*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion
- Thread starter function
- Start date
Tommy McClain / AzBat did a great job of answering why backwards-compatibility is important and why there is more than a "little incentive" to do it.
So I'll just respond to this:
This is where I don't agree. Sony, Microsoft, you or I or anyone else in this thread does not know yet what the gain is or will be. We might never know, because the decisions have been made and certain things can't be changed anymore.
I also disagree that we can use past generations as a pointer to know what works and what doesn't this coming generation. Even if Sony or Microsoft had means to check how often users played old generation games on their new console (lets say they have some kind of background logger), then they will only know how much it was used on current generation consoles with games from last.
Now, as I have explained numerous times already: Talking strictly as a PS gamer (but it applies too to Xbox gamers), there might have been less incentive to play PS2 games on PS3 hardware. Why? Going into this generation, we saw a shift. While PS2 and older consoles were predominently played on CRT televisions at 480/576i resolutions, we came into this generation with HD-ready and FullHD sets. If you've ever set up an old generation game on current consoles on modern LCD and Plasma television sets, you'll see how painfull most games are. Some games have aged well - but for the most part, especially PS2 games have not. Aliasing is horrendous, bland textures, texture shimmering... and if you move on to even older titles, you'll even see clipping and a mess of pixels at an even lower resolution.
This generation not only introduced online-gaming on a mass-market scale, but it also introduced a high standard of resolution (sub-HD to Full-HD games) to match our television sets and much higher image-quality.
Talking strictly about resolution and image-quality - going into next generation, we won't see a big a leap as we did before. The games will still run at the same resolution for the most part, image-quality might be improved, but not to the levels we went coming from PS2 games into this generation. In other words, the next generation games will not look leaps and bounds better than what we have now - and everything we've seen at E3 so far underlines this. Sure, newer games are more complex, more stuff going on, better animations, more detail etc - but on a level of image-quality and resolution, they are not. So in other words, playing PS3/X360 games on newer generation hardware would not be as painfull to the eyes as it has been a generation before.
Then, there's the point of online-play. Last generation we did not have mass-market online play. To most people, this was new coming into this generation. Before that, we didn't play games socially over the internet (not on consoles anyway), so when coming to this generation of PS3 and X360, we didn't connect with our friends and buddies.
Fast forward to today and there's a large majority of PS3 and X360 gamers who play games socially online. We have extensive friends list, a large catalog of online and offline games, both purchased online and offline. So when the point comes where we do upgrade to new consoles, the friends who we play and socialize with online hold a bigger influence over our gaming habbits than before. If for instance, a large majority of gamers still play games online with their buddies, they might hold off with buying the new consoles because it would mean they could not continue to play together.
The other thing is, as AzBat pointed out, that the bigger the investment you've made on this generation, the more you are losing. While old-games are effectively being played less at some point on newer hardware, supplying backwards-compatibility gives us an incentive to stick with our platform. It adds to the value of the brand. If you don't have it, there's less reason to stick with your platform and with the way people and buddies are connected in this new online world, people jumping ship could have a bigger effect than in the past. So if going onto the next platform, suddenly all your friends and buddies are "offline", it's probably easy to explain that they must of jumped ship. Or if you want to continue playing with your friends - it's easier to get what they are getting because games are now connecting people (which was not the case last generation).
I have already had numerous friends and online buddies that I have played with online ask me what I thought about Xbox One or PS4 and which I would be getting. I'm not sure how many I have influenced by saying what I'll be getting, but playing together will be just as if not even a bigger factor next generation. Our decisions influence each other and every factor to bind customers to a platform is important.
If Android or iOS apps weren't compatible across phones running the same OS, people would be perhaps switching phones more. If I ever wanted to switch to an iPhone, I would immediately lose all my apps that I bought. However, knowing that I will still be able to use them on my next phone Android helps me stick to what I know, even if perhaps the next iPhone would be a great phone.
In the end, we on these technical forums know that there is a technical limitation to backwards-compatibility. We know it's not easy, that it comes at a (significant) cost. Yet, I am willing to argue that the value is higher than some here argue. Even if consumers will not use it in the grand scheme of things, consumer psychology is a factor not to be underestimated. And going into next generation; your current loyal userbase is the one you at least want to sell to and not start from scratch.
