***official*** all things Microsoft Xbox One (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

You're doing it wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is.

Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been.

That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way.

We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

Yeah I save a lot more than 5 bucks usually. And buying used games has gotten me into series that I buy new now. Like Elder Scrolls. I got Oblivion used. I loved it. I bought Skyrim new. Full price plus I bought the very fancy Skyrim book. Someone made a nice profit and I wouldn't have done that without the used experience I had with Oblivion. In fact without used games I probably wouldn't have gotten into console games at all and I never would have bought all the new ones I have.

 

[Statcruncher]

Statcruncher, on 23 May 2013 - 13:28, said:I know I'm not a typical gamer but I've played games my whole life. From the Atari 2600 to the X-Box 360. Yes I'm cheap, but I've NEVER pirated/stolen/copied games, ever. Every game I've ever played has been from manufacturer's discs that I own. I'm not the guy that stands in line for games or has to have the latest thing. I never buy a console when it first comes out, but when I buy a console I always buy it new. When it comes to games I usually wait and pick them up dirt cheap used. Occasionally my kids want a new game and I'll buy it for them, but my purchases are probably 85% used.

It does suck for the way you play, but as you said later on in your post you're probably not someone MS is worried about retaining. From their standpoint, you buy the console new, which they take a loss on. They're supposed to make that loss up on software, which you buy used and cut them out of. From their standpoint they're taking a loss to subsidize your ability to buy games from someone else.

They fact that they have chosen a strategy that causes them to lose money on the console is not my problem. I always purchase their consoles brand new. There is no contract that says I must purchase full price games when I buy a console. And every game I play was originally purchased directly from the manufacturer, just not by me.

Statcruncher, on 23 May 2013 - 13:28, said:Second, it's ridiculous to have to connect to the internet/Microsoft to play a single player game. I know they champion this as a way to stop piracy, but IMO it's simply an excuse to further drive users to the Microsoft monthly fee structure. We stream Netflix free through our Wii. The Playstation network is free. X-Box charges a monthly fee. I'm sure the monthly fee will be going down since they've added hundreds of thousands of servers.

You're misunderstanding this. You don't have to pay for XBL to authenticate your games.

I didn't misunderstand, I never said a subsciption is mandatory. However if it's mandatory for every X-Box owner to create an XBL account it stands to reason that a higher percentage would go ahead and sign up for their service. We have 2 X-Box 360's and neither is hooked up to the internet. If it were mandatory 1 would be usesless as there is no internet at that location.

Statcruncher, on 23 May 2013 - 13:28, said:Third, by forcing the Kinect they're basically forcing the user to buy hardware they may not want.

You don't have to buy Kinect. It comes with the Xbox One.

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

buying used games has gotten me into series that I buy new now. Like Elder Scrolls. I got Oblivion used. I loved it. I bought Skyrim new. Full price plus I bought the very fancy Skyrim book. Someone made a nice profit and I wouldn't have done that without the used experience I had with Oblivion. In fact without used games I probably wouldn't have gotten into console games at all and I never would have bought all the new ones I have.

Oblivion GoTY edition is $18 new. That comes with all the DLC, which I believe would be around $20 itself and would not come with the used version.

Without the DLC Oblivion is $11 new on Amazon. Dear god imagine the chaos if one has to pay 11 freaking dollars for a game that provides ONE HUNDRED HOURS of entertainment.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

buying used games has gotten me into series that I buy new now. Like Elder Scrolls. I got Oblivion used. I loved it. I bought Skyrim new. Full price plus I bought the very fancy Skyrim book. Someone made a nice profit and I wouldn't have done that without the used experience I had with Oblivion. In fact without used games I probably wouldn't have gotten into console games at all and I never would have bought all the new ones I have.

Oblivion GoTY edition is $18 new. That comes with all the DLC, which I believe would be around $20 itself and would not come with the used version.

