Topic: Protect you digital rights

Silly thread. You're not entitled to multiple versions of the same software across different systems unless the publisher explicitly allows for that, as with the occasional PSVita/PS4 crossbuy feature for indie games. None of your "rights" are being violated, and going physical wouldn't change that.

@Shellcore The reason why systems are backwards compatible has a lot to do with the architecture of the systems. The reason why the PS3 can play PS2 games is because they built an entire PS2 within the PS3. As a result it was ridiculously expensive. It's also the reason why it was removed in later versions of the PS3.

The GameCube, Wii and Wii U all share the same architecture; PowerPC. The Wii U is actually BC with the GameCube, the only issue is that it cannot read the small GameCube discs, a feature which was removed in later versions of the Wii as well. But the Wii U can read and play "digital" GameCube games.

The Switch is a completely different system. It uses ARM. Meaning all Wii U software is incompatible with the Switch. Game engines need to be ported and adjusted to work on Switch. PowerPC was an outdated architecture by the time the Wii U launched, so there was no reason to stick with any longer. Was it a conscious decision? Yeah, otherwise the Switch wouldn't exist.

The current architectures are x86 for Windows PC, PS4 and Xbox and ARM for Switch and mobile devices. Like x86, PowerPC doesn't work in mobile devices, you want something a lot more efficient and less demanding in terms of battery power, like ARM.

Anyway, it's not a scam. Yes you could argue that €60 is too much for a Donkey Kong port, I agree. But there's no way it would've been possible for you to claim all your Wii U games on the Switch for free.

@Ralizah Read the thread buddy. We understand all of that. It is figuring out whether the status quo is still acceptable going forward.

@Octane I know that it hasn't always been possible, but in a possible digital-only future this is something I hope console manufacturers consider. We already agree manufacturers can do this...they just choose not to. Like you mentioned, the architecture used in todays consoles makes this a more viable proposition. Edit: Actually, thanks for the explanation of PowerPC et al. Interesting read.

standardized pc architecture VS custumized console architrecture that prevent programs compatibility between one machine and another is not semantics
On Steam you can keep all your games as long as you keep the same type of computer, if you change type of computer (pc -> mac) I'm sure most of the games are not playable anymore. People worked more to make them run on different machines and this work must be paid. This is the reason why games and programs are different than media.

@LuckyLand We talked about how consoles are increasingly being based on standard architecture a page back. @Octane wrote a great piece looking at how this changed moving between the more modern Nintendo traditional home consoles to Switch. So, I understand what I would like to see couldn't have always happened in the past due to cost/time. However, going forward, it looks like future iterations of todays consoles could be scalable and what we see as versions now, would merely be settings. I truly do get your point. I just like the sound of mine better, even if it is just wishful thinking.

@Ralizah True, But I have user right to run the game on a approved Nintendo OS.
How the OS works or how is branded should not affect the customer rights.

For the customer it should be really simple, 1. does the program run on the OS and do I have the user rights.
Now the real tricky part some when we have to determine where the user rights start and end.
If we say that the rights only apply to a Wii U OS, then we have to ask what defines the OS as a Wii U OS?

The hardware its use on? The branding?
How are we the customer gonna know?

It should be made really simple.
Can the system use the storage device where the license is on and can the system run the licensed program?
If yes, then you have the right to run the game without extra cost.
Can login on a system with a account that the license is bound to and system run the licensed program?
If yes, then you have the right to run the game without extra cost.

Simple and easy for the customer to understand.

@Octane I not talking about demanding that the systems have backwards compatibility.
But the transparency and protection of user rights.
If the license is bound to an account and that account can login on 2 different OS.
Then any license that is bound to account should follow from one OS to the other.

Can Nintendo claim that there are no license from the Wii U that works on the Switch.
Sure they can, it just called a Wii U license.
But if we allow this, then Nintendo can make any update to any OS and say that it does only support Switch OS 2.0 license. Making all old game unplayable.

