Hardware Why make a console that is backwards compatible ?

[Foxi4]

Your arguments are silly. Backwards compatibility adds value. Whether or not it's important to you is irrelevant.

Oh yeah, it adds a lot of value at launch, but when you still have to include it 5 years down the line, you're practically wasting money on a feature that everybody stopped using years ago. People immediately toss their old games out when new ones are available - it's been shown time and time again in the past.

To further prove this claim, I quote:

"Microsoft’s Mattrick says he doesn’t think compatibility is really a problem. He said only 5% of customers play older games on a new videogame system anyway, so spending time and money to develop technology to allow them to play older games isn’t worth it.

[...]

Social media research firm Fizziology said its surveys of potential customers before the Xbox event showed 12% of them would be unhappy if there wasn’t backwards compatibility."

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/05/22/microsoft-and-sony-diverge-on-gaming-cloud/

This is not imaginary data - Microsoft can accurately tell how many users are playing what games as long as they're connected to the Internet, which is the majority of cases. Even if we do call their estimate a stretch, an independent research firm estimated that it's merely 12% of users that would be unsatisfied with lack of backwards compatibility.

12% < 88%

You can't design your system to cater to the great minority when it will negatively impact the great majority - most users want their system cheaper rather than backwards compatible and that's exactly what Sony and Microsoft did.

Sure there is, it's called paying royalties and licensing fees. They don't want to pay them.

miser (mī′zər)
n.

1. One who lives very meagerly in order to hoard money.
2. A greedy or avaricious person.

~http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miser

 

[blaisedinsd]

Oh yeah, it adds a lot of value at launch, but when you still have to include it 5 years down the line, you're practically wasting money on a feature that everybody stopped using years ago. People immediately toss their old games out when new ones are available - it's been shown time and time again in the past.

What is your point? DS dropped GBA. Wii dropped GC. PS3 dropped PS2. So it was huge mistake for......PS3 to keep PS1 compatibility?

So it does add value, and it it eventually does get dropped, but you hate it and want to argue that its pointless?

Split personallity?

 

[Foxi4]

What is your point? DS dropped GBA. Wii dropped GC. PS3 dropped PS2. So it was huge mistake for......PS3 to keep PS1 compatibility?

So it does add value, and it it eventually does get dropped, but you hate it and want to argue that its pointless?

Split personallity?

There's a huge difference in PS1 backwards compatibility which could be done entirely in software from Day 1 which costs virtually nothing and PS2 backwards compatibility which literally necessitated including PS2 hardware in the package which made the system incredibly expensive - meme-level expensive in fact.

It adds value, but when it's value that the customer has to pay extra for, it's just not worth it. I don't want to pay $500-$550 for my PS4 in the nearby future, I'm perfectly fine with paying $400 for it, even if it means no PS3 support.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Oh yeah, it adds a lot of value at launch, but when you still have to include it 5 years down the line, you're practically wasting money on a feature that everybody stopped using years ago. People immediately toss their old games out when new ones are available - it's been shown time and time again in the past.

To further prove this claim, I quote:

This is not imaginary data - Microsoft can accurately tell how many users are playing what games as long as they're connected to the Internet, which is the majority of cases. Even if we do call their estimate a stretch, an independent research firm estimated that it's merely 12% of users that would be unsatisfied with lack of backwards compatibility.

12% < 88%

You can't design your system to cater to the great minority when it will negatively impact the great majority - most users want their system cheaper rather than backwards compatible and that's exactly what Sony and Microsoft did.



miser (mī′zər)
n.

1. One who lives very meagerly in order to hoard money.
2. A greedy or avaricious person.

~http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miser

OK, so you are arguing that PS4 and Xbone are right not to include BC. That's fine, I won't disagree, I will just say you are in the wrong forum. The thread is trying to say BC is a bad thing, its not, and if it was simple for PS4 and Xbone to have it I am sure plenty of people would appreciate it.

 

[osirisjem]

But i don't need to buy a gamecube or a GBA to play those old games and I don't want to.
Your arguments are silly. Backwards compatibility adds value. Whether or not it's important to you is irrelevant.

I want what is best for Nintendo.
I'm not thinking about it from the user's point of view.

XB1 and PS4 don't have backwards compatibility and they are doing very well.

If Nintendo's shareholders allow them to make another console ... it has to be a home run.
Nevermind backwards compatibility.