So I'll just respond to this:
This is where I don't agree. Sony, Microsoft, you or I or anyone else in this thread does not know yet what the gain is or will be. We might never know, because the decisions have been made and certain things can't be changed anymore.
I also disagree that we can use past generations as a pointer to know what works and what doesn't this coming generation. Even if Sony or Microsoft had means to check how often users played old generation games on their new console (lets say they have some kind of background logger), then they will only know how much it was used on current generation consoles with games from last.
Now, as I have explained numerous times already: Talking strictly as a PS gamer (but it applies too to Xbox gamers), there might have been less incentive to play PS2 games on PS3 hardware. Why? Going into this generation, we saw a shift. While PS2 and older consoles were predominently played on CRT televisions at 480/576i resolutions, we came into this generation with HD-ready and FullHD sets. If you've ever set up an old generation game on current consoles on modern LCD and Plasma television sets, you'll see how painfull most games are. Some games have aged well - but for the most part, especially PS2 games have not. Aliasing is horrendous, bland textures, texture shimmering... and if you move on to even older titles, you'll even see clipping and a mess of pixels at an even lower resolution.
This generation not only introduced online-gaming on a mass-market scale, but it also introduced a high standard of resolution (sub-HD to Full-HD games) to match our television sets and much higher image-quality.
Talking strictly about resolution and image-quality - going into next generation, we won't see a big a leap as we did before. The games will still run at the same resolution for the most part, image-quality might be improved, but not to the levels we went coming from PS2 games into this generation. In other words, the next generation games will not look leaps and bounds better than what we have now - and everything we've seen at E3 so far underlines this. Sure, newer games are more complex, more stuff going on, better animations, more detail etc - but on a level of image-quality and resolution, they are not. So in other words, playing PS3/X360 games on newer generation hardware would not be as painfull to the eyes as it has been a generation before.
Then, there's the point of online-play. Last generation we did not have mass-market online play. To most people, this was new coming into this generation. Before that, we didn't play games socially over the internet (not on consoles anyway), so when coming to this generation of PS3 and X360, we didn't connect with our friends and buddies.
Fast forward to today and there's a large majority of PS3 and X360 gamers who play games socially online. We have extensive friends list, a large catalog of online and offline games, both purchased online and offline. So when the point comes where we do upgrade to new consoles, the friends who we play and socialize with online hold a bigger influence over our gaming habbits than before. If for instance, a large majority of gamers still play games online with their buddies, they might hold off with buying the new consoles because it would mean they could not continue to play together.
The other thing is, as AzBat pointed out, that the bigger the investment you've made on this generation, the more you are losing. While old-games are effectively being played less at some point on newer hardware, supplying backwards-compatibility gives us an incentive to stick with our platform. It adds to the value of the brand. If you don't have it, there's less reason to stick with your platform and with the way people and buddies are connected in this new online world, people jumping ship could have a bigger effect than in the past. So if going onto the next platform, suddenly all your friends and buddies are "offline", it's probably easy to explain that they must of jumped ship. Or if you want to continue playing with your friends - it's easier to get what they are getting because games are now connecting people (which was not the case last generation).
I have already had numerous friends and online buddies that I have played with online ask me what I thought about Xbox One or PS4 and which I would be getting. I'm not sure how many I have influenced by saying what I'll be getting, but playing together will be just as if not even a bigger factor next generation. Our decisions influence each other and every factor to bind customers to a platform is important.
If Android or iOS apps weren't compatible across phones running the same OS, people would be perhaps switching phones more. If I ever wanted to switch to an iPhone, I would immediately lose all my apps that I bought. However, knowing that I will still be able to use them on my next phone Android helps me stick to what I know, even if perhaps the next iPhone would be a great phone.
In the end, we on these technical forums know that there is a technical limitation to backwards-compatibility. We know it's not easy, that it comes at a (significant) cost. Yet, I am willing to argue that the value is higher than some here argue. Even if consumers will not use it in the grand scheme of things, consumer psychology is a factor not to be underestimated. And going into next generation; your current loyal userbase is the one you at least want to sell to and not start from scratch.
