4 ms·

Why should they charge extra fees? You bought it.

jsheard 3y ago
It's contrary to what Sony and Nintendo did, where there was no backwards compatibility from the PS3 to the PS4 or from the Wii U to the Switch, and the games that were manually ported over were re-launched at full price with no discount for those who already bought the original. Microsoft are the only ones who made a significant effort to keep games working across generations with very different hardware architectures and didn't charge for the privilege of playing your existing library.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Rinzler89 3y ago
Games often use licensed third party assets like copyrighted music or various SW libraries for graphics or networking. That copyrighted content is licensed to them for a fixed number of years. After that license period expires, they're no longer allowed to sell the game, unless they negociate again a new license agreement with whoever owns that IP now, which is often too much of a headache, and if they do renew it, it means a new release of the game for extra money to offset the new licensing costs. Emulation works around that since it relies on users who already bought the content from when the license was still in effect, but again, it's and effort from Microsoft to provide the emulation environment which is something the likes of Nintendo and Sony abandoned, since it brings little revenue for the extra costs. It's a lot more complex issue than just "all game devs = evil".
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  > That copyrighted content is licensed to them for a fixed number of years. Too bad, maybe they should've thought of that before signing those contracts. > they're no longer allowed to sell the game The subdiscussion isn't even about sales, but about not breaking existing copies.
  - Rinzler89 3y ago
    >Too bad, maybe they should've thought of that before signing those contracts. Think about what exactly? Nobody's gonna afford to spend money to buy perpetual licenses for a games that will be on shelves only a few years. What exactly do you expect they do better? >The subdiscussion isn't even about sales, but about not breaking existing copies. Nobody's breaking existing copies.
add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
I think it's a reference to Nintendo periodically redoing their retro game technology/store and making you re-buy the same classic games library from scratch each time. Whereas you still own your rights to Xbox digital titles no matter how many console generations prior.

It's contrary to what Sony and Nintendo did, where there was no backwards compatibility from the PS3 to the PS4 or from the Wii U to the Switch, and the games that were manually ported over were re-launched at full price with no discount for those who already bought the original. Microsoft are the only ones who made a significant effort to keep games working across generations with very different hardware architectures and didn't charge for the privilege of playing your existing library.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Rinzler89 3y ago

Games often use licensed third party assets like copyrighted music or various SW libraries for graphics or networking. That copyrighted content is licensed to them for a fixed number of years. After that license period expires, they're no longer allowed to sell the game, unless they negociate again a new license agreement with whoever owns that IP now, which is often too much of a headache, and if they do renew it, it means a new release of the game for extra money to offset the new licensing costs. Emulation works around that since it relies on users who already bought the content from when the license was still in effect, but again, it's and effort from Microsoft to provide the emulation environment which is something the likes of Nintendo and Sony abandoned, since it brings little revenue for the extra costs. It's a lot more complex issue than just "all game devs = evil".

Nullabillity 3y ago
> That copyrighted content is licensed to them for a fixed number of years. Too bad, maybe they should've thought of that before signing those contracts. > they're no longer allowed to sell the game The subdiscussion isn't even about sales, but about not breaking existing copies.
- Rinzler89 3y ago
  >Too bad, maybe they should've thought of that before signing those contracts. Think about what exactly? Nobody's gonna afford to spend money to buy perpetual licenses for a games that will be on shelves only a few years. What exactly do you expect they do better? >The subdiscussion isn't even about sales, but about not breaking existing copies. Nobody's breaking existing copies.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

I think it's a reference to Nintendo periodically redoing their retro game technology/store and making you re-buy the same classic games library from scratch each time. Whereas you still own your rights to Xbox digital titles no matter how many console generations prior.