-
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.
Has the market dictated that backwards compatibility is required now (PS5?)
- Thread starter Chinbo37
- Start date
Hostile_18
Banned
If I buy a PC game within reason I can play it on any future PC.
If I put a DVD into a Blu ray player it will play.
If I buy an iPhone/Android game chances are it will play on future phones.
There not doing us a favour so much as securing long term investment knowing people can purchase items in confidence. Do they have to do it? No. Should they do it wherever technically possible as a worthwhile business decision, Yes.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
We are getting towards over 50% digital with game purchases. "Just keep your old console" isn't going to wash these days, especially not when iPads, PC etc all handle it correctly.
Sony don't really have a choice other than to do it, not when Xbox no doubt will. Only question is how well they pull it off. Possibly why you hear early rumours about Sony working closely with AMD...
Sony don't really have a choice other than to do it, not when Xbox no doubt will. Only question is how well they pull it off. Possibly why you hear early rumours about Sony working closely with AMD...
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Yes. Within reason. And, actually, there's plenty of software written on PCs of yore that won't run properly on today's PC.
Consoles are custom spec, bespoke pieces of hardware. They are not PCs.
Should someone write software that relies on a specific instruction available only in one brand of PC CPUs, that software will not run on PC hardware that lacks that bespoke element.
You can't really blur out the bespoke aspect of these pieces of hardware, and the demands that makes on how software is written for them, in order to argue that the bespoke software should just work on hardware on the next generation of bespoke console hardware that didn't exist at the time the bespoke software was first written.
If there were no bespoke elements then I'd share your view.
Media is written to an agreed standardised industry specification (ie: Those determined by the Blu-Ray Disc Association) that purposefully spans products and brands.
Bespoke console software isn't - it's written for one, very specific, piece of hardware.
Not only that, it's written directly at a level that speaks to the hardware.
The benefit is that this is the optimal way to garner hardware performance - fewer links in the chain.
The drawback is you are locked to that hardware. If you are talking, instead, to an operating system, a graphics API, an engine, you have a layer of agnosticism that frees you from those constraints.
But as console hardware is a locked spec, you must write optimally for that piece of hardware as much as you can.
Because the operating system the software runs on is purposefully designed to neuter the hardware differences in all the brands of phones. It suits Apple to keep selling you new hardware every other year. It suits Android to get their operating system on as many different brands of hardware as possible in order to acquire marketshare. These are different results due to different approaches due to different goals.
These outcomes are different because the scenario is different.
No, they're doing you a favour. You want to throw away your hardware purchase, but not accept what that means - so you put together an argument about how another party owes it to you to make it happen.
As the market has already shown, over multiple generations, the impact of BC is negligible.
I don't think a company earning revenue and marketshare from the sale of hardware and new content, along with earning further revenue from selling remakes and remasters, along with earning (questionable) revenue from a streaming service that offers older games - is going to cannabalise that revenue to keep a relatively few people happy about games they, technically, can keep playing on their existing hardware anyway.
The better business decision would be to not throw away established, proven, recurring revenue for the sake of a feature that has no proven commercial benefit and represents an ongoing cost to the manufacturer.
Last edited:
Chinbo37
Member
This doesnt fully make sense though. What about when servers get shut down, or more importantly you cant download patches. Do you think that for people with a PS3 they will forever be able to access their digital games?
Sure if you have an extra hard drive with everything downloaded, maybe, but what about redownloading old games you already bought.
Look I get that Sony has no obligation to offer backwards compatibility. In fact Sony should be commended for offering it with the PS2 and PS3 back when those consoles were released. However, times change and now that MS is doing it I dont see how Sony can refuse for next gen. At least make the PS5 compatible with the PS4. If they cant or dont want to go further back fine.
Last edited:
lifa-cobex
Member
I doubt anyone can deny that it's a big selling point. Especially to 30+ something people who are starting to gather more and more consoles under their tv or put into storage.
PS3 was expensive but I certainly got my use out of it with many new features. PS4 felt like it took features away. No BC and having to pay to play online sucked.
