upnorthsox
Veteran
What's the reward? What's the competition doing? Why take this risk?
*spin-off* Importance of Backward Compatibility Discussion
- Thread starter function
- Start date
What's the reward? What's the competition doing? Why take this risk?
Joe DeFuria
Legend
My question was rhetorical. It didn't stop them from nuying Windows 7 because the version of office you use on Vista (or XP for that matter) runs on Windows 7. Why do you suppose that is?
I think you're taking this far to the other extreme that TheChefO was.
I'm not holding it as quitessential (as TheChefO seems to argue)
I'm saying that it can't be dismissed (as you seem to argue).
Whoa there...no...I'm not saying that at all. I've already specifically said that costs/benefits of BC cannot be looked at in a vacuum against the costs/benefits of other features (or performance, etc.)
I am saying that
1) Large segments of xbox's user base have "invested" in Live. This means developing an identity, and purchasing DLC.
2) Being able to bring your identity and DLC to the next generation in tact does in fact holds value.
Can we at least agree on those points? (The amount of value you think sits with number 2 notwithstanding...do you agree that it has SOME value?)
Now you've got millions of users invested in your network/ecosystem. You can release a next-gen console that either
1) Ingores that investment.
2) Embraces it.
If you embrace it, you give your installed base one more reason to stay with your ecosystem when they inevitably DO go to the next gen, rather than go to the competitor.
Now...if when designing the next gen tech, do you believe MS can either
1) Ignore the investment and thus be able to deliver a Holodeck
or
2) Embrace the investment but then only deliver 10 more lines of resolution over current gen.
Well duh...the cost is not worth it.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
That's not a fair question.
I could say the topic is answered with this question:
If MS and Sony deliver the exact same console....all play the same exact games, are released at the same time, same price, all play DLC from the new "Sony-Live" market...the only difference is that the MS version is compatible with the 360's DLC library, and Sony's is not....how many of the current XB360 owners will jump ship to Sony Console?
That's just as much of a skewing of the argument as your question.
Here's a couple fair questions:
1) If the next Xbox does not support any DLC from xbox 360, how many xbox 360 users will consider their investment in xbox live a factor when choosing a next gen platform?
(Answer: Zero)
2) If the next xbox does support DLC from the xbox 360, how many xbox 360 users will consider their investment in xbox live a factor when choosing a next gen platform?
Answer: "More than Zero"
Of course, the DEGREE to which the DLC becomes a factor will depend on a whole host of factors...(what other differences are there between MS and Sony platforms?)
It may affect in different ways different people.
Once the absence of BC becomes known:
it may affect the digital purchasing decision of content available on the current 360. Why purchase it now if it wont work on my next XBOX? This will be more pronounced a little before the next console's release and especially after.
it will affect the potential revenue of developers that would have otherwise been generated from content available on the 360 marketplace. Suddenly their content cannot be purchased for the next XBOX and must be converted?
While the marketplace has grown with content for years, suddenly all that legacy disappears from the new marketplace and off we start with the minimum available at launch like the predecessor. Why throw all of that investment away?
The consumer sees contrasts between products. Once one product carries over that content to its successor and the other doesnt it will cause some form of dissatisfaction against the latter. Available DD content will also be much more on competitive product
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Again, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
I would say that is a fair question, if unrealistic. If the only deciding factor is BC support then that becomes the critical factor. What I'm trying to get from people is a gut-feeling as to a '$ value' that could be put on BC.
And it's that degree that is most important, where TheChefO appeared to afford it considerable importance such that he was basing his whole view of the next-gen tied to BC. How much influence can BC bring to bare? That's a question that hasn't been tackled recently. This discussion has ended up being polarised into it is essential/it is irrelevant. Now IMO where BC obviously has a positive worth, the influence is so small as to render the impact on hardware choices irrelevant. If you look at your second question, where you answer 'yes, more than zero percent', where is that 'yes' going to factor alongside all the other variables?
