Support NeoGAF

[ZombiePlatypus]

I'd really like to see ALL my digital Xbox games show up on the Xbox One. Lookin at YOU, Vesperia/NGB...

Right now, MS is a heck of a lot better than Sony at BC, but they got a long ways to go.



Why denounce an all-in-one media box where people could install games without needing discs to play them? It's a great idea, especially considering that, at the time of the Xbox One's announcement, it was used as a Netflix box as much as a gaming box. The problem was that people were used to trade-ins, so of course they got mad at that. It's not like it was some horrible thing MS was doing; it was a really cool concept. The issue had more to do with messaging/preventing people from doing what they took for granted.

There's nothing to denounce here. It's not like Microsoft needs to issue a statement and go "we thoroughly condemn the heinous actions of previous Microsoft leadership for trying to make the Xbox One a media box and allow players to install games without the need for discs." That's silly.

The console had, what, a day one patch to change that direction? The stuff people complain about--that I can recall, at least--never existed.

Nah, it's just about one of the absolute worst things a console could pull in my book. If people wanna utilize those features great. But I don't want some box that doesn't let me have a physical collection, and doesn't let me sell and buy used. I don't want something that needs to arbitrarily check in online before it let's me access my games regardless of whether they're single player or not.

They relentlessly tried to paint it as a convenience and "way of the future" angle, but it felt like a scheme to take control and ownership away from the consumer.

If they out out something that offers those digital/online features without infringing on physical ownership, then great. But I'm glad their original proposition in its draconian form was rejected.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

You know the answer to that already. You would have a point if some Microsoft rep came out and said "Og XBox games on Xbone are not important." Nobody said that tho. And even if someone said it that wouldn't suddenly make the PS rep look better. They both would be arrogant looking idiots for saying it.And the fact you didn't ask what 360 games they are playing, for free btw, says enough about you.

Saying that a requested feature is requested enough, but isn't actually used is arrogant? And calling people who don't agree with you console fanboys is childish imo

I didn't ask what 360 games people are playing same as I didn't PS3... because they aren't a good comparison when talking BC of PS2 on PS4. GameCube and OG Xbox are tho.

Saying our data shows people don't use something is not arrogant. But saying I want something, I like something... therefore so does everyone else is arrogant

 

[RedSwirl]

The "just buy new games argument" or the "there are enough new PS4 games" argument in my opinion only applies to gamers who constantly buy every new game and have thus played all the old games when they originally came out. Not everyone has. To someone who hasn't played a particular old game before, it might as well be a new game.

Maybe that argument works business-wise for Sony when talking about physical BC, but not when you're talking about maintaining a digital back catalog. To someone who hasn't dipped into the history of PlayStation, buying an old game is pretty much no different than buying a new one. That's still money going to Sony if it's a digital game, and in my experience most mainstream consumers don't care when a game was released when looking for something to play. If an old game they find on PSN or whatever happens to be something that originally came out 20 years ago but they hadn't played before, it's still basically a new game on PS4 as far as they're concerned. They just care about whether it's a fun game. That brings me to the idea that new automatically equals better, which is bullshit. Sure some people can't stand to look at old graphics, but I'd wager those are generally just hardcore console gamers, as everybody else seems content with mobile games with simple graphics.

iTunes maintains a library of decades of movies, music, and books, and people who shop there don't just toss aside old stuff. The transaction is the same whether it's the latest album or something from 50 years ago. It's all just part of the library. PC gaming is the same. Steam and GOG regularly promote games from 20 years ago and it's just more content for the library and more sales money going to Valve or CDProjekt. Only with console video games is the content so forcibly tied to the hardware on which it was originally released. Only with console games is new somehow automatically considered better.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Lol, Sony shitting on their own legacy.

 

[MarcusAurelius32]

x86 ensures PS4 compatibility, plus they want people locked in to their ecosystem. If all their PS4 purchases work going forward, they're much less likely to jump ship.

I've already gone 100% digital in the hope that PS5 is BC. If it's not I'd be very disappointed

 

[Two Words]

"PlayStation Now- Why Would Anybody Play This?"

 

[Moneal]

The "just buy new games argument" or the "there are enough new PS4 games" argument in my opinion only applies to gamers who constantly buy every new game and have thus played all the old games when they originally came out. Not everyone has. To someone who hasn't played a particular old game before, it might as well be a new game.

Maybe that argument works business-wise for Sony when talking about physical BC, but not when you're talking about maintaining a digital back catalog. To someone who hasn't dipped into the history of PlayStation, buying an old game is pretty much no different than buying a new one. That's still money going to Sony if it's a digital game, and in my experience most mainstream consumers don't care when a game was released when looking for something to play. If an old game they find on PSN or whatever happens to be something that originally came out 20 years ago but they hadn't played before, it's still basically a new game on PS4 as far as they're concerned. They just care about whether it's a fun game. That brings me to the idea that new automatically equals better, which is bullshit. Sure some people can't stand to look at old graphics, but I'd wager those are generally just hardcore console gamers, as everybody else seems content with mobile games with simple graphics.

iTunes maintains a library of decades of movies, music, and books, and people who shop there don't just toss aside old stuff. The transaction is the same whether it's the latest album or something from 50 years ago. It's all just part of the library. PC gaming is the same. Steam and GOG regularly promote games from 20 years ago and it's just more content for the library and more sales money going to Valve or CDProjekt. Only with console video games is the content so forcibly tied to the hardware on which it was originally released. Only with console games is new somehow automatically considered better.

Console gaming has only had digital for 2 gens now. I hope going forward Sony and MS both support libraries similar to Steam. Digital has only really been embraced on consoles this gen. I think its now around 30-40% of sales. PC is basically all digital and has been for years. You can't blame sony or MS for not running with the digital future, especially after the backlash MS got, when digital was under 20% last gen.

 

[Angry Fork]

He's not wrong. Gaf is an echo chamber on some things. Most people IRL would use backwards compatibility a handful of times and the rest of the time on modern games.

Probably the same for forum dwellers as well, but BC people are the loudest so they make it seem like 90% of gamers really want to spend their time replaying Devil May Cry instead of Witcher 3, which I highly doubt.

 

[Freshmaker]

Who wants to watch old films?
Who wants to listen to old music?
Who wants to read old books or comics or manga?

It's all dated TRASH right?

Makes one question the games are art thing if a game's trash the instant new hardware is released.

 

[MaulerX]

It's not just "who wants to play old games". That's a stupid comment in and of itself. But how about "I want to keep and play digital games I already paid for"?

 

[Liliana Eileen]

It's not just "who wants to play old games". That's a stupid comment in and of itself. But how about "I want to keep and play digital games I already paid for"?

Exactly. Take that L, Jimbo.

 

[big_z]

Is this the same guy that said EA Access didn't provide PS4 gamers anything of value or something like that?

 

[DigitalScrap]

He's not wrong. Gaf is an echo chamber on some things. Most people IRL would use backwards compatibility a handful of times and the rest of the time on modern games.

Probably the same for forum dwellers as well, but BC people are the loudest so they make it seem like 90% of gamers really want to spend their time replaying Devil May Cry instead of Witcher 3, which I highly doubt.

I'd say that GAF is more of an echo chamber when it comes to people saying that people don't care about backwards compatibility. Xbox One BC has actually been a big success, even causing old games to chart again. I hardly think that is due thanks to only people on GAF or other "forum dwellers".

Granted, it hasn't done much to increase Xbox One hardware sales, but it's obvious that people do care about, and are in fact using backward compatibility. People who just outright dismiss it are the ones who are out of touch with reality, IMO.

 

[anothertech]

We've got a product for those that want backwards compatibility, and that's called psnow.

 

[potatohead]

He's not wrong. Gaf is an echo chamber on some things. Most people IRL would use backwards compatibility a handful of times and the rest of the time on modern games.

Probably the same for forum dwellers as well, but BC people are the loudest so they make it seem like 90% of gamers really want to spend their time replaying Devil May Cry instead of Witcher 3, which I highly doubt.

Yep

I personally love playing old games but I also know everyone who sees me playing a game from xbox or ps2 or older on my 4k TV is always like "why are you playing this it looks like shit!?"

I grew up with that so called shit so I know what I'm playing and what I like about the game and the visuals but I understand other people don't see that

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Then why y'all releasing all of these fucking remasters instead of just making new ones?
Can you please stop making them?

 

[Moneal]

I'd say that GAF is more of an echo chamber when it comes to people saying that people don't care about backwards compatibility. Xbox One BC has actually been a big success, even causing old games to chart again. I hardly think that is due thanks to only people on GAF or other "forum dwellers".

Granted, it hasn't done much to increase Xbox One hardware sales, but it's obvious that people do care about, and are in fact using backward compatibility. People who just outright dismiss it are the ones who are out of touch with reality, IMO.

I thought only 1 game charted after being announced on BC.

 

[Nanashrew]

Then why y'all releasing all of these fucking remasters instead of just making new ones?
Can you please stop making them?

But the old titles are clearly ugly, so the ugly must be fixed!

 

[TalentAlwaysWins]

He's not wrong. Gaf is an echo chamber on some things. Most people IRL would use backwards compatibility a handful of times and the rest of the time on modern games.

Probably the same for forum dwellers as well, but BC people are the loudest so they make it seem like 90% of gamers really want to spend their time replaying Devil May Cry instead of Witcher 3, which I highly doubt.

Yup. Almost no one in real life cares about this. Sony is right it's just a bullet point they don't have. I'd rather have remasters anyway. I don't need sub par graphics

 

[MaulerX]

I thought only 1 game charted after being announced on BC.

While it didn't chart again on NPD, Red Dead Redemption got a massive sales spike to the point where it was #1 on Amazon and it sold well digitally as well. Maybe it would have charted if they reported digital sales then like they do now. Of course not all games will get massive sales boosts, but I think it's safe to say that BC is bigger than some people would like to admit.

 

[Nanashrew]

He's not wrong. Gaf is an echo chamber on some things. Most people IRL would use backwards compatibility a handful of times and the rest of the time on modern games.

Probably the same for forum dwellers as well, but BC people are the loudest so they make it seem like 90% of gamers really want to spend their time replaying Devil May Cry instead of Witcher 3, which I highly doubt.

And VC and PS Classics?

 

[TalentAlwaysWins]

And VC and PS Classics?

I feel with portables it's different. I would prefer BC.

 

[Nanashrew]

I feel with portables it's different. I would prefer BC.

Well VC on Nintendo platforms gives us NES, SNES, N64, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS. That's pretty much like BC through emulation. We're still waiting on VC for the Switch though and what else they may include, like GameCube. Yes, it's a bit slow and kind of a trickle, but there's a schedule.

MS is doing stuff with BC now and doing well for themselves with it. I don't know all the details as I don't own a One but they seem to have a schedule and do them in rather large bulk.

PS Classics gets us PS1 and PS2 but barely and at an inconsistent clip with no real schedule. Not even capitalizing on their legacy and big favorites and hidden gems. PSP games on PS4 would be nice too.


Even with no BC for PS3 due to the complexity and difficulty of the cell architecture of PS3, they should still be doing more with PS Classics along side remakes/remasters.

 

[bosh]

I have to many new games to play, even though I own the old systems and have all the games he is right (at least for me) I would very barely use it.

Rather they use those funds making new games or funding third party devs

B/c only seems to be popular when you are in between games or waiting for new stuff to come out at the start of a consoles life cycle.

 

[Hilarion]

Well VC on Nintendo platforms gives us NES, SNES, N64, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS. That's pretty much like BC through emulation. We're still waiting on VC for the Switch though and what else they may include, like GameCube. Yes, it's a bit slow and kind of a trickle, but there's a schedule.

MS is doing stuff with BC now and doing well for themselves with it. I don't know all the details as I don't own a One but they seem to have a schedule and do them in rather large bulk.

PS Classics gets us PS1 and PS2 but barely and at an inconsistent clip with no real schedule. Not even capitalizing on their legacy and big favorites and hidden gems. PSP games on PS4 would be nice too.


Even with no BC for PS3 due to the complexity and difficulty of the cell architecture of PS3, they should still be doing more with PS Classics along side remakes/remasters.

One of these days, PS Now could be a good supplement/replacement for that sort of thing. On paper, PS Now looks like a fantastic value in terms of the sheer scale of PS3 games it gives you access to, but it also requires a super-good Internet connection a lot of people don't have access to.

A future in which PS Now has PS3, 2, 1, PSP, and Vita titles and America's Internet speeds have caught up enough that it's viable for more people is one in which Sony can justifiably make tons of cash while still offering quality BC.

 

[RedAssedApe]

One of these days, PS Now could be a good supplement/replacement for that sort of thing. On paper, PS Now looks like a fantastic value in terms of the sheer scale of PS3 games it gives you access to, but it also requires a super-good Internet connection a lot of people don't have access to.

A future in which PS Now has PS3, 2, 1, PSP, and Vita titles and America's Internet speeds have caught up enough that it's viable for more people is one in which Sony can justifiably make tons of cash while still offering quality BC.

wonder how psnow fares in japan.

 

[leeh]

I thought only 1 game charted after being announced on BC.

We don't know as they only started tracking digital last month. Seems like thats where they mostly came from.

 

[c0de]

People are actually defending the original XB1 no used games plan?

what is going on in this thread

That you address this in this thread when there is so much more stuff to address is strange.

 

[c0de]

While it didn't chart again on NPD, Red Dead Redemption got a massive sales spike to the point where it was #1 on Amazon and it sold well digitally as well. Maybe it would have charted if they reported digital sales then like they do now. Of course not all games will get massive sales boosts, but I think it's safe to say that BC is bigger than some people would like to admit.

It's stupid to only look at charts.
Due to bc, more games from 360 are selling which means more money for publishers and Microsoft. How much money it is we don't know for every game but the fact that it's more than it would be without bc tells that there is money to gain and that there is demand, of course depends on the individual game.

 

[watdaeff4]

I understand if people don't care if Sony's next console supports BC. That's cool , you won't use it.

What is just too fricking funny are the ones who are saying they are glad if Sony doesn't "invest" in it (with current architecture it wouldn't be that much of an investment from my understanding). Talk about some mental gymnastics

To have the capability even if one doesn't use it themselves is a great thing and to come across any other way is pure blinded fanboyism

 

[Musky_Cheese]

It's stupid to only look at charts.
Due to bc, more games from 360 are selling which means more money for publishers and Microsoft. How much money it is we don't know for every game but the fact that it's more than it would be without bc tells that there is money to gain and that there is demand, of course depends on the individual game.

But what money is made with 360 BC isn't really relevant nor is what Sony makes with PS Now... or a different BC for PS3.

The article is talking PS2 for PS4. And Jim replied that there wasn't a demand.

Comparing BC money for last gen is considerably different than 2 gens ago

 

[travisbickle]

Jim Ryan strikes again. I'm sure he's laughing at this thread while sipping his latte.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

And again for those who didn't read, he did not state they think BC is a waste of time... but PS2 to PS4 was. Not in those exact words

 

[Fredrik]

I understand if people don't care if Sony's next console supports BC. That's cool , you won't use it.