I'll more than probably skip the next gen for a few years and stick to PC exclusively.
Honestly can't see the PS4 updating with BC. Why would they at such a late date?
PS3 was expensive but I certainly got my use out of it with many new features. PS4 felt like it took features away. No BC and having to pay to play online sucked.
I'll more than probably skip the next gen for a few years and stick to PC exclusively.
Honestly can't see the PS4 updating with BC. Why would they at such a late date?
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
If the servers get shut down and patches can't be downloaded then how does BC resolve this?
Realistically, if you are expecting BC to provide servers that run 'forever' in order to serve you downloads and patches (and other online benefits, presumably - such as online modes in games) then how much business sense does it make a company to run this 'forever' supporting cost, for your 'once-only' investment?
That's a bad business deal.
As the PC market has shown, servers go offline. Games become unusable. BC doesn't resolve this.
This is another reason why software is sold on the basis of 'access' and not 'ownership'.
Consumers purchase a licence to access the software, under specific terms (typically dictating the platform the access extends to and also a convenient 'we can switch off related online services at any time without notice' mumbo jumbo).
My hot-take is that MS introduced BC on the XB1 to compensate for an uncompetitive current-gen portfolio. They've executed it well and have done a superb PR job on being the good guys on this topic.
But the market at large has shown that it doesn't really care about BC.
(Look at the Switch. No BC, no Virtual Console, but came barnstorming onto the scene with compelling features and fantastic new titles. Coincidentally, Nintendo would like to sell you a SNES Mini and a NES Mini. Result: sold like gangbusters.)
Furthermore, Microsoft didn't have other services (ie: their own game streaming subscription service) to consider when putting their BC plans together. So it's not simply a case of 'Sony can't refuse, now that MS is doing it', because the companies have different things going on.
Last edited:
Hotel Security
Member
It's not. Despite the fact that folks on these boards mention it, folks on these boards do not make up a majority. Most people don't give a shit about it and most will never take advantage of it. That's a lot of expense for something only a small niche will use.
Not to mention that, with SO many companies making remakes of their classic games on new consoles, their developer partners wouldn't even want them to add it since it'll mean folks play their old copies rather than buy the shiny new ones. The developers will be very much against it and Sony definitely cares what they think, especially since they make games themselves. What's better for Sony...to allow people to play their PS4 copy of nuGod of War on the PS5?...or sell a fancy prettier-looking version for $60 on the PS5? The answer is obvious. Follow the money.
It's never been a big selling point and likely never will. If a console looks great and has good games, the rest is irrelevant. History has made that more than clear. People who are seriously "expecting" it with the PS5 are being foolish.
Last edited:
It's not the deciding factor, but is a big plus. I will buy both consoles like I always do. BC could help decide which one I make my main console and which one I use for exclusives. The power and design of each console will be important in deciding that also.
I hope both have BC for the sake of my shelves though. My TV stand is out of space!
I hope both have BC for the sake of my shelves though. My TV stand is out of space!
Hostile_18
Banned
People saying it's not a big selling point are thinking about what back compatibility use to mean as opposed to what it means now in this digital age.
Imagine you suddenly couldn't play half your cds/dvd collections (and couldn't sell them on either). The machine that can is going to take the lead for alot of people, but especially with early adopters/enthusiasts.
Even if we table the profits, just for preservation of the medium alone it's a worth while endeavour.
Imagine you suddenly couldn't play half your cds/dvd collections (and couldn't sell them on either). The machine that can is going to take the lead for alot of people, but especially with early adopters/enthusiasts.
Even if we table the profits, just for preservation of the medium alone it's a worth while endeavour.
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
If I may - let me extend the analogy to something that more closely fits.
Imagine if you bought a new iPhone and suddenly all the apps, movies, audiobooks, and songs you've purchased over the years from iTunes didn't work with it. Apple's response was instead "You can buy the new 8K version of this movie that works with the new iPhone / iPad if you want to watch it again." or "We re-encoded this song at a higher bitrate so that you could enjoy it more, and it's only $1.99 per track so that shouldn't break the bank." Meanwhile, Android users just continue about their business as always and their digital library continues to be predominantly forward compatible with future devices.
Do you think in that scenario people would keep buying new iPhones? Sure. People might even say "If you want to listen to your OLD music, just keep your OLD iPhone", and that would be a perfectly valid response but would carry the inconvenience of hauling around multiple devices even though the newer one was capable of doing the job of both. After all, they never promised that the songs you buy would play on future devices. Would Apple lose a lot of customers and marketshare if they did this? You betcha.
Last edited:
PuppetMaster
Member
I suspect PS5 will have BC. But for me personally, its not a big deal. I barely have enough time these days to play all the new games.
Its pretty unusual for me to crave playing a last gen game. And usually when I do I am disappointed.
Its pretty unusual for me to crave playing a last gen game. And usually when I do I am disappointed.
Last edited:
PuppetMaster
Member
Except Apple already does this. There are lots of old apps and games that no longer work on modern iphones.
The ones that still do had to be recompiled for thier modern targets.
Do Make Say Think
Banned
No because Sony hasn't faced backlash for not stepping up to the plate.
Once they do, yes.
Once they do, yes.
FacelessSamurai
..but cry so much I wish I had some
Games are now beyond generations. Stuff like Fortnite, Overwatch, ESO, Destiny 2 are going to be played pas the end of this gen. MMOs especially last more than a console’s lifespan and should keep working in the future. I shouldn’t have to buy a new version of Overwatch and grind again for my skins, it should be just like on PC.
Also, older hardware breaks at some point, so BC means you can keep playing all your games without needing tons of systems under your TV and also not having to hunt down older hardware when yours breaks.
Also, older hardware breaks at some point, so BC means you can keep playing all your games without needing tons of systems under your TV and also not having to hunt down older hardware when yours breaks.
Mattyp
Gold Member
It's amazing some people are saying this doesn't matter, a consumer as fuck advantage that costs you nothing but the ability to play all games across generations at one box??!
Sony pulled ahead this generation from launch having a more powerful box, cheaper hardware, and competition blowing it. They didn't have any exclusives for the first couple of years worth a dam, these 3 things are what it comes down to every generation.
It would be absolutely nuts for Sony not to have backwards comparability going forward, What happens when E3 next generation reveal and Sony comes out saying all your digital purchases won't be playable on this new console and we have weaker hardware than Microsoft at the same price point? (I thoroughly believe Microsoft will launch stronger hardware no matter what at the same price point next gen, this is to much of a selling point for them now)
It's okay we can plug in our PS4 anytime, and then pull out the PS3 anytime we want to play PS3 games? Fuck off. It costs Sony nothing.
Sony pulled ahead this generation from launch having a more powerful box, cheaper hardware, and competition blowing it. They didn't have any exclusives for the first couple of years worth a dam, these 3 things are what it comes down to every generation.
It would be absolutely nuts for Sony not to have backwards comparability going forward, What happens when E3 next generation reveal and Sony comes out saying all your digital purchases won't be playable on this new console and we have weaker hardware than Microsoft at the same price point? (I thoroughly believe Microsoft will launch stronger hardware no matter what at the same price point next gen, this is to much of a selling point for them now)
It's okay we can plug in our PS4 anytime, and then pull out the PS3 anytime we want to play PS3 games? Fuck off. It costs Sony nothing.
Last edited:
Fox Mulder
Member
Yeah, Sony did follow MS to that online subscription well.
Sony was doing full BC back on the ps2. They don't have it in the ps4 because the cell bullshit in the ps3.
These are my exact thoughts. I love to play old games and not have to hook up old systems.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
You do recall when the XB1 did not play any old games right? Don't bet the farm. I would expect the next XBox and PS5 to have similar architectures with shared GDDR and an x86 APU and both with have at least previous gen BC.
quickwhips
Member
PLaying halo 2 on the 360 was important until halo 3 came out. BC can be important.
