Microsoft Exec: "If You're Backwards Compatible, You're Really Backwards"

[DiamanteGeeza]

Hoo boy...

Take the Wii. Now, it was a less than brilliant console with regards to its library (I was much happier with the Xbox 360's selection) but that seems to be Nintendo's running problem. However, it did backwards compatibility properly. I can play Eternal Darkness on it. I can play Second Sight on it. I can play Star Wars: Clone Wars on it. But I can also play Super Smash Bros Brawl and Metroid Prime Trilogy on it. And I still do play all of these games. The Wii's somewhat lacklustre library was bolstered by its predecessor, and I didn't have to worry about wanting for games when I first bought it.

Of course, I've already been put off the Xbox One (What was wrong with Xbox Infinity? I know that's a minor complaint, but really?), so this hardly matters here. But Backwards Compatibility is definitely not a bad thing, and definitely not backwards.

Ah yes, but the difference with the Wii is that the hardware inside it is exactly the same as the Gamecube, but overclocked. BC was a no-brainer... in fact, Nintendo would have had to actually do some work in order to make it not backwards compatible!! LOL.

 

[jimbob123432]

I personally think the PS2 was so successful was because you could play PS1 games on it. It's annoying to have multiple big boxes lying around (especially with peripherals like Kinect) and constantly having to switch between them in order to play different games.

Imagine is Microsoft took this stance with Windows: "Sorry, you can't use that program on Windows 7. It was only programmed for Windows XP. Looks like you'll have to buy the newest version..."

 

[TelHybrid]

If you have a back catalogue of old games, keep your old system. Simple.

How simple is it when your old system burns out and they aren't in production anymore?

Then you have the first world problem of either repairing it or replacing it (just because it's no longer in production doesn't mean there wont be loads floating about).

Or just switch to PC gaming and avoid all this crap.

This entire discussion is a first-world problem, please don't be so dismissive. Telling someone "EBAY LOL" doesn't address the issue of expensive game collections being rendered obsolete in less than a decade because the manufacturers can't be arsed to provide some basic level of support. This isn't like transitioning from cassettes to compact discs.

I'm not saying BC isn't an issue for console makers, but "just keep your old console" is not a very good solution.

Okay trolling aside I get your point that it's not the best solution.

I must ask though, how is this not like transitioning from cassettes to CDs? Just because the new consoles can read the discs of current gen doesn't mean it can understand the data. Moving from Cell processor or Power PC to X86-64 means that backwards compatibility can only be accomplished by 2 means:

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

 

[faspxina]

Ignorant statement from an ignorant man.

I guess I'll just throw away my old collection of movies too, since watching them would make me look so "backwards".

 

[faspxina]

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

Just because things always sucked doesn't make it any more acceptable that they continue to suck, we just conform ourselves to it.

Spending resources creating a console that's backwards compatible would be much more respectful to gaming culture than including a button for social networking on your controller.

 

[TelHybrid]

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

Just because things always sucked doesn't make it any more acceptable that they continue to suck, we just conform ourselves to it.

Spending resources creating a console that's backwards compatible would be much more respectful to gaming culture than including a button for social networking on your controller.

Oh I love the sense of self entitlement I see on these forums. Always makes me smile.

I guess next all of our blu-ray players should be compatible with video cassettes.

I get it. It sucks that there's a lack of backwards compatibility. It's inconvenient. I also get that the statement by the Microsoft Executive is really ignorant and a bad PR move.

Implementing BC just is not feasible. You know how I said that it would increase costs of production? Due to time spent either coding the appropriate emulator or adding additional hardware. Consoles are already sold at a loss upon release. It would be absolutely stupid for a business to then cut their profits further. They would most likely need to charge more for the console.

Remember the last time a company tried this? Sony's Playstation 3 1st release. $600. Look how well that did.

And what would it accomplish? to run a bunch of games that are no longer in production.

Seriously, never start up your own business. You'll end up financially screwed.

 

[suntt123]

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

Just because things always sucked doesn't make it any more acceptable that they continue to suck, we just conform ourselves to it.

Spending resources creating a console that's backwards compatible would be much more respectful to gaming culture than including a button for social networking on your controller.

Oh I love the sense of self entitlement I see on these forums. Always makes me smile.

I guess next all of our blu-ray players should be compatible with video cassettes.

I get it. It sucks that there's a lack of backwards compatibility. It's inconvenient. I also get that the statement by the Microsoft Executive is really ignorant and a bad PR move.

Implementing BC just is not feasible. You know how I said that it would increase costs of production? Due to time spent either coding the appropriate emulator or adding additional hardware. Consoles are already sold at a loss upon release. It would be absolutely stupid for a business to then cut their profits further. They would most likely need to charge more for the console.

Remember the last time a company tried this? Sony's Playstation 3 1st release. $600. Look how well that did.

And what would it accomplish? to run a bunch of games that are no longer in production.

Seriously, never start up your own business. You'll end up financially screwed.

Actually, the last company to do this was Nintendo with the WiiU. Also with the Wii. WiiU is selling about as well as the PS360 was at WiiU's age, and Wii outsold them both.

