A lot of people have been complaining recently about the fact that next-gen consoles will not be backwards compatible. Now, as a disclaimer, I realise that it is expensive to allow for backwards compatibility due to the system design of the current-gen compared to the new. But the issue is that both companies are wiping the slate clean by doing so. Let's say that you got the xbox 360 at launch because you enjoyed Halo and wanted to play the next one. But then a game like Fallout 3 comes out on both 360 and PS3, you're obviously going to buy the 360 version, because you own a 360. This might seem like an obvious statement, but when you think about it backwards compatibility is the same concept, just bridging the gap between the two generations. Continuing from the previous scenario, if you prefer the PS3 replace 360 with PS3, Halo with Resistance and xBone with PS4, you go to buy a next-gen console; if backwards compatibility were not a problem then you would go for the xBone, because you already have a large library of games available for it and would like to keep playing them. Once again this is obvious but as this is not the case you are now free to choose whichever console you prefer, and just keep your old one for playing the current-gen games. For those of you about to comment saying that you could do that anyway or that if you have both consoles it doesn't matter, don't bother. If you have both consoles this would not be an issue anyway and as for the other point, no it doesn't matter to us if we just keep our old console and choose the new one based solely on release titles, but it matters to the console manufacturers as they lose out on almost guaranteed sales but they still decided not to include backwards compatibility. So, how can this be solved? Simple: digital downloads. Using the patents that were shown in many rumour articles before next-gen announcements, as well as the announcements made afterwards, the solution is to let people take their current discs and put them into a next-gen console; using RF tagging, that Sony put in a patent for, user's can then confirm that this is their copy of the game and will get a free download for it, as both companies are touting great download services and most current-gen games are available on demand at the moment. And no, HD rereleases are not the answer either. Great for some games and they were released pretty late into things and often came with a lot of extra's, but that only works once, we're not falling for it twice. This issue was brought up once before, not the previous generation, but with the move from the PSP to the Vita. Sony offered downloads, in Japan, for PSP titles but users still had to pay for those downloads of games they already owned. I seem to remember quite a few people being annoyed by that, so you would think that someone might have learned from that... So, if you take away anything from this, let it be that the companies are not in the wrong for not including backwards compatibility, they are in the wrong for not using the new technology to help bring forward the current-gen.

With the recent death of EA's online pass I thought I would take a moment to talk about DLC and online passes, and what developers need to do to make them work. First off we have to think about who DLC is for: it's for the people that want to see more from a game after they have completed the main game. Before the age of downloads there was DLC, back then it was known as an expansion pack. The expansion pack allowed developers to add something to the game that they couldn't fit in upon release, the worst example is of course The Sims expansions that just added IKEA products. A good example would be the Age of Mythology expansion : The Titans. It added a new short story campaign and more options for the multiplayer side of it. So what makes DLC good? Well a good piece of DLC adds something for everyone, not just one particular set of players. A bad idea is to just add map packs, add some news features to the game or even extend a characters story beyond the main storyline. Now this won't work for every game, it all depends on what the game is. For example I know very few people who play Call of Duty or Battlefield for the story, they buy and play it online with friends and DLC is used in this case to keep multiplayer content fresh and exciting right up until the next release. But it seems that both DICE and Activision (I realise that Activision do not develop Call of Duty, but I also know it goes between developers) just release new map packs. So how can they avoid this constant slew of new maps, whilst keeping the multiplayer matches interesting? By adding new features, such as new weapons, new perks or, if they must add just new maps, adding in extras that will either help or hinder the player such as preset traps, hidden passages that lead to unique vantage points with a cache of ammo or a timed event like a helicopter with a turret that allows you to attack enemies from above etc. This would mean that matches would not be about who is the best, but would add an element of strategy to the game, do you go for the helicopter or camp out nearby and kill anyone who attempts to take it? Do you explore a narrow passage that could be a trap or a new place to snipe from? These simple additions would make the new maps interesting whilst breathing new life into the old maps. I realise that Call of Duty: Ghosts promises this already, but this has been a problem for the entirety of this console cycle and will not stop because of one game. As for the games without multiplayer, developers will need to listen to the fan base and get feedback on what elements of the story player would like to see more of/changed. Would they like a new difficulty setting, or more information on a particular character or setting, or even a mechanic? These are the questions that must be asked before DLC is created. Once a developer knows this they can start to create content that explores these features. I am waiting with bated breath for the Bioshock Infinite DLC as they seem to have come up with a similar idea of how to create DLC, but this is just my hope. And finally we come to everyone's favourite punching bag, online passes. No matter what EA say the online pass was an attempt to stop piracy and get some money from pre-owned sales. Which makes sense, if someone were to write a book and they only sold a few hundred copies and the rest of it was lost in second hand bookstores they might be annoyed that they haven't earned as much money as they could. However, what they would not do is lock the end of the book from second hand users until they have paid for it. The game that is often held up as a shining example of how to do a good online pass is Batman Arkham City, which, if bought new, gave the player access to the Catwoman story and the ability to play as Catwoman. This was not necessary to the game, but was a nice addition to it, the same as DLC. So how would developers get around this one? Well the best answer I can give is to look at something extra that the player might enjoy having, but is not crucial to a particular aspect of it. I've heard a lot of people say this before but it still holds true, developers should be rewarding their customers for buying new, not punishing them because they want more money.

I have been reading all these articles lately that are from companies that seem to believe that they are being cheated by retailers who buy and sell used games. I work on the software section of a toy store in the UK. Our store is the smallest out of all the others, but we still make a fair amount from used games each week. So where does this money go I ask? Right back to our suppliers who get us the brand new games. They then buy the games off of the original company, which is how they make their money, not through individual sales. It is insanely frustrating to hear things like "we lost money because 1 million bought the game used, rather than new" and "we should not lose out money to used sales". What do these companies expect when the games cost around £45 on release, that we have money to burn? As for the money lost because someone saved some money buying used, what if they had decided to buy new, but then the sales assistant told them of another game that they might enjoy, and they buy that instead? Should we no longer be allowed to recommend different games for people as they may hurt the sales of each company? Then another company gets pissed off and the whole cycle starts again. What needs to happen is a price drop across the board, start selling brand new games at a lower price, but not so low as to start a price war. If that were to happen the price of used games would also drop, but most people prefer to buy new for the sake of quality. Or at least something to that effect, the publishers and the retailers need to work together to find a middle ground, one where the publishers and retailers get the profits they want, and the customers get the quality they want but at a price they can afford.