We the customer have to make sure that such a loophole is closed to we can not be cheated by any company.

So if we demand that a license program need to have a significant content difference before it can claim to be a new and different license program. Then we are protecting ourselves from problems in the future.

@Slitth @Ralizah @Octane Think I derailed by going into backwards compatibility which was a more technical look at why this may/may not work across future systems using an account based OS. @Slitth seems to be talking more about the user agreement itself and the definition of when and how that license can be used. Can an update to the operating system negate the user agreement on the same hardware. I don't see this happening, but a point for consideration I guess and perfectly possible legally if we are signing up to these multi page agreements.

@Shellcore of course in the future I would want compatibility with older games just like you do, I hope that from now on consoles will be made with that in mind, but it was just not reasonable to ask something like that in the past.

@LuckyLand I agree with everything you said. Fingers crossed!

@Shellcore The issue persists regardless of digital or physical distribution (I'd argue that digital-only future is far worse than anything else, but for different reasons I won't go into right now).

When you say ''We already agree manufacturers can do this...they just choose not to.'' I disagree.

GameCube (PowerPC) -> Wii (PowerPC) -> Wii U (PowerPC) -> Switch (ARM)
PS1 (MIPS) -> PS2 (MIPS) -> PS3 (PowerPC) -> PS4 (x86)
Xbox (x86) -> Xbox360 (PowerPC) -> Xbox One (x86)

Going by architecture alone (it's a bit more complicated than that), you can see that only the PS2 and Wii and Wii U should be backwards compatible. And that's true. Like I said, the only reason the PS3 was backwards compatible is because they built a PS2 within the PS3, but the result was an expensive console. Microsoft's Xbox One is not backwards compatible with Xbox and Xbox 360, but they are porting games over so that you can play them on your Xbox One, provided you own the disc. They're essentially emulating a kind of backwards compatibility, but it doesn't work for every game as a result.

Unless you're talking about a strategy similar to what Microsoft is doing, I don't see where any of the platform holders deliberately decided to cut off backwards compatibility.

Going forward I expect that Sony and Microsoft will stick with x86, it's essentially PC architecture, which allows for easy porting between the systems (= more games). If Nintendo continues the portable route, they will most likely stick with ARM, because that's currently the most efficient instruction set for portable devices. So, with that being said, I do expect the next systems to be fully backwards compatibly.

@Slitth I've read your comment twice, but I'm still not sure what loophole you're talking about...

@Shellcore Tell that to the thread creator, "buddy," as he doesn't seem to understand the difference between OS upgrades, platform changes, and controller compatibility, going off his posts.

Anyway, there's no real debate: you're entitled to whatever the license agreement states you're entitled to. Which usually doesn't extend to owning the game across multiple different platforms. This is possible with consoles because they're products controlled by a single manufacturer with no room for competition, unlike PC.

@Shellcore Well, I mean in theory they could update your system and lock you out of playing a certain game. That's technically possible. I don't see why they would do that though...

@Ralizah There is no real difference between what we call an update and new release.
Both are a new program in and of itself when compared to the older programs made by the same company.
We just define a new program with a little difference to the predecessor as an update.
And if there is a big difference to the predecessor it's often referred to it as a new program or platform.
The question is should this definition has an impact on user rights.
And this is important because if we let the companies digtage the definitions without question, then are letting companies control our rights.

@Octane The reason it so sell the same product as many times as possible to the same user.
Sure the different consoles have different programming architecture, that why we cannot demand that the companies make all the old programs run on the new architecture.
But should the customer care if the good old 8 bit Super Mario Bros runs on PowerPC or ARM.
It looks and feels that same to most of us. But we still have to pay for the difference.

Historically speaking backwards compatibility in video games has never been guaranteed no matter how you own your game. But a benefit. In so many other types of media it is the same. But what worries me the most is that I will not be able to play my legally purchased games on a replacement console that I bought the games I own.