Without the DLC Oblivion is $11 new on Amazon. Dear god imagine the chaos if one has to pay 11 freaking dollars for a game that provides ONE HUNDRED HOURS of entertainment.

You're STILL doing it wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

buying used games has gotten me into series that I buy new now. Like Elder Scrolls. I got Oblivion used. I loved it. I bought Skyrim new. Full price plus I bought the very fancy Skyrim book. Someone made a nice profit and I wouldn't have done that without the used experience I had with Oblivion. In fact without used games I probably wouldn't have gotten into console games at all and I never would have bought all the new ones I have.

Oblivion GoTY edition is $18 new. That comes with all the DLC, which I believe would be around $20 itself and would not come with the used version.

Without the DLC Oblivion is $11 new on Amazon. Dear god imagine the chaos if one has to pay 11 freaking dollars for a game that provides ONE HUNDRED HOURS of entertainment.

I got it for 12 bucks years ago at Game Stop. it was still out at full price for new when I did. Go ahead and keep being insulting and obtuse if it works for you.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is. Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been. That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way. We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

The prices on PC versions of the same games on consoles drop very quickly. A lot of that is due to the digital distribution model that dominates PC gaming. Game developers can lower their price to $20 after 6 months and know they're getting the entire $20 while they make almost nothing on console games 6 months in due to console users buying used games.

 

[culdeus]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Those figures can't be right.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Those figures can't be right.

Ack, $7.5 billion.

That's in 2012, when the PS3 hardware is selling at a profit and there is a large install base for software.

ETA: Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191983/Sonys_first_profits_in_five_years_no_thanks_to_PlayStation.php

 

[Slapdash]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is. Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been. That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way. We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

The prices on PC versions of the same games on consoles drop very quickly. A lot of that is due to the digital distribution model that dominates PC gaming. Game developers can lower their price to $20 after 6 months and know they're getting the entire $20 while they make almost nothing on console games 6 months in due to console users buying used games.

So we're getting all the downsides of the PC distribution model without the upsidE?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

More: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gamelife/2013/05/sony_profits_2012-660x371.jpg

 

[Worm]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is. Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been. That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way. We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

The prices on PC versions of the same games on consoles drop very quickly. A lot of that is due to the digital distribution model that dominates PC gaming. Game developers can lower their price to $20 after 6 months and know they're getting the entire $20 while they make almost nothing on console games 6 months in due to console users buying used games.

So we're getting all the downsides of the PC distribution model without the upsidE?

We will get the upside. Eventually. In the meantime there will be growing pains.

 

[Slapdash]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is. Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been. That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way. We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

The prices on PC versions of the same games on consoles drop very quickly. A lot of that is due to the digital distribution model that dominates PC gaming. Game developers can lower their price to $20 after 6 months and know they're getting the entire $20 while they make almost nothing on console games 6 months in due to console users buying used games.

So we're getting all the downsides of the PC distribution model without the upsidE?

We will get the upside. Eventually. In the meantime there will be growing pains.

Not sure where the competition is going to come from.

 

[Worm]

I'd also hope that we can get a bit of a price reduction when games drop. I belive that they've always built in the resale aspect into the cost of the game. No resale should = lower cost for the consumer. We'll see.

I wouldn't count on that. Game prices haven't even come close to keeping up with inflation as it is. Games cost more than ever to make and are a far riskier investment than ever before, yet adjusted for the economy, they're as cheap as they've ever been. That's why I don't get why people are so gaga over used games. The behemoths are generally safe, but we see large and very good studios shutting down left and right because they made one below average game to follow up four great ones. Meanwhile on our end we get an absurdly cheap hobby relative to the amount of entertainment it provides, and we want to chop off a few more bucks by sending even less money the developer's way. We all save a negligible 5 bucks on a game and the development studio loses enough to sometimes put them in danger of shutting down shop.

The prices on PC versions of the same games on consoles drop very quickly. A lot of that is due to the digital distribution model that dominates PC gaming. Game developers can lower their price to $20 after 6 months and know they're getting the entire $20 while they make almost nothing on console games 6 months in due to console users buying used games.

