{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/19/2013 8:03:21 PM
19
It's a forum thread and a random site, so I'm skeptical. If it was true, however, Microsoft would have brought their issues down to only price, lack of backwards compatibility, and the microphones issue. Which would be amazing, still.
English
-
Neogaf is a random site?
-
I was referring to... I think the thread said his source was giantbomb or something.
-
Giantbomb is a pretty darn tootin' reliable source.
-
Giantbomb is pretty well known, it is up there with sites like gamespot.
-
Ah, I didn't actually click on the Neogaf link, but now that I have I see what you mean.
-
PS4 isn't backwards compatible either IIRC. Coupled with the fact that very few people actually use the backwards compatability, it seems like an expensive hassle for little to no benefit.
-
[quote]Coupled with the fact that very few people actually use the backwards compatability,[/quote]Says who? I use my Xbox 360 daily. And the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of games people want to go back to. So if you're comparing it to the original Xbox, or even the PS2, then you're being really absurd.
-
Изменено (M37h3w3): 6/19/2013 8:20:09 PM[quote]Says who?[/quote] [url=http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/05/microsoft_if_youre_backwards_compatible_youre_really_backwards]Don Mattrick[/url] [quote]And the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of games people want to go back to. So if you're comparing it to the original Xbox, or even the PS2, then you're being really absurd.[/quote] And MS is tracking UUs and the games they are playing. Once you start getting to the bottom of the top twenty most played game list, you start edging towards only the several thousands of players. Of games that don't even make the list anymore, they are probably dead and are not being played.
-
[quote][b]Posted b:[/b] Methew [url=http://www.bungie.net]Don Mattrick[/url][/quote] Well no wonder I hate the guy...he is so waaay out of touch with gamers and the whole gaming culture, Microsoft should really just fire him or put him in some other job after all this debacle, he clearly isn't suited for his current one. The man should not be interacting with the public and the customers or press, every time he opens his mouth some sort of insane quackery like this comes out of it >_> He has no leg to stand on with that argument, [i]everyone[/i] would still be using or playing [i]some[/i] 360 game on the Xbox1 if there was backwards compatibility. This isn't like the transition from the original Xbox to the 360 where there weren't nearly as many good games to want to go back and replay (out of all the original Xbox games I know there are literally only a small handful that I can think of, and pretty much all of them are ones I own). The 360 however has [i][b]load[/b][/i] of great games that people would go back and replay. Cutting backwards compatibility for the reasons he gave are just stupid. And not to mention proving how much of a jackass and arrogant bastard he is with the comment [i][b]"if you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards"[/b][/i], and then the comment he had made later on at or around E3 in regards to people who wouldn't be able to use the Xbox1 due to not having internet in the first place or a really shoddy connection that games wouldn't work on. Microsoft really just needs to get this clown out of the picture and bury him somewhere deep where he'll never see the corporate light of day again, as he's only making them look bad and giving people opposed to Microsoft more ammunition to throw.
-
... So yeah. My post still stands.
-
You're making an assumption and I'm making an educated guess based on the statistical data we as users have access too. Even Sony abandoned backwards compatibility with their later consoles.
-
But will be introducing the Gaiko thing or whatever it is which is porting PS3 games... or something like that. With the huge libraries of the PS3 and Xbox 360 titles, many people would want backwards compatibility to easily access all of their games. However, I'm just keeping my 360 and plugging it into the HDMI input on the Xbox One, enabling me to switch between the two.
-
[quote]You're making an assumption [/quote]No I'm not. [quote] I'm making an educated guess based on the statistical data we as users have access too.[/quote]So... you're making an assumption. [quote] Even Sony abandoned backwards compatibility with their later consoles.[/quote]Same issue. The only difference being that I honestly don't care because I don't have PS3 games.
-
[quote]No I'm not.[/quote] You're saying that there's a large and significantly sized number of people out there who are playing or want to be able to play older titles which justifies the costs involved in making the XB1 backwards compatible yet don't have any statements to back up such claims. [quote]So... you're making an assumption.[/quote] An educated guess.
-
[quote]You're saying that there's a large and significantly sized number of people out there who are playing or want to be able to play older titles which justifies the costs involved in making the XB1 backwards compatible yet don't have any statements to back up such claims.[/quote]No. I'm saying I would certainly use it, and that the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of reasons to use it so comparing it to the usage of the original Xbox or even the PS2 is just silly. [quote]An educated guess.[/quote]Either an assumption or mine's an educated guess too. I base mine off of numbers and experience just as well.
