I see a lot of cynicism in this thread - much of it entirely deserved. However, from a broader perspective, this is undoubtedly a good thing - and not just in terms of "yay, I can play more things on my new console".

Why? Because it goes some way towards mitigating what was looking like a real risk of a "lost generation" of console games.

As older platforms have gone out of circulation, PC emulation has generally been there to keep titles playable. Hell, when my first-gen back-compatible PS3 died on me and I had to replace it with a non-back-compatible slim model, I was able to carry on playing my PS2 games from the original discs via PC emulation.

But there is currently nothing like working emulation of the 360 and PS3 and, given those platforms DRM measures and general hardware eccentricity, it seems reasonable to suppose that we are years, if not decades, from actually seeing it (if we ever do).

Neither 360 nor PS3 hardware was of the highest quality. The early builds of both consoles had high failure rates - legendarily so in the case of the 360 - and while later iterations improved matters somewhat, there's no getting around the fact that they both remained essentially disposable and short-lived devices built as cheaply as possible.

So at some point in the not-too-distant future (within5 years maybe? Certainly within 10) working 360s and PS3s are going to get harder and harder to find. And with no emulation for them, there is a good chance that a good chunk of the (huge) catalogue of games for those platforms is going to end up inaccessible to everybody bar specialist collectors.

Now, a good chunk of the library for both consoles is basically disposable junk anyway. Does it matter massively if a few iterations of Madden and FIFA end up lost to posterity? Not really. In other cases, games are being "rescued" via "HD remasters" for current generation platforms (which can, admittedly, feel like a rip-off), as has happened with The Last of Us and and as will soon happen with Gears of War and Uncharted. In other cases, developers looking to make money from their back-catalogue may put out PC ports. We've seen this rescue a few absolute classics like Valkyria Chronicles, as well as some more... shall we say... eccentric choices like the Hyperdimension Neptunia games.

But that still leaves a lot of games - including those which were subject to exclusivity agreements but didn't sell well enough to merit an HD-remaster - stranded. There are some good and noteworthy games here; Lost Odyssey, Vanquish, Eternal Sonata and so on.

Now, if the Xbox One has back compatibility all of a sudden, that means that we have at least a temporary stay-of-execution on all three of those games I just mentioned. Plus the fact that they're running on PC-like hardware keeps alive the prospect that we might see them running on "proper" PC hardware at some point further down the line. And if you care about preserving an unbroken history of gaming's development, then this matters. If you don't think that keeping that chain intact matters, then just ask the BBC how they feel about all of those Doctor Who episodes they threw into the trash.

Of course, we still have some PS3 exclusives that are essentially marooned; and that Cell architecture is going to render any kind of emulation, whether on general PCs or on current or future Sony console hardware, a bitch. That leaves some excellent games (the PS3-era Ratchet & Clank games were superb and a lot of Japan's output for the latter half of the last console cycle was PS3-exclusive) still stranded. But maybe this step from MS will put some pressure on Sony.

Hopefully, the PC-like architecture of the current generation will make back-compatibility less of an issue going forward, though there are still issues about the extent to which many games are essentially dependent on PSN or XBL network architecture.

We hardly knew you!

Which could well be the salvation of the Xbox One. Back in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation, cross-platform development was a PITA because the three platforms were so different from each other.

However, the PS2 had an installed base way that was way larger than either of its rivals. So for a lot of small and mid-sized developers, the obvious solution was to develop only for the PS2; it would give you 90% or more of your sales anyway.

I had a friend who worked at a mid-tier developer during that time who worked on a multi-platform game. The irony was that the technical limitations of the PS2 forced compromises all over their game design; features that had to be cut or scaled down and maps whose size had to be reduced. But even though they could have made a better game for the other two platforms, the PS2 version was king, because it was going to rack up most of the sales. Meanwhile, the Gamecube version was way more trouble than it was worth; several game-functions had to be redesigned because of the lack of buttons on the Gamecube controller and that version ended up with a simpler, less flexible and less well balanced combat system as a result. Often forgotten - controller configuration matters as much for ease of porting as what's inside the console itself.

