• 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by AcidBrandon18 (764 posts) -

I'm currently sitting with a gamerscore of 93892 with some notable cheevos being Mile High Club . #team Brad! So I'm wondering if your achievements or trophies will effect what next-gen system you choose or how deep in an individual system's ecosystem you are that could effect your choice .

#2 Posted by DarthOrange (3868 posts) -

I am invested in the PS ecosystem but I am not so much invested with trophies (although they are great) as I am with my friends list.

#3 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4235 posts) -

Post Numbah One Thousand! I'll make some cake tomorrow. ~ Uhm. I mean I have a PS3 now. I think I'm like a level 15 on there, and I still don't care Too-o much about PS4. It looks like they're gonna keep that trophy system, but hopefully they at least add to it. I'm now at 25,883 in Xbox achievements, haven't played in like a year, but I still care way more about Achievements than I do Trophies.

So sure, I'm definitely taking Achievements into account. :)

#4 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

No, it is completely meaningless.

#5 Posted by SuperWristBands (2266 posts) -

No. I managed to pull myself away from achievements after having invested far too much time (~110k achievements) and as a result I don't care much for that system anymore.

I use the PS3 more often now and trophies don't do much for me either (thankfully).

Although I did get kinda bummed when Asura's Wrath needed an update for DLC trophies which I didn't download and as a result I did not get any trophies for the DLC. I didn't go back for them.

#6 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

Not in the slightest. They mean absolutely nothing. I say this with about 90,000 points. Honestly I've never seen them more than a gimmick and a way of tracking progress.

I still play games the same way I played them 10 years ago. With or without achievements.

#7 Posted by Gravier251 (217 posts) -

No it won't really impact my choice. I have mostly always seen achievements as a record where I can browse down through the games I own and see when I bought and finished them, etc. I don't hold any attachment to the points. I will simply go where the games/exclusives that interest me are.

#8 Edited by Xymox (2107 posts) -

I only care about achievements if they can be congregated into one place with all other achievements you have. That is, I don't care about in-game achievements that are not tied to a service, like PC Mass Effect, and I don't care about Star Craft 2 achievements because they're only tied to the SC2 service. So if they decide to lock that stuff down and make it hard for trackers like the old giant bomb and raptr to pull that information then I see no point in having them. Comparing with others regardless of platform they're on, keeping track of progress, and extending the life of a game you like, and a sense of accomplishment for the really hard ones to finally prove that yea I did that. But then I'm one of those people who will rather buy a steam game with achievements if the choice is between one that has chives and one that doesn't. That is to say I'm insane. So I guess, myeee-maybe?

Online
#9 Edited by Slag (4615 posts) -

Well considering I'm three gens deep in the Sony Ecoystem, I'd say it only helps push me to a PS4.

But at best it's a tiebreaker

My order of importance is roughly this

1- Games I want to play (far and away the most important, arguably the only deciding factor)

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

3- Friends

4- existing Achievements/Trophies

5- Price

#10 Edited by wrecks (2287 posts) -

Achievements were a fun new thing for a few years but I am completely over them now. They won't have any bearing on my future purchases.

#11 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Nope achievements are dumb.

#12 Edited by Beforet (2929 posts) -

Eh, not so much the trophies as much as the infrastructure. I'm already embedded in Sony's system, with a PS+ account and everything. The trophies are certainly part of that (though tro tros are making less and less of a difference to me as time goes on. I just have too much in the backlog to care about getting every achievement).

#13 Edited by iam3green (14390 posts) -

no, i never cared for them. first thing that i thought of when i got a xbox 360 and ps3 was that it's probably not going to carry over to next generation. i don't think are any announcements for it but just thought of that.

#14 Edited by Gargantuan (1883 posts) -

Used to care a bit about achievements but not anymore.

#15 Posted by Joystick_Hero (29 posts) -

The only way trophies/achievements will factor into my future purchases is if they actually do something. If I could redeem gamerscore for free stuff, I would be all over the newest Microsoft hotness.

#16 Posted by TopSteer (671 posts) -

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

#17 Edited by guiseppe (2842 posts) -

Nope, I think my choice will be easy. It all comes down to which platform doesn't require me to pay to play online. And that looks like the PS4 right now. Then again, who knows.

#18 Edited by expensiveham (293 posts) -

Never cared much for achievements. Except in World of Warcraft but i stopped playing that.