The Mad Draklor
Member
Ecosystems are likely to dictate whether BC is required. I would say at the very least, Sony will put PS4 BC on the PS5 in the interest of keeping consumers to the Playstation ecosystem and maintaining goodwill by allowing them to carry over their library to the PS5. It will also give the PS5 the benefit of giving it an instant library as its own library grows.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
No, it's not a big selling point. It hasn't been a big selling point.
We were already in the digital age in the previous gen. (Remember all that Guitar Hero DLC?) and not only did BC not matter, but a large number people left one ecosystem and joined another.
BC matters to you, I get it. But you are talking anecdotally.
The marketplace has already demonstrated the significance of BC.
Not really. The market doesn't care - as has been demonstrated for generations. New machines are bought with the intent of playing new games.
If you choose to discard your games, that's on you. They either matter enough to you, or they don't.
I enjoy gaming history as much as anyone. But that's not a realistic proposition:
- Who is going to pay the cost of this 'worthwhile endeavour'? You are arguing that it shouldn't be you. OK.
- So who should it be and what tangible business incentive is there for them to do it? - Businesses don't run on good will.
- How does this affect other revenue streams for that business?
- How long should this ongoing cost be funded for?
- What is the commercial return on this cost? Demonstrate this.
Last edited:
odhiex
Member
I have rarely plays old games, even rare for me of "re-playing" old games that I have finished before. I do still think that Backward Compatibility is an excellent feature for consoles (even so on PC), but definitely not a selling point for most people.
However, I hope that Sony is not a stupid company. I think they know the important of BC, especially for them targetting bigger audiences (through streaming) in the future, since like every major games publishers are working towards the same service. You simply cannot compete your netflix-like games service without a huge library in your shelf.
Native BC through emulation is also important, because game streaming is not going to be a mainstream any time soon due to various reasons (internet coverage, speed and latency). I hope Sony would learn something from Microsoft with their BC innitiatives (I hope Nintendo too). Even licences can be a hurdle, they have to show some efforts at the very least.
Tldr > BC is important but not a major selling point. However, Sony still needs to accelerate their efforts (not just empty promises) towards BC, particularly when their competitor have been doing it so well and widely praised in this regard.
However, I hope that Sony is not a stupid company. I think they know the important of BC, especially for them targetting bigger audiences (through streaming) in the future, since like every major games publishers are working towards the same service. You simply cannot compete your netflix-like games service without a huge library in your shelf.
Native BC through emulation is also important, because game streaming is not going to be a mainstream any time soon due to various reasons (internet coverage, speed and latency). I hope Sony would learn something from Microsoft with their BC innitiatives (I hope Nintendo too). Even licences can be a hurdle, they have to show some efforts at the very least.
Tldr > BC is important but not a major selling point. However, Sony still needs to accelerate their efforts (not just empty promises) towards BC, particularly when their competitor have been doing it so well and widely praised in this regard.
Last edited:
Hostile_18
Banned
I'd still argue this gen has made digital purchases/collections miles more relevant. For example last gen I had hundreds of pounds of Singstar content but when I moved over to the 360 I "lost" that content. Now purchases for every game are made digitally and much of the market place is the same way (look at how much digital sales have increased compared to the physical... the percentage increases alone show which way the market is moving).
The amount of remasters and definitive editions has increased, consumers can't be expected to buy these AGAIN ever gen. Yes there are example of this happening with Resi 4 and Skyrim for example but now the variety and breath of re-released titles is massive.
I believe the market place will show how important BC is to them now by either A) Both manufacturers offering back compatibility. B) Customers flocking to the console that allows them to bring last gens purchases with them.
As for the cost for backwards compatibility and my preservation of the medium argument. The answer ultimately the consumer. Wether that's directly through purchase of the new gen machine itself and/or through continued purchases on each systems app store. Sony maintaining/growing it's customer base and enjoying large volume sales with customers buying in confidence over many number of years is worth miles more financially than having to "start again" and making slightly more margin in the short term. Ultimately it's all about volume of sales, and continued growing of market share. Keeping your customers loyal and in one place. Sony know the importance of this hence the block on cross play.
