-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MS: "gamers have spent more than 100M total hours playing Backward Compatible games"
- Thread starter c0de
- Start date
"Hm im not impressed" is negativity, no-one will outright state that BC is bad, thats idiocy. But there will instead be assertions that its useless, or that its not enough, or that its underperforming, or that its weak, or that its not something people want, or its not something that matters.
Right on cue, heres the bonus round as well
martino
Member
per console absolute is stupid....
imagine same stupidity applied to tie ratio for a game....
you'll need 10 millions units minimun to make it appear not bad in absolute (and more the more console you sell)
Triggerhappytel
Member
Stop it guys; you're trying too hard! It's not 5 hrs per console because that assumes 100% of Xbone owners have used BC, which is not the case. I would not be surprised if it's more like a quarter of owners.
Barely anyone even downloads the GWG, you know this right? 5 hours is a lot per console. Especially when probably half of those consoles do nothing but play the latest COD, FIFA, GTA, Battlefield, Madden etc and would have literally zero interest in BC or free games. The actual number of hours played per console that's interested in playing BC will be much higher.
In addition to that, there's not many highly requested titles added yet. Maybe 10-15? of the top 100.
The amount of salt/downplaying in here is unreal.. and people want the thread title changed Lmao
martino
Member
% people is really a missing number here.
if it is by 1% it's niche
if it's 1/4 (here it means 20h average so 1/2 games) , it means the feature is not so niche.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
of course not, but we do not know the tie ratio. 100 million is a meaningless number, so breaking it down into averages gives a better idea of use. 5 hours average across all consoles means the average xbox one owner has not completed a single backwards compatible game. This isn't the same as the tie ratio for a single game as this is for all backwards compatible games.
This just isn't a good look for backwards compatibility, however like I said, on the plus side backwards compatibility should be standard going forward anyway thanks to x86 changeover
It's been out a limited amount of time, with a limited selection of titles. How would it look if it had been out from the beginning and supported all original Xbox and 360 titles? Difficult to say obviously, but instead of speculating about how it might have been recieved, we could instead take a look at a platform with the best backwards compatibility: PC.
Make a cut-off point at the end of 2013 and let's call that a new generation like we do on consoles. How many PC owners consider it important having access to games before the cut-off point? How many games are sold on Steam/Gog and other services that are from before the cut-off point?
I think it could be an interesting experiment tracking previous generation game sales via something like Steamspy and maybe activity via Steam and other sources. I don't know what the result would end up like, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens to show many games released before the end of 2013 still selling well, possibly making a quite compelling argument in favor of backwards compatility.
And even if it didn't I still believe we should fight to preserve our shared history as long as possible, especially as we move towards digital distribution.
lifeexpectancy
Member
You have to be online for it to work, AFAIK, and the game must be fully installed (rather than playing off the disc like on 360). But I dont think it downloads the game itself. I could be wrong though. The important part is that owning the disc means you dont have to buy the game.
In the US maybe, but worldwide PS4 was always going to outsell XB1. Even the mighty 360 couldnt outsell PS3 outside the US.
That's not true.
72% of the games currently on the BC catalogue are Arcade, I'm willing to bet most of them can be completed in under 5 hours.
Samurai G0SU
Member
I'm trying to pull a straw and think of something amazing from the word "Forward".
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Man, people really trying their best here. I have no idea how people have the energy for this.
Black Republican
Member
amazing number, was surprised and happy when they announced BC last year.
all i really need now is Blue Dragon & Lost Odyessy since double disc games are now in the works, and im complete for BC
Never got the time to complete LO so its practically a new game to me
all i really need now is Blue Dragon & Lost Odyessy since double disc games are now in the works, and im complete for BC
Never got the time to complete LO so its practically a new game to me
ethomaz
Banned
That a small, no?
I mean 5 hours per Xbox One since BC was released is like less than 1 minute per day for each Xbox One.
Even if you cut the BC use to 1m console it will continue small.
Edit - I confused minutes with hours... let's fix.
100m hours
~20m consoles
5 hours per console... that part is right.
In 2016 = ~200 days
1m consoles using = 100 hours per console
~ 30 minutes per day per console
That is not bad at all... it is a good number.
I mean 5 hours per Xbox One since BC was released is like less than 1 minute per day for each Xbox One.
Even if you cut the BC use to 1m console it will continue small.
Edit - I confused minutes with hours... let's fix.
100m hours
~20m consoles
5 hours per console... that part is right.
In 2016 = ~200 days
1m consoles using = 100 hours per console
~ 30 minutes per day per console
That is not bad at all... it is a good number.
And less than 1 minute per day doesn't sound even remotely realistic, does it?
If you cut it to 1M consoles then you're looking at 41 minutes per day per console. Couldn't agree with you more, is anyone even using this thing? 41 minutes in a day per console is a joke. Such a small number, why is MS even wasting their time?
On a serious note, 41 minutes per day isn't bad at all. If you think that's small then you have far too much time on your hands.
It's more than a minute per day aswell.
Doug Heffernan
Member
Wow! Very impressive numbers.
The attention this is getting is well deserved. Great move by Microsoft.
The attention this is getting is well deserved. Great move by Microsoft.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
thats a valid point
because part of my job is data analytics. This is pretty easy to do some quick numbers and analysis on. There is no "trying", the numbers do not add up to great value on their own. EDIT: For microsoft, but that doesnt include the value of having "backwards compatibility" as a marketing bullet point
Yes. Based on this, MS will soon leave the console business. Truly disappointing numbers.
