Topic: Videogames preservation in Sony systems

Expand

@YummyHappyPills The Xbox was always a PC in console form - that was the original premise of the Xbox and was so called 'Xbox' because it was based on DirectX in a Box. It was in prototype called the DirectX Box which was shortened to 'Xbox' on release.

Whilst you may want to cite the differences between the XB1 and PS4, I notice you didn't cite the difference between the XB1X and Pro. The X having 12GB of GDDR5 RAM that's 50% faster than the 8GB in the Pro. The GPU is AMD but unlike the Pro which basically put two PS4 GPU's together in a 'butterfly' configuration as well as added a few extras that the Polaris GPU's offer - ability to read half floats and object tracking for improved Checkerboard rendering performance - 2 things the X doesn't have. CPU in both the PS4 and Pro - compared to the XB1 and X respectively, is slower and the Xbox also has a dedicated Audio Processing chip - something the PS4's CPU has to handle on top of everything else it does.

As you stated, the Xbox also has a Windows based OS - something virtually all gaming PCs use. Games built for the Windows 95 era for example run on a Windows 10 PC. DirectX has been around since the Mid 90's and came out with Windows 95. Its been a factor of games with Direct3D (the 3D graphics API within DirectX) widely used in the development of games for both PC and Xbox consoles. It maybe another factor in why games are easier to be ported between the two and backwards compatible.

I do agree that Sony's stance on Backwards Compatibility and game preservation is different to that of MS. I couldn't comment on PSNow and game performance as I refuse to subscribe. As I stated, they are more interested in starting from scratch with a 'new' generation - free to pick what configuration they think will be best for the lifetime of that device. If that means going to intel or having a 'unique' CPU (like they did in the PS3) then they will regardless of whether that is the 'best' option for their old generation or not. Each new generation is just that - a 'new' generation. Not necessarily an 'upgrade' on the previous to ensure some possible Backwards Compatibility. If it happens to work - bonus for them and us, if not then so-be-it. They may see the money they can get from PSNow and remakes/remasters as an incentive not to consider BC. Games like SotC got a good reception at E3 and 2 of their top 3 best selling exclusive games on PS4 are remasters - out-selling a lot 'new' games new IP's and sequels to existing franchises. Would they have had as many sales of Last of Us (remastered) if that was BC? Maybe - depends on whether BC offered an upgrade on resolution and frame rate or not.

With MS, if you own a game on 360, when you play on XB1, your save point, Achievements etc are all carried over. Its not treated as a separate game. Its different though if you own a 360 version and XB1 version of the same game. Games like CoD: Ghosts, BF4, AC4, Titanfall for example. Its no different from getting all the 'trophies/achievements' in a game on last gen and then getting them all again on a remake/remaster. I do like the fact that when XB360 games I owned digitally are made BC, they automatically appear in my 'ready to download' list on my XB1 and it is great to pick up from where you left off and with all the achievements you earned too. I know some were unhappy with this in Rare Replay as the games they had on older Xbox consoles (like Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie etc) could well be completed when they bought Rare Replay.

BC could be seen negatively too - forcing you to keep with MS or Sony - even if they 'mess up' or don't build a competitive console at a competitive price. We saw a lot of XB360 owners jump to Sony's PS4 at the start of this gen. If the XB1 had launched with 'total' BC and people were going to lose a big library - 2 generations or more, would they have felt pressured to buy the XB1? I buy both anyway but I know I wouldn't want to lose all my Xbox games going back to the OG Xbox so would feel I have to buy the 'nextbox' even if its not as strong as the equivalent Sony. I would feel I have to buy the Xbox to play all my games at or better than they were but it may only be used for 'exclusives' and those old games as the latest PS could be the better place for new multi-platform releases and new exclusives. I probably would buy remakes/remasters of PS4 games like Last of Us 2, Days Gone etc too if BC isn't possible.

DF did a good video on Backwards Compatibility and the future. Stating that games this gen are built with Dynamic Scaling so that when they do become 'old' gen, on the 'next gen', these games will run at their 'best' - run at the max resolution and frame rates without needing any developer support. I don't know if the Witcher 3's Performance mode has a 'lower than' 4k resolution cap or if the resolution is 'low' because it's dynamically scaled down that far to achieve the best 'frame rate'. If its not capped at say 1440p, on the next gen Hardware, in theory it could run at 4k/60 without any developer patch. Games with resolution or frame rate caps though could still require a dev to raise those caps but for those that can't hold their max resolution/frame rate, in the future, these should see the biggest improvement on BC. It's still great to buy a brand new console on Day 1 and automatically have a massive library of games ready to play - a lot of those improved by the more powerful hardware straight out of the box. I know its exciting to play the 'next gen' games on a next gen console but it can be boring if you only have 1-2 games to play. I kept my PS3 and XB360 hooked up to my main TV for a year or more until I built up enough of a library and backlog that I didn't find myself using the old gen consoles for months. I know others may trade in their old gen to get a new gen - its easier to do if your new gen plays all your old gen games too.

