So, the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One are now available for purchase, which is great, but I have heard that they are not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations, which I find to be both odd and displeasing.
Why would the manufacturers of the new systems not make them backwards-compatible? Do they simply expect the players to give up their older systems when they purchase the new systems? What if a player wishes to continue playing their old games after purchasing a new system? Will they need to keep the older system to play the older games? Surely, it cannot be that difficult or expensive to make a system backwards compatible, and doing so would also be a way to ensure that one's customers remain with you? If I were a manufacturer of a video game console, I would definitely wish to retain customers, and having my consoles be backwards compatible would be an excellent way to ensure that, in my mind.
What does everyone else say? Why are the newest systems not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations? Why do you believe that the companies made this decision?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I'm not really into the playstation and xbox things, but isn't it because you can buy old games online/download them at their stores? That way, if you want to play your old game again on the new machine, you have to buy it again.
For the rest, if you havent already had the game they will sell it again without any new developmental efforts, but still get the full amount of cash.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
hey i have managed to evolve my axolotls by feeding them thyroid glands the thyroxine contained in these gland is enough to change these water dwelling creatures into land based creatures
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
They claim it is because it would be too expensive to include the older hardware needed to run older games. With the PS3 to the PS4 I may actually buy it since the architecture used to makes games on the two systems is very different, although it was bull**** that they could not emulate PS2 onto the PS3 (especially when PS games work fine, obviously I am talking post first gen PS3 systems here). Xbox, imo, is just being *******s.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
People have this notion that the systems should always be backwards compatible 'because disc'. But that is kind of silly, IMO. Out of all of the generations of video game systems, only one featured any kind of meaningful backwards compatibility(PS2 being backwards compatible to play PS1 games) This really is not, nor has it ever been, any kind of standard feature.
And I am sure that it WOULD be extremely difficult/expensive to make it backward compatible for the previous generation, at least in Sony's case. The PS3 used that failed 'cell processor' technology, so I don't even know how they would go back incorporating that into the new console. But I am certain it would be costly. The same likely applies to the XBOX 360, albeit for different reasons.
Their reasoning for not including emulation software so that you can play old PS1/PS2/XBOX games is probably more of the financial nature(they want you to spend money to digitally download those games)
I'll bet it's just a straightforward cost/benefit analysis. It will cost them X to do. They need to make at least that much extra money in order for it to be worthwhile. They don't expect additional system/game sales to add up to X, so they don't implement it.
I don't know how large their team is, but there could be an additional reason: you can only effectively put so many people on one project before you get really serious diminishing returns on productivity (eventually adding people to a project will end up hurting the project). They may not be able to assign more people to do that without negatively impacting more valuable features.
Backwards compatibility of the last gen was a tricky thing to implement. Early PS3 systems actually included the necessary bits of a PS2 to obtain backwards compatibility. PS1 games are emulated and have been so since the PS2 days.
Emulation only gets you so far, though. Perfect emulation takes a massive amount of hardware so most emulation isn't exactly right. For example, original XBox games on the 360 are emulated, but via downloadable bits that handle the tricky emulation for that single title. Even then, emulation specific bugs crop up. Emulating 360 or PS3 games is pie in the sky; last gen consoles are still far too powerful to emulate.
Another option that wasn't really possible before is cloud streaming. Current gen consoles could use a service similar to OnLive to "emulate" last gen games. Performance would be highly dependent on network bandwidth.
The biggest hurdle, though, is companies have discovered that rereleasing back catalog games is profitable. Texture updates and some code shims to the new APIs are all that's really necessary to put an older game back out on a digital marketplace. As long as Sony and Microsoft can do this to their own titles and continue to receive pressure from other devs backwards compatibility is going to quickly become a thing of the past.
Look up Gaikai - PS4 is getting backward compatibility via it Fall 2014 or so.
And on PS4 the units would be $570 to build vs $387 from estimates for a BC unit which with 5m projected to sell by March is $1b nearly vs the $30m to setup Gaikai that's been estimated.
Streaming solution seems much more fiscally sound for that reason.