The game did just about well enough to get a sequel. They binned the Cube version and just about decided to keep the Xbox version, though it was a close-run thing. Only the PS2 version made a profit.

Last generation, the PS3 and 360 had broadly similar installed bases. Ok, there were geographic differences; the 360 was ahead in the US while the PS3 was way ahead in Japan. But by and large, both consoles had a roughly similar sized market. So unless you were being paid for exclusivity, you really needed to target both.

This time around, the PS4 is ahead in all markets and sat on at least twice the Xbox One's global installed base. If cross-platform development wasn't easy, then I could see a lot of developers deciding to cut Xbox One versions of their games, even without financial inducement from Sony.

I don't work for easyJet. However, I do work in the aviation sector. EasyJet have a phenomenal safety culture and are among the safest airlines in the world. I see this article as evidence that they are investing money in improving their safety practices.

Almost every first-world airline knows that safety is an area where you don't cut corners. If you're not a state-owned flag-carrier, then a single crash can (and probably will) wipe out your whole business. This goes for the low cost carriers as much as for the legacy airlines.

Your prediction is bollocks, pure and simple.

It's true that the consoles have a good backlog. This is why I still have my PS3 (well, that and it's a better media player than either of the new consoles). And it's true that if you haven't owned a console before and want one you can get lots of cheap games for, the PS3 and 360 are still worth considering.

But that's different to making them viable platforms to target for new games. People who buy new games tend to want to experience that game with the best experience possible (or in some cases, the best experience possible without the cost of a high-end PC). So sales of new games are already proven to be much higher on the current-gen rather than legacy platforms and most major publishers have now dropped PS3/360 support for all but casual and kids' titles.

There's been solid data for over a year now showing that the majority of games sales have shifted away from the PS3/360 and towards the PS4/Xbox One/PC. We've seen plenty of current-gen-only releases do just fine (Witcher 3 just had the most successful launch so far in 2015) and plenty of games which spanned both generations have sold a lot more copies on the newer platforms. Meanwhile, developers/publishers who stuck with the older platforms have paid a commercial price for it - the initial release of Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel (which was limited to PC, 360 and PS3) bombed commercially and shifted only a fraction of the copies at launch that Borderlands 2 managed.

The last console generation was the longest we've ever seen and there was a clear appetite among both developers and consumers to move on from it quickly. A lot of the money-men preferred to hedge their bets, not least because the installed bases for the PS3 and 360 were so huge. But what happened in practice was fairly predictable. Core gamers - the people who buy a lot of games - moved to the new platforms quickly and shifted their spending to those platforms. While the installed base of the older consoles remained larger, most of that base was made up of occasional and casual gamers, who don't spend a significant portion of their disposable income on gaming.

The caution in betting on the new generation wasn't entirely irrational. The new platform launches in the years leading up to it had not gone well. EA got burned hard by the Vita's launch flop. Ubisoft got burned even harder when they spent a lot of money supporting the Wii-U launch only for the platform to bomb. But with the PS4 and Xbox One, the developers who could get titles to market fairly soon after launch were generally rewarded (even when those games stunk, as with Watch_Dogs).

The PS3 and 360 will rumble on for a while yet. There's still a market on them for casual games - the Skylanders, Zumbas, FIFAs and whatnot. The PS2 continued getting new releases like that until over 2 years after the PS3 launched. But for major launches, there's no longer any point in targeting anything but PS4, Xbox One and PC.

I have to agree with this decision, since the trailer they did release looked amazingly bad and amateurish. They leads don't seem to be good actors, have no charisma and no chemistry, what little dialog seemed uninteresting and full of cliches, and the scenes seemed badly done.

I watched this with a friend, and at the end she went "Wait, that was a real trailer? I thought it was some sort of ad!"

If that was what the film was going to be like, then best it's dead.

I've been following the Greek debt crisis for at least five years, Greece's problem is that they absolutely refuse to stop spending money they don't have. Remember: Greece has never practiced real austerity (cutting deficits to match receipts) since they joined the Eurozone. Not once. (By contrast, Estonia did eliminate their deficit, and as a result started recovering from The Great Recession quicker than other EU economies.) Greece merely slowed the rate at which they were going more broke (or at least pretended to). Despite being right at the edge of complete national bankruptcy, Greece continues to insist that there will be “no wage or pension cuts” for government workers.