Expand

@BAMozzy I'm well aware that Xbox was a way to get DirectX into gaming, which is ALSO the reason Microsoft has the least to earn from making hardware for gaming now, as their side of things is always software focused and on their APIs like DirectX.

I didn't cite the differences between PS4 Pro and Xbox One X because as it stands, I wasn't point out "1 is better than the other", rather "Both are glorified PCs".

If I was to tell you which I think is infinitely better built, I would say the One X, because rather than overclock an already bottlenecking CPU and slap a bigger GPU and heatsink into it like the PS4 Pro did, they actually designed the hardware, with a bigger CPU, albeit still a bottleneck, and worked out how to make the system a real upgrade as opposed to a bigger system with the same system problems only accentuated. But our talk wasn't about the X and the Pro, rather the base systems and the future of the base systems with each new generation of hardware. The upgraded hardware units of the past two years have no bearing on that, UNLESS MS does something sneaky, but whether or not they do that depends on if the inevitable PS5 surpasses the One X by a good mile.

If not, I just see Microsoft cutting the price of the X to match PS5, due to the lack of a huge gulf, and touting complete support for Xbox One games, and new games exclusive to the X as they position it as their new system going forward. Pipe dream I know, but who knows what can happen in this industry. MS has nothing to gain long term from hardware, so why not?

While it would be nice to see our PS4 games and Xbox One games, and in 40 years our Switch games (Maybe) run at 4k/60fps, I don't think that will happen. Need I point out we hit PS4 and Xbox One, and a lot of games still don't do 1080p/60fps. And on the upgraded hardware, 4k/60fps is a pipe dream in anything beyond a racing games without dynamic resolution options.

Personally, regarding this issue specifically, I don't see why the option to have 1080p/60fps or higher resolution at 30fps is locked to the upgraded hardware. If you gave me an option on my basic PS4 to do 720p/60fps or 900p/30fps like a lot of games run, I'd be down for that. It's stupid to lock that option behind £350-£450.

As for backwards compatability, perhaps all games are made with scalability in mind because we know games are made with, get this, PC first. As the new systems are, get this, PC architectures, with PC OS firmware, that run scaled down PC games. With console specific features (Not that there are many of those on the systems mind) tacked on because engines and middleware often have those features as simple options.

There will, eventually, come a point where the games will need new assets made, because there will inevitably be a point where textures that look good on PS4 Pro or One X, won't look so good in future. At what point do we tell developers to stop going back and tinkering with games for the sake of that, when it has to happen a few consoles from now?

I like that you said this though:

That is also true of this thing called Cross Platform Play. Why does Sony not want it? It forces you to stay with them, with your friends who probably already have a PS4, so you can play together. Don't pretend that BC would be seen as a bad thing by forcing you to stay, both companies have already tried that.

I keep remasters and backwards compatability separate, for the simple reason you stated above: Games nowadays are made to be scalable, so they will benefit more from BC than a remaster. Games from the past generations though, won't get that, at least not all of them (Especially from PS3, smart move there Sony you muppets) because they were made for what they were made for. Work would have to be put in to deliberately remaster them.

With their new boss and comments about BC in the past, as well as renewed focus on "Getting consumers to pay up as much as possible", I see PSNow as their answer to BC. Honestly, if your connection can handle it, that will be much improved over BC on PS3 and PS4.

On PS4 as I have noted, there is no reason they can't give you certain PS2 Classics as free or discounted editions on PS4, because you share the account between PS3 and PS4, and they already do this with games on Vita. It's not an alien nor unfeasible task for Sony to do, they just won't.

The actual performance of these downloaded PS1/2 Classics is also horrendous. The PS1 releases of Spyro on the PS3 all had frame rate and near permanent slow down issues. The Jak games on PS4 are the same. Sonic Heroes on PS3 had bugs not present in the original PS2 release, amazingly given how crap that was!

Their emulation is...shall we say....terrible. Some games are just fine. A lot of them were clearly not meant to be.

