Achievements/trophies are definitely part of my playing experience but they're not in my console decision process due to both the durango and ps4 having the system in place. Plus I have about equal amount of achievements as I do trophies so I'm not even more invested in one over the other.
Will your trophies/cheevos effect you next-gen choice?
I own only a PS3, and just hit the 2500 mark with my trophies... I am completely unsure about what next-gen console to get though. I've always been very happy with my choice, but I never tried the xbox systems (due to bad reputation of breaking). I even thought about getting the xbox 360 as a second system, because it has some RPGs the PS3 doesn't have. But my current life leaves me not much spare time, so... I DON'T KNOW.
@topsteer said:
@branthog said:
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.
With all due respect to Brad that is not what this is about.
Whether it is or it isn't really difficult to provide backwards compatibility doesn't matter. That is a smokescreen argument they are throwing up in attempt to get us into repurchasing the same media over and over. The tech side of backwards compatibility is Sony's problem to solve and not really what my argument is about.
The fact they do plan (as far as I know) to offer these very same PS3 games on PS4 however does, it matters a lot. If they don't offer it than this discussion is moot.
Downloadable games are almost more of a service than a product. They are not physical items and are artificially severely restricted in their use due to the console maker's sole discretion, despite basically costing the same. If Sony et al wants people to start switching to downloadable games that are locked into their ecosystem than they need to give us better value for our money.
Whether that be perceived permanence of the purchase by supporting it for multiple generations of their hardware or lower prices reflecting the loss of value for the consumer.
How hard is it for Sony to see that if customer A has purchased Infamous 2 on PSN to make that title available to the player to download if they so choose free of charge when it comes available on PS4? That's what I mean by flipping a switch. They've already decided to attempt to make it compatible however difficult that may be. All it takes is keeping a list of who already purchased a digital copy on the PS3 and letting them know when it's available for download on the PS4.
Hell an Excel spreadsheet would likely be enough to do the job.
This is not question of tech, clearly these games can be emulated since they plan to do it or at least are entertaining the idea. This about customer service and the their contract with their customers when they sell a downloadable game. It's about the value proposition of the downloadable game. What am I getting for my money?
Steam seems to get this, Nintendo seems to get this, Apple seems to get this. What's Sony's and Microsoft's excuse?
@ultrasoda said:
My friends list will affect my next choice, im a shoe in for the next xbox regardless of features.
Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that, since everyone I know and work with is old and stodgy and doesn't play console games (actually, they don't really play any games - one colleague plays pretty much only Guild Wars 2 with his son and the other plays exclusively League of Legends).
I do enjoy multiplayer games, however. The competition of another human being. Even if they're strangers. As a result, I do tend to prefer Xbox for multiplayer games, just because it gives me a bigger pool of potential players to encounter. Of course, if the friends-list functionality was much better (not just in direct function, but also in discovery and management), then I might discover that i know more people who play than I thought. I'm really hoping that all the platforms turn the social aspects into something really inspiring this time around (without turning it into the sort of social-focused experience that we all *don't* want, if you know what i mean).
@slag said:
@topsteer said:
@branthog said:
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.
With all due respect to Brad that is not what this is about.
Whether it is or it isn't really difficult to provide backwards compatibility doesn't matter. That is a smokescreen argument they are throwing up in attempt to get us into repurchasing the same media over and over. The tech side of backwards compatibility is Sony's problem to solve and not really what my argument is about.
The fact they do plan (as far as I know) to offer these very same PS3 games on PS4 however does, it matters a lot. If they don't offer it than this discussion is moot.
Downloadable games are almost more of a service than a product. They are not physical items and are artificially severely restricted in their use due to the console maker's sole discretion, despite basically costing the same. If Sony et al wants people to start switching to downloadable games that are locked into their ecosystem than they need to give us better value for our money.
Whether that be perceived permanence of the purchase by supporting it for multiple generations of their hardware or lower prices reflecting the loss of value for the consumer.
How hard is it for Sony to see that if customer A has purchased Infamous 2 on PSN to make that title available to the player to download if they so choose free of charge when it comes available on PS4? That's what I mean by flipping a switch. They've already decided to attempt to make it compatible however difficult that may be. All it takes is keeping a list of who already purchased a digital copy on the PS3 and letting them know when it's available for download on the PS4.
Hell an Excel spreadsheet would likely be enough to do the job.
This is not question of tech, clearly these games can be emulated since they plan to do it or at least are entertaining the idea. This about customer service and the their contract with their customers when they sell a downloadable game. It's about the value proposition of the downloadable game. What am I getting for my money?
Steam seems to get this, Nintendo seems to get this, Apple seems to get this. What's Sony's and Microsoft's excuse?
I don't think I've encountered any assertions that there's any sort of an accounting difficulty in managing this. Just that "well, it's a new system, so gosh it's impossible or a lot of work to make old stuff run on it". I think you only have so many options available, then:
1) Ignore it. The software never comes to the new system and it just fades away. Seems like a loss both in potential for the title and in affinity for customers.
2) Manually port individual titles. Leaves a lot of them out in the cold. Expensive. A lot of labor. Would absolutely demand that customers pay for them all over again and justify "well, it was a lot of work" to get your bucks.
3) Emulation. Write one emulator, addressing all the XBLA/PSN titles in one go. Requires more effort and investment on their end, but benefits customer affinity, life of the titles, retains people's interest in continuing to buy digital titles, because they'll know they won't lose access after three or four years (just think if you buy an XBLA title in July and can't play it on the new system in November!).
4) As Brad and Topsteer mention, Sony might go with the whole Gaikai solution and stream digital games. That would be an effective solution, with the only real downside being the "always connected" part and any issues there may be with input/response lag for games never designed to be played in such a way.