 

[Foxi4]

OK, so you are arguing that PS4 and Xbone are right not to include BC. That's fine, I won't disagree, I will just say you are in the wrong forum. The thread is trying to say BC is a bad thing, its not, and if it was simple for PS4 and Xbone to have it I am sure plenty of people would appreciate it.

Explain to me how it would be "simple" to include backwards compatibility in the PS4 and the XBox One. Explain it, because I'm tech savvy, but apparently not insane enough.

You would literally have to put the CELL inside the PS4 and the Xenon inside the XBox One and then build the necessary ecosystem around the chips, you'd need an additional cooling solution just for those two which would make the systems larger and bulkier and worst of all, you'd have to inflate the price by at least $100 - something the user doesn't want.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Wow.

Foxi4- do you want me to link you to the definition of the word "if"?

osirisjem- are you seriously stressing out whether or not Nintendo's next consoles will have BC? You think BC hurt the Wii, DS, and Wii U? You think Nintendo is so stressed about absolutely needing BC to the point it is holding them back in their console development? Ok, on that last one, what was up with the Wii dropping BC for basically no reason. I mean I guess they saved a little on some components, basically the memory card and controller ports, but pretty much the Wii is still plenty capable of having BC if it had a way to plug that stuff in.

 

[Foxi4]

Foxi4- do you want me to link you to the definition of the word "if"?

I misread your post, kinda multitasking at the moment. Fair enough, good point, if it was simple to include it, it would be a good feature... but it isn't, so it's not included.

The problem with the Wii U is that it was designed to be backwards compatible from the start and as such is based on an outdated CPU design which holds the system back - backwards compatibility isn't doing it any favors at the moment and this won't change in the nearby future, which is the point I (crudely) tried to make.

To reiterate, it's not a "bad" feature to implement when it's feasible, but when it isn't, it can make or break a system.

 

[osirisjem]

 

[blaisedinsd]

I misread your post, kinda multitasking at the moment. Fair enough, good point, if it was simple to include it, it would be a good feature... but it isn't, so it's not included.

The problem with the Wii U is that it was designed to be backwards compatible from the start and as such is based on an outdated CPU design which holds the system back - backwards compatibility isn't doing it any favors at the moment and this won't change in the nearby future, which is the point I (crudely) tried to make.

To reiterate, it's not a "bad" feature to implement when it's feasible, but when it isn't, it can make or break a system.

That sounds like a hypothesis and not a fact to me regarding the Wii U.

In theory I would agree, if BC was something that was holding back the new system than you have your development priorities wrong. I am pretty certain it wasn't the desire for BC that kept the Wii U from being as powerful as PS4 or Xbone.

The only time where BC may have historically been a mistake was PS3. With PS2 it was basically the first time and it was freaking great. With PS3 yeah it made the console too expensive most likely, but I don't think it held the PS3 back in otherways. But damnit Sony if your going to do it how hard would it have been to put a memory card port on the damn thing.

 

[Foxi4]

That sounds like a hypothesis and not a fact to me regarding the Wii U.

What's hypothetical about it? The PPC7xx family has been abandoned years ago - even Intel says so. I direct you to this post which explains it in great detail. It's a 1997 design which as since been deemed obsolete, there are far superior PPC families out there.

I'll post a tl;dr repetition here:

"IBM has ceased to publish a roadmap to the 750 family, in favor of marketing themselves as a custom processor vendor. Given IBM's resources, the 750 core will be produced with new features as long as there is a willing buyer. In particular, IBM has no public plans to produce an ordinary 750-based microprocessor in a process smaller than 90 nm, effectively phasing it out as a commodity chip competitive in such markets as networking equipment."

The family isn't even considered mainstream anymore - it's dedicated for "networking equipment" which is a politically correct way of saying "routers". No roadmap equals no development, the family is officially dead.

Nintendo ordered the customly-made Espresso specifically to enable Wii backwards compatibility, signing its fate as a poorly performing system specs-wise because the family is outdated and underperforming at this point in time. To nullify its shortcomings, they included an ARM chip which is more modern and does everything the PPC7xx one can't or does really poorly.

The chip is tri-core which enabled a performance boost from the Wii, but on the level of a single core, not much has changed in terms of performance since the Gamecube on a MIPS-per-MHz basis, really.

The Gekko only exists because Nintendo paid big bucks for its design and subsequently the Broadway and the Espresso only exist because of that initial investment and backwards compatibility purposes.