Let's try this another way. Given a list of design issues MS and Sony have to consider regards their products:
Cost
Performance
Exclusive titles
Backwards compatibility
Non-gaming functions
Form factor
Network services
Marketing
Friend's console choices
New experiences (Wii, Kinect)
...and whatever others you might add, where do you think BC factors in people's prioritization? Does it get high enough up the rankings that it bares any consideration at all? IMO it doesn't. Whatever could be spent in time or money on supporting BC could be spent on better marketing, better services, etc. The only way I can see BC getting any consideration is when hardware options are being evaluated and the possibility of just scaling up the existing boxes is reviewed. But in those cases it's quickly apparent that changing the GPU is going to make emulation more difficult than simple direct compatibility, and a straight scaling isn't possible. At which point you're faced with creating software emulation or adding legacy hardware into your GPU to add value that's near negligable regards people's buying choces. So why bother? This gen (and many others) has shown that gamers are happy to drop all their old games to get a new, better box. I don't believe that games bought as downloads have far more importance to gamers and they'll be more interested in keeping functionality of these games then their disk-based games. The only argument I've seen so far that Joe Gamer wants to play his old download games where he doesn't care about his disks is because Apple games run on every i***, which is a different audience and a different market, and runs on a software layer so that hardware choices are mitigated anyway. MS and Sony will have their own software platforms, same as iOS, but that's different to their consoles. Their consoles will adapt to run their software platform - their hardware choices aren't a sound basis for a future software platform.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Agreed.
I personally consider it important (again, moreso for the on-line content, but also to at least some degree with physical media content). I don't believe next-gen in wholly tied to BC.
But then...I do believe that xbox-live as a network / service does very much depend on a large degree of cross-generational compatibility. And to the extent that MS values thier network as much as the console itself (and I believe they do) it will be prioritized accordingly.
And this is where we differ. Microsoft especially is not just selling a "hardware choice." They are selling hardware AND services as an integrated package / experience. To microsoft you simply cannot separate the two. I believe microsoft sees the live services as possibly even MORE important than the sale of the console itself. (Of course, they both serve to support one another...at least right now.)
IMO it certainly does.
Again, you seem to be the polar opposite of TheChefO...instead of completely basing next gen around BC...you're dismissing it altogether.
Of course...everything is relative. the costs for BC are justified to a point.
Do you really see any significant cost or time comitment (for example) to allow me to re-download and play Zune content that I purchsed last gen?
Way too simplistic. Especially when you consider (for example) that BC is in and of itself better marketing. I don't care how you view it as a practical use...the marketing bullet point of BC has considerable value.
Is it also not easier to market a new console that has X thousands of arcade titles ready to play vs. a handful? MS spent this entire cycle building the content of Live...do you really think they are not going to try and leverage that next gen...that it's not a big marketing point?
[snip hardware talk...I don't think either one of us is qualified to even begin to start discussing actual costs related to support BC]
In no other generation have console gamers built up a library of purchased downloadable DLC as they have this gen. And this generation showed that MS and Sony see if nothing else the marketing value of launching a console with BC....because they put resources into it...concentrated early on in the lifecycle of the console.
I can tell you that I will not be "happy" to drop all my old games. If I'm forced to because I have no option, I will eventually. But if I'm forced to drop all my content...then I'm just as inclined to move to a different platform than I am to stick with my current one. And even if I stick with my current platform, I'll be more leery of buying DLC now that I'm assuming I won't be able to take it with me next gen...
Not just games, but other apps and media content. Movies, songs, tv shows....
PlayStation doesn't have a history of BC? Every PlayStation I've bought (PS2, launch PS3) has had backwards compatibility.
So has every PC, and every Android device, and every iPhone, and every Mac, (at least for some significant period of time with the Blue Box and Rosetta emulation layers).
Even the PS3s on the shelf today have PS1 compatibility.
