Blogcritics

Backwards Compatibility is a Feature Customers Want, Expect

Ken Edwards — Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:51:47 EDT

Editor's Note: This is a Point/Counter Point discussion between Matt Paprocki and Ken Edwards on the backwards compatibility of games on the Xbox 360. Please let us know what you think of this issue in your comments below. Check back soon to read more on this topic. If you have not already, please read the previous articles in this discussion.

Microsoft will provide what their customers want. They will bend over backwards, especially in Japan, to get an Xbox 360 (and a nice Samsung HDTV) into your living room. Granted, they are working against an unknown (the PlayStation 3) but until Sony drops to Number 2 in the market, Microsoft will always need to match, and exceed Sony any way possible.

If Microsoft's customers did not want, or care, about backwards compatibility, we would not be having this discussion. But they (we) do care about it. In the book The Xbox 360 Uncloaked, backwards compatibility is not just mentioned in one small part, but throughout the entire book.

It is a topic that Microsoft does not take lightly because this is what the customers want and expect. Since the launch of the PS2, we have come to expect backwards compatibility, for better or worse. I leave that for you to decide.

With a report of the PS3 including the PS2 hardware for backwards compatibility, and the Nintendo Wii using the same family of processors as the GameCube, Microsoft needs to have feature parity with its competition, and when possible, exceed it.

I am not at all concerned with die-hard gamers. I don't think Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony are either.

My point revolves around the "casual gamer." People not like Matt and myself, who do not game everyday, buy or rent games every week, and follow the industry almost by the minute. Casual gamers are the "it" demographic that everyone is targeting right now. This is because it is the demographic that will grow the gaming industry.

Die-hard gamers will buy Outrun 2006, King of Fighters NeoWave, Panzer Dragoon, etc., to play on their Xbox. They will not be getting rid of that system. They will not store it in the closet to make room for The Next Big Thing. In fact, most die-hard gamers wouldn't dream of playing their games on a console other than the one the game was designed for -- to a point, that is sacrilegious.

But Xbox 360 owners are notall die-hard gamers. Sure, a large percentage of the early adopters are from the die-hard crowd, but that is the way it works. Far more "casual gamers" will purchase the system over time, and will want the convenience of backwards compatibility.

Running the previous generation software is really a happy medium. It is good for both camps. And this does not just apply to consoles, or computers for that matter. It applies to many things. Why is the HD-DVD format backwards compatible with the DVD-9 format? That, my friend, is convenience (among other things, but lets not stray too far here).

But getting back to the Xbox 360, there are 775 Xbox titles, according to Xbox.com, and 207 of them will run on the 360. I cannot vouch for how well they run of course, but they are said to run on the 360. That means, as of today, roughly 26% of the Xbox's library runs on the 360. That’s nice and all, but hardly enough.

Obscure Xbox titles work on the 360 too, but this is mainly due to shear dumb luck than anything else. If the engine ofX number of games are compatible, those X number of games run -- which is great (especially for those Barbie Horse Adventures fans out there).

Knowing a console supports, or will support backwards compatible games, is the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down. I enjoyed my GBA a lot more because I could play any game from the GameBoy library on it. I enjoyed my DS a lot more because I could play any game from the GBA on it. The same goes for the PS2.

The launch of any system is the most crucial time for backwards compatibility. Until the market is flooded with new games for the new console, the old ones are there to hold us over. But I still have some GameBoy, GBA, and PS1 games that I play, and not on their original hardware.

Casual gamers are going to want to play the games. It doesn't matter if it originally sold one million, or one hundred copies. They just want to play them, and they don't care about all this techno-mumbo-jumble.

Peter Moore, like executives at Nintendo and Sony, has to appease both gamer demographics -- not an easy thing to do. A year ago May he had this to say on the subject: "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new "version" -- your original games will work on Xbox 360." Of course, he just said this: "nobody is concerned anymore about backwards compatibility."

Did he lie? Did he break his promise? He broke a promise of good faith. Sony has done this many times with the PS2 and PS3. But Microsoft has been very up-front about the Xbox and Xbox 360. And remember: it doesn't matter what he said, what matters is how it was received. We all know it made a lot of people, myself included, angry.

Moore pulled a full one-eighty on the issue. Both the Gamerscore Blog and Larry Hryb (Major Nelson) have been back peddling for him this week. Hryb even devoted a portion of hispodcast to reaffirming Microsoft's commitment for backwards compatibility. Now why would he do that?

Ken Edwards is the Gaming Editor at Blogcritics. Usually going by the title "Professional Student," he both works and goes to school part time at BGSU. Ken works for Student Publications as the Webmaster and System Administrator.

]]>

Backwards Compatibility is a Wasted, Unneccesary Financial Risk

Matt Paprocki — Mon, 5 Jun 2006 02:15:03 EDT

The Xbox 360 is a different piece of hardware. Backwards compatibility is an issue because of this, and the cost to implement new emulators for games isn't cheap. Ken's right to say that newly released titles for the original Xbox should be ready to go on the 360 when they launch.

In theory, that's a great idea. In execution, it's not worth the time. How many people out there are buying the new Outrun? King of Fighters NeoWave? Why should Microsoft be worried about niche titles like these when they could be spending money in their gaming division on countless other things?

When it comes down to it, games like King of Fighters are aimed right at the die-hard audience. These gamers have an Xbox, and most likely a 360. They're not going to give up their old hardware, special controllers, and game saves just to say "I played King of Fighters on my 360." That continues to dwindle the number of people who would be playing this game on the 360 hardware, and NeoWave is hardly lighting up sales charts. Is it then logical to create an emulator that only a handful of people will ever use?

The issue seems to be turning into "what Microsoft promised." In strict marketing terms, there's nothing on the box that says it will be compatible with all Xbox games. There are no flyers or posters in stores that say all games will be playable. Why? Because they never promised it. A quote in a magazine is not a promise; it's a discussion, and one that's being blown completely out of proportion by people who believe they need something they really don't.

Ken also seems to think that backwards compatibility sells consoles. This is where you need to step back and think of the reasons you buy a video game system. Why would anyone NOT buy a 360? Maybe they don't like the game selection, don't have access to Xbox Live, or they would prefer to move over to Sony's and/or Nintendo's camp. That's fine, but to think Microsoft will lose sales (or even excessive market share) because the audience can't play Panzer Dragoon is absurd. You buy a new game console to buy new games, period.

It's hard to defend the Barbie Horse Adventure scenario, too. It's doubtful Microsoft will ever live this one down, and they have no one to blame but themselves for not making it clear enough. "Best selling games" being backwards compatible is a statement that will forever haunt them.

Maybe it's time for a different perspective though. Think to yourself, aside from all the pricing issues and features debate, would the ability to play Madden '98 on your Playstation 3 be a make it/break it deal for you? How often do you see yourself playing ANY Playstation 1 games on your shiny new Spiderman font-inspired Playstation 3?

After a few weeks, you wouldn't think twice about it. You're far too engrossed in gorgeous new worlds and franchises to even think about having the time to go back and enjoy older games you used to play. If anything, this could be seen as a bad thing for the industry, pulling sales away from increased budget next-generation games and putting money into the hands of a developer who spent far less.

The latter is an admittedly weak argument, but there is a point to be extracted from it. This isn't a consumer-based problem. This isn't a broken promise scenario. It's a financial one, and if people are not putting Xbox games into their Xbox 360's, why should Microsoft continue to waste their time?

It's time for some true soul checking if you believe backwards compatibility is a needed feature. Ask yourself this one question:

"Have I played/have any desire to play Drake of the 99 Dragons on my Xbox 360?"

I'd be willing to bet the answer is no, and since they're still losing money on the hardware, it's only logical for Microsoft to say the same thing.

Be sure to check back to see Ken's response later this week.