#19 Edited by Hunkulese (2787 posts) -

Both consoles will have achievements so what difference does it make?

#20 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

No.

#21 Posted by Jimbo (9871 posts) -

Anybody who does that should get a really bad dead arm.

#22 Posted by kindgineer (2771 posts) -

Nope. As much as I hold achievements/trophies in high regard in terms of what I do in a game outside the normal, I haven't kept the same account for either Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3 to help determine my migration choice. Judging by how Sony did at the conference, and Microsoft's lack of promptness, it looks like the PS4 is my current choice. We'll see, though, when Microsoft unveils it's plans.

#23 Edited by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

Hell no. Whether or not my trophies were to transfer to the PS4, it won't be a deciding factor on when/if I buy one.

#24 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

Yes they will.

#25 Posted by Humanity (9604 posts) -

I've been gaming primarily on xbox for the past 5 years or something so I would like to continue doing so but if the new xbox is utterly horrible I will probably get whatever seems like the better choice. If my cheevos don't transfer over that would be a major bummer but I'd learn to deal with it.

#26 Edited by Bigandtasty (3203 posts) -

I care, but not that much. I'm ready to go to PC and abandon my Xbox achievements.

#27 Posted by natedawg_kz (234 posts) -

I love the PlayStation exclusives so that's why I'll be purchasing a PS4 But i love achieving platinums for my favourite games and trophies help me complete games that i would struggle to bother with.

#28 Edited by Branthog (5583 posts) -

No, I'll buy them all and then play none of them, like usual.

I own several 360s and PS3s and I haven't played a game on the 360 December or January or on the PS3 since the day Starhawk launched, in May of 2012 (in fact, that is disc is still in the PS3, after I bought it, played it for a couple hours, and then never touched it again).

If they got rid of the entire concept on all the consoles, however, I'd be pretty stoked.

#29 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

They didn't affect my choice this gen, so why next gen?

#30 Posted by TyCobb (1972 posts) -

Achievements and Trophies have no weight when it comes to me buying a system. I would be just as happy if they didn't exist.

#31 Edited by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I play video games for fun.

#32 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5841 posts) -

not even a little bit

#33 Edited by Slag (4615 posts) -

@topsteer said:

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

That's a fair question

I actually don't expect it, but if Sony does offer that would be easily be a deciding factor for me. I don't own an Xbox 360, but say MSFT offers that and Sony doesn't, I might consider switching as that would communicate to me that downloaded games would be better and safer purchases from MSFT.

On the surface what you mention sounds plausible for why they can't/ shouldn't offer that, especially given the Cell architecture is being abandoned.

But when you look at the big picture I don't accept that line of reasoning that Sony is giving (and what Microsoft likely will as well).

Three reasons

1)-Sony has hinted plans at re-releasing that content on the PS4 through maybe a streaming service, so why should I have rebuy it? Sony has my PSN purchasing history, all they have do is activate the license on the PS4 (if I choose to buy one) to let me download it on the PS4. Clearly they will have a way to run these games.

2) Their competitors offer that or something similar now. My Steam Purchases seem to work indefinitely and the WiiU for all its' faults does offer Wii disc BC. The rumor on the VC purchases is that Wii VC purchases can transfer over at a pretty steep discount

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/wii-u-virtual-console-os-upgrades-announced

So while still essentially double charging you for a product you already own, Nintendo at least recognizes that the consumer has already paid for the product.

3) New Digital purchases at least so far cost just as much as retail releases but at least offer considerably less value. Mainly coming from the fact you can't resell them. If you add in artificial obsolescence the value gap becomes even worse. So there needs to be a better reason to download games than just immediate convenience, at least for me to switch from discs.

Let's take the Telltale Walking Dead for example, my guess is that given the popularity of that title it will be available on the PS4's streaming service. Why should I repay for something I already bought if it's going to be available on it? Sony has my history they know I bought it on my PS3. All they have to do is flip a switch and let me download it if I so choose on the PS4.

Now if the Walking Dead is not available on the PS4 at all, that's a different issue.

I'm not asking for saved games to be compatible (although that would be nice), but if I bought digital rights to software that is being sold on their new system it doesn't seem unreasonable to honor those purchases when it is well within their ability to offer that.

#34 Edited by Branthog (5583 posts) -

@slag said:

@topsteer said:

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

That's a fair question

I actually don't expect it, but if Sony does offer that would be easily be a deciding factor for me. I don't own an Xbox 360, but say MSFT offers that and Sony doesn't, I might consider switching as that would communicate to me that downloaded games would be better and safer purchases from MSFT.