But further to you saying "Well they could pick whatever architecture is best for the future and say screw the past" well what do you think they will do? Exactly that. They've already stated as much that they will do that, because it means more money from subscription services to play all those games you already own and have absolutely no reason (Except for PS3 due to CPU issues) to prevent you playing them on your new console via a download or by popping your disc in, because it means more money.

But even further to that, remember who started native backwards compatability. It was the PS2. It was Sony. All your PS1 games, right there from day 1. The idea that this is a thing, as something you can do, comes from them. Well, and the GameBoy Colour I suppose. Same time period.

Sure for PS3 they had to cut that feature out, albeit because they went with CELL like a bunch of idiots thinking it was going to be the next big thing (Oh, and only having 256MB of RAM for CPU and a separate set for GPU, instead of 512MB pool between both to assign as needed. Oh and both sets ran at different speeds too. Someone thought that was smart once!) which is 100% fair, but at this point there is no reason not to do it. Except again for PS3 games.

However, what we need to remember is that PS4 is "For the Players". Which is why we don't have our old games. Why we don't have cross platform play. Why indie games fell to wayside because they "Arent as important to us now" (Jim Ryan needs to be fired, seriously). For the Players.

So what I'm going to do in future, when the PS5 is out, is hold them to that, as I do now. I want to see them be For the Players. At the start of the generation it was mostly true, and some of it still is due to technical limitations of course, but now? They have the only marketing slogan that isn't truthful, outside of "Uncompromised 4k".

The future of BC with Sony is PSNow, and while I refuse to subscribe to that unless they incorporate it into the mostly empty cost of PS+ and drop the free games for a library of old games instead (Probably a better move in the long run!). At that point, and through no fault of their own ambition, ISPs need to get good connections out there, because streaming our old games will be the only option if current support on PS4 is anything to go by.

Expand

@YummyHappyPills The main reason that the current consoles cannot do 60fps - even if that means dropping the resolution to 720p (or 1080p on Pro/X) is because of CPU bottlenecks. Its not as simple as dropping the pixel count in half (or more) to get double the frame rate. If you look at both the Pro and X, neither received a 'significant' performance boost - both roughly 30-40% improvement. Compared to the 230% boost to GPU the Pro had and over 400% boost (depending on whether you look at the OG XB1 or XB1s as the Slim had a 7% boost to GPU over the Original). Games may well be more GPU based but the CPU is still vital and if it can't cope with the AI, physics etc and process all that in time to instruct the GPU what to render and have that frame rendered in 16.666ms, it will not hit the 60fps. Reducing the resolution can save time on the GPU 'render' time but it won't save time on the CPU calculations.

Just because the Pro or X cannot do 1080/60 whilst they can target and deliver 2160/30 is more testament to the size of their GPU and 'balance' that both Sony and MS built with their consoles. MS has (supposedly) done a lot to reduce the workload on their CPU with the X - building in a separate DX12 'chip' to reduce the amount of processing the CPU has to do with regards to the actual 'image' but that doesn't mean the CPU doesn't have to do the same amount of other processes. Yes it can do more of these a second and has some 'extra' processing freed up by this meaning it could, in theory, have more resources available to help do those other processes but its still an area of weakness in the current generation. Take Witcher 3 as an example - in its high res mode, its rendering 1800-2160p at a locked 30fps yet it can't run the game at a locked 60fps despite it rendering as much as 25% of the pixel count. 1080p is a quarter of the pixel count so in this case its reduced the amount of pixels by a quarter and still can't deliver 'double' the frame rate.

I don't know what the 'nextbox' could be but it could be another 'iterative' hardware in essence - another 'upgrade' over the X. Instead of replacing both the XB1 and XB1X with an XB2, they could release another upgrade and phase out the XB1. Games that cannot run at any 'adequate' level on the weakest, have a 'minimum required Xbox One X' on the box. Its similar to the PC market where games may say that the minimum required is GTX970/RX480 and i5. Those games won't run adequately on a Radeon 7790 (the equivalent GPU to the XB1). Every 3-4yrs, MS bring out a new 'upgrade' that is like upgrading your PC every 3-4yrs. At some points, MS would have 3 consoles on the market - the XB1S, XB1X and 'nextbox' but the base XB1 would be 7-8yrs old by that point and MS stop making it so it is 'phased out'. The X becomes the 'base' model then and the 'nextbox' the 'Premium' console.