Matt Paprocki is the reviews editor for Digital Press, a classic video game website which he called home after his fanzine (Gaming Source) published its final issue. The deep game collection which spans nearly 30 systems and 2,000 games line his walls for reasearch purposes. Really.

]]>

Backwards Compatibility and Xbox 360: The Feature That Brings You Back

Ken Edwards — Sat, 3 Jun 2006 15:20:24 EDT

Counter Point
Microsoft has been in an uphill battle since before Day One of the Xbox. They need to sell consoles. And right now the Xbox 360 is, again, facing an uphill battle, this time against the PS3. They might have been first out of the gate, they might have the software right now, but Sony is not going to give up their market share without a fight.

In order to sell consoles, you need to appeal to the widest audience possible. One of the many ways to do this is with backwards compatibility. Microsoft is not doing all it can to stay one step ahead of the competition, and has dropped the ball on backwards compatibility.

But there is no excuse when an Xbox game released after the launch of the 360 cannot run on the 360. BLACK finally runs on the 360. OutRun 2006 Coast 2 Coast does not. There are countless other Xbox titles that have been released since November, and hardly any of them will run on the Xbox 360.

I would play more Xbox games, like OutRun 2006 Coast 2 Coast, more often if I could play them on my 360. Why? Matt already nailed that one. Because it is convenient. More Xbox software would be sold if it were fully compatible with the Xbox 360.

As of this writing, there are 207 Xbox titles that will run on the Xbox 360. There is another update coming soon. This is great news, and I am glad to hear it. They are making headway.

But Peter Moore's comments could not have come at a worse time, especially seeing as the backwards compatibility team is readying another major update. But it was bad timing for many reasons. Simply put, backwards compatibility sells consoles.

Now, I am not saying that I bought my PS2 because it plays PS1 games, but I did play quite a lot of PS1 games on my PS2 -- and well after the "wow" factor wore off. I jumped on the Sony bandwagon late mainly because of the great library of Dreamcast games, and so I enjoyed quite a lot of PS1 titles on my PS2. But truthfully, that is beside the point.

For Microsoft to sell as many Xbox 360s as it can, they must realize the importance of their back catalog of previous generation software. And they have, considering they have poured so many resources into emulating the Intel and Nvidia chipsets on the Xbox 360. But they need to be doing more.

Today, in 2006, I can pick up a PS1 game and play it on my PS2. There are very few exceptions in the PS1 library that will not run on the PS2. I should not have to even own a PS1, that is irrelevant. It has to do with a feature that has become commonplace in the industry. It is something customers want.

Sony has stated that the PS3 will support both PS1 and PS2 games. The Nintendo Wii will play GameCube games. The Xbox 360 might play your Xbox games. That is not the best situation for Microsoft to be in.

Touching on the Nintendo Wii for a moment, they have a Virtual Console. This is Nintendo's way of (other than sucking our wallets dry) providing backwards compatibility at a reasonably low price. While the Wii is not backwards compatible with the NES, it will emulate those games. Backwards compatibility is a Very Good Thing.

While I do not agree with the argument, I do believe the importance of convenience has been overlooked. The reason for backwards compatibility is to push sales, sometimes well after their prime. It also keeps people playing your games and your system longer. This also pushes sales, no matter what generation of hardware the game runs on. Mindshare is as important as marketshare.

Convenience is more important than you think. I like the 360 controller better, and I like playing my Xbox games on my 360 more. I don't even have to turn on my Xbox, let alone deal with wired controllers, etc., etc.

Even though Forza Motorsport looked great on the Xbox, it looks even better on the 360. It took them two tries (it was dog slow before the first major backwards compatibility update) but it runs smooth as can be now. It also runs at a higher resolution.

Is it worth sacrificing your save files to run on the 360? That is a call you will have to make. But I have used the backwards compatibility feature a lot.

How many people are playing Halo 2 right now? It is still the top played Xbox Live game, six months after the launch of the 360. How many of those people are playing Halo 2 on their Xbox 360? That would be an interesting stat to see. Why would people play Halo 2 on the 360 when they could be playing on the Xbox? Because it is "better."