So we're getting all the downsides of the PC distribution model without the upsidE?

We will get the upside. Eventually. In the meantime there will be growing pains.

Not sure where the competition is going to come from.

Where does the competition come from on PC? The answer is just simply the spectrum of available games. When sales for a game go down on steam, so does the price. And the sellers can better tell when this should happen because there is no used market and all sales are basically trackable. With the consoles moving towards this model, the dynamic game pricing should happen quicker. Again, eventually.

 

[Hang 10]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The bottom line is that, from a financial standpoint, gaming can't keep doing what it's been doing. Games are too expensive to make, too risky, and too much money is lost in the hardware.

Realistically, games are probably cheaper than they should be. Prices have risen $10 over a time period where inflation should have raised them by $40 alone. That's not even factoring in the significantly higher upfront budget (risk) in getting a game off the ground. That's also not factoring that online play allows us to get far more hours out of a game than we ever have before.

We have two directions we can go for the studios and console manufacturers. Either they can find ways to get more of our money or they can release weaker hardware with lower quality games. Nintendo has given us the option of the latter and we have pretty well rejected the Wii U.

Personally, I vote to spend a little more to keep getting awesome stuff. I've spent a net of around $350 on gaming the last two years and raptr tells me that I've gotten almost 700 hours out of it. That's 50 cents per hour. I can't speak for everyone else, but those gaming hours aren't just passing time, they involved significant amounts of funawesomeness.

Meanwhile, I went on a long ski weekend this winter and dropped around a grand for around 20 hours of skiing. That's $50/hour. If I buy a new lens for my DSLR quiver it costs enough to buy both next gen consoles. If I go to the movies it costs $10+ for two hours if I never buy soda/popcorn. I can probably read books for 700 hours for around the same price as gaming but I prefer my stories to be told with awesome explosions and high powered graphics over words to a page.

Gaming could probably quadruple in price and it would still be far and away the best value for my money from an entertainment standpoint. But game companies aren't stupid. They know that we gamers are a demanding and fickle group of consumers and that a significant hike in upfront costs would cause many of us to spite ourselves by switching to a hobby that is more expensive and provides less enjoyment. Instead, those costs are being shifted other places like DLC and getting a cut of the used game market.

As long as I keep getting awesome games, I'm ok with it. There's no small amount of money that I would take to have missed out on the awesome experience that was Mass Effect, or Bioshock, or any dozens of other games.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

That's the one thing Nintendo has done right.

 

[culdeus]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

yeah, I don't get this either.

 

[Worm]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

I don't know about the Xbox, but Sony's entire architcture is being changed in the transition from the PS3 to PS4. Getting a PS3 game to play on a PS4 isn't "backwards compatibility" as much as it's a port to an entirely different piece of hardware. I'm sure the likes of Uncharted will get a port, but my guess is that it will be comparable to the HD remastered versions of GOW, RE4, ICO, and stuff like that. In other words, not the norm.

 

[Hang 10]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

I'm sure that's what they say but I don't believe it. Do bluray players not play regular dvds? The first PS3's they made were BC. Was it a technology issue when they stopped making the newer models BC?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

No backwards compatibility of PS3/360 disc games onto the PS4/XB1 makes sense. Unlike other platforms, console games are tightly tied to their architecture. That's why we can get these high end, complex, awesome looking games on hardware that's 10 years old and would barely run Doom 2 if it were a PC. That's also why emulators run so far behind, they're trying to run games that are optimized for a different architecture with raw computing power (enough to emulate that architecture). You don't see PCs running emulators for the 360/PS3, which is essentially what these new consoles would have to do. Heck, is there even a PS2 emulator on PCs yet?