As for games not having the most 'up to date' textures, resolutions etc when they do come to BC, its no different to now. The 360 BC games don't all run at 4k with High Res textures. Some games may well run at 'higher' resolutions than they did and with better textures but they are not '4k' textures. The current games are built for the 4k era with 4k quality textures so in 10yrs time, even if they could be increased to 8k with some built in extra texture filtering, those textures will still probably be 4k quality. Its a bit like playing a '4k' game on the Pro with 1080p quality textures, the increased resolution can often improve the overall look of those textures anyway - maybe not to the same degree as if they had textures built for 4k.

Chances are, these games will still look 'dated' compared to games built for that generation. BC isn't going to 'remaster' the game and it will still use the same assets it had. It will still have the same level of Lighting, shadows etc - unless they can get devs to patch in the 'Ultra' settings. Games capped at 30fps will still run at 30fps even if they could easily run at 60 (or more). The reason Ninja Gaiden for example runs in 21:9 on BC was because he game was built in 21:9 and then constrained to 4:3. The information was already there. The reason Halo 3 has higher quality textures and HDR was because Bungie built the game with Higher quality textures and tone mapped the game down to SDR. The BC crew just reverse engineered the game to use the higher quality textures the game shipped with and revrsed the tone mapping to put HDR back in. Point is the Devs already built the game to a higher standard than the console could deliver and therefore that was already there.

Those games that have had texture updates for the X because the RAM can handle those, will have higher quality textures in 10yrs time on BC - maybe not as high as the quality of games at that time but for those who played these on a XB1, the BC version will look much better than it did when they first played it.

Like I said, BC doesn't necessarily mean the game will look and run like a proper remaster could. Most of the games releasing today though are built at 4k with high quality textures, much better lighting. shadows, draw distances etc than the current consoles - inc the X - can deliver. In a BC situation, those games will still run with the same 'settings' that the game launched with (or were patched in with the X/Pro). If the game also received a 'higher quality texture pack' those will be used in BC. Games with unlocked frame rates and dynamic resolution will run at their 'capped' limits - whether that's 1080p or 4k, whether that's 30 or 60fps. Maybe the BC crew could increase the resolution (like they have with the XB360 X enhanced games - but those X enhanced games don't look as good as a modern game and still look like games of that era - if a bit sharper with better textures - they still have low polygon counts by modern games, still lack the same lighting shadow quality, reflections etc that modern games have - I don't see that changing at all.

If they want to make those games look modern, the only option is to remaster/remake them. Its no different to PC versions of remastered games. You can play CoD4:MW at higher resolutions, with all the visual settings turned up to max and it doesn't look as good as CoD4:MWr. Even those areas that haven't been remade. Same can be said for Skyrim and the remastered version. Of course if you want the 'old' games to look and run like 'new' games, then remastering/remaking is the only option. New assets would be made of course but then that's not a BC game. The point I was making is that the games can look and run better than they do now but there is still a limit to how much better than can look and run - to look like 'modern' games, then they would need to be remastered but that's a different thing. All BC can do is minor improvements but they aren't suddenly going to increase the polygon count, add in more trees/foliage etc change the lighting, reflections, shadow quality etc etc to compete with modern games.

With dynamic scaling and unlocked frame rates, like playing those games on a Pro with boost mode or an X (assuming no Patch to support the more powerful hardware), you saw improvements over the base model. In the future, these games on BC would run at the 'capped' limit (unless a BC team can implement some form of resolution boost like we have seen with some titles). We are seeing Dynamic scaling on the X and Pro too so a BC version wouldn't need to scale down because of more powerful hardware. Games that are limited to 30fps now, would still be 30fps and 60fps games will run at 60fps - no drops though like we see now, no drops in resolution either like we see now so therefore improved performance and or visual quality regardless of developer input.

Some XB360 games ran 'ok' on the 360, run better on the XB1 but run best on the X. Some games look good on the 360 (for the time), look better/sharper on the XB1 but look best on the XB1X with higher res and better texture filtering. None of these though look like they were remastered for this gen.

Expand

@KratosMD I have wondered what Sony do with their PSNow 'online' games - especially if the servers were turned off. Are they playable in a 'dedicated' PSNow server or are they just not playable - at least the online component anyway.

Its really the last 10yrs that Online has become such a big thing. I know we had online before that but online was the 'bonus', not the main feature. Halo for example was sold on the strength of its campaign and the MP was a 'bonus' for those willing to pay for Gold. It was the 360 and then the PS3 that really brought online to the mainstream. Games that were built for Single Players only suddenly had to have some 'online'. Assassins Creed, Uncharted, Dead Space, BioShock etc all added in MP whether they needed it or not and in some cases, the SP seemed to suffer. I know Uncharted didn't but a lot did. Halo, one of the games that really started the online revolution on consoles but had an amazing campaign (for its time), now seems as though the MP is the focus. Battlefield arguably hasn't had a decent campaign since Bad Company 2.