What is just too fricking funny are the ones who are saying they are glad if Sony doesn't "invest" in it (with current architecture it wouldn't be that much of an investment from my understanding). Talk about some mental gymnastics

To have the capability even if one doesn't use it themselves is a great thing and to come across any other way is pure blinded fanboyism

Yup, I don't get how _anyone_ can defend a no-BC stance, even if you don't use it you should still be glad if they're adding it.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

The first year of the PS2 and of the PS3 I played so many more PS1 and PS2 games on them respectively rather than new gen games it wasn't even funny.

The first game I beat on my new PS2 was FFIX and I continued clearing some back log with the likes of Valkyrie Profile, Thousand Arms, Klonoa, Chrono Cross, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, etc.

On PS3 at first I mostly played PS2 games like Soul Calibur III, God of War 2, Kingdom Hearts 2, FFXII, Valkyrie Profile 2, Persona 4, etc.

And on Vita I'm currently playing for the first time FFIV thanks to the PSP's Complete Collection and I just bought the PSP port of the PS1 game Breath of Fire III.

Many may not give a damn but I sure as hell used backwards compatibility a lot at the dawn of each new gen and the sporadically throughout the rest of the generation. And I sure as fuck miss it on my PS4.

 

[Caayn]

So everyone who defends Jim's statement would you also be perfectly happy with having zero BC support on PS5?

 

[Head.spawn]

"Why would anybody play this?"

If thats the case, why are they releasing so many PS2 ports? Buys Gaikai and serves up old games that look every worse over a stream, then doubles down and buys Onlive.

Ok Jim.

 

[erlim]

Why would I listen to Bowie or the Roling Stones or the Beatles? Ridiculous.

 

[c0de]

And again for those who didn't read, he did not state they think BC is a waste of time... but PS2 to PS4 was. Not in those exact words

Given how ps2 on ps4 is done nobody should be surprised that people don't want that.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

So everyone who defends Jim's statement would you also be perfectly happy with having zero BC support on PS5?

How do you get zero BC support from what he said.

 

[OléGunner]

This thread seems a tad over reactive.
I'm thinking there's still a very good chance PS5 has bc with PS4.

Probably what he was trying to get at is why would you play an old game when a newer shinier version is available. If it's good why not play that which is sorta understandable.

The ship has already sailed for PS4 bc with PS1,PS2,PS3 games which is what I got reading that interview.

BC is an imperative feature moving forward now though with our digital libraries etc, I don't think Sony as a whole is blind to that and probably have their engineers figuring it out for the PS5.

But overall yeah, I don't think Jim's statement is reason enough to panic.

 

[c0de]

How do you get zero BC support from what he said.

Did you even read his post? He's talking about people in this thread, not about Jim.

 

[bitbydeath]

Jim Ryan strikes again. I'm sure he's laughing at this thread while sipping his latte.

This thread is quite entertaining.

Spoiler

I don't care for BC either

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Did you even read his post? He's talking about people in this thread, not about Jim.

Yes. Yes I did. For all those defending jims statement of PS2 to PS4 is a waste.

So why assume no zero bc because of that...

 

[DocSeuss]

Nah, it's just about one of the absolute worst things a console could pull in my book. If people wanna utilize those features great. But I don't want some box that doesn't let me have a physical collection, and doesn't let me sell and buy used. I don't want something that needs to arbitrarily check in online before it let's me access my games regardless of whether they're single player or not.

They relentlessly tried to paint it as a convenience and "way of the future" angle, but it felt like a scheme to take control and ownership away from the consumer.

If they out out something that offers those digital/online features without infringing on physical ownership, then great. But I'm glad their original proposition in its draconian form was rejected.

It's one of those ideas that's extremely cool in GOAL ("make it so you don't have to swap discs, ever!") but the limitations that must exist to make it function ("what's to stop someone from installing a game and reselling the disc?") aren't really worth it, and Microsoft thankfully backed away from it several months prior to launch.