Yup.
And something Sony needs to get better at. They used to be good, dont know what made Sony change their stance.
ethomaz
Banned
That is not the point... it small any way you look.
If 1m users tried BC for 30 minutes that is already 30m hours.
What that even means is out of my mind but that your way to always contribute lol
SplitYourInfinities
Member
You are trying too hard.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
because the changeover to x86 was just an absolute requirement this gen, and emulating PS3 architecture just isnt possible. Even microsoft is struggling to emulate the 360 and having to write specific code for each game that runs on the xbox one
ethomaz
Banned
Nope... it is really small.
Well, you did a terrible analysis. Sorry, but you really can't just divide total hours by total console and determine the success or viability of BC. There are so many other factors, that attempting to do a ninja analysis is foolish. You don't know how many consoles have been used on a regular basis, or how many total hours were spent gaming on XB1, or sales figures for Xbox 360 games since BC, or how many people have XBL Gold or had a 360 prior to XB1, or how many hours are spent on any other activity on XB1, or how many households have multiple consoles, etc etc. Hours is barely measurable at all, so it's nearly impossible to determine the viability of BC.
The only thing we know for sure: this message came from Microsoft PR, so at the very least they think this number is impressive or good.
Triggerhappytel
Member
My job is data analysis too, not like that really matters. You and I both know the 5 hours 'average' is completely disingenuous, but without any more information from MS we can't begin to guess averages or the number of owners who have played BC games to any substantial degree.
Triggerhappytel
Member
You are trying too hard, and your maths is broken.
I'm frowning at the some of the contrived blow-back in the discussion here for what's a pretty benign statement; This is a press release highlighting that a new-ish feature has been popular. Connecting that to a perceived web of lies is just...phew, if you're feeling compelled to pull the wool away from people's eyes on this, take a breath.
I've been really happy with the quality and tick of game releases, and they've (surprisingly, to me) been providing updates to already released games instead of just considering them out-and-done. Red Dead is almost icing at this point. I'm still waiting on releases for the handful of higher-quality JRPGs from last gen. I have them all, and I've played them all, but it's been long enough that I think another dip would be fun.
I've been really happy with the quality and tick of game releases, and they've (surprisingly, to me) been providing updates to already released games instead of just considering them out-and-done. Red Dead is almost icing at this point. I'm still waiting on releases for the handful of higher-quality JRPGs from last gen. I have them all, and I've played them all, but it's been long enough that I think another dip would be fun.
ethomaz
Banned
Ohhhhhh I get where I messed lol thanks
It is so easy to people say only "your math is broken" to make me check them.
So to dumb this down, if 1 user tried BC for 30 minutes, that is already 30 hours?
CosmicQueso
Member
As an analyzer of data you know how misleading a straight average single data point can be.
You have no idea of hours per user of the feature, no idea on trend, no idea on types of games being played.
It's a single data point. And on that you're going to make assessments like you're making?
As someone who looks and analyzes data, you should be one of the first people to come out and say that this data point tells us absolutely nothing of import, and that no conclusions can be drawn from it.
So, from this PR announcement, we know now that on average an Xbox One owner has used Backwards Compatibility for about five hours during the last eight months.
We also know that since Microsoft actually made an announcement about that usage, they're clearly happy with it's adoption rate.
FYI, pointing out these facts doesn't make me "salty", "desparate", a "hater", or a "downplayer", so for all the posters here enthusiastically showing off their persecution complex, this is not the post you're looking for.
We also know that since Microsoft actually made an announcement about that usage, they're clearly happy with it's adoption rate.
FYI, pointing out these facts doesn't make me "salty", "desparate", a "hater", or a "downplayer", so for all the posters here enthusiastically showing off their persecution complex, this is not the post you're looking for.
There is no way your job is data analysis! I refuse to believe that.
MilkyJoe
Member
Maths...
Let me guess, your job is in data analytics.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
Correct, but I can work with what I'm given to get an idea. Number of users would be the most important number, one which we arent given, however with the number we are given we can still look at how popular it is across the entire xbox one ownership. That look isn't good. 100 hours just isn't a lot.
From a business standpoint the number that really matters is how many consoles sold were based on this feature, as well as game sales that happened on Xbox one due to the bundling capabilities they implemented selling backwards compatible games as a free add in with new games.
However we don't know any of that, all we know is 100 million hours,which by itself is a pretty low number for engagement time.
But in the end I don't really care about business here and I'd rather look at it as a consumer. If it wasn't for the x86 changeover this would worry me. This number just isn't good enough on its own to show backwards compatibility as a feature gamers care about. Fortunately it shouldn't matter as the x86m changeover should make BC a given going forward.
Diprosalic
Banned
If a million people played for 30 minutes, that would be 30 million accumulated minutes, which would make half a million hours. About sixty times smaller than what youre saying.
But by all means, dont give up your parade-raining maths
No.
Dude runs a petting zoo. He spends 5 hours a month shoveling shit. How popular is his petting zoo?
SerTapTap
Member
And as attach rates have shown, a bunch of people buy only a couple of games with their console. Not everyone is super active. The reality is probably that like half or more of those people don't have or play BC games and those that do play them a lot more than you imply.
It's still great to see BC is used especially when MS and Sony were so completely disregarding it in 2013. Hopefully x86 means backwards compatibility forever going forward..
Ricky Ricardo
Member
Captain Tuttle
Member
How much does it cost MS to implement BC on a title?
Honest question, I have no idea