Whilst older games may have other issues with Backwards Compatibility and Game Preservation - such as 'licensing' or deceased studio's for example, they also have the advantage that all aspects of the game were built to be played locally. Games like Goldeneye, Mario Kart etc all played locally with no online/server issue.

Moving forward, we are coming to the stage now where PS3/XB360 games are 'retro' and the potential for 'total' preservation/backwards compatibility could be affected by 'online' support. What happens to these games in 10yrs time? Halo may not be such an issue as it was recently released on XB1 in the Master Chief collection inc all online maps - at least you can still play that game and with the 'original' visuals too. We have recently heard that Killzone 2 and 3 will lose their online support in a few months so where will that leave those games? Its possible that Sony could remaster these in a pack in the future with remastered MP too for online. A number of Sony's other games - like the Resistance trilogy too could find themselves being much more limited in their functionality.

At the moment, MS's BC is working with online games - they still offer the MP and can still be played with 360 owners - if there are many now - if they don't have an XB1. It would be interesting to see the average percentage of 360 owners vs XB1 owners playing these games online. For MS to continue to support games indefinitely and their online component, surely they would have to keep upgrading and increasing their servers. Maybe the way they work is 'different' - not 'dedicated' to a specific game but flexible enough to cope with any game - just connect people looking to play specific games. No traffic for Halo:CE for example wouldn't make the servers redundant but would be used to help cope with the traffic for Sea of Thieves instead. Essentially the servers count all traffic the same regardless of game but links up people seeking to play the same games. As long as the servers can cope with the peak number of users and the highest demand - assuming modern games require more traffic per person than an older gen game. It seems that Sony either keep a certain server for specific games or at the very least, allocate a specific amount of traffic open per game. By closing down that window or server, they can re-allocate that traffic/server to something else.

No doubt MS will eventually turn off online support for the 360 at some-point. Those BC games obviously use the same servers so I assume that the 'traffic' from 360 owners will cease and those BC games will still work but the lobbies will only be XB1 owners. It maybe that by the time MS do, the percentage of 360 owners in lobbies is negligible anyway and the traffic they create is virtually non-existant.

This is of course speculation but if MS are operating their servers in this way - counting traffic rather than specific game traffic with the servers able to connect people depending on game, the future of game preservation with 'online' games could well be a non-issue. The bigger issue though is whether or not there are sufficient numbers of gamers to connect with and within a 'reasonable' distance to minimise Ping/Lag issues. If though, you and group of friends decided to play a BC game, enough to fill a lobby, then the server would allow you to connect - its not like you will be playing different games at the same time so your traffic use is no different (assuming the traffic flow is similar across games) to if you were playing a 'new' game. All MS would need to do is increase server capacity if the number of online users increase beyond its current capacity - not because there are more 'online' games now. As long as the servers can cope with the traffic demand during 'peak' times and all playing the most 'traffic' demanding game, then it shouldn't affect older games.

Because Online in console gaming is still relatively 'new', its difficult to see exactly what may become of these with Backwards Compatibility and/or Game Preservation. You can't play online on a OG Xbox anymore because the console is no longer supported - LAN though could be an alternative - also for PS consoles too. We know Sony's approach so far - not saying that will be their approach in the future - but it does seem that PS3 (and older) online games (or at least online components) are living on borrowed time if not killed off already - leaving what ever offline aspects for those owners or prospective purchasers only. Like I said, LAN could be one option but that only helps in a local setting. It could be 'fun' to have a retro LAN party or maybe even set up a Retro LAN club/event in you local area to keep these games going - of course that only works if you have a working 'retro' console and controllers.

I do see a number of retro gaming sites which could 'evolve' to include the online games but again licensing and permission could come into play. I doubt Sony or GG would allow Killzone 2 and/or 3 to be uploaded to a Retro gaming site. Its more the Exclusives that I think will suffer the most - especially Sony's IF they continue to kill their older games off. Multi-platform games could survive longer - either via PC or Xbox (assuming they do come to BC and MS continues to support them fully and indefinitely). If you want to play Knights of the Old Republic, that's still possible on PC and (now) Xbox, same goes for Mass Effect Trilogy or Dead Space for example. I know it doesn't help if you bought for PS3 - having to buy a PC/Xbox and then the games again but in terms of preservation - its good. You also shouldn't need the most powerful PC to play these either.