For example I can play any VHS cassette on any VHS player, I can play any of my legally bought audio CD's on any CD player. I can play any Atari games I own on any working Atari. Same with the NES, Genesis..... But I cannot play any of my legally purchased digital games on any working Wii. I am at the mercy of Nintendo to transfer the rights to another Wii.

That is what bothers me.

I feel that companies have zero obligations to be required to make games play on new consoles that were originally made and purchased for another video game system. I mean video games are not MP3's.

In the same way, I would never expect a music company to feel obligated to automatically grant me an update because I own Def Leppard Hysteria on audio cassette that they need to give me a CD because I already own the rights.
I bought the Audio Cassette, not the CD. The same way I bought the Wii U version, not the Switch version.

Steam is a different beast altogether. Right from the get go, Steam had the idea of being more of an everlasting video game hub. So Steam works to makes sure that their platform does that. As long as you have the right OS, Windows, Mac, Linux you can play the games desined to work with the OS. No one using BeOS should demand that Steam gets working on a BeOS version just because they own a few games on Steam. Nintendo, sony, SEGA, have never made that same claim. (Well SEGA sort of did, but it did not work out so well.)
Comparing Steam to any console is like comparing apples to chairs.

@Slitth No, the customer shouldn't care what the game runs on. However, they should understand that, with changing architectures, it costs the company time and resources to port those games over to newer system (regardless of whether it's the game itself or an emulator), so I don't think that a small fee (read: not full price) is ridiculous to ask.

@Hikingguy Well, pre-2006 was "digital or physical" really even much of a question? Even PC was still largely physical at the time. Modern games, other than GoG on Steam, I fear there's no such thing as DRM things on most games. Some, sure. Odyssey is fine. God of War is fine on disc. But most major publisher games are "sneak DRM." It seems like in the past year it's become worse with "mandatory patch" and "must log in to play" antics.

@Shellcore to be fair to the hardware, in the past especially the hardware incompatibilty wasn't about breaking games, it was about builidng a new machine with the newest tech that meets the expectations for a new machine at the right price. IF the code was incompatible so be it. The whole point of IBM PC standard was that it was the first home computing system with interchangeable standard spec parts. Other computer systems were kind of one-off profiles at the time including consoles. PC became the standard in the compute space but not the gaming space. Not until PS4/X1 anyway. We may indeed see that change end now.

PS3 to PS4 is special. PS3 was a disastrous piece of hardware and there was no way to emulate its games. They didn't design PS4 to break PS3 games, they designed PS4 because PS3 was an unsustainable nightmare at odds with development needs.

Wii was GCN compatible, WiiU was Wii compatible (should have been GCN compatible, but the disc reader may not take GCN discs?) But WiiU to Switch, is a total architecture shift. RISC/PCC to RISC/ARM. Even if you plugged a USB disc drive into it your WIiU games just couldn't run on it. Same with digital. They need to rebuild it for the hardware either way. It sucks, but when the actual platform changes, it's understandable. The platform changed because the form factor changed.

X1 is special. PPC->X86 is close enough if you have enough power overhead, and the X1 does versus X360. Even that takes some special patches either to the game or the OS. Switch doesn't have the power overhead versus WiiU. It's more powerful but not enough to emulate hardware. If anything it's a reason to support MS who is focusing on compatibility back to the 2000 X-Box at least partly. But Sony and Nintendo's hands were tied on the matter going from gen7 to gen8. Are they profiting from the ports? Yeah. But Sony would profit from "4k remasters" either way even if it were back compatible.

