A lot of sense in this post. Especially the last paragraph.
As for the sentiment of "Sony need to let me take my games with me".
No, they don't.
I mean, sure, it'd be awful nice if they did, but they're not obliged to do anything of the sort.
Consumers purchased access to a piece of software for a specific hardware platform, not any other platform.
It is bespoke software, written to run on a specific piece of hardware to a very specific set of instructions.
Any expectation people have that the access they purchased for software custom designed to run on Platform A grants them rights for the same software to run on Platform B is one based on anecdotal interest.
Sony aren't going to make your PS4 games stop working on your PS4 when PS5 comes out.
The only way you'll not be able to play your PS4 purchases is if you decide to discard your PS4 machine.
If you don't want to 'give up hundreds of dollars of purchases' then ... don't.
Yes. Within reason. And, actually, there's plenty of software written on PCs of yore that won't run properly on today's PC.If I buy a PC game within reason I can play it on any future PC.
Media is written to an agreed standardised industry specification (ie: Those determined by the Blu-Ray Disc Association) that purposefully spans products and brands.If I put a DVD into a Blu ray player it will play.
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.If I buy an iPhone/Android game chances are it will play on future phones.
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.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.
A lot of sense in this post. Especially the last paragraph.
As for the sentiment of "Sony need to let me take my games with me".
No, they don't.
I mean, sure, it'd be awful nice if they did, but they're not obliged to do anything of the sort.
Consumers purchased access to a piece of software for a specific hardware platform, not any other platform.
It is bespoke software, written to run on a specific piece of hardware to a very specific set of instructions.
Any expectation people have that the access they purchased for software custom designed to run on Platform A grants them rights for the same software to run on Platform B is one based on anecdotal interest.
Sony aren't going to make your PS4 games stop working on your PS4 when PS5 comes out.
The only way you'll not be able to play your PS4 purchases is if you decide to discard your PS4 machine.
If you don't want to 'give up hundreds of dollars of purchases' then ... don't.
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.
I doubt anyone can deny that it's a big selling point.
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.
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.
The expectation is there now. As with most modern console features Microsoft sets them, Sony follows.
I've already decided if PS5 is not backwards compatible with PS4 then I am buying an Xbox. There is literally no excuse that PS5 can't be backwards compatible given how the platform is now industry standard parts.
It seems that no matter what Xbox will have backwards compatibility going for it for new consoles..
No, it's not a big selling point. It hasn't been a big selling point.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.
Not really. The market doesn't care - as has been demonstrated for generations. New machines are bought with the intent of playing new games.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.
I enjoy gaming history as much as anyone. But that's not a realistic proposition:Even if we table the profits, just for preservation of the medium alone it's a worth while endeavour.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So, on the one hand, BC has happened before so it should happen again.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).
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?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.
I don't see how consumers are shouldering the cost of BC when someone else is doing the work and upholding the ongoing costs.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.
Yet they've done this 4 times in 25 years. With considerable success.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.
And the market has proven that BC makes no difference in this.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.
Yet you've also shown you're happy to abandon your own digital library.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.
The only people saying this are those exclusively interested in the benefits, not the costs.Backwards compatibility should be supported as long as is physically possible.
You're proposing a significant cost to an R&D and manufacturing chain.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.
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 .
What cost is so high exactly?
- 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'.
- 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'.
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.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.
People have some pretty unrealistic and unworkable expectations.Arnt most games peer to peer? I don't think anyone is expecting them to support multiplayer forever if not.
Yes.Publishers are going to be happy to have a larger player base to market new games to than anything else.
Not really. If it's a bad product it's a bad product and will sell (or not) accordingly.If they want to re-release anything it's going to have to be a good effort and that's good for everyone tbh.
The scope doesn't matter. It's a necessary factor of BC. So it's a guaranteed cost and overhead.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.
Bespoke incompatible hardware = New console. In other words: the current standard.As for the additional skus that was in a scenario where they introduced bespoke incompatible hardware. I think that's very unlikely IMO.
Stuff like this really reads like i never used a PC in my life.
- 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'.
BC doesn't open new markets. It stifles them. This closes revenue streams, it doesn't open them.
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.
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.You do realize that the revenue coming from Xbox's current BC program is a real and tangible thing, right?
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