Leagues were supposed to come back for MTGO v3 too btw
You're seriously making this comparison? Really? There are gigantic differences between WotC and Sony. Sony actually has the manpower and ability to do what they wish. WotC, however, have printing presses for magic cards and a ragtag group of software people who don't know how to do much of anything. And if you compare the playstation 4 to magic online technologically the PS4 is light years ahead of MTGO in every single aspect.
They aren't backwards compatible because then they would have to charge more price wise. I honestly don't care that they aren't, I still have an xbox 360 that plays xbox and xbox 360 games just fine. Backwards compatibility isn't some automatic thing/standard feature of most game consoles. SNES wasn't backward compatible. N64 wasn't. Gamecube wasn't. Sega genesis wasn't. The number of systems that aren't backward compatible vastly outnumber the number of systems that are backward compatible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
When console makers make a console, they do so with new hardware in mind.
In order to run an old game/program, the new hardware has to contain older hardware.This is extra cost. Not only do you have to include old hardware, you have to make sure your new hardware works with the old. This also means brand new code to run old games, which is again additional cost. This adds on a lot of cost for a feature that a lot of players won't use, or use sparingly.
What if a player wishes to continue playing their old games after purchasing a new system? Will they need to keep the older system to play the older games?
Keep the old system, or hope that the new system allows for emulation. Sometimes, the newer hardware simply enough to emulate the old one. For example, the PC is just being able to emulate the PS2, and isn't up to snuff to emulate the PS3.
But the PC isn't the same as the PS! Exactly. Just because PS is named PS and made by the same company doesn't mean PS3 and PS4 run on the same hardware.
Leagues were supposed to come back for MTGO v3 too btw
Sony keeping promises (outside of SOE which is seperate corporately) has come through at 100% thus far when it comes to gaming.
Sometimes timetables have skipped a quarter though.
Note: Gaikai technically already is working, just its doing PS4 games while they're partially installed for now. So the groundwork is already there just needs to be adapted for the larger catalog.
Sony and Microsoft still have to make up for losses from the PS3 and 360 so they will be in production for a long time, I don't think Gaikai will ever become fully functional.
Sony is listening. Okay Microsoft is listening too they just seem more intent on sending what they hear off to the NSA, rather than do anything about it.
In order to play the old games the developers would have to recompile the game for the new architecture and operating system. Since with CD distribution you have a physical copy you can't get an updated binary without redistributing new CDs. So they need to emulate the Operating system and hardware architecture in a virtual machine in order to play the old game. But they are now going towards installed or cloud games on consoles, so redistributing new binaries of old games might be easier than ever before, so maybe its just a lack of intensive to make it backwards compatible. Look at PC, almost all games for the PC are still backwards compatible, they either have OS support or are updated by the dev to be compatible with the new OS (which is why you have many differing installations for the same application).
People have this notion that the systems should always be backwards compatible 'because disc'. But that is kind of silly, IMO. Out of all of the generations of video game systems, only one featured any kind of meaningful backwards compatibility(PS2 being backwards compatible to play PS1 games) This really is not, nor has it ever been, any kind of standard feature.
Did you miss the Wii having backwards compatibility with the GameCube, the WiiU having backwards compatibility with the Wii, or how every single Nintendo handheld system since the Game Boy has had backwards compatibility with its predecessor?
People have this notion that the systems should always be backwards compatible 'because disc'. But that is kind of silly, IMO. Out of all of the generations of video game systems, only one featured any kind of meaningful backwards compatibility(PS2 being backwards compatible to play PS1 games) This really is not, nor has it ever been, any kind of standard feature.
This has been a standard feature for Nintendo hardware for a while, though. Wii U plays Wii games and Wii plays Gamecube games, whereas 3DS plays DS cartridges and DS plays Game Boy Advance cartridges (so it's not only "because discs"). Hell, the Mega Drive had a Master System adaptor back in 1989.
Personally I think systems should be backwards compatible because it increases my desire to buy a new system from a company whoes last generation I skipped. If I could play PS3 on the PS4, I'd be more willing to buy a PS4. As it is, I don't care enough right now.