On the surface what you mention sounds plausible for why they can't/ shouldn't offer that, especially given the Cell architecture is being abandoned.

But when you look at the big picture I don't accept that line of reasoning that Sony is giving (and what Microsoft likely will as well).

Three reasons

1)-Sony has hinted plans at re-releasing that content on the PS4 through maybe a streaming service, so why should I have rebuy it? Sony has my PSN purchasing history, all they have do is activate the license on the PS4 (if I choose to buy one) to let me download it on the PS4. Clearly they will have a way to run these games.

2) Their competitors offer that or something similar now. My Steam Purchases seem to work indefinitely and the WiiU for all its' faults does offer Wii disc BC. The rumor on the VC purchases is that Wii VC purchases can transfer over at a pretty steep discount

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/wii-u-virtual-console-os-upgrades-announced

So while still essentially double charging you for a product you already own, Nintendo at least recognizes that the consumer has already paid for the product.

3) New Digital purchases at least so far cost just as much as retail releases but at least offer considerably less value. Mainly coming from the fact you can't resell them. If you add in artificial obsolescence the value gap becomes even worse. So there needs to be a better reason to download games than just immediate convenience, at least for me to switch from discs.

Let's take the Telltale Walking Dead for example, my guess is that given the popularity of that title it will be available on the PS4's streaming service. Why should I repay for something I already bought if it's going to be available on it? Sony has my history they know I bought it on my PS3. All they have to do is flip a switch and let me download it if I so choose on the PS4.

Now if the Walking Dead is not available on the PS4 at all, that's a different issue.

I'm not asking for saved games to be compatible (although that would be nice), but if I bought digital rights to software that is being sold on their new system it doesn't seem unreasonable to honor those purchases when it is well within their ability to offer that.

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

#35 Posted by JJWeatherman (14560 posts) -

Effect vs. Affect

Look, someone had to say it. We can't grow if we remain silent. Knowledge is power.

Achievements will have little to no impact on my future purchasing decisions.

#36 Edited by Pudge (900 posts) -

If the new consoles had come out two years ago, the answer would have been yes. But then I got a PC.

#37 Posted by Slag (4615 posts) -

@branthog said:

@slag said:

@topsteer said:

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

That's a fair question

I actually don't expect it, but if Sony does offer that would be easily be a deciding factor for me. I don't own an Xbox 360, but say MSFT offers that and Sony doesn't, I might consider switching as that would communicate to me that downloaded games would be better and safer purchases from MSFT.

On the surface what you mention sounds plausible for why they can't/ shouldn't offer that, especially given the Cell architecture is being abandoned.

But when you look at the big picture I don't accept that line of reasoning that Sony is giving (and what Microsoft likely will as well).

Three reasons

1)-Sony has hinted plans at re-releasing that content on the PS4 through maybe a streaming service, so why should I have rebuy it? Sony has my PSN purchasing history, all they have do is activate the license on the PS4 (if I choose to buy one) to let me download it on the PS4. Clearly they will have a way to run these games.

2) Their competitors offer that or something similar now. My Steam Purchases seem to work indefinitely and the WiiU for all its' faults does offer Wii disc BC. The rumor on the VC purchases is that Wii VC purchases can transfer over at a pretty steep discount

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/wii-u-virtual-console-os-upgrades-announced

So while still essentially double charging you for a product you already own, Nintendo at least recognizes that the consumer has already paid for the product.

3) New Digital purchases at least so far cost just as much as retail releases but at least offer considerably less value. Mainly coming from the fact you can't resell them. If you add in artificial obsolescence the value gap becomes even worse. So there needs to be a better reason to download games than just immediate convenience, at least for me to switch from discs.

Let's take the Telltale Walking Dead for example, my guess is that given the popularity of that title it will be available on the PS4's streaming service. Why should I repay for something I already bought if it's going to be available on it? Sony has my history they know I bought it on my PS3. All they have to do is flip a switch and let me download it if I so choose on the PS4.

Now if the Walking Dead is not available on the PS4 at all, that's a different issue.

I'm not asking for saved games to be compatible (although that would be nice), but if I bought digital rights to software that is being sold on their new system it doesn't seem unreasonable to honor those purchases when it is well within their ability to offer that.

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

yup, exactly.

I must admit, I'm a bit surprised at how easily gamers are swallowing the flimsy reasons we've been given so far for why this is "tough". That disappointingly seems to be the prevailing school of thought, which doesn't bode well for consumers.

As you pointed out, it's not like they can't address these concerns through customer service practices (like lower prices for digital games) if for some reason the emulation technological barrier is too hard to address profitably.

#38 Posted by EvilNiGHTS (1093 posts) -

Ideally I'll be buying both (we'll see how that works out), but I'd have to guess that anyone who only owns one console already had their mind made up before the PS4 was even announced.

#39 Edited by believer258 (11999 posts) -

At some point in the past it may have but the minute I got a PC I almost completely dropped the 360, and PS3 trophies/Steam achievements do not mean shit to me.

@branthog:

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

I am absolutely not defending the lack of backwards compatibility but even if you do create one overarching emulator, I doubt the performance would be satisfactory on every game without some tweaks here and troubleshooting there. Have you seen the 360's emulation of original Xbox games? It worked decently well sometimes.

Not including backwards compatibility for physical games is terrible enough but providing no way for me to play 360 or PSN exclusive downloadable games that I paid for on future consoles is a fucking shitty thing to do. Unfortunately, it's also something that doesn't bring in a ton of money, so doing it is hardly a benefit when the majority of consumers have proven that they'll swallow that pill if they get to play the latest and greatest. I'm just not sure if we can expect it from the perspective of a businessman, someone in a suit around a table looking at what projects are making money and what aren't.

#40 Edited by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -

Nope. Have never and will never care about them.

#41 Posted by believer258 (11999 posts) -

@branthog:

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

I am absolutely not defending the lack of backwards compatibility but even if you do create one overarching emulator, I doubt the performance would be satisfactory on every game without some tweaks here and troubleshooting there. Have you seen the 360's emulation of original Xbox games? It worked decently well sometimes.

Not including backwards compatibility for physical games is terrible enough but providing no way for me to play 360 or PSN exclusive downloadable games that I paid for on future consoles is a fucking shitty thing to do. Unfortunately, it's also something that doesn't bring in a ton of money, so doing it is hardly a benefit when the majority of consumers have proven that they'll swallow that pill if they get to play the latest and greatest. I'm just not sure if we can expect it from the perspective of a businessman, someone in a suit around a table looking at what projects are making money and what aren't.

#42 Edited by Daveyo520 (6862 posts) -

I used to be really into achievements but I have fallen off. I stopped playing my Xbox and just play my PC now. On Steam I don't really care about achievements probably because they don't have a score. Though every once in a while I will try to get one. Also with the site getting rid of achievement tracking and S Ranks that gets rid of a ton of reason to get them.

#43 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1815 posts) -

Poll?

Anyway, not at all. I am thankfully over the whole achievement thing (stooping as low as buy History Channel Civil War was rock bottom)

I still like achievements/trophies, but I only bother to get them if it's a game I like. I don't give a shit about the overall total, for me it's more about going for s-ranks in the games I like, which is pretty much platform agnostic.

#44 Edited by Branthog (5583 posts) -

At some point in the past it may have but the minute I got a PC I almost completely dropped the 360, and PS3 trophies/Steam achievements do not mean shit to me.

@branthog:

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

I am absolutely not defending the lack of backwards compatibility but even if you do create one overarching emulator, I doubt the performance would be satisfactory on every game without some tweaks here and troubleshooting there. Have you seen the 360's emulation of original Xbox games? It worked decently well sometimes.

Not including backwards compatibility for physical games is terrible enough but providing no way for me to play 360 or PSN exclusive downloadable games that I paid for on future consoles is a fucking shitty thing to do. Unfortunately, it's also something that doesn't bring in a ton of money, so doing it is hardly a benefit when the majority of consumers have proven that they'll swallow that pill if they get to play the latest and greatest. I'm just not sure if we can expect it from the perspective of a businessman, someone in a suit around a table looking at what projects are making money and what aren't.

Remember, the last generation of consoles had only a four year gap. This generation has an eight year gap, between iterations. That's a lot more computing power. For example, if the PS4 is supposed to be about equal to a new PC built for gaming, then that means it should be around 20 times as powerful as the PS3. I don't see why, computationally, a system that is twenty times more powerful than what the software initially ran on could not absorb the overhead of emulation and perform just as well. (Granted, the emulation is probably more difficult going from CELL to x86 than x86 to x86). Especially when we're not talking about emulating Bioshock: Infinite on the PS4 and the next XBox, but emulating BLXA/PSN games -- Trenched, Fat Princess, Monday Night Combat, UNO, and so on.