I agree that BC is not infinitely valuable, but it's also not infinitely costly. If IBM makes a CPU for PS4 and they can put some SPUs on it, hurray. I expect that providing some kind of hypervisor translator for RSX gcm to whatever GPU Sony ships would be easier than handling the CPU emulation, if they've got SPUs.
I've a question a blend of technical and business related matter.
I assume that backward compatibility add a significant value to the product.
I assume that backward compatibility has a significant impact on the design choices.
I've no clue about the cost of running something as "onlive" but how would you react if one manufacturer were to provide BC (why not even forward compatibility) for some games through a cloud service akin to "onlive"? I would let the XBLA/PSN out of the pictures (as new hardware may run them via emulation) and consider only the most successful and most played games out there?
I assume that backward compatibility add a significant value to the product.
I assume that backward compatibility has a significant impact on the design choices.
I've no clue about the cost of running something as "onlive" but how would you react if one manufacturer were to provide BC (why not even forward compatibility) for some games through a cloud service akin to "onlive"? I would let the XBLA/PSN out of the pictures (as new hardware may run them via emulation) and consider only the most successful and most played games out there?
I've wondered that myself. The Onlive folks have been making noises about being in talks with Microsoft and/or Sony, and using an Onlive style remote rendering approach could be a way of the console manufacturers having their cake and eating it too with regards to backwards compatibility.
It could presumably be much cheaper than putting BC hardware in every unit sold while permitting them to collect a network service charge, and they'd probably be able to massively oversubscribe their rendering hardware on the theory that a relatively small fraction of their BC subscribers would actually use the service at any given time.
I've rallied Shifty's opinion about how next-generation systems should be (have been)tablets.
I got sold when I saw "Onlive" run on a Kindle Fire, I would happily welcome 6/7" inches tablets as my next gaming platform and pass on the technical lacking (versus a +100 watts system) as long as I can't access really high quality games through a cloud base service.
Basically if I take Sony as an example PSV would be their "next-generation system", the PS4 would be somehow a dock station + whatever accessories they want (pad, camera, storage, etc.) and the matching cloud based architecture (actually making the PS4 system exclusive or not to Sony hardware would be a business decision not a technical one)
I got sold when I saw "Onlive" run on a Kindle Fire, I would happily welcome 6/7" inches tablets as my next gaming platform and pass on the technical lacking (versus a +100 watts system) as long as I can't access really high quality games through a cloud base service.
Basically if I take Sony as an example PSV would be their "next-generation system", the PS4 would be somehow a dock station + whatever accessories they want (pad, camera, storage, etc.) and the matching cloud based architecture (actually making the PS4 system exclusive or not to Sony hardware would be a business decision not a technical one)
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think those 15 million 360 owners will not upgrade to the 720 or PS4. I think they will just delay their eventual purchase of the newer systems. Personally I have a LOT of digital content on the 360. I would be upset if I couldn't take that with me to the 720. Would I get over it? Yes, eventually. It would just delay me from purchasing the 720 the 1st year until it's 2nd or 3rd year. That's because I have finite funds & usually I can't afford to buy the newer systems without selling OR trading in the old system. With no BC I'll be required to keep my old system in order keep using my content. Also, having BC in the next Xbox makes me feel better about the purchases I'm making today since I know I can eventually take it with me to the new system. If BC is not there, I will definitely be less likely to purchase digital content on the current system. I'm with Joe on this one. BC definitely has some value. How much exactly I have no idea, but I believe it's more than you give it credit.
Tommy McClain
Personally I don't think that's the way to look it it. Instead the question is how much more likely are people to consider switching to a different competing ecosystem if all their current digital content doesn't work on Microsoft's next ecosystem. That's what bc is all about, to make defecting to another companies ecosystem less inticing. Even if you don't end up playing any of it, just the thought of losing all your digital content means you are effectively starting from scratch, which makes it far easier to consider defecting to a competitor.
imo there are only a handful of situations where the lack of backwards compatibility would impact the sales of a new console.
say you had 360, and wanted to buy a 720, but found out it wasnt backwards compatible with 360 games, but ps4 was able to play ps3 games, maybe you might go to sony, and buy a bunch of old ps3 exclusives, in addition to ps4 launch titles. visa versa if ps3, was your console this gen.
or perhaps you owned both ps3, and 360 this gen, and ps4 was backwards compatible but xbox 720 wasnt, then perhaps microsoft may have lost a sale.
basically, its a nice feature, that looks good on the side of a box, but doesnt factor into the decision making process except in fairly limited circumstances.
downloaded games are a problem though, and id be surprised if they didnt work on next gen consoles, but if you invested alot of money into xbox live games for instance, and they didnt work on 720 it wouldnt make sense to buy a ps4 because of it, except maybe out of spite.
the mainstay of that network services remains though. Live! is their software platform. Where xBox started life as the DirectX box, it's now become the Live! box.
However, supporting 100% previous game downloads adds an overhead/limitation to creating XB3, and back when XB3650 and XB were being made, the software layer wasn't written with hardware virtualisation in mind. Hence MS are faced with a choice. Either lock themselves to XB360 type hardware for another generation and have your BC downloads not work on their broader software platform (Win 8 and Win Mo), or start afresh with a new software layer that is cross-device. All your old music and movies and videos and network features would still be intact. You would ahve to start your games library from scratch again. The only other option is to have hardware BC for XB360 DD content, and a brand spanking new software platform, and have the two advertised as independent. "Microsoft Live - buy once, play anywhere. Play all you content on XB3, your mobile, and your Windows PC. Except old Live! content bought on XB360, which only plays on XB3, although we're still calling it Live! content despite it working differently."
As a business chooise for next-gen hardware decisions, yes. But I have reiterated lots of times that the future is 100% BC/forwards compatbility, which needs a software platform to achieve. So I am recognising the importance, but I'm taking a practical stance with how to deal with it next gen.
That's not BC. All your content will still work. That's because that's hardware independent content running on a software layer. The only thing you'll lose are the old games. That's what BC is talking about. Everything else isn't changing. I'm not advocating a sea-change from MS to ditch Live!!!! That way lies madness. Just to turn Live! into a Droid rival, MS needs to be forward looking and not limit their new software paltform by hardware choices made before such a platform was a consideration.
I'd need to see that quantified to believe it. Out of all the ullet points,. I don't BC has considerable value. It has some, varying by shopper, but I don't feel it's ever considerable to the masses.
It's a marketing point. I reckon the best ever COD:MW would draw in more initial buyers, and a few years later a wealth of Live! content will pull in the masses. But that'll be Win 8 based anyhow.
Why should distribution mechanism affect whether could should run on different devices or not?
1) Not all your content; only your games. 2) Why would you move to the rival if MS is cheaper/has better PC integration/has the exclusives you want/has your friend's on their network/has better hardware/is promising forwards compatibility for all future content because they have implemented their new software platform?
3) If Sony also doesn't have BC, why jump ship to a platform that acts in the same way? Is that just to spite MS?
4) Even if Sony does have BC, how would that benefit you next-gen?
They're not going anywhere. If you've been discussing this as all content going, you've been talking at odds to the thread. This thread is only about having BC of game code to run games from last gen. The media content is portable because it's just a data format. There's not reason to drop that. The apps can be rewritten if they aren't already implemented on a virtual platform, which I think they are. The only thing that isn't an easy transition to new hardware are your games. The only thing you stand to lose from lack of BC is convenient access to your old games. And in ten years time there'll possibly be an emulator that let's you play them.
There have been two sequels. One has BC. One hasn't. Yes, it was an option on some PS3s, but that option was dropped, so PS3 hasn't been 100% for the whole platform. 50% of the iterations haven't had BC (which I consider compatibility with putting in a game media and having it run. Emulation and such isn't designing a system with BC in mind).