I think a lot of people are like "bah, anti-consumer," and I don't really feel it qualifies as that, because it's not trying to be. It was them honestly trying to do something really cool for consumers, but they couldn't figure out how to get past it.

I remember hearing one discussion that was like "okay, so, what we could do is include a physical code with every game, and selling the game also means revoking the installation code," but the issue there was that you'd have to give people access to Microsoft's servers, and Mom n' Pop game stores would likely have to go through hoops to make that happen, because an authorization/de-authorization would be a painful/irritating process.

Installing a game to not require disc-DRM is a great idea, but there are just too many negatives to ever work. And they didn't even ship with the functionality, so being mad at them for doing something that never make it to market never made sense to me. Digital sales has basically rendered that discussion moot; if people don't want to deal with discs, they'll just buy digitally. And Microsoft gets more of the cut there anyways, by functioning as the digital retailer.

If you've been watching MS for years, you'll find they're one of the most fascinating tech companies on the planet, but the corporate management philosophy kind of works against itself. One of my favorite MS concepts was the Courier, for instance, which, I think, would have blown tablets away had it made it to market first, but it got canceled. They do a ton of amazing/crazy stuff. Their "vision of the future"/AR universe stuff is remarkable.

I think they hire a lot of really smart people to make the future interesting.

The problem is, gamers really just want to be boring. They want things to be how they've always been. Playstation is the most boring, generic, uninspiring platform on the market, and so it's the most successful. Titanfall is epic sci-fi action, but people want boring, grounded modern military stuff. People like the mundane.

What Microsoft needs to do is figure out how to deliver the mundane, then offer iterative features that excite and delight. And I think backwards compatibility has done that. Oh, sure, plenty of consoles have HAD backwards compatibility before, but Xbox One backwards compatibility is digital, and that's where it really shines. You can manage your X1 and 360 libraries together in a really smart way, and because they're dropping new games weekly, you can often sign in to find you've got new, free games.

I really wish Microsoft would quit the Xbox One branding scheme and make Scorpio Xbox 4, but I get that they want to make sure that generational shifts are fairly simultaneous to avoid a Dreamcast scenario. If they were really smart, they'd just ignore the concept of "console generation" entirely, and just go the PC route they've been hinting. Make everything always available on future iterations of the hardware, using Win32 or UWP. Then there's no such thing as backwards compatibility, and the idea of console generation becomes moot.

 

[Melchiah]

"That, and I was at a Gran Turismo event recently where they had PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?"

Well, I can agree with him when it comes to PS1 games. I have absolutely no desire to play my old favorites like Silent Hill, Soul Reaver, or Resident Evil 2 in their original form, but I'd love to play remakes of them, which is why I'm eagerly waiting for RE2 remake.

I disagree with him about PS2 games though. I'd love it, if I could play games like Silent Hill 2+3, Shadow of Memories, and the first SSX on the PS4, since my PS2 doesn't read discs properly anymore.

 

[Caayn]

Yes. Yes I did. For all those defending jims statement of PS2 to PS4 is a waste.

So why assume no zero bc because of that...

I didn't get that from Jim. But If I were to use Jim's logic: Why would you want to play PS4 games if you can play brandspanking new PS5 games with better graphics?

Or is that different because "reasons"?

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

Jim Ryan says the stupidest things.

 

[HotHamBoy]

"Why would anyone watch these old movies? They don't even have color and the pacing is terrible!"

 

[intheinbetween]

Not sure if this guy really took time to think about the benefits of providing a BC solution to any system:

- Provide an existing wide game library while building a new one

- More sales from old titles, which might lead to increase budget for titles as they wouldn't be locked to a single generation

- Entice your customers to keep tied to your products as they would have invested money in titles that will be able to be played on the current platform and future ones

I'm sorry but I can only see the backwards compatibility as a win-win situation.. unless they they are so greed they rather rip-off customers by releasing ports and remasters just to milk their customers while wasting resources