You're right that Steam sort of gets it, but to be fair -- there are a lot of totally broken titles on that platform and they have already reached a point where some games that they sell require a version of Windows that Steam itself is no longer supported on. They also have the benefit of a generally consistent platform, as opposed to Sony moving to x86 and then having to run games made for the old CELL architecture (but, of course, an emulator should be capable of handling this, with varying degrees of results depending on available available overhead).
However, along those lines . . . thing GOG.com -- they have an emulator/wrapper around all their older games and their whole business model is in giving a longer life span to games that don't need to vanish.
Frankly, I always bought arcade titles with the assumption that it would just be transferred with the service I pay an annual subscription for over to the new hardware someday. I became more sure of this the longer this console cycle went on (because of the greater difference in processing power that meant between the old and new systems). I'm kind of shocked to see that this isn't all a guaranteed done-deal by either Sony or Microsoft.
And like you and others have mentioned -- digital downloads from the "XBLA/PSN" store is a very different thing than expecting a full fledged disc-based backward compatibility. They are different transactions with, I think, different customer expectations.
@mcghee said:
No, it is completely meaningless.
Exactly.
@branthog said:
I don't think I've encountered any assertions that there's any sort of an accounting difficulty in managing this. Just that "well, it's a new system, so gosh it's impossible or a lot of work to make old stuff run on it". I think you only have so many options available, then:
1) Ignore it. The software never comes to the new system and it just fades away. Seems like a loss both in potential for the title and in affinity for customers.
2) Manually port individual titles. Leaves a lot of them out in the cold. Expensive. A lot of labor. Would absolutely demand that customers pay for them all over again and justify "well, it was a lot of work" to get your bucks.
3) Emulation. Write one emulator, addressing all the XBLA/PSN titles in one go. Requires more effort and investment on their end, but benefits customer affinity, life of the titles, retains people's interest in continuing to buy digital titles, because they'll know they won't lose access after three or four years (just think if you buy an XBLA title in July and can't play it on the new system in November!).
4) As Brad and Topsteer mention, Sony might go with the whole Gaikai solution and stream digital games. That would be an effective solution, with the only real downside being the "always connected" part and any issues there may be with input/response lag for games never designed to be played in such a way.
You're right that Steam sort of gets it, but to be fair -- there are a lot of totally broken titles on that platform and they have already reached a point where some games that they sell require a version of Windows that Steam itself is no longer supported on. They also have the benefit of a generally consistent platform, as opposed to Sony moving to x86 and then having to run games made for the old CELL architecture (but, of course, an emulator should be capable of handling this, with varying degrees of results depending on available available overhead).
However, along those lines . . . thing GOG.com -- they have an emulator/wrapper around all their older games and their whole business model is in giving a longer life span to games that don't need to vanish.
Frankly, I always bought arcade titles with the assumption that it would just be transferred with the service I pay an annual subscription for over to the new hardware someday. I became more sure of this the longer this console cycle went on (because of the greater difference in processing power that meant between the old and new systems). I'm kind of shocked to see that this isn't all a guaranteed done-deal by either Sony or Microsoft.
And like you and others have mentioned -- digital downloads from the "XBLA/PSN" store is a very different thing than expecting a full fledged disc-based backward compatibility. They are different transactions with, I think, different customer expectations.
I think we're basically saying the same thing, at the very least we come to the same conclusion even if the routes there are different.
I guess I just don't like that what I feel is really an accounting/customer service problem is being answered by a technical excuse when it's just not really relevant. Which makes me feel like they are trying to slide one by us.
I personally don't care what method the old downloadable games are offered. My preference would be to download it instead of Gakai (which I suspect is what is ultimately going to happen), my main priority is not having to repay for the same games every five-six years.
You're absolutely right that Steam is not perfect and has certain native architecture advantages given their platform, but to their credit they also talk a very pro-customer game even if they don't always bat 1.000. Valve has made a lot of very big promises, time will tell if they actually back them all up, but I at least trust they will make more of an effort to do so than the console makers.
Nope. I couldn't care less. I like achievemens per se, to enhance my playexperiece with extra challenges, but I couldn't care less about the score.
Spent my last couple of Microsoft bucks on my Live account on Bastion over the weekend, finished the game, and noticed I didn't get the achievement for beating it... and I don't care.
Bastion Spoilers: Wonder, if that's because I didn't save Zulf, or because I opted for the Evaction ending - or if it just glitched out.
I think I'd manage without them pretty easily.
After owning an Xbox since launch and having raked in the Gamerscore points, I ponied up for a PS3 at the end of 2011. Though the PS3 has a trophy system, it's pretty difficult to navigate without sitting through an exhausting sync process, so more or less I'm playing titles on the Playstation without any regard for Achievements or special objectives only meant to bolster a number whose value is entirely imaginary.
I'm nearing the hundred-thousand mark for Xbox Gamerscore, and I see it as little else than an indicator of the amount of games I've played, rather than any measure of skill or charting of aptitude. And generally speaking, I don't go out of my way to earn Achievements anyhow. I just get the ones that pop when I play the game my way regardless.
So, yeah. Do away with them for all I care.
A couple of years ago they meant everything, but with PS+ giving out a steady stream of free trophies and games on the 360 giving away 50 points here and 50 points there for nothing I just don't care anymore. I spent a ton of time getting to over 140000 points, but they're just so worthless now. So few achievements mean anything these days and it really isn't going to decide where I go next gen.
I have some brand loyalty to the Xbox name (mainly it being my first own console though), I don't a shit about trophies.
But games are what comes first, achievements are a nice bonus, so I guess they have some effect on me.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment