Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
So I've been scouring ebay for a copy of Spider-Man Shattered Dimensions to add to the small PS3 collection that I've held on to. It is quite a fun little Spidey game.
The prices on it are stupid. 70 bucks for a copy. :mad:
@Jazz, agreed. Granted, the PS2's library is so vast that it would be surprising to see what passes for backwards compatibility, today, support enough titles to be more than a drop in the ocean. But I think the enormous gulf between the modest list of classics reintroduced on PS4/PS5, invariably requiring a new purchase, and those supported via the efforts of unpaid hobbyists, is an indictment of Sony's approach to backwards compatibility.
In which the console maker and the largely disinterested publisher of long-dormant titles and, in some cases, forgotten franchises, must turn their keys at the same time as if they are conducting missile drills. Because otherwise, it would only be possible to support the game by playing or installing it off the original disc. As opposed to some $60 remaster or no-frills $20 digital re-release. And who finds that compelling? Apart from millions of gamers, I mean. But they're clearly not part of a growing trend of sustained interest in retro games. I mean, as current PlayStation boss Jim Ryan famously put it, referring to old Gran Turismo titles, "like why would anybody play this?”
Not to let Microsoft off the hook here. Supporting around 40% of the Xbox 360's library, with a whitelist they stopped updating in 2019, only looks good by way of comparison. The claims of supporting all generations of Xbox on Series X are eyebrow-raising, when one observes that just over 4% of Original Xbox games are on the compatibility list. That's down, dramatically, from over 40% of OG Xbox titles supported on Xbox 360. It would seem that, contrary to the prevailing narrative, top brass at Redmond have increasingly embraced former Xbox division head Don Mattrick's philosophy that, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,"
@Stormwatcher, agreed. And as long as PS3s work, and the time servers remain up, my games stuck on PS3 are fine, too. But those "other means" are, increasingly, the prevailing light source on the horizon for digital preservation.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
@Jazz, agreed. Granted, the PS2's library is so vast that it would be surprising to see what passes for backwards compatibility, today, support enough titles to be more than a drop in the ocean. But I think the enormous gulf between the modest list of classics reintroduced on PS4/PS5, invariably requiring a new purchase, and those supported via the efforts of unpaid hobbyists, is an indictment of Sony's approach to backwards compatibility.
In which the console maker and the largely disinterested publisher of long-dormant titles and, in some cases, forgotten franchises, must turn their keys at the same time as if they are conducting missile drills. Because otherwise, it would only be possible to support the game by playing or installing it off the original disc. As opposed to some $60 remaster or no-frills $20 digital re-release. And who finds that compelling? Apart from millions of gamers, I mean. But they're clearly not part of a growing trend of sustained interest in retro games. I mean, as current PlayStation boss Jim Ryan famously put it, referring to old Gran Turismo titles, "like why would anybody play this?”
Not to let Microsoft off the hook here. Supporting around 40% of the Xbox 360's library, with a whitelist they stopped updating in 2019, only looks good by way of comparison. The claims of supporting all generations of Xbox on Series X are eyebrow-raising, when one observes that just over 4% of Original Xbox games are on the compatibility list. That's down, dramatically, from over 40% of OG Xbox titles supported on Xbox 360. It would seem that, contrary to the prevailing narrative, top brass at Redmond have increasingly embraced former Xbox division head Don Mattrick's philosophy that, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,"
@Stormwatcher, agreed. And as long as PS3s work, and the time servers remain up, my games stuck on PS3 are fine, too. But those "other means" are, increasingly, the prevailing light source on the horizon for digital preservation.
Stating that MS "shouldn't be let off the hook" misunderstands the process of their BC completely. Companies can either request or merely give them the okay for the BC (it does not cost money from everything I've heard). When a title isn't on there? It's because the company directly said no or at least did not bother to say yes. In some cases, this would be because the right's owner is no one, or a file cabinet in some lawyer's office somewhere.
@Jazz, agreed. Granted, the PS2's library is so vast that it would be surprising to see what passes for backwards compatibility, today, support enough titles to be more than a drop in the ocean. But I think the enormous gulf between the modest list of classics reintroduced on PS4/PS5, invariably requiring a new purchase, and those supported via the efforts of unpaid hobbyists, is an indictment of Sony's approach to backwards compatibility.
In which the console maker and the largely disinterested publisher of long-dormant titles and, in some cases, forgotten franchises, must turn their keys at the same time as if they are conducting missile drills. Because otherwise, it would only be possible to support the game by playing or installing it off the original disc. As opposed to some $60 remaster or no-frills $20 digital re-release. And who finds that compelling? Apart from millions of gamers, I mean. But they're clearly not part of a growing trend of sustained interest in retro games. I mean, as current PlayStation boss Jim Ryan famously put it, referring to old Gran Turismo titles, "like why would anybody play this?”
Not to let Microsoft off the hook here. Supporting around 40% of the Xbox 360's library, with a whitelist they stopped updating in 2019, only looks good by way of comparison. The claims of supporting all generations of Xbox on Series X are eyebrow-raising, when one observes that just over 4% of Original Xbox games are on the compatibility list. That's down, dramatically, from over 40% of OG Xbox titles supported on Xbox 360. It would seem that, contrary to the prevailing narrative, top brass at Redmond have increasingly embraced former Xbox division head Don Mattrick's philosophy that, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,"
@Stormwatcher, agreed. And as long as PS3s work, and the time servers remain up, my games stuck on PS3 are fine, too. But those "other means" are, increasingly, the prevailing light source on the horizon for digital preservation.
Stating that MS "shouldn't be let off the hook" misunderstands the process of their BC completely. Companies can either request or merely give them the okay for the BC (it does not cost money from everything I've heard). When a title isn't on there? It's because the company directly said no or at least did not bother to say yes. In some cases, this would be because the right's owner is no one, or a file cabinet in some lawyer's office somewhere.
No, I understand their process of backwards compatibility. Loading the game disc initiates a download from MS servers. Which is a form of digital distribution that requires the publisher's approval.
That was a choice, however.
Supporting the reading of the game off the disc, playing the contents directly from the game disc, and possibly installing the files off the game disc on the console, on the other hand, was an option they could have pursued without so much as the formality of informing the publisher, before or after the fact. Let alone having to have our people call your people, and generate reams of paperwork to receive, on their wax seals, the signet ring impressions of various bigwigs and muckety-mucks.
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
@Jazz, agreed. Granted, the PS2's library is so vast that it would be surprising to see what passes for backwards compatibility, today, support enough titles to be more than a drop in the ocean. But I think the enormous gulf between the modest list of classics reintroduced on PS4/PS5, invariably requiring a new purchase, and those supported via the efforts of unpaid hobbyists, is an indictment of Sony's approach to backwards compatibility.
In which the console maker and the largely disinterested publisher of long-dormant titles and, in some cases, forgotten franchises, must turn their keys at the same time as if they are conducting missile drills. Because otherwise, it would only be possible to support the game by playing or installing it off the original disc. As opposed to some $60 remaster or no-frills $20 digital re-release. And who finds that compelling? Apart from millions of gamers, I mean. But they're clearly not part of a growing trend of sustained interest in retro games. I mean, as current PlayStation boss Jim Ryan famously put it, referring to old Gran Turismo titles, "like why would anybody play this?”
Not to let Microsoft off the hook here. Supporting around 40% of the Xbox 360's library, with a whitelist they stopped updating in 2019, only looks good by way of comparison. The claims of supporting all generations of Xbox on Series X are eyebrow-raising, when one observes that just over 4% of Original Xbox games are on the compatibility list. That's down, dramatically, from over 40% of OG Xbox titles supported on Xbox 360. It would seem that, contrary to the prevailing narrative, top brass at Redmond have increasingly embraced former Xbox division head Don Mattrick's philosophy that, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,"
@Stormwatcher, agreed. And as long as PS3s work, and the time servers remain up, my games stuck on PS3 are fine, too. But those "other means" are, increasingly, the prevailing light source on the horizon for digital preservation.
Stating that MS "shouldn't be let off the hook" misunderstands the process of their BC completely. Companies can either request or merely give them the okay for the BC (it does not cost money from everything I've heard). When a title isn't on there? It's because the company directly said no or at least did not bother to say yes. In some cases, this would be because the right's owner is no one, or a file cabinet in some lawyer's office somewhere.
No, I understand their process of backwards compatibility. Loading the game disc initiates a download from MS servers. Which is a form of digital distribution that requires the publisher's approval.
That was a choice, however.