What you were saying about how this effects other revenues of business. There' will always be a place for more ports of older games (not on ps4) or games with significant work on them that qualify as a new release and of course full remakes. I can't see this trend declining but ultimately it's small fry compared to the volume over what all digital sales and Plus bring in etc, and as I've said keeping and growing your market share is a large part of that, which I'd argue with backwards compatibility is in this digital age is going to be key.
Backwards compatibility should be supported as long as is physically possible. To use another bespoke part like the Cell again they would have to have a hell of a reason to justify it (i.e be bringing something completely new to the table, or increasing the experience massively). Even then you'd hope for two skus possibly with the older parts in, for the enthusiast, similar to the old PS3 having PS2 parts. Which id argue would be appreciated alot more in 2018 with the uptick of digital purchases.
To me it all makes perfect business sense. Look after your customers and they will look after you
.
Last edited:
Koala Driving a Ferrari
Member
Bring on the resurgence of the importance of backwards compatibility and perpetual game libraries in all future game consoles. And any detractors of BC... may they burn in eternal dragon fire. There will be no forgiveness, nor redemption for their incredibly evil souls.
More seriously though: anyone against BC instantly goes on my ignore list. If video game preservation isn't worthy of your time, then your misinformed gaming forum opinions aren't worthy of mine.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
This is a bold sentiment. But this isn't a charity.
If you're not paying for this preservation, who is? Why should they? What do they get out of their investment?
If you can't provide a competent business-driven answer to the question, you should set your expectations accordingly.
Putting people on ignore isn't an answer.
Nobody is against BC. I'm certainly not. But I try to see the topic beyond an anecdotal perspective. That's where my responses are coming from.
Hostile_18
Banned
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
So, on the one hand, BC has happened before so it should happen again.
But on the other hand, things that have happened before (ie: abandoning your digital library) won't happen again.
This is not a consistent argument.
So, consumers shouldn't pay AGAIN for things, but business should support the ongoing cost of anything sold once, at any time in history, indefinitely?
No. That's a ridiculous premise for any business.
Remasters are not made with the intent of strong-arming consumers into buying things.
They're opportunisitic. A publisher hopes it will sell well.
As it happens, they do sell well. The market has shown a desire for them and is willing to pay for them.
In the same way that nobody is forcing you to discard your old hardware, nobody is forcing anyone to buy remasters.
When there ceases to be a commercial gain in doing something, a business will stop doing it. Remasters sell, so remasters keep coming.
I believe you're wrong.
I've presented many detailed counterpoints to the details you've raised to explain why.
In the case of B (and this argument as a whole), look at Nintendo Switch.
I don't see how consumers are shouldering the cost of BC when someone else is doing the work and upholding the ongoing costs.
Precisely what part of BC are consumers paying for?
Yet they've done this 4 times in 25 years. With considerable success.
And the market has proven that BC makes no difference in this.
Yet you've also shown you're happy to abandon your own digital library.
The only people saying this are those exclusively interested in the benefits, not the costs.
Games are not a charity. They are a business.
If BC were proven to have significant marketplace value, you would see more of it.
You're proposing a significant cost to an R&D and manufacturing chain.
As a consumer, how much extra are you prepared to pay for this?
Provide a dollar value.
Cannibalising your revenue streams by offering a function that provides no commercial benefit and has no proven significance at market level is not good business.To me it all makes perfect business sense. Look after your customers and they will look after you
Last edited:
Theognosis
Member
It's now mandatory. And that extends to game controllers and peripherals. You hear me, Nintendo? Steam, Sony and Microsoft will eat you alive if you refuse to follow.
Hostile_18
Banned
What cost is so high exactly? If it's the same architecture the console will do all the work within reason won't it? It's not like each game will need to have work done on it unlike the current 360 games on xb1. The normal patches are done on Sony's end via ps plus and money they make off software purchases etc.