What does Foxi4 say?

Like'd, Commented, Subscribed.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

The problem with the Wii U is that it was designed to be backwards compatible from the start and as such is based on an outdated CPU design which holds the system back - backwards compatibility isn't doing it any favors at the moment and this won't change in the nearby future, which is the point I (crudely) tried to make.

To reiterate, it's not a "bad" feature to implement when it's feasible, but when it isn't, it can make or break a system.

I don't see absolutely no reason why they couldn't have used a more recent PowerPC chip while maitaining backwards compatibility with the Wii. We have seen this with the x86 architecture, the i7 processors we are using nowadays still run 16-bit OS and programs from the 80's*. The 3DS uses a dual-core ARM11 processor which is able to read and execute from both the DS's ARM9 and the GBA's ARM7 processor flawlessly.

Wii U is underpowered because Nintendo aims at affordable prices and some level of profit. They could have used a strong, modern PowerPC processor capable of running Wii instructions or they could include the old Wii's processor on the hardware. They just didn't want to...

EDIT: *It's ironic how when you think about it, the x86 is the greatest example of how an architecture can evolve to be powerful and cost-efficient without denying backwards compatibility

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see absolutely no reason why they couldn't have used a more recent PowerPC chip while maitaining backwards compatibility with the Wii. We have seen this with the x86 architecture, the i7 processors we are using nowadays still run 16-bit OS and programs from the 80's. The 3DS uses a dual-core ARM11 processor which is able to read and execute from both the DS's ARM9 and the GBA's ARM7 processor flawlessly.

Wii U is underpowered because Nintendo aims at affordable prices and some level of profit. They could use a strong, modern PowerPC processor capable of running Wii instructions or they could include the old Wii's processor on the hardware.

You can't pick any processor from a given architecture and hope to God that it will be compatible. On PC, the issue is completely different because the OS is the middle-point and allows a degree of backwards compatibility purely on the basis of software. Your 32-bit applications don't work on your 64-bit Windows machine because the processor is compatible with them - they work because they go through WOW64 first. As far as the 3DS is concerned, Nintendo wouldn't pick a chip that'd be incompatible with the DS's library, again, having backwards compatibility in mind as a feature. It's not a matter of ARM, it's more a matter of what Nintendo wanted to include.

In a console environment, games are more often than not executed directly on the processor without much involvement of the OS. This has the benefit of greatly improved performance... and the flaw of having to make up for architecture differences by adding patches for missing instructions. If you want to include hardware-based backwards compatibility, ideally you'd want the instruction sets to match perfectly, which is almost never the case.

x86 is notably backwards-compatible to a great extent, but only because it still features completely legacy stuff - this is not a feature of all architectures. In fact, CPU manufacturers complain about having to implement all this legacy crap in their designs when virtually nobody uses half of the features anymore and they could be easily emulated or virtualized on one way or another. Even feature sets of AMD and Intel CPU's are vastly different, which is why often times Windows binaries have separate versions for AMD and Intel rigs.

Additionally, if Nintendo truly aimed at affordability first and foremost, they wouldn't include an accessory that accounts for half the price of their system. According to Nintendo, the gamepad alone costs aprox. $140 - assuming that this price is inflated by the profit margin, let's slash $100 from the Wii U's price point and all of a sudden we end up with a $150-or-so budget gaming system that would fly off the shelves like a fighter jet plane because all the moms and pops would like to buy their kids an affordable gift for Christmas.

I disagree with your approach fully - Nintendo uses PPC7xx because they practically own one of its branches - the one that sprang from Gekko, and they want to stick by it for legacy purposes which should never be a factor when designing a next generation system.

 

[RodrigoDavy]

You can't pick any processor from a given architecture and hope to God that it will be compatible. On PC, the issue is completely different because the OS is the middle-point and allows a degree of backwards compatibility purely on the basis of software. Your 32-bit applications don't work on your 64-bit Windows machine because the processor is compatible with them - they work because they go through WOW64 first. As far as the 3DS is concerned, Nintendo wouldn't pick a chip that'd be incompatible with the DS's library, again, having backwards compatibility in mind as a feature. It's not a matter of ARM, it's more a matter of what Nintendo wanted to include.