Supporting the reading of the game off the disc, playing the contents directly from the game disc, and possibly installing the files off the game disc on the console, on the other hand, was an option they could have pursued without so much as the formality of informing the publisher, before or after the fact. Let alone having to have our people call your people, and generate reams of paperwork to receive, on their wax seals, the signet ring impressions of various bigwigs and muckety-mucks.
That approach would make zero sense as it would only allow for physical copies while not allowing the digital copies to work, whereas their solution works equally well for both.
That approach would make zero sense as it would only allow for physical copies while not allowing the digital copies to work, whereas their solution works equally well for both.
But the digital games are already on the Xbox store, so as long as they work on the emulator, and are redownloadable, then it's all good. The hypothetical system Zoku described wouldn't prevent digital games from working, but the current system does prevent a huge amount of disc games from working, so I wouldn't say it works equally well for both.
That approach would make zero sense as it would only allow for physical copies while not allowing the digital copies to work, whereas their solution works equally well for both.
But the digital games are already on the Xbox store, so as long as they work on the emulator, and are redownloadable, then it's all good. The hypothetical system Zoku described wouldn't prevent digital games from working, but the current system does prevent a huge amount of disc games from working, so I wouldn't say it works equally well for both.
Zoku described intentionally avoiding getting the rights to dodge trouble (which I don't think would pass muster legally btw), and it would absolutely have ruffled feathers to go with the "don't even ask for permission, just do it" route. A lot of the companies said no because they had their own strategy of what to do with those games, MS has an interest in having a good relationship with all those devs so that they'll put their future releases on Xbox. Preservation efforts by companies like MS or GOG are still bound by business relationships, you have to enter the high seas to avoid that.
What they were describing sounded more like how the PS3 handled PS1 games. The games were still emulated, but ran off the disc. Sony didn't need permission, as this method wasn't actually distributing the game. Pubs still had the option to release those games digitally.
What they were describing sounded more like how the PS3 handled PS1 games. The games were still emulated, but ran off the disc. Sony didn't need permission, as this method wasn't actually distributing the game. Pubs still had the option to release those games digitally.
From what I remember, the PS3 was able to run PS1 games because it literally had a specialized chip to do so. Technically, it wasn't emulation at all. (Of course I could be misremembering horribly.)
As a reminder, the "Ps3 route" of backwards compatibility is to put the old hardware inside of the new, driving costs up to the point of normal "consoles are sold at a loss" becoming $599.99 and the launch being an industry punchline. Then immediately removing that hardware in the next group of consoles and never speaking of it again. Then the consoles that have it being ticking time bombs, seemingly destined to self destruct. Oh and apparently the feature still wasn't exactly 100% effective.
The Ps3 approach sucked and Sony rejected the idea as hard as they've ever rejected any idea. The way forward is software emulation + laws to provide consumer rights with teeth. Like yes, you can turn the servers off for your online only game, but then you have to make some kind of concession to let others run servers on their own dime if that's what they want to do to continue to run the product they purchased. Explicit fair use to modify owned software to play on modern hardware, etc.
You can talk all day about how Sony fucked things up with PS2 compatibility, but I was talking about PS1 games, which was handled remarkably well. High rate of compatibility, no hoops to jump through to get publishers on board, but leaving it open for them to release their games digitally if they wanted.
Xbox's system is better than nothing, but leaves big holes of games that will never be made BC. I disagree that it's the best method overall.
You can talk all day about how Sony fucked things up with PS2 compatibility, but I was talking about PS1 games, which was handled remarkably well. High rate of compatibility, no hoops to jump through to get publishers on board, but leaving it open for them to release their games digitally if they wanted.
Xbox's system is better than nothing, but leaves big holes of games that will never be made BC. I disagree that it's the best method overall.
I can agree with you that it was (past tense) handled well. Now they are nuking that store from orbit and have announced no plans to duplicate the function, perhaps in a different way as Nintendo has done with the Switch. In fact, they have signaled the opposite, with their boss expressing dismissive confusion over the idea of someone even WANTING to play one of their old, ugly (his concept) games.
The point of that paragraph isn't "Sony sucks" (although of course they do in some ways and in some other ways they don't). It's that Microsoft's method is an ongoing, improving over time goal for their service, not a one off program that a later boss has then destroyed and desecrated the memory of. Of course a bad Microsoft future CEO could do such a thing, but they would receive universal pushback BECAUSE their marketing arm has successfully made the pitch of "keep playing the old games going forward and if anything, they'll work better and not worse." Whereas the comments sections for what Sony is doing are absolutely polluted with gaslit Sony water carriers doing their best Kylo Ren impressions.
