Does Backwards Compatibility Really Matter?

The 8th generation is here!  So far we've had the pre-E3 announcements for both Sony's PlayStation 4 and Microsoft's Xbox One (the Wii U is NOT an 8th generation console - no amount of angry comments will change that, so get over it).  There's still much we don't know about either console that I expect we'll have to wait for E3 to discover, but something we know right here and now is that neither console will support games from their respective predecessors.  Indeed, no backwards compatibility whatsoever seem to be in the cards here, and I've seen some people that are really not particularly happy over it.

My question (in case you somehow missed the title of this article) is does it really matter?  It's easy to say, "Hell yeah it matters DeAno; are you fucking stupid," but really think about it, and be honest.  How many Gamecube games did you play on your Wii?  Wait, that wasn't a fair question; if you're reading this blog I very seriously doubt you bought a Wii unless you have kids.  Let me try again.  For you launch model PS3 owners, exactly how often did you play PS2 games?  Play many PSOne games on either your PS3s or PS2s?

If you're anything like me the answer is yes...for that first year.  The previous consoles were still supported and had a great library while the current gen system really didn't have all that much going for it.  Past that first year, though?  Please.  Sure there are a few stalworth classics that were fun to have another go at, but by and large I was buying current generation games for my current generation console, and so were you.

Don't get me wrong, here.  Backwards compatibility is a cool thing to have.  I remember when it was announced that the PS2 would be able to play PSOne games; that shit blew my mind!  Sure we'd seen that happen before on Nintendo's handheld consoles, but for a main living room gaming console, it was a huge deal.  That and the fact that it could play DVD movies out of the box killed the Dreamcast in less time than it took for you to finish reading this sentence.  It sold more consoles than any other console in gaming history.  It was a game changer!

What would have happened if it couldn't play PSOne games?  Pretty much the same thing.  Even without being able to play PSOne games in addition to the CDs, DVDs, and of course PS2 games that it could play, people would have still bought the shit out of it.  While being able to play past games was very cool, people bought it to play the new games.  I know that's why I bought it.  Even when it came time to upgrade to the PS3 the biggest factor that played a role in the purchase was the expandable hard drive and the multimedia functions (and of course the fact that it played PS3 games).  I don't buy a new console to play old games.

I'm getting off topic.  This entire blog post started as me asking a very simple question on my Google+ page and went out of control from there, so let's get back to that.  Is this really an issue that you care about and if so, why?  Let me know in the comments; I'm really interested to know what you think!

The Xbox One Has Been Revealed, But Where Are The Games?

Note: This is a rant.  For those unfamiliar with my rants, I tend to cuss a lot.  You've been warned.

After all the rumors and speculation, today Microsoft finally showcased their newest console at a press event in Redmond, the Xbox One.  It has responsive voice commands, plays live TV, multitasks kinda like Windows 8's split-screen feature works, and there's some fantasy football shit and some other kinda TV bullshit and a fucking Halo TV series and you can Skype people (yay, it can finally do what my cell phone has been able to do for the past 4 fucking years; I'll plan the parade).

Don't get me wrong here; I liked a lot of what I saw.  It was damned cool!  The new Xbox has a lot of very impressive features...except for apparently the ability to play fucking games.  Did any of you watch the press event?  I counted; it was 28 fucking minutes before they even started talking about games.  They brought EA studios on stage to talk about their games, and they pretty much played a sizzle reel with a bunch of CG bullshit, and then it was on to talking about a Halo TV show (but not a game, why would they be talking about a game?) that apparently Steven Spielberg is involved with but didn't care enough to actually show up at the fucking event.

Then they started talking about the fantasy football shit, and just when I thought that they might show me something, they began to wrap up the show!  I was getting really upset at this point (I'll explain why in a bit), when they finally started talking about showing a game!  Just when I was getting my hopes up, they said the words Call of Duty.  I disconnected the livestream right then and there.