I don't think either manufacturer would use bespoke incompatible components going forward but if they did and I needed to buy a premium console sku with the older parts to allow continued access to my entire library though one console... a few hundred extra honestly.
We fundamentally disagree on the importance of BC in 2018 as an important revenue stream and way to retain customers. We'll see how it all plays out.
I don't think either manufacturer would use bespoke incompatible components going forward but if they did and I needed to buy a premium console sku with the older parts to allow continued access to my entire library though one console... a few hundred extra honestly.
We fundamentally disagree on the importance of BC in 2018 as an important revenue stream and way to retain customers. We'll see how it all plays out.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
- The cost of the initial R&D to accomodate BC
- The manufacturing and distribution pipeline of the multiple SKUs you suggested earlier
- The ongoing cost of patch availability as mentioned by
Chinbo37
- All and any online functionality the game offered (the logistical costs of this, let alone the actual overheads, is a big can of worms).
- Any customer support of any type that any title offered
And also:
The negative impact BC has on other revenue streams such as PSNow and the sale of remastered games.
The impact to relationships between platform holders and 3rd parties: If a 3rd party has plans to make a remaster (Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, RE2, Metal Gear, Okami) then those plans are neutered by the BC offered by the platform holder.
Where is the revenue coming in to offset these?
It's not coming from the consumer that expects BC.
It's not coming from 'good faith'.
Last edited:
Hostile_18
Banned
- The cost of the initial R&D to accomodate BC
- The manufacturing and distribution pipeline of the multiple SKUs you suggested earlier
- The ongoing cost of patch availability as mentioned by
- All and any online functionality the game offered (the logistical costs of this, let alone the actual overheads, is a big can of worms).
- Any customer support of any type that any title offered
And also:
The negative impact BC has on other revenue streams such as PSNow and the sale of remastered games.
The impact to relationships between platform holders and 3rd parties: If a 3rd party has plans to make a remaster (Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, RE2, Metal Gear, Okami) then those plans are neutered by the BC offered by the platform holder.
Where is the revenue coming in to offset these?
It's not coming from the consumer that expects BC.
It's not coming from 'good faith'.
Those costs surely arnt high relative to how much money they would make by retaining a large player base and large volume of future sales. Arnt most games peer to peer? I don't think anyone is expecting them to support multiplayer forever if not. Publishers are going to be happy to have a larger player base to market new games to than anything else. If they want to re-release anything it's going to have to be a good effort and that's good for everyone tbh.
How many people are going to be downloading patches for older games? That's going to tail off over the years. The costs here are over exaggerated IMO.
As for the additional skus that was in a scenario where they introduced bespoke incompatible hardware. I think that's very unlikely IMO.
Kenpachii
Member
- The cost of the initial R&D to accomodate BC
- The manufacturing and distribution pipeline of the multiple SKUs you suggested earlier
- The ongoing cost of patch availability as mentioned by
- All and any online functionality the game offered (the logistical costs of this, let alone the actual overheads, is a big can of worms).
- Any customer support of any type that any title offered
And also:
The negative impact BC has on other revenue streams such as PSNow and the sale of remastered games.
The impact to relationships between platform holders and 3rd parties: If a 3rd party has plans to make a remaster (Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, RE2, Metal Gear, Okami) then those plans are neutered by the BC offered by the platform holder.
Where is the revenue coming in to offset these?
It's not coming from the consumer that expects BC.
It's not coming from 'good faith'.
Stuff like this really reads like i never used a PC in my life.
How are there manufacturing and distribution pipeline of multi sku's? The old game already exists and therefore that's that. If they plan on making remasters they can and provide extra stuff and focus there attention on that from that point on and charge again money for a game that is already paid for.
What is the ongoing costs of patch availability, how is steam coping with the fact i still lets you download dead games from decades ago? it's a non issue. It's a service that you provide and its a service that makes it so people invest into your platform to start with. It's a non issue.