Yeah, but it's a program that's only ongoing until it isn't. oXbox games on 360 was an ongoing program, and then they pulled the plug, leaving some games either unplayable, or in a pretty sorry state.
Also, Sony killing the PS3 store doesn't stop PS1 discs from playing.
None of the big 3 have a perfect record on BC, but they've all done something right at one point or another.
This could be proven wrong, but I've never had the impression new BC titles are over forever. They explicitly said that they needed the people doing that to pave the way to get things working on Series S and X (and probably some XCloud too). Now that that stuff is functional, could there be more BC? Maybe, maybe not. I think that they'd like to do more, but maybe from a business perspective that's very foolish, they've done enough to make the marketing feel correct and they should focus on new things at this point. Very much a wait and see. Whereas, the only hope for Sony I see is losing that twerp executive, but their decisions are currently paying off with an extremely popular console, so it doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon (the Activision situation where gross behavior is resulting in an embarrassment of success and riches).
I didn't say the current program was over. I was saying there was precedent of them dropping a previous program (oXbox on 360).
Agreed.
And I'm not ready to buy that the current program is in a healthy place until Microsoft adds some more Xbox 360 and (especially) Original Xbox games to the backwards compatibility list. We're coming up on one year since Microsoft last solicited gamers for title suggestions, and nigh on two years since the last batch of 9 games was added.
Your earlier example of PS1 games running via emulation right off the discs is a perfect illustration of a major console maker doing things right, IMO. Leveraging the great leap in hardware capability to implement near-complete backwards compatibility without any legal obligation to go hat in hand to publishers like Konami. And again, I agree with your assessment that the latter option remained on the table to get digital versions in the store and printing again for both parties. In fact, Sony did just that, bringing a slew of original PlayStation games to PS3, PSP, and Vita, by way of the PSN store. Many of them fully playable on all three systems. With some publishers, like Capcom, SNK, and Sega, releasing collections for the PSP and Vita that offered shocking value for money.
Anyone know if the Nintendo DS and DS Lite were emulating the GBA via the hardware port? Whichever solution was implemented, these nimble little devices powered their way to sales of 100 million units, banking over 2/3 of overall sales for this family of handhelds before later SKUs removed the GBA slot.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
I'm 99% certain the GBA compatibility on the DS/DS Lite was hardware based.
Looks like you're right. The first link I found with a detailed answer indicates that the DS had a more advanced version of essentially the same architecture. So in a way, more in line with PS4->PS5 and Xbone->Series.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
Putting my tinfoil hat on but they probably saw all the people rushing out to spend hundreds of dollars per user to buy games in fear of losing them forever. So they got a ton of money off of it and they decided they can do it again at an undisclosed time.
They almost got me. But then I realized that if I don't own them now then I'll likely not need to spend money on it now.
Putting my tinfoil hat on but they probably saw all the people rushing out to spend hundreds of dollars per user to buy games in fear of losing them forever. So they got a ton of money off of it and they decided they can do it again at an undisclosed time.
They almost got me. But then I realized that if I don't own them now then I'll likely not need to spend money on it now.
I was still building my list of games to get and debating on if I really wanted to get them. My internal struggle comes out in my favor on this one.
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
I agree that the store will still close at some point, but now I expect them to do it quietly without announcing it ahead of time. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, eh?
Putting my tinfoil hat on but they probably saw all the people rushing out to spend hundreds of dollars per user to buy games in fear of losing them forever. So they got a ton of money off of it and they decided they can do it again at an undisclosed time.
They almost got me. But then I realized that if I don't own them now then I'll likely not need to spend money on it now.
That was my thought as well, with the bonus of the next time they go to shut it down, more people will have already bought what they wanted,so no 2nd last minute save.
I'm 99% certain the GBA compatibility on the DS/DS Lite was hardware based.
No publisher and/or developer, presumably, would have the balls to dictate under what circumstances a major platform holder--and here, there are basically three--can re-release what is effectively "existing hardware" they completely control. Or if they did, it would be an exceptional cases. If Microsoft decided, to the surprise of all, they were going to launch a third revision of the Xbox 360 next month, Tecmo or Square-Enix or Platinum or whoever probably could not convincingly say, "Not with x you won't!" That was a point to be discussed when the game was originally published on the console practically a decade ago. Same if Sony decided to give the Playstation 3 once last hurrah with a third hardware revision. In either case, the prior publishing agreements hold firm, and on the whole it's exceedingly rare for a game to be pulled, completely, from a platform (and that impacts digital, rather than physical, distribution moreso). But we're probably not going to see mini-consoles of either that use the same operating process (reading from a disc in particular), so that's not a venue unfortunately.
A PS3 had, for a time, a (minimal) PS2 in it. This was Sony's way of maneuvering in this territory since, after all, the PS2 was subject to hardware revisions of its own. This was a great way for those of us who had endured the Playstation 2's class action lawsuit and were using PS3 hardware as a replacement. This is not, on the other hand, what Microsoft did with the Xbox 360, which resulted in (comparatively more) imperfect reproduction (only a bit more than half of the total proceeding library). This was an emulation solution, something even laypeople were at least a little familiar with from prolific Playstation-era PC emulation (Bleem!, etc.). Then Sony decided to remove that "little PS2" from the PS3 (though keeping the "little PS1"), and put their whole of emulation effort into individual title releases in the future, and hoped no one would notice. Microsoft halted their emulation efforts a few years into the Xbox 360's lifetime, moving onto maintenance/patching, probably not hurt by the fact that Sony had actively scrubbed their more comprehensive program for the rest of the hardware's lifetime. It became a very low bar to pass. For the actual user, one of these outcomes is not great, and the other one sucks (anyone who owns a dying PS3, myself included, can attest to that). But it's not like you could easily play Nintendo 64 games on a Gamecube either.
The PS5 has a PS4 in it (though that didn't always look like it was going to be the case). Likewise, an Xbox Series has an Xbox One inside of it. Hopefully no jabroni at Microsoft or Sony convinces their bosses to drop it to save a few cents per unit, unlikely but I suppose we never know.
Everything takes financial and labor investment. Sony doesn't exactly have the best reputation for transparency in this area, and we're left to speculate as to the potential downsides--besides flying in the face of a much more per-title emulation marketplace--of putting a little PS1 or PS2 inside a PS4 or PSFro (something they did with the PS3, suggesting it was possible), and comparatively what that might've meant putting a little original Xbox inside an Xbox 360 or an Xbox One, etc. That's putting aside Sony's gamble on the "Cell" as the future of their computing efforts, everyone knew that was going to be a pain in the ass. Microsoft has leaned heavily on software improvements as a justification for emulation (things that would not be possible on reproduced hardware: better performance, resolution than the original, or cloud saves and other QOL improvements); on the other hand, when you're only looking at a few dozen original Xbox (out of a library of a thousand), being able to play those games with HDR and at 2160p isn't such a big deal. Sony has the option to do something similar in their re-releases of PS2 titles, for example, but it doesn't seem like something they feature (though at the very least, you have to imagine bad PS2 framerates are much improved) when they offer them as digital purchases. And as already noted, telling a publisher "Tough shit, we're going to emulate your game, nyah nyah" after they decline doesn't just have a chilling effect for future development, it's probably illegal (even if said publisher is no longer an entity).
There, I've inevitably weighed in on a discussion of backwards compatibility.
I could absolutely see in 2-3 years time a PS5 Lite that's of a smaller design and lower price... and has the PS4 hardware BC ripped out of it.
This is unlikely, given that PS4 titles run natively on a PS5. The PS2 compatibility on the PS3 was basically a "PS2 on a chip", and it was required because the PS3 was unusual. They have since not repeated that "trick".
I could absolutely see in 2-3 years time a PS5 Lite that's of a smaller design and lower price... and has the PS4 hardware BC ripped out of it.
This is unlikely, given that PS4 titles run natively on a PS5. The PS2 compatibility on the PS3 was basically a "PS2 on a chip", and it was required because the PS3 was unusual. They have since not repeated that "trick".
I guess they'll just have to remove PS5 playback as well.