Evaluating it as a business choice comes down to sticking a dollar value on it. You have a budget of $x million on a console. You can spend $y million in adding BC, or spend that $y million on a bigger GPU, or better services, or more launch games. Only if spending $y million on BC nets you more interest and HW+content sales than investing it in other aspects of your console does adding BC makes sense. In the days of PS2 and older consoles, adding the old console HW provided a viable component solution for aspects of your modern console design (IO or audio controller), but that's no longer an option given size of old hardware.
At the end of the day, people (gamers) can express all they want about how awesome BC would be, and I'll most likely agree, but the economic sense is difficult to argue without evidence that BC adds considerably to the coffers.
I kinda hope they will make half a PS3 or 360 for b/c. We can plug them to the PS4/XB1 via the aux/HDMI-in port. They can go under the nextgen consoles.
Edit: Half a console is still useful for game and media streaming, PlayTV DVR, etc.
Yeah, BC piggybacking into the XB1 ecosystem in the form of a media extender would be great.
There is value in BC and/or maintaining the 360 ecosystem is just a matter of MS being smart on how they extract that value.
I believe BC can pay for itself. Its just a matter of application.
If Sony goes Gaikai with a Netflix like service for the PS3 library then I think XB1 (with its current offering) will have more in common with XBOG than a similar designation they will share similar level of sales.
Gaikai is not BC! It's not particularly relevant to this thread except in specific reference to BC in hardware versus alternative solutions. Please keep Gaikai talk in the Gaikai thread.
How does one discuss BC and avoid Gaikai especially with the PS4? I only mention it because its Sony solution for BC on the PS4. My point would still be the same even if the PS4 came with PS3 hardware inside.
I moved 6 posts talking about Gaikai game streaming that had nothing to do with BC. As long as one is talking about BC and how Gaikai shows value in it or not, that's fine, but whether Gaikai will be responsive or not, or good value, or based on a subscription model, or where the servers need to be, clearly isn't a subject for the BC thread.
Man, you guys are tiring me out! LOL
I think I'll go back to lurk mode after this.
Moving the goal posts aren't we?
I brought it up because Sony was using Gaikai for BC & other stuff & that it gets a pass since they bought the company. Whereas Microsoft hasn't bought a company, since they have enough tech in house to do it already & they've already hinted at streaming games in the original leak. Just thought it was a little unfair. I wasn't making different propositions, just wanted to make sure to compare on equal footing.
The purpose of this thread is "Importance of Backward Compatibility" emphasis mine. I don't think "value" has a place. Once value enters into discussion it's basically a dead end because the value of BC will always take a back seat to other more pressing features. That's why you keep trying to end the BC discussion. "It's too expensive, it's not worth it, THE END". Like talking to a brick wall. LOL
Guess I need to create a new thread Scrooge. LOL
Tommy McClain
I think I'll go back to lurk mode after this.
Moving the goal posts aren't we?
I brought it up because Sony was using Gaikai for BC & other stuff & that it gets a pass since they bought the company. Whereas Microsoft hasn't bought a company, since they have enough tech in house to do it already & they've already hinted at streaming games in the original leak. Just thought it was a little unfair. I wasn't making different propositions, just wanted to make sure to compare on equal footing.
The purpose of this thread is "Importance of Backward Compatibility" emphasis mine. I don't think "value" has a place. Once value enters into discussion it's basically a dead end because the value of BC will always take a back seat to other more pressing features. That's why you keep trying to end the BC discussion. "It's too expensive, it's not worth it, THE END". Like talking to a brick wall. LOL
Not in this thread thanks.
Guess I need to create a new thread Scrooge. LOL
Tommy McClain
Phil,
Thanks! Long read, but a nice post. BTW, just call me Tommy.
Quoted this as this is a better explanation of my view.
Tommy McClain
Thanks! Long read, but a nice post. BTW, just call me Tommy.
Quoted this as this is a better explanation of my view.
Tommy McClain
In any discussion on this board, there are two perspective - the gamers, and the businesses. The importance of any feature for a business is always a value proposition with a dollar value. The importance to gamers is subjective. After everyone's expressed whether they do or don't like something, that's basically the end of the discussion. The only way a discussion can actually be a discussion past the opinion sharing is if people try to answer an objective question. This thread has been running two years now, and the only real update is 'neither console features BC'. Ergo the question is somewhat moot now. Next-gen, BC may well come as standard as part of the big-picture ecosystems, or gaming may have all shifted to the cloud. Heck, everyone was done with this thread until TheChefO snuck back on the board to rant about XB1 being crap.
For consumers, I think it safe to say, "BC is good and valuable." For businesses, "BC is nice but expensive." This gen, "BC doesn't exist so you can't bring your old library with you, but maybe you'll get a streaming game service capable of playing old games which we can talk about in the streaming game services thread." Fair assessment?
The added cost of BC would have provided me an opportunity to join the Xbox One crowd at least 1 year earlier than now. I'm hoping to get Xbox One Holiday 2014, but that's based on the premise there's a $100 price drop before then. So the cost/benefit analysis didn't benefit me or MS this time. BTW, if the system architecture had been designed such you didn't need to include the complete 360 SOC like Sony did with the PS3, then hardware wouldn't need to be remove so quickly. So I wouldn't be using the PS3 as a reason why supporting BC is a bad move. It was a good move for 360 & PS2.
Tommy McClain
So how does adding BC to sell the device at a loss to people that don't want to spend much on new games work into a winning scenario for them?
Additionally, MS plans on moving into cloud streaming as is, so BC can be serviced that way anyhow like Sony is planning.
I think the big win in this case is not losing them to your competitor. Given how much money people spend on non gaming related items on consoles, it's a good idea to lock them to your platform any way you can. Invalidating all your old software makes it easy to jump to a competitor, whereas if all your old software works then people feel "invested" in your ecosystem and are more likely to stay and hence spend with you.
Someone planning to move over would just keep their older system anyways to play their previous investment. So I'm not sure how much that would actually matter. I think people are more given to buy remakes or remasters n the newer consoles anyways.
Perhaps an indicator that might support the notion of users staying within an invested ecosystem would be all the current $10 next gen upgrades that games are doing. They stipulate that you have to buy the ext gen version of the game on the same platform manufacturer. In other words, buy BF4 for 360, then trade in and pay just $10 to get the X1 version; not the PS4 version. It would be interesting to see how that actually plays out.
It's not a win if they are only interested in buying loss leading hardware and playing games they already own.
Like Joker, it makes me a loyal customer & keeps me from jumping ship to the competition. Especially considering they are also $100 cheaper. Had they included BC I could safely sell my system, etc to help pay for the new system. And my old system, game discs & peripherals would go to another person who could have added revenue to Microsoft through more games or more Live Gold subscriptions. They wouldn't get that if I had to keep all my stuff. I also disagree that people who treasure BC don't spend much on new games. If I have a new system I'm more likely to spend money on the new games too. As it is now, I have to keep my old system & now I have less money to spend toward another system. Now I have to wait for a price drop & I will also have to save all that money for a year or more. Who is stay I won't spend that on something else in that time, even the competitor?
As for cloud BC, one would think we would have already have heard about it before now. If it's coming, I see it as more of way for MS to add a few more select games to the service later in the system's life for more casual gamers. I don't think it will be billed as BC service like the other system.
BTW Ceger makes an interesting comment about the the upgrade pricing. They seem to validate the idea of keeping existing users with those upgrade programs. They see some kind of value in it, if not, why even bother? Seems they could stand to lose money doing this too. Granted it would be way less than implementing BC.
Anyway, I still think adding me as a new user now rather than later is still more valuable to MS. Just imagine the bad word of mouth I could generate as a loyal user that's waiting a year or more to upgrade. That could even affect current & future sales of the 360. Who wants invest in a 360 now if it can't be played on the newer system? All because of the lack of BC. They don't care about me, they're greedy. LOL
Tommy McClain
BC is a double-edged sword. They may be buying loss leading hardware, but they only have 15 games to buy at launch? They might want to play games they already own, but 360 still has a huge gaming library that they could still buy from. Not just old games, but the new games still coming that won't be available on the XB1. Yes, they could still play those on their old system if they still had it, but I expect most people get rid of the older system to make way for the newer one. I guess the question then becomes how many are keeping their older system? I would like to see data from GameStop on that. Or maybe we should do a poll on how many plan on getting rid of their older system once they purchase the newer system?
Tommy McClain
Similar threads
- Locked