In a console environment, games are more often than not executed directly on the processor without much involvement of the OS. This has the benefit of greatly improved performance... and the flaw of having to make up for architecture differences by adding patches for missing instructions. If you want to include hardware-based backwards compatibility, ideally you'd want the instruction sets to match perfectly, which is almost never the case.

x86 is notably backwards-compatible to a great extent, but only because it still features completely legacy stuff - this is not a feature of all architectures. In fact, CPU manufacturers complain about having to implement all this legacy crap in their designs when virtually nobody uses half of the features anymore and they could be easily emulated or virtualized on one way or another. Even feature sets of AMD and Intel CPU's are vastly different, which is why often times Windows binaries have separate versions for AMD and Intel rigs.

Additionally, if Nintendo truly aimed at affordability first and foremost, they wouldn't include an accessory that accounts for half the price of their system. According to Nintendo, the gamepad alone costs aprox. $140 - assuming that this price is inflated by the profit margin, let's slash $100 from the Wii U's price point and all of a sudden we end up with a $150-or-so budget gaming system that would fly off the shelves like a fighter jet plane because all the moms and pops would like to buy their kids an affordable gift for Christmas.

I disagree with your approach fully - Nintendo uses PPC7xx because they practically own one of its branches - the one that sprang from Gekko, and they want to stick by it for legacy purposes which should never be a factor when designing a next generation system.

Although there's point to your arguments, I think you overstate the difficulties.

Using different CPUs with compatible instructions is accomplished all the time.

In the consoles world, we can see this with the Game Boy Color which uses a Z80 to read the Game Boy's Sharp LR35902 instructions.
The 3DS uses an dual-core ARM11 which reads DS's ARM9 and ARM7 cpu instructions.

Except for the 3DS neither of those had proper OS that would made backward compatibility any easier.

It might be speculation of my part to say Nintendo could build a strong console with backward compatibility at a reasonable price, but isn't any less speculation than you saying the Wii U is a weak console because it was the only way to maintain BC. (And if I had to guess, I would also say that people here think just because Sony and MS couldn't include BC in their powerful consoles for cost reasons that this is simply impossible and no other company could have made it)

That said, I know I won't convince you and you won't convince me... So let's agree to disagree

 

[Foxi4]

Although there's point to your arguments, I think you overstate the difficulties.

Not really.

Using different CPUs with compatible instructions is accomplished all the time.

And it has certain costs.

In the consoles world, we can see this with the Game Boy Color which uses a Z80 to read the Game Boy's Sharp LR35902 instructions.

Firstly, I think you were thinking of the Game Boy Advance's Z80 sound chip and its backwards compatibility with the Game Boy and the Game Boy Colour - both of the oldies used the LR35902, just running at different frequencies.

Secondly, both the Sharp LR35902 and the Zilog Z80 are designed to be binarily compatible with the Intel 8080, that's why they could be used in such fashion. To simplify it, instruction-wise the LR35902 is more-or-less an Intel 8080 equivalent with some Z80 instructions wheras the Z80 is an Intel 8080 equivalent with all Z80 instructions.

EDIT: Upon further research I found out that the GBA actually has an LR35902 derrivative on-board and the whole Z80 business is a matter of simplifying specs talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80#Consumer_electronics

The difference between the Zilog Z80 and the Sharp LR35902 went slightly beyond the Z80 instruction set - the Sharp could generate sound out of the box wheras the Z80 could not, and since the Game Boy Advance uses it for legacy 8-bit sound, there's no doubt that the included chip is in fact based on the LR35902.

The 3DS uses an dual-core ARM11 which reads DS's ARM9 and ARM7 cpu instructions. Except for the 3DS neither of those had proper OS that would made backward compatibility any easier.

Fair enough, and? Again, this is not a golden rule.

It might be speculation of my part to say Nintendo could build a strong console with backward compatibility at a reasonable price, but isn't any less speculation than you saying the Wii U is a weak console because it was the only way to maintain BC. (And if I had to guess, I would also say that people here think just because Sony and MS couldn't include BC in their powerful consoles for cost reasons that this is simply impossible and no other company could have made it)

You're missing my point completely. Microsoft and Sony could've made backwards compatible consoles, they could've created the Xenon 2 and the Cell 2 except they didn't want to because they realized the shortcomings of those designs and they abandoned them. Nintendo should've done the same thing with their outdated design but instead they keep it on life support for no good reason.

That said, I know I won't convince you and you won't convince me... So let's agree to disagree

Sure, let's, but that doesn't change the facts.