What irks me is the lack of PSN/XBLA games on the PS3/360. I would think that even without the architecture tie-in boost they could run most of those games on pure computing power alone. Maybe not all of them, but I see no reason why the new consoles couldn't handle the Perfect Dark N64 port that I bought on XBLA.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

On a related note, it's pretty ####ed how one's Xbox Live Arcade games don't carry over to the Xbox One even though you'll be carrying over your Xbox Live account. Though they've "made sure" our Xbox Live 'identity' is the same by carrying over Xbox Live Arcade achievements!

Any word on if Sony is doing the same by not letting PSN games that you bought for your PSN account to carry over?

 

[Hang 10]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

That's the one thing Nintendo has done right.

Oh, I'M SURE they will be available to purchase AGAIN.

 

[Slapdash]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Those figures can't be right.

Ack, $7.5 billion.

That's in 2012, when the PS3 hardware is selling at a profit and there is a large install base for software.

ETA: Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191983/Sonys_first_profits_in_five_years_no_thanks_to_PlayStation.php

A ten percent profit margin seems pretty good to me.

 

[Run It Up]

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

Yeah, they should totally make a public emulator so you can play Xbox and 360 games on pc.But of course then they couldn't resell those games to you through the marketplace.

 

[Copeman]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

On a related note, it's pretty ####ed how one's Xbox Live Arcade games don't carry over to the Xbox One even though you'll be carrying over your Xbox Live account. Though they've "made sure" our Xbox Live 'identity' is the same by carrying over Xbox Live Arcade achievements!

Any word on if Sony is doing the same by not letting PSN games that you bought for your PSN account to carry over?

I don't think this stuff carries over. Sony said something about how they're hoping to develop some version of BC through Gaikai, but that won't be a launch feature and they didn't say anything about it being free.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

Older systems break down?

 

[Hang 10]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

This is stupid for a couple reasons.

1. If you Xbox360 hasn't gotten the red ring of death yet...it will.

2. If this new xbox is really the media hub that it's supposed to be, I should be able to put less AV #### in my entertainment center, not more.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

That, at best, the bolded is a very inconvenient thing to do; assuming you don't have 2 big screen TVs.

 

[Slapdash]

By the way, does anyone here actually have a WiiU? I see they're finally putting out a Super Smash Brothers. Is the Wii U backwards compatible?

 

[SlaX]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

I'm sure that's what they say but I don't believe it. Do bluray players not play regular dvds? The first PS3's they made were BC. Was it a technology issue when they stopped making the newer models BC?

According to Sony, it was. There was an additional circuit board that was built into the first batch of PS3's to make them BC. Cutting the circuit boards, helped them recoop some of the losses they were taking on that first batch.

 

[SlaX]

No backwards compatibility of PS3/360 disc games onto the PS4/XB1 makes sense. Unlike other platforms, console games are tightly tied to their architecture. That's why we can get these high end, complex, awesome looking games on hardware that's 10 years old and would barely run Doom 2 if it were a PC. That's also why emulators run so far behind, they're trying to run games that are optimized for a different architecture with raw computing power (enough to emulate that architecture). You don't see PCs running emulators for the 360/PS3, which is essentially what these new consoles would have to do. Heck, is there even a PS2 emulator on PCs yet?

What irks me is the lack of PSN/XBLA games on the PS3/360. I would think that even without the architecture tie-in boost they could run most of those games on pure computing power alone. Maybe not all of them, but I see no reason why the new consoles couldn't handle the Perfect Dark N64 port that I bought on XBLA.

Yes, for several years now. I've had some success with some games, others still won't play for ####.

I'd be more interested in XBLA/PSN games being moved over to the new system than BC.

 

[Hang 10]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

I'm sure that's what they say but I don't believe it. Do bluray players not play regular dvds? The first PS3's they made were BC. Was it a technology issue when they stopped making the newer models BC?

According to Sony, it was. There was an additional circuit board that was built into the first batch of PS3's to make them BC. Cutting the circuit boards, helped them recoop some of the losses they were taking on that first batch.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact they were still selling PS2's.

