Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 2 - The Price of Compatibility?
Randy Lastimosa writes "1UP.com has an interesting article about the next Xbox, and whether it will support current Xbox games. They talked to a number of sources and got conflicting reports. For example, the CEO of Nvidia, who provided graphics chips for the current Xbox, said: 'It's virtually impossible on many levels,' he adds. 'On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too.'"
If it doesn't, people will feel ripped off.
Backward compatability is the key.
4,900,345,546 post.
I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.
not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. Hopefully, the playstation 3 will still play playstation 1 games. sure, those games won't look as cool as the newest games, but being able to play them is the point in having a game system.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Or even, "simply" impossible?
Just sounds like it ain't gonna happen. Grab your wallets, gamers....
Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
Isn't it just standard practise that you can't play old games with the new game console?
The owls are not what they seem
For Microsoft, these hard choices are the price of not working with the same partners. Any sane observer knows that Microsoft will do what it must to please its current Xbox consumers.
Fluff. M$ is just doing what it only knows how to do: adjust parameters in the big equations of profits, leverage, and market penetration in order to ensure a beefy bottom line. Articles that add a dramatic aspect to this process are a waste of time.
G-Force music visualization
On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too.
Well, there you have it your honor. In the industry's own words: The rules of Intellectual Property are not practical!
Well if it doesn't then they can package up there old games from the xbox as classics then resell them for the xbox 2 to make twice the profit. Yay!
Quality over Quantity.http://www.virusgaming.com/
I see trademark issues here...
What?
PS2 is backwards compatible with PS .. I didnt even use it. But I suppose it's good for the "new" buyers.
In fact, I'd rather buy an Xbox at reduced prices when Xbox Next comes out to play the old games. I did it for Playstation.
So, what's the big deal?
Why would you want to have backwards compatability anyways? I've never played a PS1 game on my PS2, and never been chagrined I couldn't fire up my N64 games on the gamecube. By definition, old games are...old. And crappy. In any case, if I have a stack of old games, why wouldn't I still have the console?
Microsoft is keeping many (most?) details about its next-generation Xbox console under wraps, but at least one of the choices that Redmond has made public is stirring a spirited debate. Will Xbox Next, as it's now being called, play games designed for the original Xbox? Your answer depends on who you ask.
Microsoft has kept mum about the next Xbox, except in two major areas. The company has announced that ATI Technologies will provide graphics technology for Xbox Next, while IBM will provide PowerPC microprocessors and Silicon Integrated Systems will supply a chipset. In choosing these companies, Microsoft appears to have broken its ties to previous vendors Nvidia (graphics) and Intel (microprocessor), which weren't as eager as their rivals to retain Xbox business by being the lowest bidder.
Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO of Nvidia, says his guess is that the next Xbox won't be compatible with the old one. "It's virtually impossible on many levels," he adds. "On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too."
When asked to explain (might this be sour grapes talking?), Huang says for cost reasons, Microsoft isn't likely to be willing to put additional chips in the box to ensure hardware compatibility. Moreover, he suggests that current Xbox games make use of Nvidia's proprietary graphics shaders and that Microsoft might have to license them to use them again.
Jon Peddie, analyst at Jon Peddie Research, supports Huang's position. He notes that Nvidia may likely have proprietary technology in its secondary Xbox chip, the media and communications controller, which handles functions like sound processing. That chip, perhaps more than the graphics chip, is likely to contain technology that Microsoft will have to license, Peddie says.
By contrast, Dave Orton, president of ATI, says, "It's not outside the realm of possibility to make a compatible Xbox." He didn't discuss specific products his company is making for Microsoft, but he says that if you just consider the timing (about five years) between the consoles, then Moore's Law dictates that the new machine will be eight times as fast as the old one. With such an increase in raw processing speed, Xbox Next should have plenty of horsepower to emulate the old games via software. That is, the new hardware will be fast enough to execute the old games even if they have to run through software translation.
On the processor side, Microsoft might have to employ its Connectix software to get the Intel code to run on the IBM PowerPC. That problem raises the prospect of additional costs and engineering efforts. "It's not a trivial amount of work," says Dean McCarron, an analyst at PC chip market researcher Mercury Research in Scottsdale, AZ. "It will be a massive task of integrating different technologies."
ARE THEY BOTH RIGHT?