Expand

@KratosMD I think it really does depend on the game. Would you still want to play Killzone 2 online in 5yrs time? Especially if Sony (or other developer) comes out with a more 'current' FPS Multi-player? Sony though do tend to put a lot of emphasis on the Single Player content. People will buy Uncharted or Last of Us for the Story, the Single Player first and foremost. If the MP is 'great' too - bonus! The fact that the Nathan Drake Collection didn't have 2 and 3's MP wasn't necessarily a bad thing - people can play the latest Uncharted MP on 4.

Of their upcoming games, only Dreams seems like it could suffer in the future - like LBP could suffer (if it hasn't already). Not so much the developers vision but the community created content that can give a game like these virtually infinite potential. If you yourself don't have the creativity to make your own content, what happens to all those user generated content? Spider-Man, Detroit, Days Gone, God of War, Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima etc don't look like they will be affected - as long as you still have a PS4 console to play them on. Potentially a lot of these could see the 'remaster' treatment on PS5 and/or any potential Sony console that follows but when Sony do opt to turn off online for PS4, these games shouldn't be affected. If you have enough notification before hand, you can ensure that any patch/DLC you want is downloaded and installed to a Hard-Drive (external too if you want/need extra space - even make a back-up too) - same goes for any Digital purchases you may want to keep. It will of course affect any IGC game you may have acquired as the licence to play will cease too - so you could delete these and any residual content to make room for the games/DLC you could play offline.

This again goes back to the decisions you make as to whether you buy digital or Physical. If, like it appears MS are doing, it takes away the fear of losing access to that game by buying digitally. In 10yrs time, even if the XB360 and XB1 are turned off, those games should still be accessible and potentially could be re-downloaded on that era of Xbox - inc patches/DLC etc. Not sure about games that maybe removed due to licensing issues - companies losing the right to make 'Marvel' or 'James Bond' games and the 'removal' of these from Digital stores. If you bought these 'physically' you could at least still play them - again though, maybe not if they can't run on that generation from the Disc so you may have to get or keep your old console to play these but these will definitely be offline (or LAN only).

I buy Physical by choice but even then its not necessarily a guarantee that games will work in the future. A number of Physical games require a 'big' download. Its not just because they have big patches and in some cases, its purely because the current consoles can't use multiple discs. MS stated the OG Xbox was not capable of having games on multiple discs but with their new 'intelligent delivery' system, that's now possible again - the second disc could have various texture packs (different for base and X), different language packs, MP or Campaign. This was designed to free up storage space as base users for example won't need the highest res texture pack taking up space on the base model and don't need the 'standard; textures if you have an X. You don't need 20 different language packs taking up space either and can just install 'English' if that's the only language you want/need - thus freeing up space.

I know a lot of people may be concerned about accessing a patch, DLC or online in the future. However its not so much of an issue if you owned the game before the online support gets turned off. If you are concerned, make sure you keep all you games up to date and download everything you want to keep indefinitely. The current consoles do support External HDD's and whilst you may only be able to keep 1 or two connected, there is nothing stopping you from having 'multiple' if you need it - swapping them over to play the games on those HDD's. Its more of an issue if you want to buy the game after online support is gone. It maybe possible to find updates/patches that you can download to a USB and install to console that way.

Granted its a lot more difficult than it was as old games had no after support. You still tended to need a working console and hope that the games still run - I remember struggling to get some N64 cartridges to work consistently and I remember some games I had on tape not always loading properly - tapes stretch, can get tangled and damaged, corrupted too. Replacements - whether its hardware (console, controller etc) or Software (tape, cartridge etc) aren't always easy to come by. Cartridges also had batteries in them used to keep saved data. When these die, you lose any progress (All those stars and opened worlds in SM64), if you unlocked all the 'hidden' maps or modes (like reverse tracks in Mario Kart or secret maps, characters in Goldeneye), you could find those all gone one day - even if you start again, every time you return, you are always starting again. Its not easy to replace those batteries either - not without breaking the cartridge.

When I moved house around 5yrs ago, I cleared out my attic and as I never through anything away, I had boxes and boxes of games on tape, cartridge, floppy disc etc. I even had a lot of the hardware these played on. I ended up having to take these to the tip. I couldn't guarantee if any still worked as I hadn't played some of these 30yrs. I didn't have space for them in my new house, didn't have time to check them or even if the hardware still worked. I couldn't tell you if my OG Xbox Crystal works as I haven't used that for 10yrs - something that didn't go to the tip - nor any of the games. I gave all my PS2/PS1 games to my son who still had a working PS2 when my PS3 phat (day 1) got YLOD and I replaced it with a Slim but everything from the OG Xbox was kept - glad I did now with MS offering some BC with these but I can't see all of my games being BC - I guess some will become obsolete but in truth, if I was that bothered, I guess I would still have my OG Xbox set up and be using it.