Microsoft's commitment to backwards compatibility stretches back to even the original Halo. If a game from 2001 can make the list, there is no reason the rest can't as well. It has nothing to do with being "the best selling titles" -- that is marketing speak.

Barbie Horse Adventures was a black eye for Microsoft, and something often used against them, even to take shots at Peter Moore. When Barbie worked out of the box, and Splinter Cell (the series) was broken, that was a bad day for backwards compatibility.

Microsoft has and will continue to throw as much money at the Xbox 360 as they need to. This is Microsoft, they will because they can. They will continue to support, and pour resources into backwards compatibility because it is a big part of this generation of hardware. Not only that, it is a firm platform to build on for future generations of game consoles.

To sum it up, backwards compatibility is a vehicle to drive sales, both now and in the future, and to keep product in the hands of consumers even longer than originally intended. The costs involved in backwards compatibility on the Xbox 360 are not just for short-term benefits, but also for many years down the road.

Matt Paprocki has responded with his own points regarding this issue.

]]>

Backwards Compatibility and Xbox 360: The Feature You Don't Need

Matt Paprocki — Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:13:26 EDT

Point
This week, Microsoft's Vice President of their video game division, Peter Moore, made a statement that sent video game fans, specifically Xbox 360 owners, into a frenzy. He stated the company was done with backwards compatibility for the Xbox 360 as there was no interest in it. While the emulation team designated to develop the software to run Xbox games on the new hardware stated they were still working on this aspect of the system, it's time to step back and realize Peter Moore is right.

There is one, and only one, reason for backwards compatibility between hardware generations: convenience. It's not needed, it's not a system seller, and it doesn't make your old games obsolete, plus, in the case of the Xbox 360, wastes countless dollars for a feature few will use. Emulation is a tricky process, but to emulate Xbox titles is an agonizingly slow process. They have 200 titles ready to go after originally stating "the best selling titles" would be playable. For the most part, they've delivered on that promise.

It's easy to say that "Panzer Dragoon doesn't work, but Barbie does!" Why? Does it matter? Are you really that excited to play the same exact game you can already play on your Xbox on new hardware? Do you want to start over from scratch, because your game saves are not making the trip?

In other words, who does want/need backwards compatibility? No one. A surprising number of arguments are out there, yet it's easy to debunk nearly all of them.

"But I have X number of games for the my Xbox! How will I play them?"

Gee, I don't know. How about using the Xbox system you played them on before?

"But I sold it!"

Then you're out of luck. Microsoft said they would have liked all the games to work, but it's a long shot. Selling your old systems will only come back to haunt you in the end.

"But I don't have the space or the inputs on my TV!"

If you want to play those games, make the space. It's not hard to shove something else under a TV on an entertainment center. Yes, actual physical labor may be needed, though you'd be surprised by the results.

If the TV itself is the problem with a lack of needed inputs, head down to any mass retailer and buy a switchbox for about $10.

"Ok, I never bought an Xbox. However, it has a lot of games I want to play. If I buy a 360, I can't play those games I missed."

If you haven't bought an Xbox by now, waiting a little longer for a reasonable price drop shouldn't be a problem. Enjoy the 360 for the games it has, not the games that are not intended for it.

There's also a business perspective to consider. With the cost involved, does it make sense to continually support a small market? How many people regularly play PS One games on their PS2? It was something we all tried when we brought the system home and then put it to rest later when we realized how much new software needed our time.

To sum it up, backwards compatibility is a marketing term, nothing more. No one refused to buy a Super Nintendo because it didn't play NES titles. We were all too excited to play Super Mario World to stick around Mario 3 any longer. When we got the urge for a Mario 3 run, we played it on the NES. The convenience is there for those rare sessions. The rest of the time you should be enjoying the things you bought the system for.

Ken Edwards has responded with his counter point regarding this issue.

]]>