McCarron maintains that both Nvidia and ATI are right to some degree in their interpretations. He thinks Nvidia won't be able to stop Microsoft from running old Xbox games in software on the new machine. And even if Nvidia does hold intellectual-property rights, it will not enforce them against Microsoft. After all, most Xbox game developers write their software to run on Microsoft's own DirectX application programming interface, not specifically on Nvidia hardware. McCarron also says ATI should be able to closely approximate the way an original Xbox game looks with its own rendering hardware.
On a business level, original Xbox emulation on the next edition raises options for Microsoft, but each carries some risk:
It could achieve partial compatibility through software that doesn't exploit some of Nvidia's technology, but that may mean older games won't look as good on the next Xbox. Microsoft can license either intellectual property or reuse Nvidia chips and incur additional costs above and beyond what it will pay for the IBM and ATI chips. Considering Microsoft lost more than $100 per unit on much of its original Xbox hardware, that doesn't seem likely if the company wants to make money t
Ok, so you mean MS is breaking compatibility from "legacy" software with their NEW product? Not exactly shocking news here but still disheartening.
I suppose anyone who wanted compatibility would have owned an X-Box already...so new console, new games. Old console, old games. However, there is much foot-shooting should they choose to be incompatible simply because they're back to square-one when it comes to game selection.
As for me, I don't own nor do I plan to own an X-Box...and I don't own an MS-Like domain to warrant some hardware bribery.
I know a lot of people with PlayStation 2s and not a single one plays old games on the PS2. You can get an original PS for nothing. The same will go for the XBox.
Give me a much better console even if it means no backward compatibility. I'll take that any day.
"Microsoft, having cut one hand off with the saw, found they no longer could wield the saw to cut off their other hand, and declared it a victory."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is he saying that the Xbox is using a video and audio language that is owned by nVidia? If that is true, it would be not very farsighted on Microsoft's part.
Microsoft is many thing, but not usually shortsighted. I do not believe that they would allow the Xbox to run an abstraction layer that they did not create and own in full. Especially since they have this neat thing called DirectX.
-- Terry
To preempt market backlash about the incompatibility of Xbox 1 games on Xbox 2, Microsoft has decided to set an unprecedented standard. Buy the Xbox2 and for a limited time, get a mail in coupon for a free Xbox 1! Now you have backwards compatability and Microsoft claims more Xbox1's were shipped increasing the market share against the Playstation 2... in 10 years, it won't like like a failure at all!
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
i still wont buy one. i think its ridiculous to spend 300+ on a console system. ill stick with counterstrike and doom3, thanks.
hell, i dont even have a regular xbox yet. i might pick one up when they drop to 99. last console i bought was n64, and i think i paid 99 for that as well.
i just find that games on pc are far superior to console games. plus, playing halo on a console controller is hard as balls. give me a keyboard and mouse anyday.
Thats all you had to say, negro. DirectX hides the hardware from the developer and with the XBOX being realtively overpowered for the current console generation its unlikely many low level optimizations were necessary for any of the current games (Doom III will be interesting though). I'd take any comments from nvidia on the future of the next Microsoft console as so many grains of salt on top of alot of sour grapes.
Is backwards compatibility a sure thing? I don't think so at this point, but I wouldn't take anything nvidia has to say as any more than bitter FUD.
You know, the most common argument people have made against X-Box in the past is "Microsoft is new to the video console world, and as such there are no good game developers making games for Microsoft."
:)
It just strikes me as odd that they would have this sort of debate. Is Microsoft now in a significantly better position to entice video game offers from companies, or do they still need time to develop a presence in the console video game market?
One could even joke that since Microsoft doesn't expect any game developers to make games for them, they should make XBox Next backwards compatible
But on a general note, I don't see why video game consoles need to be backwards compatible. With new Operating systems/hardware and computer software the issue is that people like to preserve existing data, and you can never be sure if everyone who wants to use your product is sufficiently upgraded.
In this case, I agree that Microsoft shouldn't bother with an extroadinary effort for backwards compatibility. Emulators are the way to go for nostalgics.
Since they're using the IBM processor, it's pretty much guaranteed not to be backwards compatible. I seriously doubt they will emulate the old platform, and if so, do you really think it would be fast enough? I doubt it.
i think console game consumers are driven by games, not console.
i have a PSOne right now, and i'm not rushing out to get a PS2 because it can still play my PointBlank-1, i'll only buy it if i really want to play that WRC Extreme.
This just in...
Intellectual Property isn't practical.
News at 11
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I don't know who bought a PS2 to play PS1 games. Most people I know with a library of PS1 titles have a PS1, and even if they didnt, they can be found for 19.99 used at EB these days.