Also, RickCorgan? I can't read your posts without highlighting them. I can read most of your sig, but the dark blue in your main post actually hurts my eyes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I'm not sure how many people understand this, but emulation is hard. It's very difficult to get it right when the specifications for a game on a previous system were designed exactly for that system. If the performance of a new system is very different or functions differently (the PS4 being redesigned to be easier to develop for, for instance), it creates a lot of challenges beyond a simple tech upgrade. This means time and money trying to make an effective emulator. A good example of this is the original Star Fox. It's harder emulate SNES games that took advantage of the Super FX chip.
People have this notion that the systems should always be backwards compatible 'because disc'. But that is kind of silly, IMO. Out of all of the generations of video game systems, only one featured any kind of meaningful backwards compatibility(PS2 being backwards compatible to play PS1 games) This really is not, nor has it ever been, any kind of standard feature.
This has been a standard feature for Nintendo hardware for a while, though. Wii U plays Wii games and Wii plays Gamecube games, whereas 3DS plays DS cartridges and DS plays Game Boy Advance cartridges (so it's not only "because discs"). Hell, the Mega Drive had a Master System adaptor back in 1989.
Quick note about this: Wii U, Wii and Gamecube games are all based on the original Gamecube's technology. The Wii was essentially a slightly upgraded Gamecube, and the Wii U is an upgraded Wii. The technology change between systems wasn't as significant. When talking about the DSes, it's largely the same situation. The 3DS is an upgraded DSi, which was an upgraded DS. The DS' GBA backwards compatability was the only real challenge, and they dropped that for size and expense. Although in general Nintendo tends to try and be more user friendly than their competitors.
In order to play the old games the developers would have to recompile the game for the new architecture and operating system. Since with CD distribution you have a physical copy you can't get an updated binary without redistributing new CDs. So they need to emulate the Operating system and hardware architecture in a virtual machine in order to play the old game. But they are now going towards installed or cloud games on consoles, so redistributing new binaries of old games might be easier than ever before, so maybe its just a lack of intensive to make it backwards compatible. Look at PC, almost all games for the PC are still backwards compatible, they either have OS support or are updated by the dev to be compatible with the new OS (which is why you have many differing installations for the same application).
It's not nearly as simple as this. Console games are often especially tailored to work well with a single hardware architecture, and therefore also only with the drivers for those particular architecture. Even more frustrating: most if not all consoles have a proprietary library which makes use of the specific features of that particular console hardware. They'd often have to rewrite very large parts of their codebase to make it work on other systems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Why would the manufacturers of the new systems not make them backwards-compatible? Do they simply expect the players to give up their older systems when they purchase the new systems? What if a player wishes to continue playing their old games after purchasing a new system? Will they need to keep the older system to play the older games? Surely, it cannot be that difficult or expensive to make a system backwards compatible, and doing so would also be a way to ensure that one's customers remain with you? If I were a manufacturer of a video game console, I would definitely wish to retain customers, and having my consoles be backwards compatible would be an excellent way to ensure that, in my mind.
What does everyone else say? Why are the newest systems not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations? Why do you believe that the companies made this decision?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
For the rest, if you havent already had the game they will sell it again without any new developmental efforts, but still get the full amount of cash.
Posted by: Tay Collins | January 20, 2010 6:45 AM
Tay, that's not evolution. It's metamorphosis. Evolution means descent with heritable modification – individuals cannot evolve, unless they're Pokemon.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 20, 2010 8:55 AM
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
And I am sure that it WOULD be extremely difficult/expensive to make it backward compatible for the previous generation, at least in Sony's case. The PS3 used that failed 'cell processor' technology, so I don't even know how they would go back incorporating that into the new console. But I am certain it would be costly. The same likely applies to the XBOX 360, albeit for different reasons.
Their reasoning for not including emulation software so that you can play old PS1/PS2/XBOX games is probably more of the financial nature(they want you to spend money to digitally download those games)
I don't know how large their team is, but there could be an additional reason: you can only effectively put so many people on one project before you get really serious diminishing returns on productivity (eventually adding people to a project will end up hurting the project). They may not be able to assign more people to do that without negatively impacting more valuable features.
Emulation only gets you so far, though. Perfect emulation takes a massive amount of hardware so most emulation isn't exactly right. For example, original XBox games on the 360 are emulated, but via downloadable bits that handle the tricky emulation for that single title. Even then, emulation specific bugs crop up. Emulating 360 or PS3 games is pie in the sky; last gen consoles are still far too powerful to emulate.
Another option that wasn't really possible before is cloud streaming. Current gen consoles could use a service similar to OnLive to "emulate" last gen games. Performance would be highly dependent on network bandwidth.
The biggest hurdle, though, is companies have discovered that rereleasing back catalog games is profitable. Texture updates and some code shims to the new APIs are all that's really necessary to put an older game back out on a digital marketplace. As long as Sony and Microsoft can do this to their own titles and continue to receive pressure from other devs backwards compatibility is going to quickly become a thing of the past.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
And on PS4 the units would be $570 to build vs $387 from estimates for a BC unit which with 5m projected to sell by March is $1b nearly vs the $30m to setup Gaikai that's been estimated.
Streaming solution seems much more fiscally sound for that reason.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Leagues were supposed to come back for MTGO v3 too btw
You're seriously making this comparison? Really? There are gigantic differences between WotC and Sony. Sony actually has the manpower and ability to do what they wish. WotC, however, have printing presses for magic cards and a ragtag group of software people who don't know how to do much of anything. And if you compare the playstation 4 to magic online technologically the PS4 is light years ahead of MTGO in every single aspect.
They aren't backwards compatible because then they would have to charge more price wise. I honestly don't care that they aren't, I still have an xbox 360 that plays xbox and xbox 360 games just fine. Backwards compatibility isn't some automatic thing/standard feature of most game consoles. SNES wasn't backward compatible. N64 wasn't. Gamecube wasn't. Sega genesis wasn't. The number of systems that aren't backward compatible vastly outnumber the number of systems that are backward compatible.
Currently Playing:
Retired
In order to run an old game/program, the new hardware has to contain older hardware.This is extra cost. Not only do you have to include old hardware, you have to make sure your new hardware works with the old. This also means brand new code to run old games, which is again additional cost. This adds on a lot of cost for a feature that a lot of players won't use, or use sparingly.
Keep the old system, or hope that the new system allows for emulation. Sometimes, the newer hardware simply enough to emulate the old one. For example, the PC is just being able to emulate the PS2, and isn't up to snuff to emulate the PS3.
But the PC isn't the same as the PS! Exactly. Just because PS is named PS and made by the same company doesn't mean PS3 and PS4 run on the same hardware.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Sony keeping promises (outside of SOE which is seperate corporately) has come through at 100% thus far when it comes to gaming.
Sometimes timetables have skipped a quarter though.
Note: Gaikai technically already is working, just its doing PS4 games while they're partially installed for now. So the groundwork is already there just needs to be adapted for the larger catalog.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Sony is listening. Okay Microsoft is listening too they just seem more intent on sending what they hear off to the NSA, rather than do anything about it.
Did you miss the Wii having backwards compatibility with the GameCube, the WiiU having backwards compatibility with the Wii, or how every single Nintendo handheld system since the Game Boy has had backwards compatibility with its predecessor?
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Also, RickCorgan? I can't read your posts without highlighting them. I can read most of your sig, but the dark blue in your main post actually hurts my eyes.
Art is life itself.
Quick note about this: Wii U, Wii and Gamecube games are all based on the original Gamecube's technology. The Wii was essentially a slightly upgraded Gamecube, and the Wii U is an upgraded Wii. The technology change between systems wasn't as significant. When talking about the DSes, it's largely the same situation. The 3DS is an upgraded DSi, which was an upgraded DS. The DS' GBA backwards compatability was the only real challenge, and they dropped that for size and expense. Although in general Nintendo tends to try and be more user friendly than their competitors.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It's not nearly as simple as this. Console games are often especially tailored to work well with a single hardware architecture, and therefore also only with the drivers for those particular architecture. Even more frustrating: most if not all consoles have a proprietary library which makes use of the specific features of that particular console hardware. They'd often have to rewrite very large parts of their codebase to make it work on other systems.