I'm certain it is no small feat, but the time and attention should be put into it for the warm-fuzzies it gives your customers and the confidence in buying your product. We are well beyond the 20th century, where you purchased content on physical mediums and had to reasonably expect that they had a finite life span.

I think that physical games and full retail games should also be emulated successfully (again, especially with such a lengthy iteration cycle), but am not as put off by the lack of this as I am with a "digital" purchase.

#45 Posted by TopSteer (671 posts) -

@branthog said:

@slag said:

@topsteer said:

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

That's a fair question

I actually don't expect it, but if Sony does offer that would be easily be a deciding factor for me. I don't own an Xbox 360, but say MSFT offers that and Sony doesn't, I might consider switching as that would communicate to me that downloaded games would be better and safer purchases from MSFT.

On the surface what you mention sounds plausible for why they can't/ shouldn't offer that, especially given the Cell architecture is being abandoned.

But when you look at the big picture I don't accept that line of reasoning that Sony is giving (and what Microsoft likely will as well).

Three reasons

1)-Sony has hinted plans at re-releasing that content on the PS4 through maybe a streaming service, so why should I have rebuy it? Sony has my PSN purchasing history, all they have do is activate the license on the PS4 (if I choose to buy one) to let me download it on the PS4. Clearly they will have a way to run these games.

2) Their competitors offer that or something similar now. My Steam Purchases seem to work indefinitely and the WiiU for all its' faults does offer Wii disc BC. The rumor on the VC purchases is that Wii VC purchases can transfer over at a pretty steep discount

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/wii-u-virtual-console-os-upgrades-announced

So while still essentially double charging you for a product you already own, Nintendo at least recognizes that the consumer has already paid for the product.

3) New Digital purchases at least so far cost just as much as retail releases but at least offer considerably less value. Mainly coming from the fact you can't resell them. If you add in artificial obsolescence the value gap becomes even worse. So there needs to be a better reason to download games than just immediate convenience, at least for me to switch from discs.

Let's take the Telltale Walking Dead for example, my guess is that given the popularity of that title it will be available on the PS4's streaming service. Why should I repay for something I already bought if it's going to be available on it? Sony has my history they know I bought it on my PS3. All they have to do is flip a switch and let me download it if I so choose on the PS4.

Now if the Walking Dead is not available on the PS4 at all, that's a different issue.

I'm not asking for saved games to be compatible (although that would be nice), but if I bought digital rights to software that is being sold on their new system it doesn't seem unreasonable to honor those purchases when it is well within their ability to offer that.

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

I wish it were so easy as to just flip a switch, @brad has even said this before. Basically the fact that they're downloadable games makes no difference, it's just as hard to make them backwards compatible as it is for retail games.

#46 Posted by Branthog (5583 posts) -

@topsteer said:

@branthog said:

@slag said:

@topsteer said:

@slag said:

2- Backwards Compatibility (at least with downloaded stuff)

Not to single you out but why do people expect their downloadable games to be backwards compatible? PSN and XBLA games run on the same hardware as retail games so it stands to reason that if retail games aren't backwards compatible then the PSN/XBLA games wouldn't be either.

That's a fair question

I actually don't expect it, but if Sony does offer that would be easily be a deciding factor for me. I don't own an Xbox 360, but say MSFT offers that and Sony doesn't, I might consider switching as that would communicate to me that downloaded games would be better and safer purchases from MSFT.

On the surface what you mention sounds plausible for why they can't/ shouldn't offer that, especially given the Cell architecture is being abandoned.

But when you look at the big picture I don't accept that line of reasoning that Sony is giving (and what Microsoft likely will as well).

Three reasons

1)-Sony has hinted plans at re-releasing that content on the PS4 through maybe a streaming service, so why should I have rebuy it? Sony has my PSN purchasing history, all they have do is activate the license on the PS4 (if I choose to buy one) to let me download it on the PS4. Clearly they will have a way to run these games.

2) Their competitors offer that or something similar now. My Steam Purchases seem to work indefinitely and the WiiU for all its' faults does offer Wii disc BC. The rumor on the VC purchases is that Wii VC purchases can transfer over at a pretty steep discount

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/23/wii-u-virtual-console-os-upgrades-announced

So while still essentially double charging you for a product you already own, Nintendo at least recognizes that the consumer has already paid for the product.