PS2 got a years jump on the competition, lined up some good exclusives, and generally swamps the shelves with games. It just looks to consumers like the best, most supported console. This, IMO, is why it's at the top of the heap. Even so, it had a shaky start.
Backwards compatibility is nice and all, but I doubt a major selling point. I know I've never bothered once to play a PSX game in the PS2.
The GBA being backwards compatible with GB, however, seems more an intelligent idea. There's less space in my pocket to carry both around. Even so, I haven't played any GB games in the GBA so far either.
I'll buy an XBox2 because(if) it has games out that I want to play, not because of some spec or feature listed on the display.
I'm sure for plenty of folks, myself included, the single biggest factor in deciding whether to buy a piece of video game hardware is - "does it have games that I want to play?"
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'm still pissed from the time I tried to put my Mario/Duck Hunt cartridge into my friends new SuperNES and it didn't work!
I blew on that cartridge until I passed out. I got nowhere. I turned the SNES on and off a bunch of times too.
If they keep up this type of practice of backward incompatability, there will be a whole new generation of angry, confused kids out there.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Remember on Slashdot, everything MS does is to screw the whole world over. Thats all they're made to do, right? So feel free to continue to whine about how this will 'kill' XBox 2 and other similarly wild conjectures that the Internet is home to.
Let's see ... you obviously own a playstation 1, or you would not have games for that system that you want to play. So why does the playstation 3 need to play those games? Play them on your playstation 1. Let the ps3 break some new ground and avoid the layer of old code necessary to keep old games running on it.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I mean, come on... who woulda thought Microsoft would have kept backwards compatibility?
But on a serious note, they can't just apply their usual "They'll upgrade if we force them to" standards to video game consoles. They'll lose their shirt. Look how well the PS2 sold, probably in part because of backwards compatability. Now that Nintendo is using disc-based games, maybe their next console will be backwards compatible. If the Xbox isn't backwards compatible, it's almost like putting out an entirely new console again.
But based on hardware specs I've seen, it probably won't happen unless they already have the games seperated from the hardware layer (which from what I've read about hardware clocks and stuff they don't). Good luck Microsoft.
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
You may not have used it, but initially, it was a very important selling point for Sony. The PS1 owners were happy to know that their existing investment was still useable on the new console.
How is this going to cost you more money? You can still play your old games on your Xbox 1.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Microsoft isn't likely to be willing to put additional chips in the box to ensure hardware compatibility. Moreover, he suggests that current Xbox games make use of Nvidia's proprietary graphics shaders and that Microsoft might have to license them to use them again.
Doesn't the X-Box use the same shaders as all other nVidia cards? i.e. The DirectX ones. All recent ATI cards have run these natively. As far as I can see, assuming the games use DirectX only, there should be no features that aren't supported by ATI.
Then they just need enough processor speed to emulate the CPU effectively.
...that said the NV30 was going to kick ATI's ass, and you were smoking hallucinogenic mushrooms if you thought otherwise.
Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that they will offer new binaries for old games for download via their Live-service ?
If the games use their API:s it'll mostly need a recompile.
'It's virtually impossible on many levels,'
If something is 'virtually impossible', let's just say that it is 'possible'
Idiot, he never claimed to be the first post. Just the first cock sucking post.
It wouldn't suprise me if it were Sir Sucksalottacock.
Backward compatiblity for me is a big sales point imo. My playstation one died hard when I was playing Suikoden II never got it replaced or repaired instead I just played my PSone games on the PS2. Now I am person who keeps all his old games and I get nostaligic alot so I'll fire up some old games and finish them again.
Now I don't think the Xbox has the same library of games that would I would replay (maybe KOTOR and a few others) but having that option is a strong selling point to me.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
Isn't it true that before the PS2 all consoles basically started over each generation? SuperNES didn't natively play NES games as far as I remember and that didn't hurt sales or adoption at all. I think the history of breaking compatibility is one of the strengths of the console market.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Short answer : The XBox ( and it's games ) didn't sell well enough to justify keeping any next-generation XBox compatible with previous games.
For Sony, it made sense to build in PS1 emulation to the PS2 because the original Playstation was so popular and sold so many games. Heck, they're *still* selling orginal Playstations, and people are still buying shrink-wrapped Playstation 1 games, to a lesser extent.
Will Microsoft piss off the majority of the console-game users if they release a new game console which doesn't play Xbox games? No, because most of us don't _have_ Xbox games...
MS may ( correctly ) figure that the current crop of Xbox owners will buy the latest and greatest game machine no matter what, "because it plays Halo5" or whatever...
I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since they are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
(On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though).
Seriously. I'm papering the town with resumes tomorrow. I gotta get out of here this is the worst job I've ever had. Pathetic. I can't stand it anymore!!!
Since the XBox Next isn't going to use an nVidia graphics/audio chipsets, that pretty much nukes any chance of backwards compatibility. XBox games are written with many assumptions and nearly direct communication with certain aspects of the graphics (and sound) hardware. Add the fact that they are tuned for a fixed Intel P3 CPU running at 733 Mhz with MMX/SSE instruction support, and you'll have a hell of a time simulating exactly this behavior on a PowerPC core.
And really, if XBox 1 had that many compelling games it would be doing better. Any title that is worth a damn on the XBox that the marketing boys care about will get redone for XBox Next.
What will determine if the PS3 or XBox Next or Nintendo is a market success will be the next-gen GAMES.
I only wish M$ had a clue what the hell they were doing in the game industry (in terms of marketing) because working on the XBox hardware is a thousand times easier than the PS2 (to the point that many studios cannot get gigs doing PS2 games because they are so damn hard to write), and all indications are that the PS3 is even harder.
Like there are any good xbox games anyway...
If there are, I've got them all... I have 14 xbox games... I don't play the damn thing AT ALL. In fact, I've played it a grand total of 7 times. All seven times were when my brother was visiting.
Even if the games were cross-compatable - I wouldn't want to play them on an Xbox2 because the vast majority of them had major features cut to ship the game faster.
More simply put, even the good Xbox games suck compared to their PS2 cousins. Why on Earth would I want to take that crap to a new console? Or hell, even buy the Xbox2 at all for that matter.
It was nice having the compatibility on the PS2 so I could play games like FF7,FF9,MGS, etc even though I never bought a PS1. PC Emulation would work I guess, but that is not as good if you play games with more than one person.
Anyway if they don't do it, it will be interesting to see if it has any impact on there sales
Also, the games that were released when the ps2 was first released weren't exactly steller games.
I see buisness ethics at play. just how microsoft sells shitty versions so people pay for tech support.. why sell a xbox that pays both systems games.. this forces people to buy both systems if they want the games
From what I've heard this thing won't even be compabable with hard drives. EVERYTHING is going to be in flash ram or you're going to have to pay M$ to get it back from their network.
Backwards compatability with games is not my concern -- forward compatability with value and utility.
ls
My gaming group and I still play CTR (Crash Team Racing) for the PS1. Yes, there's a new version (for which we waited expectantly) but it's a total dog (new developer, poor game). The original CTR is so tightly programmed, it's still a classic. Old arcade classics don't die either. So, the backwards compatibility can be a strong feature, and I use it for CTR still.
I would think that they would make an emulator for the x86 hardware..... what do you guys think..
What guarantees that all developers are using the abstraction layer? Some might be programing to the metal to get better performance, unique functionallity, etc. (I don't know if this is true, but I certainly wouldn't write off the possibility).
I just don't understand the whole backward-compatibility thing. Why is this at all an issue? Why do you need the PS3 to be backward compatible with the PS2 or PS1? Why do you need the Xbox2 to be backward compatible with the Xbox1?
If you have Xbox1 games that you want to play, don't you already have an Xbox1? Why do you need to play them on your Xbox2? Why not just use the Xbox1 you already have?
I have a PS2, I don't have a PS1, and I don't have any PS1 games. Anyone who has a library of PS1 games presumably already has a PS1 to play them on. Wasn't the PS2's backward-compatibility more for people like me, who want to play the occasional classic PS1 game we come across without having to buy a PS1? And just how many people like me are there?
Actually, the XBox version of DirectX (specifically Direct3D and DirectSound) are highly optimized for the h/w in use to the point that the API is not compliant with any PC version of DX. Many features of the NV hardware that are abstracted or hidden on the PC are explicitly used by games on the XBox.
from the article:
"...if you just consider the timing (about five years) between the consoles, then Moore's Law dictates that the new machine will be eight times as fast as the old one..."
lovely. Moore's law orignates in 1956 as a more or less casual observation of a trend in integrated circuit technology. It's not a law of the universe.
Even if it were, that doesn't mean microsoft is obligated to put the fastest crap they can find in their console. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
This entire article reads like a gossip column.
** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
Its a good thing the games are inexpensive...
And in other game related news, famed game developer John Romero (37) marries his hot looking 18 year old girlfriend. You gotta believe his 15 year old teenage son has got to be bummed about that one. Here's more on the wedding: The Happy Couple
The problem is that DirectX is like its own language. If you know the hardware, aka Nvidia, and you have problems rendering something, you just change the order of rendering, change the DirectX command ordering, etc. Though I am not sure about XBox programming, DirectX is just a layer. I bet some programmers thought "Since its not going on any other platform, lets open this Nvidia up!" and used some customer API's. I am sure Nvidia would of loved to give them a license to do that. But, in theory, any pure DirectX implemented games should run fine on the ATI. I mean they *are* DirectX 9 hardware driven.
I have to say that even though i generally don't like the moves microsoft has made with the xbox, this time I feel more justified in thinking this sucks. The Xbox isnt even that old yet, and considering this is their FIRST console gaming system they need to show more concern for their gamers. How long did the first playstation float around? Or the first nintendo even. I would even assume this ties with their cost issue, since they probably would have to sell under cost if they implemented back compatibility, hard drive and all, whereas they can make a newer simpler system they can sell for a profit.
And I am one of those people who uses the ps2 to play ps1 games, i dont have infinite storage/desk/table space next to the tv.
Without backwards compability emulators will charge at a stack of xbox roms a mile high. And once there is a decent emulator, Microsoft might as well discontinue games and xboxes; start selling from the iXbox.
I see a lot of people here saying they'd sacrifice backwards compatibility for a better/cheaper system, and that "no on they know" plays ps1 games on ps2. Well, I know someone who does. Me, specifically. I bought my PS2 so I could play GTA when it came out, but I also never got around to playing all the FInal Fantasy's that were on PS1, so I thought it was neat that I could. But I'm not even the big target.
I remember for years mom griping about how all these games she had already bought for us were useless on our new system. And guess who was paying for the new systems? You guess right, Mom and her purse. You might say, she did keep buying them, right? Didn't your mom love you? Yeah, mom loved me, but not enough to line nintendo's pockets with cash for the SUPER! Nintendo. The nintendo was the last system she bought for me and my bro. Afterwards, we saved up dearly to get the Super Grafx, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, and Sega Dreamcast. Obviously, me and my brother were bad gamblers as systems go. We he left for the Navy, I bought him a Neo Get Pocket color to bring with him on the ship. That sealed my title as worst video game purchaser ever. If you want to know which system is going to last, don't ask me. The only caveat is that I bought a PS2, but that wasn't until 3 years after it came out.
Th
Of course it can be done. The XBox used an OS designed by Microsoft. All MS needs to do is write an emulator driver that reads the standard API that the games used and have functions that do the same or similar effect on the new ATI GPU. All they have to do is basically write all the function calls that were issued to the GPU. This is not hard to do especially since EVERYTHING here is a "standard" for coding games on XBox and thus all graphic functions are fully documented on their API's and overview of thier output/result. Now if NVidia claims they have sole ownership to the API then we have a new ballgame, but usually this API is not owned by the graphics company (but this is a console, so I don't know for fact), but by the OS or Standard Group (i.e. DirectX, OpenGL, etc.).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Their existing investment was also useable on the PS1 they probably still had sitting around. Why spend ANY money on backward compatibility??? In the PS2's case, there was a simple and cheap way to maintain that compatibility, so why not keep it? In the xbox next's case, they're adding all sort of power and fundamentally changing the architecture. It's just not worth extra money to enable this thing to play games made for old hardware, when anyone who already owns those games already owns hardware to play them on!
HO
In short, the libraries for the XBox are intended to be familiar and somewhat source compatible, but any production XBox game is far from that and would be incredibly difficult to duplicate on a binary level.
One thing I'm wondering:
Will the X-Box 2 benefit Apple?
I've always been an Intel person, but mostly because (1) PowerPC (say, Apple) computers were always so much more expensive, and because (2) some of my favourite apps and games never got ported to that architecture.
But, I was thinking that a PPC-based X-Box may serve to decrease chip/architecture costs, and also bring some new interest (by way of games, etc) to this platform. I dunno, though.
One thing's for sure: I recently saw my friend's brand new PowerBook and it's sweet, both in terms of hardware and software. Seriously makes me consider switching from Intel to Apple for my next box. And, if X-box could help to lower the costs over the next few years, the deal would be all that much better.
WITH MAME! And it works on Linux to boot!
I also reply below your current threshold.
Sony is marketleading and has an impressive track record and is the only one that has backward compatibility. They didn't enter the console market first either. It must be the key to console gamers minds (and wallets) that they don't waste the old collection of games. The old console still sits around so why do you need to play the old game on the new console? Just switch the cables!
I use it. Well, I did use it, and I still use it when ePSXe doesn't work as well as it can.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The author of the article has written two books on X-box hacking: Hacking the XBOX: An Introduction to Reverse Engineering and Opening the XBox.
Backwards compatibility would be a nice thing if X-Box had a large library of games worth playing. By all indications (casual player opinion to raw numbers) there are very few games worth playing now let alone years from now. Cutting that string might sting for a little bit everyone will quickly forget the crappy games on X-Box for X-Box 2 games.
The thing I see burning many X-Box fans is X-Box Live. If you can't take the hardware forward people are forced to buy new X-Box Live for XB2? Not to mention the hardware in general was a very nice thing to make backwards compatible. The arcade stick I had for PS1 works for PS2. XB1 hardware would have to abandoned for XB2.
To each their own. X-Box clearly isn't selling in their proper configuration so changing the system fundementals is probably a good idea. However that also has problems so be set for the bumpy ride.
I'm seeing a lot of comments on here claiming they don't actually play PS1 games on a PS2.
Well, let me take a stand and say, I do.
And quite frankly, I'm not swayed by the argument that "as soon as the new system is released, you can pick up an old one for almost nothing." It would fall subject to a problem I have right now, that being "physical space."
I can't physically shove another game system into the corner of my room devoted to consoles without unplugging an old one. It's a small space. If I had to have a PS1 and a PS2, that would mean unplugging my old Dreamcast. Yes, horror of horrors, I actually do still use that old Sega box. Hate to say it, but Grandia II and Code Veronica looked like crap on their PS2 ports.
I might unplug that box if I could run both Xbox 1 and 2 games though. I just need Microsoft to give me the reason.
And this "intellectual property" argument smells a bit fishy. I was under the impression that MS had such tight control over the games on the Xbox that if Bill Gates asked, they'd sprout legs, get out of their cases, and jump through flaming hoops. I think Billy just wants me to pay for stuff twice.
If the Xbox2 isn't backward compatible, how much do you want to bet a handful of the more popular games will get remade with "special features" and released again on Xbox2?
"Isn't that the sweetest little well-balanced undergraduate-level philosophy of life."
What about a VM to runs the old XBox games? With the fast chip, you might be able to achieve the same speed.
It is when it comes out Pingular's ass.
There's so much old spunk in there, it's insane!
I for one still enjoy many older games from the previous generation of consoles (Final Fantasy VII and Zelda, Ocarina of Time for example) I still enjoy playing them on the new consoles. They may not have as good of graphics as new games but they are games that I have, and will always love.
That being said if the Playstation 2 wasn't backwards compatable I would still play Final Fantasy VII, I would just have an extra console. Backwards compatability is nice for those who already own the previous generation consoles and many games to go with it, but if that is the case, then you already have the old console so the point it moot.
If, on the otherhand, you do not already own the previous console, I can't see you shelling out $300 for a brand new one then buying outdated games for it. So again backwards compatability is not real necessary.
What I did like about the PS2 was that the controllers were also compatable, saved a lot in hardware costs.
My point is while backwards compatibility seems nice and can save room and eliminate more wires, I don't think its as important as getting a well functioning, advanced new console with it's own great new games. The only time I can see someone really needing them to be compatable is if the old console dies and you don't want to buy a new one.
Lets say I have a PS1 and 10 or 15 games. I buy a playstation 2. Now i can remove my playstation from my media room (move it to a bed room perhaps?) and still play all my old games. If there's a classic game for ps1 I can still buy it and play it no problem. Used PS1 games are cheap. It's a great feature to have, and it's not very difficult to implement (at least not in the playstation), so I say go for it.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
When the PS2 came out I sold the old PS because the new one could run the old games. When the PS3 comes out I'll want to ditch the PS2. I don't have room for all the boxes it would take to run all the old games if Sony breaks compatibility with the PS3. Between the PC, the GC and PS it's getting crowded in the game room. I plan to get an Xbox and if the XB2 breaks compatibility with the XB then forget it. I don't think I get either one at least for a while.