I think your point stands in terms of digital rights overall, but....you can't say "your company can't make new hardware that's different." Switch would have to be a 4DS and We'd have a WiiU2 and it would be a nightmare. If that's whats important, that's what PC is about (though there's still no guarantees) and you make cost compromises to get that feature. PC is all about consistent hardware support. Consoles are specific machines that play its own library. Digital rights can't ever mean "you sell hardware forever that can run this" (do they still make VCRs? Can my old Phil Collins 8-Track play in a snazzy new audio player? No. I have to rebuy on CD. BUT digital rights can mean the same as physical media rights: So long as I have a working 8-track player I can play my 8-track. The problem with digital rights is that is NOT a guarantee right now. We need to fix it so that a Switch can play Switch games forever on any working Switch. PS4 can play PS4 games forever so long as I find a working PS4 in the Wastelands. Just as the 8-track player can. What we have now is that the Switch or PS4 can only play the games so long as the company runs servers that says I can and they can revoke that right at any time. That's the part we have to change and legislate. Not making sure PS15 can run PS4 games. That's an illogical demand unless it's a tentpole feature of the platform as it is with PC (but without guarantees.)

In a way console generations were more like moving from reel-to-reel, to 8-track to audio cassette, to CD. Each was incompatible with the previous and you had to re-buy everything. Or 8mm Super8, to VHS, to S-VHS, to DVD, to BD. You can't buy a new PS2 anymore, and you can't buy a new Super8 player anymore. It's extremely possible you get your wish starting with 8th gen and they will indeed keep backward compatibility in mind. MS is very clearly angling for that in fact.

If we demand the impossible we get nothing. If we demand the obvious they'll have to listen just as iTunes/Amazon did in the music war.

@NEStalgia Yeah, the Wii U can run GameCube games natively. But just like the revised Wii consoles, they lack the parts that are required to accept and read the smaller discs.

@NEStalgia I believe we see eye to eye on this issue. I believe the only reasonable expectation that any consumer should expect is that any game they buy work on the console that it was originally purchased for and/or any replacement console of the same kind. This has been the expectation from the very start. What I mean by that is if I buy a game for the Wii U, it should work on any working Wii U I buy today or 30 years from now. But I fear that might not be the case. And that is what scares me.

I would love it if all technology worked on all next generation for everything. But that is simply not a realistic expectations for exactly the reasons you and I both gave before. No matter the format of content.

But I guess where it gets fuzzy is that it can really depend on what is the driving force behind each technology. For example, MP3 is a common technology for music delivery and the hardware must conform to that. Where as before the hardware such as a CD or cassette or record was the driving force that dictated how the music was delivered. I needed a CD player to listen to my CD. I needed to conform to the media. But a MP3 can be listened to on many, many different types of devices. So in the world of audio music, and I guess maybe even video too, has seen a huge paradigm changed. Maybe for the good or the bad, but no longer is the hardware dictating how I must play the media.

This has not happened yet for video games. And as long as there are different companies who are competing with each other trying to outdo each other with the promise of a better experience this will not change. But I guess if there ever becomes a point in time when nothing can be advanced upon and all video games rely on only one source for the technology, then we will see a shift to something standard. Similar to how all movies are shown at a cinema. We might have some with bigger screens, but a movie is still a movie no matter where I to go to see it or who made the movie. The building might be nicer or the screen might be smaller, but the patron could care less who or how the movie was made. If Disney made the movie or if Sony made the movie or if some indie guy made the movie, once it hits the theater, the viewer could careless. This is not how the video game industry works right now for better or worse.

No doubt this has been said multiple times on the last few pages but I'll repeat it anyways. The only way any company is going to allow such a system is if they can have proof that you still have the copy.Why do they need to do this? Well because otherwise the system can be abused. And so that they're not screwing over consumers of physical media and, to a degree, retailers this needs to work across both physical and digital.

As I said, with digital media this isn't an issue. It's why there's no issues transferring content from one phone to another or upgrading your PC and having your Steam games move across. It's not even a question of "extra man hours" because on Steam you buy the game once and you potentially have it on macOS, Windows and Linux. Physical media on the other hand only works in one of two ways. Either you have to physically have the game read from the system itself OR you have a code in the box.

To put it simply... this is only an issue because the gaming community complained when Microsoft tried to go down this road with the XBOne.

@Sliith I still have yet to see what “user rights” you are talking about.