3) New Digital purchases at least so far cost just as much as retail releases but at least offer considerably less value. Mainly coming from the fact you can't resell them. If you add in artificial obsolescence the value gap becomes even worse. So there needs to be a better reason to download games than just immediate convenience, at least for me to switch from discs.

Let's take the Telltale Walking Dead for example, my guess is that given the popularity of that title it will be available on the PS4's streaming service. Why should I repay for something I already bought if it's going to be available on it? Sony has my history they know I bought it on my PS3. All they have to do is flip a switch and let me download it if I so choose on the PS4.

Now if the Walking Dead is not available on the PS4 at all, that's a different issue.

I'm not asking for saved games to be compatible (although that would be nice), but if I bought digital rights to software that is being sold on their new system it doesn't seem unreasonable to honor those purchases when it is well within their ability to offer that.

I don't see why it shouldn't be expected. PSN/XBLA games are not on the same scale as a full-blown retail game and it should be entirely reasonable to create an emulator (only has to be done once) for your own current/next generation hardware to run all of the games designed for decade-old hardware. If that can't be done, then you need to reconsider your price-point for digital-only games.

I wish it were so easy as to just flip a switch, @brad has even said this before. Basically the fact that they're downloadable games makes no difference, it's just as hard to make them backwards compatible as it is for retail games.

I don't think anyone asserts that it's an issue of flipping a switch. It's an issue of funding a small team of engineers to write an emulator -- and that is an entirely reasonable thing.

Anyway, It absolutely makes a difference. The scope, size, complexity, and power required for a downloadable game is almost never on-par with the requirements of a full retail game. I'm not talking about being able to emulate the download version of Halo 4. I'm talking about emulating to run the typical XBLA or PSN "arcade games". Emulation is primarily about throwing power at the problem, so with the reduced complexity of smaller digital arcade games and the great amount of additional power available after an almost decade-long cycle, this should absolutely be possible.

I wouldn't hold the same expectations, necessarily, for a bunch of dudes on the internet reverse engineering an emulation solution -- but when you make the hardware, the software, and the games -- extreme optimization of the emulator should be possible.

With all due respect to Brad, it is irrelevant that the same hardware is used to run both the digital download game and a full blown retail game. My PC runs Bioshock: Infinite and Plants Vs. Zombies. That doesn't mean that the computational power of my i7-3770k and 3x670s is necessary to play Plants Vs Zombies. The only thing which has to be addressed is the overhead of translating from one system to another, in the emulator. That isn't necessarily an insignificant overhead, but when you have as much as 2000% more hardware power, you have quite a lot of processing room to play with - as long as you're willing to throw a few guys on a team with a budget at the problem. An emulator is not consuming all available processing power. It is only consuming what it needs for the application and then whatever overhead it needs for itself to function.

I would find it more realistic (but only a little more) if they asserted that the problem was with licensing. Unless they trot out an engineer to explain - in detail that a fellow engineer can appreciate; not some consumer friendly marketing bullshit - why it isn't possible, then I have to assume the more likely answer, which is that they either just want people to re-buy things or they just don't give a fuck to invest in the project.

(I think a decent comparison could be drawn by looking at performance and compatibility of software on Windows, Linux, and OSX using things like WINE, Cedega, and Cygwin -- except in those cases, you don't benefit from the hardware, OS, and emulator -- of both the emulated and emulating systems -- being created by the same people.)

#47 Posted by MikeJFlick (443 posts) -

The only reason I like the trophy system is because it informs me of how much a friend liked a game(assuming more completed = had more fun)(an hour played like on steam would be better) other than that? I don't care, unless they start meaning something like maybe a discount off of a future title of the same series and since that is never going to happen I don't care.

#48 Posted by Krullban (1042 posts) -

I suddenly stopped caring about my achievements.

#49 Edited by casper_ (907 posts) -

nah dude i don't really get the appeal. i understand the high-score or fighting game kind arcade competitiveness but achievements in a lot of single player games is kind of beyond me and when i hear brad talk about doing things he doesn't enjoy to get them i become even more perplexed. to each their own of course.

#50 Posted by EXTomar (4848 posts) -

This is one of those "nice but not make or break". I'll jump in for other reasons.