-
[quote]I'm saying I would certainly use it, and that the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of reasons to use it so comparing it to the usage of the original Xbox or even the PS2 is just silly.[/quote] A larger number of reasons doesn't necessarily mean that there's an increased demand for backwards compatibility. Especially when you consider that the public doesn't dwell on games anymore. They go from new title to new title, rarely if ever looking back. We see this expressed in the population quickly declining the farther you go down the Top 20 list, we see it in game sales. It's probably a fallacy to suggest it, but MS has the complete picture and most likely did look at how many non-current titles people were playing before they decided to support or drop backwards compatibility. [quote]Either an assumption or mine's an educated guess too. I base mine off of numbers and experience just as well.[/quote] Subjective ones though.
-
[quote]A larger number of reasons doesn't necessarily mean that there's an increased demand for backwards compatibility.[/quote]The 'demand' is obviously huge considering how many people are 'demanding' it. The large number of reasons means it's more likely that people will use it. [quote]They go from new title to new title, rarely if ever looking back.[/quote]Now THAT'S an assumption! [quote]We see this expressed in the population quickly declining the farther you go down the Top 20 list,[/quote]Because while people go back to games, more people play newer games. And those same people probably play newer games too. Every person doesn't count for just one game, you know.[quote] we see it in game sales.[/quote]Please tell me you're not seriously implying that the reason older titles don't sell isn't because most people buy games close to launch. Why don't people go see movies two months after they've been out? [quote]MS has the complete picture and most likely did look at how many non-current titles people were playing before they decided to support or drop backwards compatibility.[/quote]Obviously. And, for the fourth or fifth time: [quote] the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of reasons to use it so comparing it to the usage of the original Xbox or even the PS2 is just silly.[/quote] [quote]Subjective ones though.[/quote]Numbers aren't subjective, and experiences are inherently. No different from anything you said.
-
[quote]The 'demand' is obviously huge considering how many people are 'demanding' it. The large number of reasons means it's more likely that people will use it.[/quote] A scattering of players on forums and message boards mentioning it as a turn off? [quote]Now THAT'S an assumption![/quote] Shown by decreasing population numbers the earlier you go in sequential franchises, sales rapidly declining after release, and popular big name titles dropping off the Top 20 list [quote]Please tell me you're not seriously implying that the reason older titles don't sell isn't because most people buy games close to launch. Why don't people go see movies two months after they've been out?[/quote] I'm confused by this statement. [quote]the Xbox 360 has an infinitely larger library of reasons to use it so comparing it to the usage of the original Xbox or even the PS2 is just silly.[/quote] No, it's not an apples to apples comparison. But just because the 360 has more games than the original XBox does necessarily mean that there are more people playing old titles on it. [quote]Numbers aren't subjective, and experiences are inherently. No different from anything you said.[/quote] Then what numbers are you using?
-
[quote]A scattering of players on forums and message boards mentioning it as a turn off?[/quote]An enormous outcry demanding the feature is a turn-ON for the feature. [quote]Shown by decreasing population numbers the earlier you go in sequential franchises, [/quote]Couldn't have anything to do with gaming hitting the mainstream only in the last few years. [quote]sales rapidly declining after release,[/quote]You mean to tell me most people buy a game soon after it comes out? That's absurd! [quote] and popular big name titles dropping off the Top 20 list [/quote]People gather at other games. That doesn't mean many people don't go back to games. It just means those people play current games too. I played Red Dead Redemption the other day. That doesn't mean I didn't play a bunch of more modern games this month too. So if you're using the XBL charts, then you're just being silly. [quote]But just because the 360 has more games than the original XBox does necessarily mean that there are more people playing old titles on it.[/quote]... Which isn't what I was saying anyways. What I'm saying is that because the Xbox 360 has such a large amount of titles and so many people own so many more titles as compared to the last generation on either console, using the 'low' number of people that use backwards compatibility for the PS2 and Xbox to the number that would like it on the Xbox One is... well, it's plain stupid. The Xbox and PS2 did not have nearly the same amount of games as the 360/PS3. More people that are getting Xbox One's and PS4's, preusmably, have PS3's and Xbox 360's as opposed to the number of people that own 360's and PS3's that owned PS2's and Xbox's. Thus it is stupid to be saying 'oh because people don't use it now, people likely wouldn't use it if it were here,' because that's baseless speculation when we know for a fact tons of people want it as a feature. [quote]Then what numbers are you using?[/quote]Is the number of games released in the last decade a secret or something? Are we not supposed to know?