I have a number of PC games in my cupboard that don't run on PC. MS has made clean breaks with their choices, relegating people's old software to the shelves. And that's with hardware compatibility! The downside has been gimped hardware legacies that have had a significant impact on the way the PC has developed, which consoles could really do without in order to remain streamlined and efficient.
Via emulation. And I said emulation enables people's older content to run eventually. If Sony can emulate PS2 or PS3 on their next box, they'll do it. It's a fairly cheap added feature, so why not. But they won't put in a PS2's hardware or a PS3's hardware or scale up PS3 to make PS4 if those hardware choices are inefficient/uneconomic.
And if they don't, the liklihood of emulating Cell is very remote (I started a thread on that topic). So Sony either have to use Cell to emulate PS3 even if it's not the best economy for PS4, or they have to add a Cell to PS4 alongside it's other CPU, and that's a significant added cost for a feature that gets little use. Yes, it's a marketing point. Is it really worth spending...$500 million over the life of the platform to support? Now maybe adding PS3's gubbins makes sense, or can be worked reasonably well like using PS1's gubbins inside PS2. But that is a serious design decision, and not just something that can be thrown in without regard to cost because BC looks nice on a list of checkbox features.
See my later post where I list purchasing options and question where BC comes in the priority. And as I say above in this post, even if they lose BC on download games (everything else works, remember!), how likely is it really that people will switch. Even if XB3 has BC and all your Live! content games run on it, if the competitor is offering a better experience or better value or are competing in some other way, how much of a draw is playing the old games realy going to be? I can agree having movies and music locked to a platform will be a good incentive to stick with that platform, but this thread about BC for games. I don't think people value their games that much.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
To be clear, I'm not suggeting that XB3 needs 100% support for all legacy game downloads OOTB with no intervention from developers.
What I think is reasonable to strive for is broad compatibility, (large number of games need no updates) and then provide any dev support / tools needed for any devs that need to tweak their code to also run on the new platform.
This is typical of how hand held device ecosystems work. Many apps just "work" with no changes on new platforms. Other apps need a tweak or two so that they can be played or run on the new platform.
What happens then is by the time the console launches, many of the most popular software has already been tested / updated to ensure it runs properly on the new plaform. (Devs have incentive to do this to have their apps on the marketplace on the new platform.) Some apps won't be available at launch, but end up being fixed soon after. And yes, some apps never get patched.
"Microsoft Live - buy once, play anywhere. Play all you content on XB3, your mobile, and your Windows PC. Except old Live! content bought on XB360, which only plays on XB3, although we're still calling it Live! content despite it working differently."
Heh..well, just because it's the same ecosystem doesn't mean all software runs on all devices. All iPad apps do not run on iPod/iPhone for example. You can develop for the ecosystem, and still target individual devices or device classes.
I expect most if not all software developed for iPad 1 to run on iPad2. But not iPad software to run on iPod.
Well that's a relief.
OK, I think we can pretty much just agree to disagree on that then. I just think it has more value than you ascribe to it.
Because psycologically, people see a physical product as different from something they download. Something that is downloaded via Live is tied to the "service" of live, vs. a material product that you put in the box is tied to that box.
I'll try and turn that question around so you can see my point of view.
If I'm satisfied with the ecosystem I'm using, and like this gen I evaluate the next gen boxes as "pretty much the same, except for the on-line ecosystem", why would I even consider switching platforms?
There's a reason why people call this gen "Play-Boxes" or "X-Stations". They are largely the same...despite the console flaming wars to the contrary.
There's a reason why I have a Wii and an X-box and not a playstation. (And why others have a Wii and a playstation, and not an x-box). I don't think it's a stretch to say Wii + X-Station is much more common in households than X-Box + Playstation. Why? Because by and large the Play-Boxes offer the same experiences as far as physical media games are concerned.
The on-line / service ecosytems though, are completely different.