I do like the BC on XB1 though - even if I rarely (if ever) use it - not with an increasing backlog on current hardware. In many ways, I think its great for retro and 'new' gamers to be able to see the evolution and experience some of the classics. I do think its funny that so many gamers complain about not getting 60fps as standard when some games I loved couldn't even hold a consistent 20fps, complain about loading times or the hassle of swapping a disc yet I remember when swapping a game could take a lifetime (it felt) - watching a loading screen draw line by line for 10mins before it then loaded in the game. It was worse on compilation cassettes if you wanted to play a specific game that wasn't the first on that side.

There are games that I think don't necessarily make sense to preserve or offer BC. Would you really want to play Fifa/PES 98 when you can get the latest or last years Fifa/PES for a few quid? Would you want Forza Motorsport 1-4, when 5-7 are available. 5 probably wasn't as good as 4 but if you have an X and 4k wide screen TV for example, would you want to play a 4:3, SD game that does the same thing as 7 - maybe less as weather wasn't in the earlier games. Sports sims get dated quite quickly and the newer games offer refinements - its not like they have an epic story line or 'unique' game-play/art style. I agree that games like Burnout Paradise or even Project Gotham Racing had something 'unique' to them being more 'arcade'. I don't know if fighting games could fall into this category - I know SF2 is still popular but would some one want to play a Megadrive era Mortal Kombat game or play the latest. I am not into Fighting games myself so don't know if there would be a market for retro fighting games outside of SF2. Would they want to play 'Yr ar kung fu' or 'way of the exploding fist?

That then opens up the discussion as to which if any games should or shouldn't be 'preserved' outside of a museum. Preserved in the fact they are playable on current hardware. Who should decide? Should Fifa 08 be Backwards Compatible indefinitely? I don't think many would criticise if it wasn't but would if Bioshock, Uncharted or God of War 2 were not yet these released in the same year. What about games like Colin McRae Dirt, Forza 2 or games like Guitar Hero 2 or Rock Band - games that either offer nothing we can't get better/refined or require specific hardware to get the best out of and that hardware may not be supported on current hardware anyway. I know we all have favourites that we may want to play again but who gets to decide which games deserve to be preserved/backwards compatible indefinitely. Like I said, would you want to play an old Sports/Racing Sim when there are much more recent entries in those franchises and don't offer a unique story, want to play games that require 'hardware' like guitars/drums, Kinect or dance mats? If so, should console manufacturers ensure that old peripherals work on modern consoles? Its easy if the controller hasn't changed much - an extra thumbstick doesn't matter because you still have a D-pad - you still have all the inputs that the first joysticks had as they were just 1 stick with 2 buttons.

There is a difference in my mind between game preservation and Backwards Compatibility. Like I said, I don't know if it would worth ensuring every annual sports Sim is necessary worth ensuring they remain Backwards Compatible indefinitely. It may be worth keeping the last 1 or two of an old generation when a 'new' generation launches like keeping Fifa 13 and 14 when the PS4/XB1 launched but if its 'total' BC built in - like the PS3 had, then all of Fifa's PS4/XB1 releases should work on the next gen anyway - whether people opt to play them or not. Theoretically games like Guitar Hero should work too but whether you can play them with the peripheral or not could determine whether or not its worth people holding on to these games. The difference though could be what, if anything, MicroSofts Back Compat team do with certain games. Its probably not worth their time/effort increasing resolutions or doing anything to 'improve' them beyond what the built in hardware will do (like run games at their capped level because of superior power and improve texture filtering because that's built in regardless) - not like they have done with the OG Xbox and 'enhanced for X' BC games.