Well, both the Xbox One and Series S/X, and the PS4 and PS5, are essentially running the same architecture so the old emulation argument, or the need for extra hardware for BC, becomes moot. It's not so much that a PS5 has a little PS4 in it, as that a PS5 or Series is effectively a supercharged, hot-rodded PS4 or Xbox One. They don't need a PS4 or Xbox One on-a-chip, and they don't need to emulate. They're more like running a, say, five year old PC game (that ran fine or maxed on your old rig) on your fancy snazzy new PC with all the new bells & whistles. The software is still running natively.
I could absolutely see in 2-3 years time a PS5 Lite that's of a smaller design and lower price... and has the PS4 hardware BC ripped out of it.
This is unlikely, given that PS4 titles run natively on a PS5. The PS2 compatibility on the PS3 was basically a "PS2 on a chip", and it was required because the PS3 was unusual. They have since not repeated that "trick".
I guess they'll just have to remove PS5 playback as well.
Well, both the Xbox One and Series S/X, and the PS4 and PS5, are essentially running the same architecture so the old emulation argument, or the need for extra hardware for BC, becomes moot. It's not so much that a PS5 has a little PS4 in it, as that a PS5 or Series is effectively a supercharged, hot-rodded PS4 or Xbox One. They don't need a PS4 or Xbox One on-a-chip, and they don't need to emulate. They're more like running a, say, five year old PC game (that ran fine or maxed on your old rig) on your fancy snazzy new PC with all the new bells & whistles. The software is still running natively.
As I understand it, anyway.
There's at least a little translation going on with the PS5 as the APIs are supposedly quite different between PS4 and 5. This has made updating PS4 games to use PS5 features more challenging without going whole-hog with a full separate PS5 edition, though it sounds like Sony has been adding a few tools over time. Microsoft has been leaning on variants of DirectX the whole time making the transition far simpler over there.
Question about the store closure/non-closure news: the PSP store is still going offline on July 2nd. Does that mean that no PSP games can be purchased after that date, or that PSPs will no longer be able to access the store? I still have a Vita and there are a handful of PSP games I was going to buy before it all went down. I want to make sure I understand the full implications of this update so I don't lock myself out of BoF3 and other stuff.
Having a hard time finding confirmation but I think PSP games will still be sold through the Vita store? PS3/Vita stores seem to be similar if not identical architecture.
Posts
The prices on it are stupid. 70 bucks for a copy. :mad:
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
In which the console maker and the largely disinterested publisher of long-dormant titles and, in some cases, forgotten franchises, must turn their keys at the same time as if they are conducting missile drills. Because otherwise, it would only be possible to support the game by playing or installing it off the original disc. As opposed to some $60 remaster or no-frills $20 digital re-release. And who finds that compelling? Apart from millions of gamers, I mean. But they're clearly not part of a growing trend of sustained interest in retro games. I mean, as current PlayStation boss Jim Ryan famously put it, referring to old Gran Turismo titles, "like why would anybody play this?”
Not to let Microsoft off the hook here. Supporting around 40% of the Xbox 360's library, with a whitelist they stopped updating in 2019, only looks good by way of comparison. The claims of supporting all generations of Xbox on Series X are eyebrow-raising, when one observes that just over 4% of Original Xbox games are on the compatibility list. That's down, dramatically, from over 40% of OG Xbox titles supported on Xbox 360. It would seem that, contrary to the prevailing narrative, top brass at Redmond have increasingly embraced former Xbox division head Don Mattrick's philosophy that, "If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,"
@Stormwatcher, agreed. And as long as PS3s work, and the time servers remain up, my games stuck on PS3 are fine, too. But those "other means" are, increasingly, the prevailing light source on the horizon for digital preservation.
Stating that MS "shouldn't be let off the hook" misunderstands the process of their BC completely. Companies can either request or merely give them the okay for the BC (it does not cost money from everything I've heard). When a title isn't on there? It's because the company directly said no or at least did not bother to say yes. In some cases, this would be because the right's owner is no one, or a file cabinet in some lawyer's office somewhere.
No, I understand their process of backwards compatibility. Loading the game disc initiates a download from MS servers. Which is a form of digital distribution that requires the publisher's approval.
That was a choice, however.
Supporting the reading of the game off the disc, playing the contents directly from the game disc, and possibly installing the files off the game disc on the console, on the other hand, was an option they could have pursued without so much as the formality of informing the publisher, before or after the fact. Let alone having to have our people call your people, and generate reams of paperwork to receive, on their wax seals, the signet ring impressions of various bigwigs and muckety-mucks.