So again, if I'm satisfied with my ecosystem (which includes all the content I've downloaded and own), why should I even consider jumping ship?
No...if I lose my "investment" in x-box live, I am more or less forced then to seriously consider the alternative...which then might lead me to choose Sony due to other factors.
Because I can play some of that exclusive content from last gen that I have missed out on.
There's one other important audience that we have not yet discussed to: New customers. (We sometimes forget that there exist people in the world who don't have a console yet.
)Everyone has to buy their first console sometime....When it comes time to buy a new console for you 7 year old (or whatever)...what is more enticing? Brand new PS4 that has a handful of launch games and scant x-on-line gaming content....or Brand New Xbox 720 that has a handful of launch games...PLUS compatibility with the huge library of existing games and on-line arcade content.
This makes a huge impact on buying decision. You can quickly go to the bargain bin / older used games and stock up on quality titles on the cheap...and have access to a huge library of on-demand gaming....
Isn't that what this whole thread is about though - determining whether boxes need full hardware support for BC?
This is next to impossible without locking down the hardware to the old system, unless your hardware was broadly operating on a software layer. XBox did somewhat with directX, so there was a degree of portability with titles that didn't try anything ambitious. The end result was BC for titles that most people didn't care much about, so I don't really count that as a win. "XB360 - the next generation of HD gaming, fully compatible with Barbie's Horse Adventures!". I can't see that level of BC working well this gen unless games have been developed on a much higher level, which may be the case with Live! titles. Which of course means hardware BC isn't needed because the software handles that.
Because they're running on a software layer.
That is what's needed for a proper ecosystem. PS3 wasn't designed around a software layer. Live!'s download titles might have been. I don't know what limits are imposed by XNA. But if so, MS are freed from worrying about hardware BC choices. They just need to develop XNA for whatever hardware they'll use and maybe devs will recompile.Can I ask why you think that? The reason I don't think it holds value is because of console history and people buying new boxes without BC, and people with BC not using it massively especially after launch and the library has a lot of new content on offer.
Maybe. But I don't think that's ever been tested. We've never had download games on console before. We've never tested console owners to see if they think the games are part of Live!/PSN or part of their XB360/PS3. I see them as part of PS3 - PS3 games to run on the PS3 system. I also expect PSS games to replace these next-gen. Are there any XB360 Live! download titles that also run on PC, where you buy it once and run it on both platforms?
Is there absolutely nothing another console could offer that'd draw you away? A better set of online services? The same services without a subscription cost? A much cheaper console, and cheaper versions of the same game? The same games in better quality? I can think of lots more variables that'd affect my choice more than playing the old games.
And yours and TheChefO's argument has been based largely on next-gen being mostly the same. Well for starters, one will offer Kinect 2. That could be enough to draw everyone away from PS despite PS4 being derivative hardware of PS3 and every title being BC, no? Then the ecosystems will be very different. MS's Live! content will be portable across MS devices, which is great as long as you're happy to own a Windows phone and Windows TV/media PC. What if you own an Android phone and Google TV and Sony is offering PSN games developed in PSS that run on all your devices? Including content portal so your music and videos bought over PSN run on all Ultraviolet enabled devices? Would you still stick with the MS ecosystem, or decide to cut your losses and move to the other platform? Again, lots of variables. And the portability of content is different to the issue of BC. BC only affects the games. And I'd even go so far to say that that makes the pursuit of BC even less important. If you have a lot invested in Live! content, and XB3 doesn't run your old Live! games, are you really going to abandon all those Live! music and movie titles you've bought? Or will you moan and gripe and then end up buying new stuff and forgetting about it a year or so later?There's a reason why people call this gen "Play-Boxes" or "X-Stations". They are largely the same...despite the console flaming wars to the contrary.
Ecosystem isn't BC. BC is only download games.
