Since they emulate the 360 on the X1, rather than a 360 game on the X1, the cost and effort will mostly come in QA rather than development. Speculative, but from theory, each game should work initially but I'm guessing they may have to tweak things based on specific variants of each games codebase.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MS: "gamers have spent more than 100M total hours playing Backward Compatible games"
- Thread starter c0de
- Start date
backflip10019
Member
This is me coming to this page.
Ninja Scooter
Member
It is the answer. These numbers average out to about 4-5 hours per user, which jives with the idea that for most people, it's probably a quick novelty that they use once or twice and never touch again. These numbers don't confirm that BC moves the needle for consumers in any meaningful way. It's awesome for tue people that use it, and I'm glad it's there, but from a business perspective I don't see why Sony has to "respond" to it.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
A whole bunch of armchair statisticians without any actual statistical understanding.
The mean is not the only the way to interpret this data, especially in a case like this where outliers could completely skew interpretations.
An AVERAGE of 5 hours per user...EVERY user...do you have any concept as to how much that really is? And since there are almost certainly a bunch of people that don't touch it at all, the folks that are actually using it are using it quite a bit more than that. That's how averages work...
For example, I can say based on 2012 statistics that, on average, every American smoked about 0.01 cigarettes that year. But this is counting the vast majority of Americans who never smoke at all. Also, infants and small children. 0.01 sounds like barely anything, but when you consider that there are 300 million Americans...well, the math speaks for itself. We still have a very large cigarette industry, despite the overall decline of smoking in the USA.
Are we honestly saying that everyone is using BC?
If a game like BO goes from a player count of like 6,000 to 63,000 purely due to BC, it's not just some novelty is it.
LOL
I haven't read the thread, but that image would be what I expect in a "positive" MS thread.
Imagine what that "hours played" number will be once Red Dead hits Friday. Should skyrocket.
What it establishes though is the idea that going forward Microsoft wants to keep their libraries in tact and let the consumer know that the games they have now will move forward. I bought a PS4 day one and I'm still extremely upset Sony can't even give us PSone classics on PS4. I don't want trophies or the extra jazz; I just want to play the PSone games I bought on PS3 on my PS4.
When Nintendo is doing it and Microsoft is doing it, it looks pretty scummy that Sony isn't doing it. And they're hiding behind the nothing of "but you want trophies" as an excuse to not do it, it seems.
As it stands right now, I feel like Sony gave me a box that hit the reset button and that is not okay with me. I still play my PS4 and I like the system, but man it is lame as heck that we couldn't even get PSone classics.
It reached 100k+
that number isn't as impressive as you think it is
Movalpolos
Banned
So, out of maybe 20 million people... 100 million hours.
I don't understand why this is something for them to be happy about? Except for maybe,"Hey guys 100 million is a big number without any context! We should use that!"
What would be a more interesting stat is how many people are still playing 360 games on 360.
I don't understand why this is something for them to be happy about? Except for maybe,"Hey guys 100 million is a big number without any context! We should use that!"
What would be a more interesting stat is how many people are still playing 360 games on 360.
Of course not. It's also wrong.
what other console game had 100k+ people playing it 6 years after release
Ninja Scooter
Member
You don't use "every American" as an install base for a consumer product. The comparison is silly. Business that operate within a platform or a select customer base absolutely do deal in average per customer. Look how often F2P game or app companies model their entire business around those figures even though whales might contribute most of it.
wasn't referring to 100k was I?
DISSESHOWEDO
Banned
Funny how no one noticed your post!
BC on xone is cool and all, but MS is using the 100M number just because it looks big.
Thanks for that clarification. Impressive.
So a games active population rises around 1600%~ and that's not impressive? What world are people living in?
We're seeing games jump to the top of sales charts and it's not impressive? There's no other metric which can even top that.
The whole thread is literally about it.
Hmm. This is not that great of a number if Halo 3 alone did 40% of it in one week. I still wish this becomes the norm in the future.
If all 20 million people used BC, than maybe you'd have a point... but we all know that isn't the case.
Lol Neogaf, never change GAF.
MS provides a feature that is clearly highly regarded be fans who chose to use it, and people will stop at nothing to undermind the accomplishment.
I, on the other hand, have my RDR disc waiting patiently to be installed. I missed it the first time around.
MS provides a feature that is clearly highly regarded be fans who chose to use it, and people will stop at nothing to undermind the accomplishment.
I, on the other hand, have my RDR disc waiting patiently to be installed. I missed it the first time around.
Have you read through this thread?
Xbudz
Member
The joke is old enough to not be funny, so because the humor is lost it just comes off as snarky to some..
backflip10019
Member
The people coming into this thread and saying "only 5 hours per user, that's nothing!" have no idea how statistics work. As several other people have said, you can't look at the entire population as being the sample size because it's clear that not everyone will use BC.
You have people who have Xbox's for a handful of exclusives, some who use it as their primary console, some who mostly play free to play games... it's all different. Some people play one or two games a year. Not all these people look alike statistically. I think GAF sometimes gets stuck in the mindset that everyone plays games like them -- meaning trying every feature out -- but this is far from the case.
You have people who have Xbox's for a handful of exclusives, some who use it as their primary console, some who mostly play free to play games... it's all different. Some people play one or two games a year. Not all these people look alike statistically. I think GAF sometimes gets stuck in the mindset that everyone plays games like them -- meaning trying every feature out -- but this is far from the case.
You cannot, make an average out of the number given.