Sony must have a team to work on the PSNow library - boosting their resolution and adding in Trophy support so its a shame they don't apply these to a BC function on PS4. I understand that they are getting money from PSNow subscriptions to effectively fund that team - not just from PS owners but PC too. Not sure if its still available via their own Sony Smart TV's but I know they removed their service from Samsung TV's. Arguably they are preserving games that way and even bringing favourites into the modern era with remastering/remaking games. Again this is another difference between preserving and backwards compatibility. Its not preserving your library and even MS's is 'limited' - certainly compared to potential number of games that BC could offer. So far over 400 games (I think) are Backwards Compatible but that's only a small percentage of the total number of games that 'could' be BC. We don't know if ALL XB1 games will move with you but assume that is what they want to offer moving forward. This is why I think they may well not release a 'next' gen Box as such but an iterative upgrade - much like upgrading your PC. Phasing out the base model so the X becomes the base model and the 'nextbox' is the 'Premium model. The Next box after that would become the 'Premium' model and see the X phased out etc etc. No game would necessarily be 'exclusive' to the X even if it doesn't work on the base because the X at that time becomes the Base and also runs on the 'premium' nextbox.

Again, to compare to the PC market, you may have a Radeon 7790 GPU PC and that is the current minimum but the RX580 is the current premium and runs the games better. In 3-4yrs, games don't run well enough on the Radeon 7790 but still run on the RX580 - however there is now Vega on the market as the premium. You either go without playing that game or upgrade to a RX580 (which is now 3-4yrs old but cheap) or buy the Premium, more expensive Vega. If you buy the older RX580, which is now the 'minimum required, in 3-4yrs time, you will find that some games may need Vega to run so either buy Vega cheap or buy Vega 2 for a 'premium' experience. Whichever options you decide, all those games you bought and could play when you owned your Radeon 7790, play perfectly well - if not better on Vega or Vega2.

Switch out Radeon 7790 for XB1 or slim, RX580 for XB1X, Vega for 'Nextbox' and Vega for 'nextbox 2'. I really can't see why people wouldn't grasp this concept - just because its in 'console' form. People wouldn't expect their XB1 to last more than 7-8yrs so phasing it out then as the Nextbox launches seems logical. Those with 'X's' also wouldn't necessarily need to buy the 'Nextbox' as that now becomes the 'Base' model. When Sony do opt to release the PS5, the PS4 Pro will be replaced and have a much shorter 'lifespan' than the PS4 - 3yrs shorter. In the example I gave above, the X would have the same lifespan as the OG XB1 because the OG XB1 will be phased out whilst the X continues to get games releasing - its just the 'base' model now. In this format, you can expect your console to last 6-8yrs before 'needing' to upgrade to keep playing the latest games. With Sony's more traditional model, you would need to upgrade to play the latest games because if they can't run on a base PS4, then they won't release it at all so the Pro users won't get to play it either. The rumour is that Sony will release a PS5 in 2019 - a console to deliver the full 4k (inc Media - like 4k Blurays, Audio - like Atmos, maybe even HDMI2.1 features like Game VRR too) which means that the Pro would be replaced essentially 3yrs after release although the generation itself is 6yrs old by then.

IF MS do go that route, it would also mean that games and your library is preserved. The consoles would automatically be capable of playing the games because its 'iterative' and the only reason modern games don't run adequately on the 7yr+ consoles is purely a lack of power in the hardware - just like the PC sector. If you have a PC with a Radeon 7790, you can't expect it to continue delivering games indefinitely. It doesn't become 'obsolete; overnight either but you would see an increasing number of games releasing that require more powerful hardware. You could still play a game like Battlefield 1 with X and 'Nextbox' owners although that game would run best on Next Box but maybe you can't run the latest BF game adequately without upgrading to either the X or Nextbox. In this example, the preservation of games is just like PC. You may have an Old PC that can play Battlefield 2 but need to upgrade to play Battlefield 1 and if you do upgrade, Battlefield 2 is still playable.

Yet again this is speculation but seems the most likely progression for consoles and the different approaches that Sony and MS appear to be heading down. Its not guaranteed that either will go down these paths but based on comments and attitudes that both seem to be demonstrating, this seems most likely. MS could release a 'next gen' console and do BC like they have on XB1 - decide which games will be BC and which won't, build it with 'total' compatibility and get its own software. Publishers for example releasing XB1 and/or XB2 versions instead of just an Xbox version that runs ok on Base XB1, better on X and 'best' on nextbox. Would X owners be happy if they don't get games released on XB1 because the base model can't cope. I know you could ask the same about 'Pro' too but that is much closer to the base PS4 and also released a year earlier. If a game can't run well enough on the PS4 - a more capable console than the XB1, then the Pro isn't going to offer much more - we are talking about a game that can't run at 720/30 on a PS4 so certainly would struggle to run at 1080/30 maybe even struggle at 900/30. The XB1 will hit its limitations much sooner than the PS4 because its not as capable. The X is significantly more powerful and would be difficult to see a game not running adequately at some level.

Anyway, yet again I have written another Essay so I will leave it there.