 

[Copeman]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

That, at best, the bolded is a very inconvenient thing to do; assuming you don't have 2 big screen TVs.

It would take me a minute to change them out. Tops.

 

[Statcruncher]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Buying used games is a loophole? It's the way it's always been ever since the first Pong game console came out, it's not a loophole. I'm sorry they're losing money, but it's not my fault. They help set the gaming market and used games have been for sale forever. If they lose money on a console they sold under these existing circumstances that is their problem. Like I said I understand their desire to change direction and keep more money in house, just like Microsoft understands there will be backlash with their proposed changes.

And you do know that Microsoft could have easily instituted a trade-in for credit/used games business themselves right? If they hadn't simply ignored the issue instead of continuing to act as if Gamestop didn't exist they could have been the trendsetter in the gaming market. Instead, their image is coming off worse.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

On a related note, it's pretty ####ed how one's Xbox Live Arcade games don't carry over to the Xbox One even though you'll be carrying over your Xbox Live account. Though they've "made sure" our Xbox Live 'identity' is the same by carrying over Xbox Live Arcade achievements!

Any word on if Sony is doing the same by not letting PSN games that you bought for your PSN account to carry over?

I don't think this stuff carries over. Sony said something about how they're hoping to develop some version of BC through Gaikai, but that won't be a launch feature and they didn't say anything about it being free.

So PSN accounts don't carry over or just games bought via PSN don't carry over?

 

[Copeman]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

This stupid for a couple reasons.

1. If you Xbox360 hasn't gotten the red ring of death yet...it will.

2. If this new xbox is really the media hub that it's supposed to be, I should be able to put less AV #### in my entertainment center, not more.

Sorry for being "stupid", when I merely asked a question.

 

[Hang 10]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

This stupid for a couple reasons.

1. If you Xbox360 hasn't gotten the red ring of death yet...it will.

2. If this new xbox is really the media hub that it's supposed to be, I should be able to put less AV #### in my entertainment center, not more.

Sorry for being "stupid", when I merely asked a question.

Never said you were stupid. Don't be so sensitive.

 

[SlaX]

By the way, does anyone here actually have a WiiU? I see they're finally putting out a Super Smash Brothers. Is the Wii U backwards compatible?

Wii U is completely backwards compatible with Wii games. But won't play Gamecube games like the Wii did. Nintendo is good about making their hardware backwards compatible. But the Wii U isn't selling.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

I'm sure that's what they say but I don't believe it. Do bluray players not play regular dvds? The first PS3's they made were BC. Was it a technology issue when they stopped making the newer models BC?

Yes, there was extra hardware in the original PS3 to emulate PS2 games including an additional processor and an actual PS2 GPU, I believe. The first removed the additional CPU and released a version that could play some PS2 games via emulation with the PS2 GPU. Finally they removed the extra hardware entirely and released the smaller PS3 slim at 66% of the price of the original PS3.

 

[SlaX]

Just stopped into say, what an absolute joke that they don't make these machines backwards compatible. Way to completely #### over your loyal customers that bought the last 2 xboxs.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft "choosing" to screw anyone over. The fact is the architecture/builds of the two machines are not similar enough to allow backwards compatibility, and doing so would have had a HUGE cost impact on the next gen system, which would be passed on to you.

I'm sure that's what they say but I don't believe it. Do bluray players not play regular dvds? The first PS3's they made were BC. Was it a technology issue when they stopped making the newer models BC?

According to Sony, it was. There was an additional circuit board that was built into the first batch of PS3's to make them BC. Cutting the circuit boards, helped them recoop some of the losses they were taking on that first batch.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact they were still selling PS2's.

It could be. That first batch of PS3s are basically collectors items now. They go for more than they did at launch on eBay.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've played a few PS2 games on my original 60gb PS3. It's nice to have the option.

And they don't go for that much on eBay. I'll keep it 'til it dies.

