I came here to say pretty much the same think. While preservation of games is an important endeavour, it is infinitely more complex than preservation of movies, because its intrinsically associated with the technology it runs. While preserving a movie requires preserving the video and the audio synchronized with it, preserving a game requires to preserve (or reconstruct) the hardware that it was built to run in, including parts that, are likely, no longer built.Falterfire said:Please don't pretend backwards compatibility for games is as simple as backwards compatibility for movies. Converting a movie only requires that you preserve the audio and visual streams. Converting a game requires that you emulate the underlying hardware or else write a complex program to automatically convert code optimized for another system on the fly to the new one.
Sony and Microsoft didn't remove backwards compatibility for next gen consoles because they are mean money grubbing bastards - Any halfway intelligent businessman would see giving existing customers a reason to stay enfranchised is a great idea - they did it because adding it would have required them to increase the cost of the console to a level the consumer would be unwilling to pay.
Sony should know - They did this once with the PS3 and it was one of the reasons the PS3 was initially such an overpriced machine and failed so badly at launch.
I see you've been reading the Escapist with the ads turned on...Well! Let it never be said that MovieBob can't also chase SEO with all the tenacity of The One Weird Trick You Won't Believe The New York Times Fears And Drug Companies Hate to Pay For Free Forever Erectile Dysfunction Gold Conspiracy Something Bitcoin.
Not to mention that the major companies are taking steps to preserve the old games. Nintendo has the virtual console and actually was able to put backwards compatibility into the Wii U because they were able to make it purely with software emulation. Sony recently announced a steaming game service for their old PS1, 2, and 3 games. Plus, the move to x86 architecture for both Xbox and PS was a serious step forward in ensuring backwards compatibility is much easier going forward.hermes200 said:I came here to say pretty much the same think. While preservation of games is an important endeavour, it is infinitely more complex than preservation of movies, because its intrinsically associated with the technology it runs. While preserving a movie requires preserving the video and the audio synchronized with it, preserving a game requires to preserve (or reconstruct) the hardware that it was built to run in, including parts that, are likely, no longer built.Falterfire said:Please don't pretend backwards compatibility for games is as simple as backwards compatibility for movies. Converting a movie only requires that you preserve the audio and visual streams. Converting a game requires that you emulate the underlying hardware or else write a complex program to automatically convert code optimized for another system on the fly to the new one.
Sony and Microsoft didn't remove backwards compatibility for next gen consoles because they are mean money grubbing bastards - Any halfway intelligent businessman would see giving existing customers a reason to stay enfranchised is a great idea - they did it because adding it would have required them to increase the cost of the console to a level the consumer would be unwilling to pay.
Sony should know - They did this once with the PS3 and it was one of the reasons the PS3 was initially such an overpriced machine and failed so badly at launch.
Movies don't have that problem. I don't need a pianist to be able to watch A Trip to the Moon, nor do I need a drive-in theater to see some exploitation movie like Ilsa... It would be a nice curiosity, but its not like its required by the medium and its not possible to reproduce in other way. There are some exceptions, of course, like watching "Scent of Mystery" in my house or reading "House of Leaves" on a kindle, but 99.99% of the content of other mediums is easily preservable because our way of experience it doesn't evolve with it.
Games, on the other hand, need the hardware to run... there is no way to run E.T. or Wii Sports without the original hardware (unless we count emulation, a process that runs entirely on the part of the consumer, since the publisher doesn't want/doesn't care/simply can't do it itself). To expect otherwise would require a) that console manufacturers and technology holders (and everyone in between) would compromise to never stop producing the components to run certain generation of games (good luck trying to force Commodore to make more Amigas); or b) building each generation, literally, on top of the previous one. So, the Playstation 4 has to have a Playstation 3, 2 and 1 built inside it, the Wii U needs a Wii, a Gamecube, an N64, SNES and NES (complete with cartridge slots), and Windows 8 should have XP, 98, 3.1 and DOS. That would increase costs to ridiculous levels (the PS3 is still too specific, complex and expensive to produce to believe it can be reduced to a cheap component inside the PS4), but it would also seriously hamper progress and innovation (so now the XBOX 1 needs to have an HD DVD drive to be compatible with the 360? What about the XBOX 2?)...
The other comments are pretty reasonable, but 3 is rather disingenuous... too focus in how consumers believe technology should work instead of how it actually works. I am sure Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo would love to have 100% BC, but they all know its not feasible.
Maybe, for once, how consumers believe technology should work should be considered over how it 'actually works' (which really, just translates to how manufacturers say it should work. Not completely without merit, but not completely valid, either).hermes200 said:The other comments are pretty reasonable, but 3 is rather disingenuous... too focus in how consumers believe technology should work instead of how it actually works. I am sure Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo would love to have 100% BC, but they all know its not feasible.
The eldery in me wants to agree, but remembers when this was being hyped as the near future in 1995 and is annoyed that it's been nearly two decades of feet dragging.Redd the Sock said:1) The old guy in me wants to rant about how this just motivates an entitlement mentality that shows no respect for patience or doing without if you can't meet someone else's schedule.
Only if you count the entire music market as a captive market. Region locks are an outcropping of the record industry lobbying to prevent what you called "reverse importation" on a larger scale. It used to be a lot cheaper for distros to buy records and CDs in bulk from places like South America on the cheap and sell them either at a discount or eat the remaining profits themselves. The record industry didn't like being undercut and pushed for import taxes/tariffs/whatever. If they could have got away with region locking Compact Discs, they probably would have. As it is, the video market became serious business and sought to protect themselves. Fortunately, DVD came out after issues of piracy, copying (even lawful copying) and importing were all well-known, so they developed a system right in the medium and its players.2) Region locks exist due to captive markets.
This one's always strange to me, because of the industry's obsession with remakes and re-releases. It's like they're ramping us up specifically for nostalgia. And this happens in other media, too. More so with movies and music than books, but still. And I get that they can get new money out of us on an individual release, but they need to go much bigger for that to be a real model: something they don't seem willing or able to do.Technological issues aside, there's always a fear we'll just squeeze more value out of the old than buy the new.