What online costs for online functions? you mean they have to keep up services that people already paid for and push confidence into there platform and attract more people that spend more money at the end as result? How is blizzard coping with patches for warcraft 3 after 15 years or how many years that game is out now. I bet they go bankrupt because of it. Not really, it's why people go out of there way to buy there next game and invest into it heavily because support is endless. And even if they didn't patch game still playable without issue's.
If they aim at online games, they could easily just make a second profile and adjust settings for that console with it much like PC is doing. Again non issue. Hell they could even provide you a unlocked FPS solution with a setting tab ( which games already do on pro/x1x ).
If they don't care for patches, then who cares really. most games on PC are dead after x amount of time but still perfectly playable. PC even goes further with users making there own versions or running there own servers for those games. A good example is AOEO, only has 70 people playerbase yet can run full blown servers and patches + new content all day long, and they are not the only ones. Even private servers i know that run with a 500-1500 user base make up to 7 million a year out of it through digital whales on death games ( RO ) and they run different versions of different games all simultaneously without issue's. Why? because people support them and like to play those games for nostalgic reasons. And yes those people pay your bills perfectly fine.
It's just trying to find excuses for Sony to not provide. Nothing is new nothing is hard, it's all be done on PC already endlessly amounts of times.
The money comes from:
1) People have more confidence into your platform and therefore boosts platform sales.
2) Good PR.
3) Whales will appear that invest massive amounts of cash into games simple because they can and care about. Aka a new market. There are tons of people that sit on decade old games and spend tons of cash in it just for that new hat.
4) Upgrading towards a new generation is far more attractive way faster for many people as they can sell of there old console and move on the to next one while still being able to play all there games with all there friends they already had. ( Also more attractive for devs )
5) Second handed market is getting killed entirely much like on steam, as people no longer trade games which has a massive impact on sales on longer peroids of time ( basically console piracy as you could see it )
6) Get access to far more user information then you currently have and push them locked down into a echo system that they bound with through friends and other community's they are connection towards.
7) Game developers making a larger cut by moving away from physical storefront, which result in cheaper prices for consumers, better discounts on better time frames and more profit.
8) Make renting games more accessible and profitable.
9)
10) Opening ways to endless BC through streaming, basically budget gaming on its extreme. Which opens again a new market. Specially if your user base is 100% digital.
Aka check digital PC front on this matter.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Given that those benefits can be made (and have been made, repeatedly) without any of those BC costs, there still isn't a good argument to undertake the myriad of costs associated with BC.
BC has been repeatedly proven to have no significant impact on marketshare or platform adoption.
People have some pretty unrealistic and unworkable expectations.
Yes.
Except BC doesn't impact marketshare.
And its presence directly impacts a publisher's prospects should they ever intend to sell remasters.
Not really. If it's a bad product it's a bad product and will sell (or not) accordingly.
Cannibalising the market that you intend to sell to, however, is bad business.
The scope doesn't matter. It's a necessary factor of BC. So it's a guaranteed cost and overhead.
If you plan to dismiss things based on the scope of their impact then I should remind you that BC has been proven to have no meaningful impact on marketshare or platform adoption.
Bespoke incompatible hardware = New console. In other words: the current standard.
Multiple skus to accomodate the costly whims of a commercially damaging minority of your demographic is just throwing bad money after good.
Last edited:
wipeout364
Member
I buy quite a few games and have moved to buying all multi platform games on Xbox due to their plan to do backwards compatibility.
I have only bought Sony exclusives that I wanted for the last couple of years I have probably bought 10 times the software on Xbox due to their support for backwards compatibility.
I have only bought Sony exclusives that I wanted for the last couple of years I have probably bought 10 times the software on Xbox due to their support for backwards compatibility.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
For reasons already detailed at length in this thread: consoles are not PCs.
Last edited:
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
- The cost of the initial R&D to accomodate BC
- The manufacturing and distribution pipeline of the multiple SKUs you suggested earlier
- The ongoing cost of patch availability as mentioned by
- All and any online functionality the game offered (the logistical costs of this, let alone the actual overheads, is a big can of worms).