Anyway, backwards compatibility has no effect in the LONG TERM. After a console builds up a decent library there's no reason to want to play old games. In the SHORT TERM, however, a console has few to no good games and so it's a good idea to allow BC, so people have games to play. Case in point, I have exactly ONE WiiU game, but I still bought the WiiU because there are plenty of Wii games I wanted to play. Anyway, it's Sony's own fault that the costs were so high for changing up the Hardware so much every generation. Same thing with MS. If Nintendo could do it, why can't the other two?

 

[TelHybrid]

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

Just because things always sucked doesn't make it any more acceptable that they continue to suck, we just conform ourselves to it.

Spending resources creating a console that's backwards compatible would be much more respectful to gaming culture than including a button for social networking on your controller.

Oh I love the sense of self entitlement I see on these forums. Always makes me smile.

I guess next all of our blu-ray players should be compatible with video cassettes.

I get it. It sucks that there's a lack of backwards compatibility. It's inconvenient. I also get that the statement by the Microsoft Executive is really ignorant and a bad PR move.

Implementing BC just is not feasible. You know how I said that it would increase costs of production? Due to time spent either coding the appropriate emulator or adding additional hardware. Consoles are already sold at a loss upon release. It would be absolutely stupid for a business to then cut their profits further. They would most likely need to charge more for the console.

Remember the last time a company tried this? Sony's Playstation 3 1st release. $600. Look how well that did.

And what would it accomplish? to run a bunch of games that are no longer in production.

Seriously, never start up your own business. You'll end up financially screwed.

Actually, the last company to do this was Nintendo with the WiiU. Also with the Wii. WiiU is selling about as well as the PS360 was at WiiU's age, and Wii outsold them both.

Anyway, backwards compatibility has no effect in the LONG TERM. After a console builds up a decent library there's no reason to want to play old games. In the SHORT TERM, however, a console has few to no good games and so it's a good idea to allow BC, so people have games to play. Case in point, I have exactly ONE WiiU game, but I still bought the WiiU because there are plenty of Wii games I wanted to play. Anyway, it's Sony's own fault that the costs were so high for changing up the Hardware so much every generation. Same thing with MS. If Nintendo could do it, why can't the other two?

Because Nintendo has such dated last generation hardware that it's much easier to emulate. That's why!

 

[suntt123]

1. Hardware - Literally putting the processor from the previous console iteration into the new console, thus making it bulkier, more expensive to produce, and essentially the same end result as keeping your old console.

2. Emulation - I doubt emulating games for cell processor on x86-64 is even possible especially with PS4's hardware, and X360's Power PC architecture wouldn't be much easier. I've seen high end i7 PCs struggle to emulate the Nintendo Wii! Heck even PS2 emulation hasn't been achieved very well.

Remember when everyone was complaining about not being able to play their NES games on their SNES? No? me neither...

Just because things always sucked doesn't make it any more acceptable that they continue to suck, we just conform ourselves to it.

Spending resources creating a console that's backwards compatible would be much more respectful to gaming culture than including a button for social networking on your controller.

Oh I love the sense of self entitlement I see on these forums. Always makes me smile.

I guess next all of our blu-ray players should be compatible with video cassettes.

I get it. It sucks that there's a lack of backwards compatibility. It's inconvenient. I also get that the statement by the Microsoft Executive is really ignorant and a bad PR move.

Implementing BC just is not feasible. You know how I said that it would increase costs of production? Due to time spent either coding the appropriate emulator or adding additional hardware. Consoles are already sold at a loss upon release. It would be absolutely stupid for a business to then cut their profits further. They would most likely need to charge more for the console.

Remember the last time a company tried this? Sony's Playstation 3 1st release. $600. Look how well that did.

And what would it accomplish? to run a bunch of games that are no longer in production.

Seriously, never start up your own business. You'll end up financially screwed.

Actually, the last company to do this was Nintendo with the WiiU. Also with the Wii. WiiU is selling about as well as the PS360 was at WiiU's age, and Wii outsold them both.

Anyway, backwards compatibility has no effect in the LONG TERM. After a console builds up a decent library there's no reason to want to play old games. In the SHORT TERM, however, a console has few to no good games and so it's a good idea to allow BC, so people have games to play. Case in point, I have exactly ONE WiiU game, but I still bought the WiiU because there are plenty of Wii games I wanted to play. Anyway, it's Sony's own fault that the costs were so high for changing up the Hardware so much every generation. Same thing with MS. If Nintendo could do it, why can't the other two?

Because Nintendo has such dated last generation hardware that it's much easier to emulate. That's why!

Why is it that using 'dated hardware' allows for more features? Why is it that 'dated hardware' allows for better profitability for no discernible drawback?

Why is it that current hardware costs more up front and requires a subscription in order to do what 'dated hardware' does?

Look, my point is that while BC for PS4 would probably be cost ineffective for SONY, the fact that it can and has been done both successfully and effectively shows us that you don't have to charge $600 for a console that is BC AND is capable of offering additional features. So, why couldn't Sony?

ANSWER:
BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO BUSY KEEPING UP WITH MODERN TECHNOLOGY, EVEN IF IT ENDS UP COSTING THEM MORE THAN IT MAKES.

While I agree that BC isn't a big deal (in the long run), it would definitely be a plus, especially in a new console's early life when there are few games to be had.

Still, Sony did promise something along the vein of an online store with old gen games. Guess they'll have to capitalize on that. The games better not be full price though -_-