You can only make an average, by taking the specific amount of hours of 360 gametime of each user as an individual and looking at them altogether. That is the only way.
This "well, theres 20 million users, and 100m hours soooo" calculation is far far far too simplified.
basically, this 100m number is pretty meaningless
digoutyoursoul
Member
BC is a nice feature
Convenience
Convenience
Caayn
Member
I think that Evilore, admins and the mods are placing bets on a force while facepalming throughout the entire discussion.
Well the number is pretty pointless when they haven't given how many people use it. Although, to say BC isn't used and it's a pointless feature when we've seen things like BO's player count, sales rapidly hike and RDR is just ludicrous.
Backwards compatibility on the Xbox One is fantastic regardless of how many hours it has been played.
Hopefully the goal is to eventually bring that to the PC, I may be crazy and probably haven't fully thought about the consequences of that happening but that may make Microsoft a legit competitor to Steam.
Hopefully the goal is to eventually bring that to the PC, I may be crazy and probably haven't fully thought about the consequences of that happening but that may make Microsoft a legit competitor to Steam.
I've never said that
Ninja Scooter
Member
I agree, and I think going forward the more these companies treat their gaming platforms like services the more the onus is going to be on them to support seamless BC. As a gamer I would love it if I could pop a PS3 disc into the ps4 and play those games, no questions asked. But reasonably? I also understand why it hasn't happened, why it might be difficult to implement, and why it's probably not high on the priority list for Sony. I just don't think it is much of a game changer at this stage in the product cycle. It's something that appeals more to the hardcore gamer, and the hardcore gamers usually buy in early in a generation, not 3-4 years in. As to your own example, I mean it sounds harsh but as you said, you bought a ps4. You still play and I assume support your ps4, so from Sony's perspective, how upset are you really?
backflip10019
Member
It's meaningful in that 100m is a large, milestone number, which is to say that it's inherently meaningless. It's like when companies release a PR story celebrating an anniversary -- it's meant to generate news articles and discussions on forums like GAF.
Still, it shows that people are using backwards compatibility. Without knowing the actual number of people who have used it, it's hard to gauge what it really means.
My apologies, but even so, with the 100m figure you can draw the conclusion of that in fact, people do actually like BC and it isn't pointless. It's a pretty huge milestone.
Ricky Ricardo
Member
If you look at it without any context, perhaps.
But if you look at how certain games, most noticeably Black Ops and RDR have been responded to, its clear that BC is a force. May not be a "game-changer" by every definition, but its certainly not something that anyone can say should be overlooked.
That's the point of this announcement. Backwards Compatibility brings additional value to the Xbox One and the userbase has responded to it.
We're drawing some simple inferences here guys. Nothing overly difficult.
Black Republican
Member
No its evil
all you can draw from it is that literally people use it. not that they use it a lot or barely use it or even like it
It's interesting to me as my kids are getting older to see how far we are from the "norm" with respect to games and systems. My kids have access to essentially every platform and have more game choices than they can possibly play, mainly because I have interest in many of those games as well.
Their friends on the other hand typically have one system, and often have less than five games for it. A good portion of my son's friends don't even have their consoles (Xbox One or PS4) connected to the internet.
Would you rather have that nobody uses it and they cancel it? I mean....
Yes, people use it after 8 months. Going by the jump in sales of Red and whatever else it seems to be a nice positive perk for devs and xbox one users.
look I'm not trying to argue that people don't use BC or that BC isn't a good thing. I'm just saying this 100m number especially without context is useless
It means people are using the feature. And that publishers have an opportunity to redistribute their software wilsts growing player bases instead of segmenting them.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Lmao, yeah that sounds cost efficient.
I can't believe people are having trouble with this concept. Are we going into where everyone is confused stage? lol
Yep, agreed. It's something that Microsoft is clearly pretty happy with. Having a new feature that's had 100 million hours of usage, is a great thing.
I was actually hoping to pop in my RDR disc into my Xbox One today but looking at the other thread it won't work until Friday.
So many people arguing about hours played, number of users, yada yada yada.
But nobody has actually answered: what would make this successful/a big deal the way people around these parts think it is? This doesnt mean it isnt important or a great feature, but it always seems to boil down to "how often would people really use this"? And if so, what is the end statistic to answer that in a decent way for people?
And for those picky about the 20 mil users/5hrs average/100m hours, would your stance change if this was instead 10m users/10 hrs average/100m hours; 5m users/20 hrs average/100m hours; etc.
At what point does this all break down to who really gives a shit. It seems like all the arguing is console war fanboy wankery anyways.
But nobody has actually answered: what would make this successful/a big deal the way people around these parts think it is? This doesnt mean it isnt important or a great feature, but it always seems to boil down to "how often would people really use this"? And if so, what is the end statistic to answer that in a decent way for people?
And for those picky about the 20 mil users/5hrs average/100m hours, would your stance change if this was instead 10m users/10 hrs average/100m hours; 5m users/20 hrs average/100m hours; etc.
At what point does this all break down to who really gives a shit. It seems like all the arguing is console war fanboy wankery anyways.
Well you can draw that the feature has had good usage considering it's 100m hours. We're talking about a huge group of people here, you're going to have people who've sank 100+ hours with people who've maybe used it for an hour (like me) or people in double digits. Even if someone's used it for like 6-8 hours, that's the time needed to finish a single game which they couldn't do before this feature.
Why so negative.
This we already found out on page 1.