- Any customer support of any type that any title offered
And also:
The negative impact BC has on other revenue streams such as PSNow and the sale of remastered games.
The impact to relationships between platform holders and 3rd parties: If a 3rd party has plans to make a remaster (Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, RE2, Metal Gear, Okami) then those plans are neutered by the BC offered by the platform holder.
Where is the revenue coming in to offset these?
It's not coming from the consumer that expects BC.
It's not coming from 'good faith'.
You do realize that the revenue coming from Xbox's current BC program is a real and tangible thing, right? Games that were previously "stuck" on the Xbox 360 have found a new home, digitally, on the Xbox One. Stuff like Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Crackdown, Fable, etc are now once again available for digital purchase and are able to be further incentive for additional programs such as Games with Gold and Game Pass - meaning they're earning these game's publishers additional revenue.
If the PS5 ships without backwards compatibility, Ubisoft loses it's ability to make money selling their previous Assassin's Creed games to a new audience - people who didn't own a PS4 but now bought a PS5 (whether they are simply new console owners, or made the switch from Xbox) have no way of buying Assassin's Creed Odyssey short of also buying a previous-gen console. Sony loses too, because their game library looks really sparse since they maybe only have 4-5 launch titles. This is especially so when their competition has backwards compatibility so the Xbox Two or whatever has literally thousands of games (including that Assassin's Creed Odyssey game you heard was awesome) available immediately. So in this scenario Ubisoft loses, Sony loses, and customers lose.
Arguably, Sony's loss would be the highest - because getting people to buy a console without BC is like making them start over. It's an easy way to entrench the current generation in your ecosystem and continue their market dominance at the beginning of the next rather than having a lot of people jump ship to the (faster, shinier, cooler, whatever) console of their choice.
Hostile_18
Banned
"Except BC dosnt impact marketshare"
Incorrect. Sony will have a massive user base locked into it's new gen if it offered continued support for people's current collection. To leave would make people have to go through additional hoops (start collection again) if they went with another provider. The market would start large day 1, incentivise upgrading early and LFL would grow the user base faster than last gen which means increased growth which would of course equal more revenue.
If that dosnt make business sense to you there's not much I can say.
Incorrect. Sony will have a massive user base locked into it's new gen if it offered continued support for people's current collection. To leave would make people have to go through additional hoops (start collection again) if they went with another provider. The market would start large day 1, incentivise upgrading early and LFL would grow the user base faster than last gen which means increased growth which would of course equal more revenue.
If that dosnt make business sense to you there's not much I can say.
bhunachicken
Member
Yep. And I'd rather devs started looking to the long tail to increase their revenue streams rather than cramming loot boxes and pay to win mechanics into their games.
Assuming the PS5 is x86-based, I can't see any major hurdles to adding BC to the system other than Sony breaking the ABI. If the kernel and OS were simply enhanced and the PS4's hardware drivers were supplied, all PS4 games and apps should just work.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
BC doesn't impact market share.
Consoles without BC haven't suffered a decreased marketshare - conversely, they have an increased marketshare and rapid rate of adoption (Switch, PS4)
Consoles with BC haven't enjoyed an increased marketshare (Wii U, XBX1)
BC may be important to you.
BC is not important to the market.
Consoles without BC haven't suffered a decreased marketshare - conversely, they have an increased marketshare and rapid rate of adoption (Switch, PS4)
Consoles with BC haven't enjoyed an increased marketshare (Wii U, XBX1)
BC may be important to you.
BC is not important to the market.
Some sales of Black Ops and Red Dead at heavily discounted rates doesn't represent a viable recurring revenue stream at a market level. Exceptions are not the norm.
Last edited:
Hostile_18
Banned
The PS4s success was nothing to do with back compatibility. All things been largely equal this showing back compatibility will be very important. Your comparing a completely different point in time before mainstream digital adoption. Customer expectation and the games industry at large are in a very different place now.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll