*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion

[RancidLunchmeat]

Win 10 ecosystem is different to console BC. As you say, there might not even be an XB4 because it probably won't be needed. If it exists, it'll just be a Windows box. BC as discussed here is emulating an alien architecture on a new box, or building a new box around the old architecture. Building an abstracted ecosystem is somewhat different - that's more an alternative strategy to the classical console business.

I disagree, and I guess this is where some of our conflict lies. You want to focus just on how BC is impacting the current state of affairs, and I'm looking at the Big Picture and what this means in terms of gaming strategy for MS.

You want to separate the two and I see them as the same thing, only different points on the continuum. Sure, BC has all the impacts of trying to move 360 users to XB1 and all the extra benefits for XB1 users that won't result in new sales.

I don't think that MS spent a year and dedicated all those software engineers towards BC just to help boost their hardware sales. They did it because they were able to transition from hardware to software based platforms. If you can play your 360 games and interact on Live through a software based emulator on the Xb1, you can absolutely make that same thing happen on a PC. If you can do that with the 360, why can't you also do that with the XB1 games? In fact, that's what MS has said with cross-buy, cross-play, etc.

Sure, there's value of BC in terms of trying to get people to move from the 360 to the XB1 and retaining their gaming catalog, but I don't really think that's the main point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's importance will vary based on timeline. At launch I'd argue it's the *most* important feature, and given that it was the #1 most requested feature according to Microsoft it seems like others agree. At the present it's not as important as it would have been at launch, but it still is very important. This is also once again reflected in user requests as seen here:

http://www.drmgamecast.com/2015/05/the-15-most-requested-features-for-xbox.html

...where it remained the #3 most requested feature

From a subset of options that didn't include, "low price," "high performance", etc. Yes, BC was requested as an addition, voted less important than "background music without snapping". I also doubt the various possible compromises were asked. Can you find me a poll that asks gamers if they'd prefer more performance in their consoles or backwards compatibility enabled via hardware abstraction?

I disagree, and I guess this is where some of our conflict lies. You want to focus just on how BC is impacting the current state of affairs.

No, I'm continuing the thread started 4 years ago that was discussing what hardware choices MS and Sony should make regards their machine and whether they should make compromises to the new machine's price/performance in order to support old software. That's the discussion here! What sacrifices are worth it to enable BC. It's never been, "does BC have any worth?" where the answer is always "yes." Nor is it, "do people want BC?" where the answer is "yes". Nor is it, "if BC can be added with no compromises, should the console companies do it?" to which the answer is "yes". Nor is it, "would people like a stable ecosystem where their content moves with them to new hardware," where the answer is, once again, yes. These are No Brainer questions.

The reason for this thread is because adding BC had always come with a cost, and the thread exists to ascertain whether that cost was worth it (to most gamers, as a business objective). That's still a question, but it's a question probably irrelevant for MS now as they've moved to a VM abstraction and have decided the more restricted hardware access and higher overhead is worth it (something I agree with, now we have more powerful hardware and lower impact APIs). "The value of BC" is a question still relevant to Sony because come PS5, they may have the option of some completely new architecture that doesn't enable PS4 emulation. Should Sony stick to a PS4-type design to enable BC if it means sacrificing some fabulous new possibilities that'd make a better PS5? Or should they ignore BC and make the best console they possibly can?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

That's exactly what we're saying - but you're saying it's more important now for some reason...

BC is more important now because its more important to people who are price adverse. If you had unlimited funds and you wanted an XB1, you would have bought one at $499. You didn't not buy one because of the lack of BC. You didn't buy one because of your fiscal constraints and what you had already invested in the 360.

Millions of other people with those same fiscal constraints haven't bought an XB1 yet and are still gaming on their 360. Lowering the cost of entry from $499 to $249 (with a trade in) and allowing you to still play your full catalog of 360 games is a huge difference.

 

[goonergaz]

BC is more important now because its more important to people who are price adverse. If you had unlimited funds and you wanted an XB1, you would have bought one at $499. You didn't not buy one because of the lack of BC. You didn't buy one because of your fiscal constraints and what you had already invested in the 360.

Millions of other people with those same fiscal constraints haven't bought an XB1 yet and are still gaming on their 360. Lowering the cost of entry from $499 to $249 (with a trade in) and allowing you to still play your full catalog of 360 games is a huge difference.

You have no evidence to back that up, yet Joker has provided evidence that BC importance has dropped from 1st to 3rd most important feature.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Sorry Shifty, I'm not trying to get involved in or verify different opinions in threads from four years ago. If I was interested in that, I'd probably be replying in that thread.

The reason for this thread is because adding BC had always come with a cost, and the thread exists to ascertain whether that cost was worth it (to most gamers, as a business objective). That's still a question, but it's a question probably irrelevant for MS now as they've moved to a VM abstraction and have decided the more restricted hardware access and higher overhead is worth it (something I agree with, now we have more powerful hardware and lower impact APIs). "The value of BC" is a question still relevant to Sony because come PS5, they may have the option of some completely new architecture that doesn't enable PS4 emulation. Should Sony stick to a PS4-type design to enable BC if it means sacrificing some fabulous new possibilities that'd make a better PS5? Or should they ignore BC and make the best console they possibly can?

As far as the cost goes, Sony has already made it very clear that they could do BC but didn't want to spend resources doing that and instead wanted to spend their resources "moving forward" which makes sense because the majority of their base has already migrated.

The last time I attempted to have a conversation about why PS3 users were more willing to upgrade to the PS4 than 360 users were upgrading to the XB1, I got banned for trolling, so I don't think I want to go down that road again. Let's just agree that PS3 users have upgraded to the PS4 at a significantly higher rate than 360 users have upgraded to the XB1. Which means BC is less important to Sony than it is to MS.

 

[joker454]

From a subset of options that didn't include, "low price," "high performance", etc. Yes, BC was requested as an addition, voted less important than "background music without snapping". I also doubt the various possible compromises were asked. Can you find me a poll that asks gamers if they'd prefer more performance in their consoles or backwards compatibility enabled via hardware abstraction?

Ok, but then again it did include a "Gears of War" collection and bc was ahead of that! If you asked on this forum if they would take a Gears of War collection or bc, I suspect Gears would win by a landslide, but on Microsoft's own request site the much beloved Gears franchise lost to bc. That's very telling on how different opinions here can be from elsewhere. As far as asking for more performance, well who doesn't want that? They may as well aso ask "Do you want the console for free?", I wonder which would win. And remember I don't link loss of performance to bc, the two should have nothing to do with each other. It seems like you keep tying bc to a loss of hardware performance and I don't know why, they are separate matters and there is no need to hardware gimp a console to get bc. Build your best hardware for the price, then devote software engineers to making the old games run. It's purely a software issue.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Build your best hardware for the price, then devote software engineers to making the old games run. It's purely a software issue.

If that is true, then I'd agree with you. However, I don't think it is. For years, the requirements to get decent emulation of exotic hardware has required considerably faster hardware. The recommended specs for PCSX2 are a 3.2 GHz dual core CPU and an 8600gt GPU. That's a GPU that came 8 years after PS2. Amiga emulators weren't emulating that machine at speed until something like 10 years after its launch too. The likely reason XB1 can emulate 360 now is because the time for the new hardware was exceptionally long and the difference in hardware between 360 and XB1 hasn't been as great as console generations have been. If 360's successor had been released in 2012 as more conventional, it wouldn't be capable of emulating 360 in software, would it? So 360 BC is the exception, not the rule. Unless you can present clear evidence that any system emulation is possible on 5-6 years newer hardware.

Edit: I'll add that 360 on XB1 can still suffer in some titles. If MS can't get emulation working 100% on hardware fairly close to the architecture of the older machine, 8 years later, with a thicker-than-usual abstraction and API layer for consoles, it seems decidedly unfair to assume BC should be possible on any machine in software. Especially when among the entire internet, you seem to be the only person who thinks software BC is a given and not some incredible, unexpected achievement where everyone (else) thought it was too hard to pull off. Even MS didn't commit to it because, presumably, they couldn't be sure they could pull it off, and only a year ago they were saying they'd like to enable 360 on XB1 but wouldn't promise it.

 

[dobwal]

The posts I see above all say it has value but the value decreases over time form launch because the modern library is of more interest. No-one has said it has zero value. It's value at launch is significant, but two years in it's value is reduced to nice extra bonus, and four years in is near irrelevant to most owners, goes the argument.

And that discussion, the value of BC, is in another thread. I guess I've got more post moving to do...

There are a multitudes of ways for MS to leverage BC. 1000s of 360 titles would be a great foundation for a Xbox One service analogous to Netflix. EA's Access service would probably a lot more attractive if it were filled with a ton of EA's 360 titles. The value of any individual 360 title may fall over time but the service themselves could maintain value by adding older XB1 titles over time.

Your average gamers doesn't even touch 1% of the typical console's library so the value of the library can change dependent on how much gamers' value the ability to explore the breadth of a library at a cost thats far more attractive than the buying of titles individually could offer. Thats something gamers have never had as an option. Other segments of entertainment media extract billions in dollars recycling old content. There is nothing to say games can't be recycled in the same way.

 

[dobwal]

If that is true, then I'd agree with you. However, I don't think it is. For years, the requirements to get decent emulation of exotic hardware has required considerably faster hardware. The recommended specs for PCSX2 are a 3.2 GHz dual core CPU and an 8600gt GPU. That's a GPU that came 8 years after PS2. Amiga emulators weren't emulating that machine at speed until something like 10 years after its launch too. The likely reason XB1 can emulate 360 now is because the time for the new hardware was exceptionally long and the difference in hardware between 360 and XB1 hasn't been as great as console generations have been. If 360's successor had been released in 2012 as more conventional, it wouldn't be capable of emulating 360 in software, would it? So 360 BC is the exception, not the rule. Unless you can present clear evidence that any system emulation is possible on 5-6 years newer hardware.

With console being more PC like than ever and more than likely to stay that route going forward (with software compatibility being an encourager), doesn't emulation become more practical than ever?

 

[MrFox]

Hey Shifty, this latest foray isn't about emulating CELL. This whole BC "discussion" was revived because MS actually delivered BC.

It has nothing to do with Sony, PS3, or PS4, other than it seems like it is mostly Sony fan boys who are doing the complaining, or at least marginalizing the accomplishment.

Yes, I think that is what all the naysayers are purporting, at least one way or another - BC doesn't add value because it wasn't available at launch. No one will actually use it. No one wants to play old games, etc, etc. It's a waste of resources that could have been spent on more powerful hardware. Blah. Blah.

Strawmen. Victim. Again.

Can you at least quote enough of them to warrant painting sony fanboys with such a wide brush?

I have very strong opinions about BC in general.. I have a PS3 with 100% hardware BC and it was worth the price at launch, but it should have been an optional SKU because the price caused a big problem for adoption. I have a Wii with 100% hardware BC for all my gamecube games which I still play today. This was a huge convenience as it allowed me to ditch my gamecube from my equipment rack when the wii launched. I also bought many great PS2 games in bargain bins or classic rereleases like R&C, Jak, Ico, etc... without thinking about it, and it just worked. At launch. No waiting for patches, no petition for support of my less popular titles, no list. I can get rid of my old hardware, that's the convenience of BC and the reason many were arguing for it in 2013.

I never argued for, or wanted anything like partial BC. I would pay $100 for a hardware BC on PS4 if they'd make it perfect enough for me to get rid of my PS3. Otherwise I just switch HDMI inputs to play my older games, or my wii games, or watch tv, or play on my PC. Full BC is a great convenience, but partial BC means I still need my PS3 hooked up. I am switching HDMI input and picking up another controller, which I would still need for the unportable titles, or the titles they don't consider worth testing/patching, or the titles from closed companies, or the titles with glitches and slow downs.

My opinion about Sony BC on PS4 have always been: full BC or don't bother.

The only possible solution would have been an optional BC module, which Sony did develop as shown in their patents, but it was not released. I have always said that would have been my preference. YMMV.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With console being more PC like than ever and more than likely to stay that route going forward (with software compatibility being an encourager), doesn't emulation become more practical than ever?

Yes, and I have said that I'm in favour of hardware abstraction and ecosystems going forwards. One of the major appeals of Windows 10 is the potential for a gaming and productivity ecosystem that'll last. I nod in agreement with Joker in this field.

Regards the console business up until this point, when it was exotic hardware and difficult choices, though I like the idea of BC it isn't practical in most cases. Who here would rather have a Cell based PS4 and inferior software and a higher price and sadder devs than the current x86 based one? Changing CPU family meant forgoing BC, and PS4 being one of the fastest selling consoles of all time, that looks to be the right choice.

 

[steveOrino]

My opinion about Sony BC on PS4 have always been: full BC or don't bother.

My feelings about the matter as well. I don't find the benefit of playing older platform games on a newer console at worse performance appealing at all. The CPU just isn't strong enough for full emulation and most of the games are going to have specific hacks implemented in order to reach "acceptable" performance. The convince is nice but when the experience is worse then the native platform or (in the case of multi-platform) a weak PC, why bother?

 

[Jwm]

I have not caught fully up, but it sure fills a void of kid friendly titles - now there is more than Lego and Skylanders to play. Nuts and Bolts gets plenty of play here, mainly for the vehicle creation though.

 

[Cyan]

Sure, there's value of BC in terms of trying to get people to move from the 360 to the XB1 and retaining their gaming catalog.

The main point is selling old games that wouldn't sell again otherwise when X360 is dead, thus helping developers create new games funding those new games with sales Promoting amazing Xbox 360 classics. Arcade and XNA are full of true gems of software.

More value for your money. Create an unique eternal catalogue of games, some games are just timeless --look at what Nintendo do with the Wii and how it sells SNES games, masterpieces of all time that defined videogames forever. Legacy forever like on PC. Play gems at great prices that you couldn't play back in the day..

And it's just awesome buying a system, brand new, which is lacking games, and play your Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 3, your Darkstalker, your Mass Effect, Skyrim, RDR, etc etc.

 

[Cyan]

The posts I see above all say it has value but the value decreases over time form launch because the modern library is of more interest. No-one has said it has zero value. It's value at launch is significant, but two years in it's value is reduced to nice extra bonus, and four years in is near irrelevant to most owners, goes the argument.

Those posts and reality differ. BC has always value and great importance, no matter when.

One example of this is the fever to buy the PS3 60GB back in the day, selling out at premium price on Ebay... as if it was gold.

 

[DrJay24]

Those posts and reality differ. BC has always value and great importance, no matter when..

You should avoid absolutes, especially when expressing something subjective like "value" or "importance".

One example of this is the fever to buy the PS3 60GB back in the day, selling out at premium price on Ebay... as if it was gold.

You contradicted yourself in the same post! Yes, BC PS3s were valuable briefly when they got replaced by non-BC units, that's when I sold mine. Now, despite being far more rare than standard units, are worth about the same. So maybe BC is in fact worth more in the beginning of the generation when people are in the the transition?

 

[Cyan]

You should avoid absolutes, especially when expressing something subjective like "value" or "importance".



You contradicted yourself in the same post! Yes, BC PS3s were valuable briefly when they got replaced by non-BC units, that's when I sold mine. Now, despite being far more rare than standard units, are worth about the same. So maybe BC is in fact worth more in the beginning of the generation when people are in the the transition?

The value of a dead console is considerably decreased. When the PS3 60GB was a fad until Sony killed it, it was worth a lot. But I don't think anyone is going to buy that kinda ugly monster nowadays and with 60GB to boot. It offers no value because dead models can't be revived.

I am not into Ebay but the price is higher than average, I found this:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090205152839AAnWBb2

Best Answer: You could probably off it for about 600 bucks if you target your buyer. I personally would through a 240 GB SATA Hard drive (About 70 bucks) in it and sell it as "PS3 with Monster Hard drive and FULL backwards compatiblilty!!!" you may be able to pull 800 if its still in great condition.

Hope this helps

Source(s): PS3 owner

http://www.ps3hax.net/showthread.php?t=64235

 

[DrJay24]

The value of a dead console is considerably decreased. When the PS3 60GB was a fad until Sony killed it, it was worth a lot. But I don't think anyone is going to buy that kinda ugly monster nowadays and with 60GB to boot. It offers no value because dead models can't be revived.

What is a dead console? Is the 360 dead? Your assertion was "BC has always value and great importance, no matter when", now it suddenly has a time dependence?

I'm also confused why you are linking really old info on BC model prices, I'm not disagreeing. I sold mine for around $540 in 2007 when the 80GB came out. It might have peaked slightly higher. But take into consideration that the 80GB was $499 itself, so the premium was not huge. It was also full hardware BC for one of the most popular consoles ever.

 

[Rurouni]

For me, BC can be very important at launch but definitely will become less important over time. The reasoning is library and keeping their previous customer.
Over time, it would change from important feature to nice to have feature.
The thing is, I'm talking about real BC. Real BC as in at least 90% compatibility with almost all of the rest 10% can be easily patched (I want 100%, or at least 95%, but I'm being generous). If the BC is selective, having bugs and performance issue, then I can't look the BC as important but straight as nice to have feature even if the feature was there at launch.
In X1 case, I don't mind that the BC is selective, but I do mind the performance issue. This can hurt the X1 image. If MS can't run a 360 game at least similar or better in performance, they shouldn't bother. I can imagine that a non technical person speaking to others that X1 is worse than 360 because of it or someone badmouthing MS because their game ran worse on X1. This probably will be more true if this BC was out on day1.

Again, as it is right now, 360 BC in X1 is just a nice to have non important feature.
If in the future they release X2 (or Sony PS5) with full BC, then I classified that as an important feature. Especially true if their rival doesn't come with it.

 

[eastmen]

anyone have an extra preview invite ?

I'm told if someone is playing a game on their xbox 360 and you own it you can load it up when you try to join them. I want to see if I can get media extender working that way