That approach would make zero sense as it would only allow for physical copies while not allowing the digital copies to work, whereas their solution works equally well for both.
Steam | XBL
But the digital games are already on the Xbox store, so as long as they work on the emulator, and are redownloadable, then it's all good. The hypothetical system Zoku described wouldn't prevent digital games from working, but the current system does prevent a huge amount of disc games from working, so I wouldn't say it works equally well for both.
Zoku described intentionally avoiding getting the rights to dodge trouble (which I don't think would pass muster legally btw), and it would absolutely have ruffled feathers to go with the "don't even ask for permission, just do it" route. A lot of the companies said no because they had their own strategy of what to do with those games, MS has an interest in having a good relationship with all those devs so that they'll put their future releases on Xbox. Preservation efforts by companies like MS or GOG are still bound by business relationships, you have to enter the high seas to avoid that.
From what I remember, the PS3 was able to run PS1 games because it literally had a specialized chip to do so. Technically, it wasn't emulation at all. (Of course I could be misremembering horribly.)
PS2 had hardware based BC for PS1 games though.
The Ps3 approach sucked and Sony rejected the idea as hard as they've ever rejected any idea. The way forward is software emulation + laws to provide consumer rights with teeth. Like yes, you can turn the servers off for your online only game, but then you have to make some kind of concession to let others run servers on their own dime if that's what they want to do to continue to run the product they purchased. Explicit fair use to modify owned software to play on modern hardware, etc.
Xbox's system is better than nothing, but leaves big holes of games that will never be made BC. I disagree that it's the best method overall.
I can agree with you that it was (past tense) handled well. Now they are nuking that store from orbit and have announced no plans to duplicate the function, perhaps in a different way as Nintendo has done with the Switch. In fact, they have signaled the opposite, with their boss expressing dismissive confusion over the idea of someone even WANTING to play one of their old, ugly (his concept) games.
The point of that paragraph isn't "Sony sucks" (although of course they do in some ways and in some other ways they don't). It's that Microsoft's method is an ongoing, improving over time goal for their service, not a one off program that a later boss has then destroyed and desecrated the memory of. Of course a bad Microsoft future CEO could do such a thing, but they would receive universal pushback BECAUSE their marketing arm has successfully made the pitch of "keep playing the old games going forward and if anything, they'll work better and not worse." Whereas the comments sections for what Sony is doing are absolutely polluted with gaslit Sony water carriers doing their best Kylo Ren impressions.
Also, Sony killing the PS3 store doesn't stop PS1 discs from playing.
None of the big 3 have a perfect record on BC, but they've all done something right at one point or another.
Agreed.
And I'm not ready to buy that the current program is in a healthy place until Microsoft adds some more Xbox 360 and (especially) Original Xbox games to the backwards compatibility list. We're coming up on one year since Microsoft last solicited gamers for title suggestions, and nigh on two years since the last batch of 9 games was added.
Your earlier example of PS1 games running via emulation right off the discs is a perfect illustration of a major console maker doing things right, IMO. Leveraging the great leap in hardware capability to implement near-complete backwards compatibility without any legal obligation to go hat in hand to publishers like Konami. And again, I agree with your assessment that the latter option remained on the table to get digital versions in the store and printing again for both parties. In fact, Sony did just that, bringing a slew of original PlayStation games to PS3, PSP, and Vita, by way of the PSN store. Many of them fully playable on all three systems. With some publishers, like Capcom, SNK, and Sega, releasing collections for the PSP and Vita that offered shocking value for money.
Anyone know if the Nintendo DS and DS Lite were emulating the GBA via the hardware port? Whichever solution was implemented, these nimble little devices powered their way to sales of 100 million units, banking over 2/3 of overall sales for this family of handhelds before later SKUs removed the GBA slot.
Steam | XBL
Looks like you're right. The first link I found with a detailed answer indicates that the DS had a more advanced version of essentially the same architecture. So in a way, more in line with PS4->PS5 and Xbone->Series.
Really surprising in a good way.
Link for the official blog post:
https://blog.playstation.com/2021/04/19/playstation-store-on-ps3-and-ps-vita-will-continue-operations/
Steam | XBL
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
They almost got me. But then I realized that if I don't own them now then I'll likely not need to spend money on it now.