Greece lied about their economic situation to get into the Eurozone, lied about it before the crisis broke, lied after it broke, and continue to lie now.

Keep in mind that the past four years of bank loans from the ECB have not been to save Greece. What they were really designed to do was to keep the card game running long enough to let EU insiders and favored national banks unload Greek bonds, and to reduce their exposure to Greek default risks long enough to put European taxpayers onto the hook in the inevitable event of a Greek default. They pretended to save Greece, and Greece pretended to reform. And now here we are.

The adoption of the Euro hastened and deepened Greece's crisis, but was not the central cause, which was their refusal to stop spending money they didn't have to prop up their extravagant (even by European standards) welfare state. This modern welfare state has now become more sacred to voters than the capitalist economics that make it possible. As Mark Steyn put it, "People’s sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense."

The problem is that with declining demographics, the cradle-to-grave European welfare state is unsustainable. Greece and the rest of the PIIGS are discovering that first, but birth rates are declining all across Europe, and modern welfare states are unsustainable without a new generation to stick with the bill. Most economists believe that Greece will never be able to pay back what they've already borrowed.

Syriza was elected on a platform of ignoring basic economic reality, but they've finally run out of people willing to loan them money to spend. The risk of a Grexit is already priced into all the European markets, But leaving the Eurozone doesn't provide relief for any of the Euro-denominated debt Greece already owes, and there's no guarantee European markets would even be willing to exchange refloated drachmas for real(er) money. And since it's hard to see any sane institution buying Greek debt after a default, Greece's government would undoubtedly start printing drachmas like mad and trigger hyperinflation.

If Greece was willing to pare back its welfare state to much saner levels, they might have a chance to slowly dig their way out of the crisis. Since they refuse to, they're in for a whole lot more economic pain...

Since the UK wisely kept its own currency, disruptions from a "Brexit" would be relatively minimal. It's far more likely that will see Greece exit the Euro, because they absolutely refuse to stop spending money they don't have. (Note that despite talk of "austerity," not once since the European debt crisis started has Greek cut government outlays to match receipts.) To Greece (and to a lesser extent the other PIIGS), the welfare state benefits have become more sacred than the capitalist system underwriting them.

The problem with the modern welfare state is that eventually you run out of people to stick with the tab. It both discourages work and generates declining demographics, a dynamic that is unsustainable in the long run.

Well, Greece is starting to reach the long run. They can't afford their own welfare state, but it's become so entrenched that politicians refuse to significately pare it back even on the brink of national bankruptcy.

The UK, like Germany, has a strong enough economy to avoid this fate for quite a while, but it too will get there eventually...

...every Greek government for the last five years.

"I'm absolutely willing to do anything it takes to get my finances in order, except spending money I don't have."

...because the Tea Party took scalps . They defeated Republican incumbents in primaries. They ended political careers. That's what forced Republican office-holders to take them seriously.

As far as I can tell, an Occupy-backed candidate (if there even is such a thing) hasn't defeated a single Democratic incumbent. As such, the Democratic Party can continue to ignore them the way they ignore black voters.

My worry is that this will be another lever for Germany to try to push its insane levels of censorship on the rest of Europe. They've tried before - they had a good push at making German games censorship (in some respects as bad as and in some respects worse than the Australian version) mandatory using the bully-pulpit of their last EU presidency, though thankfully the clock ran out on that particular attempt.

Juncker holds his position thanks to German influence... he has debts to pay.

In theory, I'm in favour of this measure and would like to see geoblocking ended full-stop, not just within the EU. But experience of the EU suggests that defaulting to suspicion of any new initiative is the best approach.

I was going to mod this "funny".

Then I realised it might not actually be parody.

Indeed, criticizing Islam is a sure way to get attacked by Social Justice Warriors. Given that Sabeen Mahmud was almost certainly killed by radical Islamists, your comment is nonsensical.

Just how Islam became so sacred to radical feminists is an interesting question...