your friends are playing etc. You just might need another console to join them.

 

[function]

I have a mass of VHS tapes still. I have no video to play them on, and haven't used a VHS player since we bought DVD. There's always a cross-over period, during which those who don't want to move on will stick with their old stuff until such time as the switch makes sense. And then everything they used before is either sold, dumped, or collects dust. Thanks goodness for digital copy eliminating hard copy, and hurry up the day when we no longer have assorted dust collectors!

I still have some films I taped off the telly 20 years ago! I bought them again on DVD but can't bring myself to throw my VHS copies of some crappy old martial arts films, and some foreign stuff where the tv subtitles were better. Still have some CRTs hanging around too, just for my old consoles and my last-legs VCR.

I agree with this, but highlight the point above. Most people happy to play a game on the old generation still, and not seeing anything on the new box for 18 months that they want to play, will just wait, leaving only the early adopters, who are keen to play the new games, to worry about library. And they have the option of keeping their old console around for 12-18 months for when they want to revisit the old games with their backwards friends. Where is the engineering and business sense in designing a platform around a need to appease only the first 18 months worth of customers? Again, PS3 shows dropping BC, although it generated internet grumblings, didn't noticeable ruin their console's chances.

Keeping the old console around is fine, and what I'd do, but the most significant problems I have in mind are where your old console is largely useless because your online account (and associated games and DLC) have migrated to the new platform. So you still have your old console, you still have your account, but you can't play the games or party up / play co-op.

Last time round not having BC would have hurt MS and Live more than Sony, IMO. Live got a jump start, and co-op and competitive games (and DLC) thrived on the 360, dragging more publishers over and being a big boost for momentum - something MS are still benefiting from to this day.

Being stuck with expensive BC hardware would be a pain, but less so than a failed or simply just less successful platform for decade. Plus BC doesn't necessarily have to cost much. The Megadrive and PS2 carried it just fine, the PS3 had it during the most crucial period then dropped it, and MS went with a software solution and probably benefited more than anyone else ever has.

I don't know how Sony could implement BC without using Cell and I don't know what they'd do about RSX (do developers have low level access?), but for MS the situation could be much simpler. And as they're the ones who I'd expect to benefit most from BC again, I'm hoping they find a way.

"Some folks." What percentage, as to know whether they are vital to support when designing a new box, or whether they are such a fringe case that they wishes are too costly to consider?

I have no idea, but I'd like to know!

Sure, as would everyone. But that's not the choice. If the choice is a choice between having all your games and hardware half as capable as the competition because of backwards technology, or losing your old games but seeing your favourite franchises reborn in the best possible quality, which would you pick?

With a choice that stark I'd go for faster hardware, but given that not all the chaps I play co-op with are early adopters, and that my favourite thing is playing Halo co-op, and that I want to play through the whole Mass Effect series again after I've finished the third installment, then if I can't still use Live and my DLC on my 360 when I get the next gen system I'll not be a happy chappy.

Actually, I'd probably wait a long time to upgrade and then may well go PS4, in which case the twice as fast hardware would have done MS absolutely no good!

Live! and PSN are staying though. They are just a network and load of protocols. You'll still be able to see what your friends are playing etc. You just might need another console to join them.

As long as the old console and your online account could still allow you to do that it'd be an acceptable workaround for people it really mattered to.

 

[ct03]

It's a matter of time as much as anything. Many people don't even have the time to play and complete the contemporary games, let alone go and revisit games from yesteryear.

I game an average of maybe 6 hours per week. Assuming an average of 10 hours per game, that lets me complete more than 30 games per year.
The yearly output of new games that interest me is well below 30. Plenty of time then for older games. And I don't think 6 hours per week is particularly much.

 

[swaaye]

Also by skipping backwards compatibility with what you've paid for they open up the usual opportunity to sell a game to you again in the future. Very common thing and many people seem to accept buying games over and over.

This is really an aspect to their control on the closed platform.

 

[AlNom]

I don't know how Sony could implement BC without using Cell and I don't know what they'd do about RSX (do developers have low level access?), but for MS the situation could be much simpler. And as they're the ones who I'd expect to benefit most from BC again, I'm hoping they find a way.

Yeah, libgcm is pretty much the only way to get decent performance out of RSX, and it's fairly low-level. Besides needing the emulator, Sony would probably have to pay licensing fees just like MS did for BC on 360. There are quite a few hardware quirks that were taken advantage of that might even be fixed/absent in newer NV hardware making things a little more difficult in that sense. Mind you, G80+ is pretty different from previous architectures as well...

I don't see software BC being much of an issue for MS. We've all heard about the avoidance of low-level development on 360, so for the most part it ought to be just your API calls and the sort. The CPU itself is pretty simple too. Now, there are some things they'd need to consider for how the edram rendered pixel tiles (swizzled and all), but the emulator should be able to handle such things easily. I can't really think of anything that would be a cause for concern.

 

[function]

Yeah, libgcm is pretty much the only way to get decent performance out of RSX, and it's fairly low-level. Besides needing the emulator, Sony would probably have to pay licensing fees just like MS did for BC on 360. There are quite a few hardware quirks that were taken advantage of that might even be fixed/absent in newer NV hardware making things a little more difficult in that sense. Mind you, G80+ is pretty different from previous architectures as well...

So it looks like Sony will have a bigger job on than MS if they wish to develop some form of BC with PS3. The most recent comments from IBM about Cell that I can recall seem a little none-specific. IIRC, they said that the Cell line of technology would be merged in with the ongoing Power line, but what does this actually mean? I couldn't work out whether it was damage control, them saying that symmetrical multicore processors were ultimately not going to be the future, or a hint there may be a more modular approach to design (more easily allowing for a custom PS4/Cell BC friendly part). Or maybe it's something else again, I have no idea.

I don't see software BC being much of an issue for MS. We've all heard about the avoidance of low-level development on 360, so for the most part it ought to be just your API calls and the sort. The CPU itself is pretty simple too. Now, there are some things they'd need to consider for how the edram rendered pixel tiles (swizzled and all), but the emulator should be able to handle such things easily. I can't really think of anything that would be a cause for concern.

Regarding the CPU, who do you see as the likely contenders for Xbox 3? I don't see ARM or VIA, or Intel (but for different reasons) so that leaves IBM and AMD. By the sounds of it AMD could make something with enough grunt to handle BC, but surely IBM are still the most likely?

 

[Squilliam]

Wouldn't they include the rights to backwards compatibility in the original PS3/360/Wii contracts? That way they don't have to keep paying royalties down the line to enable the feature for every console when not everyone uses it. It seems to make sense than to leave it up to future negotiations and effectively restrict their future vendor decisions based off their current architecture.

 

[AlNom]

Wouldn't they include the rights to backwards compatibility in the original PS3/360/Wii contracts?

Hindsight is 20/20, but the contract between nV and MS was rather sour. They couldn't have known what they'd be doing 4 years after Xbox launched.

As for Sony, well, who knows what the contract detailed specifically, but the main issue is that they would still be paying for the right to emulate nV-specific functions or industry secrets whether it be more fees in the current contract or more fees down the road... It doesn't matter if it's in the original contract or if they write up a new one later because nV still ends up getting paid.

 

[Squilliam]

Hindsight is 20/20, but the contract between nV and MS was rather sour. They couldn't have known what they'd be doing 4 years after Xbox launched.

As for Sony, well, who knows what the contract detailed specifically, but the main issue is that they would still be paying for the right to emulate nV-specific functions or industry secrets whether it be more fees in the current contract or more fees down the road... It doesn't matter if it's in the original contract or if they write up a new one later because nV still ends up getting paid.

I guess you're right. I hadn't thought of what a contract like that would entail and therefore it isn't practical to really speculate on such things without any additional evidence.

 

[(((interference)))]

I like BC if it is done properly - next gen there may well be this gen titles i'll still want to play but would have sold my 360/PS3 and so cant.

A great example I can think of, is if the next Halo games don't support 4 player split screen MP (or don't support 4 player split screen on LIVE or system link).

As someone who plays a lot of 4 player split screen Halo at console LAN parties this would be a big problem if BC wasn't there to support H3 & Reach which have this feature.

 

[Platon]

When considering the importance of BC one should probably take into consideration PSN & XBLA content over retail...

I'm sure most consumers would be considerably bemused if they couldn't download and play their download titles immediately & instead had to re-purchase them all again...

Not only that, but by having your new console BC with the XBLA/PSN titles you have a huge library on day one. With retail at some point most of the games become to difficult to find for purchase anyway whether the console is BC or not, with the online you instantly have a huge library of games available for you at any time...