So less than 10 hours a year per user since introduction...In an unexpected turn of events...
Just in order to compare:
Noviembre10th 2016 - 210M hours
Agosto 18th 2016 - 145M hours
Enero 28th 2016 - 100M hours
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So less than 10 hours a year per user since introduction...In an unexpected turn of events...
Just in order to compare:
Noviembre10th 2016 - 210M hours
Agosto 18th 2016 - 145M hours
Enero 28th 2016 - 100M hours
So less than 10 hours a year per user since introduction...
That's still more hours than other console users spend playing BC games.
And it's still plenty of hours to be ranked within the Top 10 Daily Played Games on Xbox One.
I suppose we'd have to compare revenue on remasteres.
hope you are actually enjoying it. Now, wouldn't you prefer if Sony offered you the possibility to play it BC with enhanced graphics on your pro than charging you again for a game you own? Those politics are so despicable.
It depends what the cost to operate is. Having sunk the cost to implement BC, the ongoing costs might be minuscule and covered by the sales of BC titles so worth maintaining as it's a good image. Without knowing what it costs, we can't guess what the value is. On the flip side, Sony has some BC titles and they really aren't getting much investment, suggesting there's no good sales data and other metrics to show their BC option isn't worth investing in.Nice follow ups by Phil. I have hard time believing that MS would spend that much money & effort on a feature like that without some good sales data & other metrics to back it up. I mean they axed Kinect & Snap support because of lack of use.
This tinfoil-hattery irks me. Seeing a fact you don't agree with and then making connections and coming up with conspiracy theories is a complete dead-end for rational discussion. If there's evidence of conspiracy, that's worth considering. But see.it's obvious there is something strange and shady here. It's going to be Microsoft's E3 conference, says Sony's Jim Ryan that BC is bad, and an article comes out the same day with some percentages vilifying BC. Too much of a coincidence.
Well.
Having seen the work that they actually put in the game, no.
This game would never have looked this good if it was just the PS3 game running in 4k.
This is why people buy remasters.
I wonder what reason a publisher would have to withhold permission? I remember there was an interesting article somewhere on the process Microsoft used for BC on Xbox One but I can't track it down. Could this be a case of Microsoft needing source code and this not being available?There is no technical reason why all X360 games are not BC. It is strictly a permissions issue, where some publishers don't want to give permission to Microsoft to allow their game to be repackaged in the Xbox One BC container.
I don't know that anyone's against BC. However, there are people who don't care for old 320x200 display graphics and there are people who think the money spent on BC should be spent elsewhere on something of more value to the majority gamers.I don't have any understanding for people that dislike the feature of backwards compatibility.
But if it cost you to maintain that Atari, would you? Because BC isn't free. It either affects the design of the console in having to use legacy architectures, or it adds overhead to the way the hardware is used that decreases what you can get from the console. Is it worth losing 3% of your game performance in the hundreds of modern games you play so that you can spend 4 hours one afternoon visiting an old game?We dont want to just throw our Atari in the garbage because it's rarely used...
I wonder what reason a publisher would have to withhold permission? I remember there was an interesting article somewhere on the process Microsoft used for BC on Xbox One but I can't track it down. Could this be a case of Microsoft needing source code and this not being available?
So less than 10 hours a year per user since introduction...
I wonder what reason a publisher would have to withhold permission? I remember there was an interesting article somewhere on the process Microsoft used for BC on Xbox One but I can't track it down. Could this be a case of Microsoft needing source code and this not being available?
I don't know that anyone's against BC. However, there are people who don't care for old 320x200 display graphics and there are people who think the money spent on BC should be spent elsewhere on something of more value to the majority gamers.
But if it cost you to maintain that Atari, would you? Because BC isn't free. It either affects the design of the console in having to use legacy architectures, or it adds overhead to the way the hardware is used that decreases what you can get from the console. Is it worth losing 3% of your game performance in the hundreds of modern games you play so that you can spend 4 hours one afternoon visiting an old game?
These values are going to be different for each gamer. The choices the console makers need to make are based on cost to implement, negative impact to their audience, and positive impact from BC fans. To make a good business decision, the statistics of BC use are essential knowledge (along with other research).