I was still building my list of games to get and debating on if I really wanted to get them. My internal struggle comes out in my favor on this one.
Edit: Grammar.
Steam: betsuni7
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
That was my thought as well, with the bonus of the next time they go to shut it down, more people will have already bought what they wanted,so no 2nd last minute save.
No publisher and/or developer, presumably, would have the balls to dictate under what circumstances a major platform holder--and here, there are basically three--can re-release what is effectively "existing hardware" they completely control. Or if they did, it would be an exceptional cases. If Microsoft decided, to the surprise of all, they were going to launch a third revision of the Xbox 360 next month, Tecmo or Square-Enix or Platinum or whoever probably could not convincingly say, "Not with x you won't!" That was a point to be discussed when the game was originally published on the console practically a decade ago. Same if Sony decided to give the Playstation 3 once last hurrah with a third hardware revision. In either case, the prior publishing agreements hold firm, and on the whole it's exceedingly rare for a game to be pulled, completely, from a platform (and that impacts digital, rather than physical, distribution moreso). But we're probably not going to see mini-consoles of either that use the same operating process (reading from a disc in particular), so that's not a venue unfortunately.
A PS3 had, for a time, a (minimal) PS2 in it. This was Sony's way of maneuvering in this territory since, after all, the PS2 was subject to hardware revisions of its own. This was a great way for those of us who had endured the Playstation 2's class action lawsuit and were using PS3 hardware as a replacement. This is not, on the other hand, what Microsoft did with the Xbox 360, which resulted in (comparatively more) imperfect reproduction (only a bit more than half of the total proceeding library). This was an emulation solution, something even laypeople were at least a little familiar with from prolific Playstation-era PC emulation (Bleem!, etc.). Then Sony decided to remove that "little PS2" from the PS3 (though keeping the "little PS1"), and put their whole of emulation effort into individual title releases in the future, and hoped no one would notice. Microsoft halted their emulation efforts a few years into the Xbox 360's lifetime, moving onto maintenance/patching, probably not hurt by the fact that Sony had actively scrubbed their more comprehensive program for the rest of the hardware's lifetime. It became a very low bar to pass. For the actual user, one of these outcomes is not great, and the other one sucks (anyone who owns a dying PS3, myself included, can attest to that). But it's not like you could easily play Nintendo 64 games on a Gamecube either.
The PS5 has a PS4 in it (though that didn't always look like it was going to be the case). Likewise, an Xbox Series has an Xbox One inside of it. Hopefully no jabroni at Microsoft or Sony convinces their bosses to drop it to save a few cents per unit, unlikely but I suppose we never know.
Everything takes financial and labor investment. Sony doesn't exactly have the best reputation for transparency in this area, and we're left to speculate as to the potential downsides--besides flying in the face of a much more per-title emulation marketplace--of putting a little PS1 or PS2 inside a PS4 or PSFro (something they did with the PS3, suggesting it was possible), and comparatively what that might've meant putting a little original Xbox inside an Xbox 360 or an Xbox One, etc. That's putting aside Sony's gamble on the "Cell" as the future of their computing efforts, everyone knew that was going to be a pain in the ass. Microsoft has leaned heavily on software improvements as a justification for emulation (things that would not be possible on reproduced hardware: better performance, resolution than the original, or cloud saves and other QOL improvements); on the other hand, when you're only looking at a few dozen original Xbox (out of a library of a thousand), being able to play those games with HDR and at 2160p isn't such a big deal. Sony has the option to do something similar in their re-releases of PS2 titles, for example, but it doesn't seem like something they feature (though at the very least, you have to imagine bad PS2 framerates are much improved) when they offer them as digital purchases. And as already noted, telling a publisher "Tough shit, we're going to emulate your game, nyah nyah" after they decline doesn't just have a chilling effect for future development, it's probably illegal (even if said publisher is no longer an entity).
There, I've inevitably weighed in on a discussion of backwards compatibility.
I guess they'll just have to remove PS5 playback as well.
As I understand it, anyway.
Steam | XBL
"It still only does everything."
There's at least a little translation going on with the PS5 as the APIs are supposedly quite different between PS4 and 5. This has made updating PS4 games to use PS5 features more challenging without going whole-hog with a full separate PS5 edition, though it sounds like Sony has been adding a few tools over time. Microsoft has been leaning on variants of DirectX the whole time making the transition far simpler over there.