SvennoJ said:
Pemalite said:
Microsoft doesn't have the source code for most games, so they aren't recompiling.
Rather... They are using a mix of approaches like emulation, repackaging, binary translation, virtualization and abstraction, hence why they can emulate Xbox 360 games on such anemic jaguar CPU cores when a PC needs a Ryzen class CPU.
The Xbox One hardware also features support for things like the Xbox 360 texture format standards, which shows that Microsoft was planning Backwards compat before the Xbox One launched.
|
Semantics, recompiling the binary source. Anyway, sounds like a lot of work and effort for a little used function.
It doesn't matter in the end. I doubt the same people working on BC would have been pumping out AAA exclusives instead. It's a great feature, just not one that gets me excited for a new generation. It's really only good for the first year drought, focusing on eliminating that would be better imo.
|
Microsoft/Developers/Publishers are profiting out of it, they put these games up on the store for sale with the compatible DLC. - And occasionally does some discounting and promoting.
It also aids in game preservation.
So I would assume that Backwards Compatibility has paid for itself.
Backwards compatibility isn't a requirement for me personally, I retain my old consoles, but it generally does mean I only need a single console from a single manufacturer rather than all of them, which frees up space. - Then I can toss the old machines into the games room.
eva01beserk said:
kirby007 said:
it probably doesn't provide sales but it is a service, you know things that benefit the buyer? probably not
|
The kinect added features to the x1. Did that benefit buyers? Turns out most dint care for it and would rather save their money.
Extra fetures are always good. But they will not be the reason to buy the consoles. Almost like topings on a pizza. Your there for the pizza, if your favorite topping is not available you will probably get something else on it. Your not gona buy a burger in spite.
|
Kinect also raised the price and potentially removed "other" features like extra GPU and DRAM capabilities.
Price is probably a larger factor on success than many are willing to admit though.
Extra features are value-added incentives, not everyone cares for them, not everyone will use them, but it's a selling point towards those who do want those individual features.
I.E. HDMI pass through was awesome for a small subset of users.
Mr Puggsly said:
Agreed, but I think PS3 is the only example we have where BC may have added significant costs. Frankly, that wasn't even necessary given Sony did make a great PS2 emulator for PS3 eventually. Ideally Sony should have just made it software emulation from the start and improve it over time via updates.
Essentially the same thing MS did for OG Xbox on 360, but MS half assed and ended support while many games were still buggy.
|
The most economical approaches to backwards compatibility has usually been when manufacturers have used older system chips for newer system functionality.
I.E. They used the PS1 CPU as the I/O processor.
And the Gameboy advance can use the Gameboy processor to aid in Audio tasks.
Or based a newer design on an older one. I.E. WiiU based on Wii which is based on Gamecube.
It's when you take the Playstation 3 approach and essentially include the entire PS2 hardware inside the PS3 that costs can spiral out of control, because you are simply just duplicating hardware at that point.
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