 

[Slapdash]

By the way, does anyone here actually have a WiiU? I see they're finally putting out a Super Smash Brothers. Is the Wii U backwards compatible?

Wii U is completely backwards compatible with Wii games. But won't play Gamecube games like the Wii did. Nintendo is good about making their hardware backwards compatible. But the Wii U isn't selling.

Ah. I only have a handful of Wii games but still a lot of Gamecube. May check it out for Super Smash Brothers if the online play has improved.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Regarding BC.

I wonder if they won't be BC with the discs themselves but will (nearly) all be available as low cost purchases through Xbox Live/PSN.

On a related note, it's pretty ####ed how one's Xbox Live Arcade games don't carry over to the Xbox One even though you'll be carrying over your Xbox Live account. Though they've "made sure" our Xbox Live 'identity' is the same by carrying over Xbox Live Arcade achievements!

Any word on if Sony is doing the same by not letting PSN games that you bought for your PSN account to carry over?

You won't be able to carry over any games on either system. It's not a matter of what they want to do, the architecture is completely different. It's literally impossible. They'd have to include a specific chip in the system just to create a virtual console on the board to do that. You'd probably add another $100-200 per system to do that.

The thing is, with both the XB1 and PS4 using a similar architecture and one that is much more PC-like, porting should be much easier between platforms. So new games will take a lot less effort to develop. That's ultimately a good thing.

And to me, backwards compatibility only seems to matter if you're either jumping in after not having a previous console or you're moving from one platform to the other. If you already have a 360, why would you care that the XB1 isn't backwards compatible? Just keep your 360.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Those figures can't be right.

Ack, $7.5 billion.

That's in 2012, when the PS3 hardware is selling at a profit and there is a large install base for software.

ETA: Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191983/Sonys_first_profits_in_five_years_no_thanks_to_PlayStation.php

A ten percent profit margin seems pretty good to me.

Where are you getting 10% from?

Also, keep in mind this was one of the only years they turned a profit at all since 2005.

 

[Copeman]

I don't understand the issue with backwards compatibility. If you want to play your older games, simply hook your older system up and play them. What am I missing?

This stupid for a couple reasons.

1. If you Xbox360 hasn't gotten the red ring of death yet...it will.

2. If this new xbox is really the media hub that it's supposed to be, I should be able to put less AV #### in my entertainment center, not more.

Sorry for being "stupid", when I merely asked a question.

Never said you were stupid.

Right. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

How often, other than the gaming nerds who play 5 hours a day, play their older games when they get a new system and new games come out? I would venture to say not many.

 

[Slapdash]

You may not have to purchase it separately, but I'm pretty sure the cost of it will be factored into their pricing.

As we've both pointed out I'm not their target demographic. I'm a guy who legally buys their products and plays their games. They don't get as much money out of me as they could, but I'm doing everything completely legal. Their moves are designed to squeeze more money out of people like me, and I understand that. However, that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. If they decide to continue on their path I will not be a customer. I will probably be the guy buying all the suddenly cheap X-Box 360 games at Gamestop/Ebay.

So to summarize, you're upset that they're closing a loophole that allows you to legally be a customer of their business that loses their company money. You're certainly more than free to just stick with the 360 for the next 10 years and keep doing what you're doing, but I don't see how you can blame game companies for deciding that it's not in their best interest to fund another retailers profits at their expense.

The Playstation division has made $17 million in profit on $75 billion in revenue and takes a huge risk every time a new console generation flips over. That's not an investment that can continue the same way it has been.

Those figures can't be right.

Ack, $7.5 billion.

That's in 2012, when the PS3 hardware is selling at a profit and there is a large install base for software.

ETA: Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191983/Sonys_first_profits_in_five_years_no_thanks_to_PlayStation.php

A ten percent profit margin seems pretty good to me.

Where are you getting 10% from?

Also, keep in mind this was one of the only years they turned a profit at all since 2005.

7.5/75 Unless you are saying it is .017/7.5