Okay. What if everything in Live! stays exactly the same, and you have the whole ecosystem, except you don't have access to the old games on your XB3, is that going to be enough to make you consider PS4? If there are factors about PS4 that would have you consider it, abandoning Live!, why wouldn't you consider those factors if XB3 does play your old Live! games?
eg.
"XB3 has Live! with my existing account, where I can access all my Live! content. It has great exclusives, Kinect 2, content compatibility with my Win mobile. PS4 has some great exclusives, their new Movation controller, and Android device compatibility for media. I'm going to stick with XB3 because it plays my old download games."
and
"XB3 has Live! on my existing account, where I can access all my Live! content. It has great exclusives, Kinect 2, content compatibility with my Win mobile. PS4 has some great exclusives, their new Movation controller, and Android device compatibility for media. I'm going to ditch my Live! stuff and swap to PS4 because XB3 doesn't play my old download games."
I can't see why anyone's thought process would follow the latter example.
BC's even less important for them. They have no library to worry about. Maybe advertising 10,000 games available at launch would impress, but normally your launch-day customers are hardcore gamers who know all about this. The time you start appealing to new, non-console owning customers, is when you have new content that the old boxes couldn't offer. After all, if Jane Gameless didn't care to get an XB360 for all the Live! games, why would she care to get XB3 for all those same games? The first year of next-gen will be selling to hardcore gamers buying new boxes for COD, Gears, and Uncharted type games. During which time the new software platforms will fill up with cross-device compatible games, so come the first price drop and the masses start to consider getting a console, you can advertise however excessively many titles you have on your service. Maybe, if Ms push a revolutionary new Kinect 2 experience, they'll be selling to new customers from the off. But then the draw of Kinect 2 will be that great that the existing Live! titles, not Kinect enabled, will be pretty irrelevant. Wii wasn't sold to the masses on account of being fully BC with GameCube!There's one other important audience that we have not yet discussed to: New customers. (We sometimes forget that there exist people in the world who don't have a console yet.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
I would say it's about the degrees of support for BC.
I will say that no, full hardware support for BC is not a requirement for next gen. However, I do say that BC does add value (so the more BC you have, the more valuable the BC is).
Where we differ is that you don't really see any level of BC as valuable. I see the value of BC as dependent on a host of other factors.
Do you really feel there is not enough of a software layer (APIs, etc.) that arcade titles are coded to that they can't be transferred to a next gen box?
OK...my assumption on this is that the arcade titles are designed largely around a software layer.
Both XBox 360 and PS4 had BC. You can't know how many sales where the BC was a factor.
Right...and it is simply my opinion, and I can certainly speak for at least myself...that I expect a significant number of Live titles (not necessarily all) that I purchased on Live to be able to be played onthe next gen.
Sure there is. But if I'm already entrenched in an ecosytem and a games library, it's going to take MORE to draw me away than it would otherwise. That's all I'm trying to get across. There is value in BC...but as someone else said, it's not infinite.
To a degree, yes. The same degress that people call Sony / MS devices this gen "X-Stations".
OK...I was originally talking about all DLC. But we can focus on games.
It could. Not having access to my old games implies that current live library is not available on XB3 either. Is PS4's library starting "afresh" too...or if I pick up a PS4 do I get access to the entire PS3 library as well?
If we limit the discussion now to strictly games then I can more readily see your point of view.
However, I still ascribe more value to game BC than you do.
You have said my validity of my argument centers around the next gen consoles being "similar". I can just as well say the validity of your argument centers around the next gen consoles being "different."
Maybe we can say it this way:
The more that the next gen consoles are "similar" to each other, the more BC has value. The more that they are different from one another, the less BC has value.
Can we live with that?
Then we're left at theorizing how different the next gens will be from one another. I disagree completely there.
You are assuming that only "hardcore" gamers will buy the new console near the launch window...and not "new" gamers. You are also assuming that new gamers, who even if they do not choose the next gen and choose the cheaper current gen, won't consider next gen compatibility when they buy in.
Similar threads
- Locked