A couple of months back Sony revealed the PlayStation 4 and took a lot of grief for not showing what the console looked like.  Their argument was that what it looked like wasn't important; they showed the controller (the part of the console you'll spend 99% of your time interacting with) and they showed what it can do.  "That," they argued, "is what matters to gamers."  They were fucking right.  Here, look at this:

That's the Xbox One.  It's a fucking box with a slot in it so you can put a Blu-Ray into it.  Would you have rather known that or did you maybe want to see some of the fucking games that this games console can play?  During Sony's PS4 reveal, they showed off the features of the controller, they showed off the new interface, and they showed us actual games running the fucking console.  Meanwhile, hey at least we know that I can watch How I Met Your Mother live on the Xbox One...just like I can on the shit I already have.

Microsoft has a real chance to get me this generation, but unless they straight-up blow the doors off the place at E3, Sony is getting my money next generation.  At least they still know that at the end of the day, it's all about the games.

"Offline?" What's That?

Man ever since +Google+ introduced the new Hangouts app, I've never seen so much whining about a paradigm that no longer is relevant.  People just can't seem to move on, get past it, and wake up to the year 2013!

What am I talking about?  The old "online/offline" thing.  Here's the situation: in Google Talk there was a little dot indicator to show you someone's status.  Green meant online, orange meant away, and red meant offline.  In Google Hangouts, the app that replaces Talk, that indicator is no longer there...and people are freaking the hell out.  If you doubt me, allow me to share a few choice comments I've snagged from the Google+ Discuss community and a few from the comments in the posts of the peanut butter powered CM of Hangouts, +Dori Storbeck:

• "I want to see who is online... not second guess if they are or not." 
• "On desktop at least we have "green" for online people, but yeah I'd hope that basic features like "green" and "orange" would be on mobile as well."
• "Any chance you can add the ability to change status (Busy/Online/Away) in Hangouts? There is a bug (maybe a feature?) where if I use Hangouts strictly, people who are using Gtalk view me as offline."
• "hate that my contacts are no longer grouped online. I used to see friends online and just say hello. Now I have to search for individuals. Not crazy about the Gtalk replacement."
• "I WANT to see who is online..  ...... I don't want to look in Gmail to see my list of people"
• "It does matter who's online and offline.  If i want to contact someone offline, I'll send them an sms.  Sometimes I go offline so I don't have to receive IM's.  I don't want to come back online with a bunch of IM's waiting for me."
• "I don't need to chat with people who are offline.  I don't want to see a long, convoluted list.  I just want to see those of my contacts who are online, plain and simple."

I could probably go on, but I think I've made my point.  Bottom line is that people don't want this to change, but here's the thing: the way we use the internet has changed enough so that this very simply doesn't matter anymore.  

Think back to when Instant Messaging first came about and really got pushed into the limelight.  E-mail was the best way of getting in contact with people that were far away, long distance calling was expensive, but with IM you could have a conversation with anyone on the globe if they used the same IM service you did and were in front of their computer.  That last bit was the most important; they had to be in front of their computer and they had to be online (remember that dial-up was the standard back then, and people usually only connected when they had to).  Back then, you needed an indicator telling you what their status was.

Now let's fast forward to today.  Broadband internet is the standard; our computers are always online.  We carry around internet connected phones that are more powerful than the computers we used when we first sent men to the freaking moon.  You can have a live video conversation with someone on the other side of the world and it costs you just as much as it would if you were in a video call with your next door neighbor - and that cost is normally free.  Quick question for you, dear readers: are you ever actually offline?  Think about it.  You might not be sitting at your computer 24/7, but I'm willing to wager that your lovely internet-connected smartphone isn't more than 10 feet away from you right now.  Hell, for the majority of you it's very likely either in arms reach or you're reading this very article on one right now.

Online/offline is a bygone product of an internet era that is over, and has been for a long time.  You don't need to know if a person has their cell phone in their hand before you send them a text message, so why in the world would it matter for an instant message?  The world has changed.  The way we use the internet has changed.  I'd suggest that you all change with it.