For the regular Xbox to get under a 100$. Combined with xbox media player, it's basically the ultimate media box. You'd have to shell out ~200$ to get a DVD player which does just divx, with an Xbox you can pretty much play anything, don't have to worry about DVD zoning, etc (and it does support HDTV and Dolby Digital, although you need speakers capable of decoding it)
The Raven
because they probably:
A: traded in there PSone towards the purchase of the ps2
B: traded in there PSone to pay for some new fangled PS2 game
Decided to keep the better games in their PS1 library..
*shrug*
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
The only area where I can see problems is that Xbox vertex and pixel shaders can be (and often are) compiled to nVidia's proprietary binary format (which represents a much more hardware-specific mapping than the standard DirectX hardware-agnostic binary token format). If this issue is solved, or nVidia turns a blind eye, there should be no major technical obstacles to software emulation. Legally, I think it may be OK, as the specifics of the nVidia shader format is not disclosed even in the Xbox SDK itself, so Microsoft could very well write a layer that just translates the nVidia format to whatever internal scheme ATI's silicon will use.
Other consoles, like PS2 allow much more low-level access, so compatibility via software emulation only is more of a pain.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Nvidia is playing for the press right now. They're peeved at MS for the original Xbox deal, and now that they've been shafted for Xbox 2, they're going to try to make it as difficult as possible for MS to build backward compatability into Xbox 2. It'll happen, Nvidia will make a buck on it, and they'll tone down the criticism. Standard fare.
well, if they have multiple PPC chips in there it probably wouldn't be too difficult for them to do. Virtual PC runs on mac - PPC.... With mutiple PPC processors it could probably be quick enough to not suck and have backwards compatibility.
Sega had its second (third, if you count Sega CD for the Genesis) "optical media console" out before the PlayStation 2. Remember Saturn and then Dreamcast?
Compatibility is a bigger selling point for people who haven't owned the prior console. The weak point of any new system is the lack of games right at introduction. Compatibility lets you play some of those older games that you haven't played before (i.e., Spyro) while you wait for all the nice, shiny new "next-gen" games for your brand new console. Dreamcast might have done a lot better if it could have piggy-backed on the (pitifully small) Saturn library while its own (pitifully small) software library was being developed.
I know atlest 2 families where the children got PS2s for presents and the kids then went out and bought PS1 games. Two reasons:
There weren't a PS2 version available (yet?) of that must have game.
The games are cheaper and there are also lots of dirt cheap second hand stuff available which equals more games to play.
I'm sure the backward compatibility influenced their wishlists and that the kids are a lot happier with their PS2s than if they had been given xboxes.
/greger
Low price versus high cost - so Microsoft is thinking the same way Windows customers do!
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
They shoulda used Open Source. Oh, wait...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Some of the old games have great plot line or unusual play. Only an idiot (such as yourself) would assume that older games are not worth having. If I had to start keeping all the old consoles around just because some dickless half wit (like yourself) wanted to orphan prior games in order to save a few cents per console then I'd have racks and racks of consoles. That's not a reasonable propasisition.
I don't know if this has been addressed already but here goes. Despite that anyone might not actually want to play an original Xbox game on an Xbox 2, this could be damaging for other reasons. Many console purchases are made by the parents of the children who play them. These parents do not possess a wealth of knowledge when it comes to making this buying decision. Therefore when a salesperson says that the older games cannot be played on a system it could have a detrimental effect. A parent might think "Oh, so all the games I bought before are useless?!" this could cost Microsoft a sale. It doesn't matter if it really is a problem or not, the perception of the problem is what can cause the most damage in that situation. Food for thought....
I'm buying the first console that is backwards compatible with my old IntelliVision games.
TRON!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can't play your old games on your new game machine because of Intellectual Property, eh?
Perhaps now is a good time for some of you to reconsider the national and global ramifications of current IP and patent laws.
I decided to buy the Xbox over the PS2 because I knew the PS3 would have backwards compatibility, so I patiently waited for PS3.
Xbox live has been quite succesful and it would set a bad precident if MSoft didn't have backwards compatability on this one (Stupid Cube). I'm sure they will.
...And all these APIs are staticaly linked in the executable.
This means that the game does not call some Direct3D API on the XBox firmware or loaded from the game CD that can be replaced on XBox2.
The API/driver code is embedded in the executable which means that it accesses the hardware directly as a driver would do.
"That is, the new hardware will be fast enough to execute the old games even if they have to run through software translation."
Bull. There still isnt a decent N64 emulator that works for every game and that was, what, 1/128 as powerfull as hardware is now. Heck, probably even less.
Yet another reason to stay away from the XBox. Now MS wants to get all the gamers started on their upgrade treadmill!
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Parents who have already sunk a few hundred dollars into the PS2 should be pleased to know that the money they spent on games won't go to waste if those games could still be played on the PS3. Granted, the kids may continue to keep the PS2 hooked up to the TV, but maybe they won't. It's a selling point.
How many people were able to convince their wives/girlfriends/significant others/parents that buying a PS2 was a good thing because it ALSO was a DVD player? It may not have been the best DVD player available, but it does the job. And at the time, DVD players were going for $150 or so [numbers out of a hat], which made the "real" cost of a PS2 that much cheaper in the minds of the purchasing decision makers.
Sony's already announced that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games. When the PS3 is released, even if the initial set of games aren't wonderful kids could still tell their parents that they can still play GTAx on it. Not that they will or won't, but they could if they wanted to.
And you know what? There were some PS1 games that were never released for the PS2, and for people who never had a PS1 in the first place, this was a good thing. (You Don't Know Jack, various pinball games, Caesars Palace Casino - to name a few).
I see backwards compatibility as being really important as we move forward with the next series of game consoles. Imagine the uproar if Win95/98 couldn't run DOS programs. Or WinME couldn't run Win98 programs. Or needing a completely new version of Office just because you went to WinXP. Microsoft's been down this road before -- they MUST know what they're talking about, right?
The only compatibility that matters is with linux. If it runs linux, what else could you ask for. =]
Okay, I see the problem here: there are two groups of posters right now.
Type number one, we'll call them, "The idiots like the guy I'm replying to", say that you already have a PSX, and an Xbox. And then, with irresistable logic, say:
If you have Xbox1 games that you want to play, don't you already have an Xbox1? Why do you need to play them on your Xbox2? Why not just use the Xbox1 you already have?
Then there's group number two, otherwise known as, "Guys like me, a/k/a people over the age of 20." We don't actually have all our video game systems spread out on the carpet of our room at mom's house. We actually have say, a living room, where the idea of having 8 "set top" boxes really annoys us.
Seriously, I've got a DVD, VCR, Cable Box, Xbox, PS2, Stereo Receiver, and probably some other annoying box I can't think of. Can you imagine if I also had to have a PSX and an Xbox 2? What the hell do I tell my wife?
Honey, we have to buy another freakin' entertainment center if you ever want to play Final Fantasy Tactics again!
Um, no. That's just not the way people in group two would prefer things, thanks.
if X-Box2 doesn't sound like a jet engine and insert 2 seconds of silence between every track on Pink Floyd's "The Wall."
I predict Xbox2 _definitely_ won't be compatible with Xbox1 based on Jen-Hsun's comment.
:-).
Microsoft buys all of its technology for game consoles nearly off-the-shelf. The Xbox1 graphics was a slightly modified (and slightly early) GF3 and the CPU was an OTS Intel P3 733. This allowed them to have vendors bidding against each other and get a very good price (AMD and Gigapixel got screwed last time).
Now that they have chosen ATI and IBM for graphics and CPU, respectively, any technology used in the prior generation is not only hard to emulate but runs into IP land mines.
Sony likes backwards compatibility, owns all of its graphics technology, and works hard to built a cheap version of last-gen into next-gen. The interesting question will be whether PS3 plays PS1 games
Nintendo just doesn't care. They face a similar problem to Microsoft, but have better contracts with their suppliers _and_, in this case, GameCube2 seems to have the same corporate suppliers as Gamecube did (ATI and IBM). Even so, I would guess that the blow off compatibility.
Aren't the games for the XBox written using DirectX or OpenGL APIs?
If so, even though the DirectX/OpenGL APIs may have been optimized for 1 video solution (nVidia) on the Xbox, couldn't they just put the generic DirectX/OpenGL API on the Xbox 2 and have the backwards compatibility for the old games.
The old games would run slower with a generic DX/OGL API on the original XBox, but this would be counter-balanced by the performance boost of the new technology in the Xbox 2, so there shouldn't be any noticible performance hit on the old games.
Now if game developers didn't use DirectX or OpenGL then backwards compatibility would certainly be in trouble.
Will Microsoft piss off the majority of the console-game users if they release a new game console which doesn't play Xbox games? No, because most of us don't _have_ Xbox games...
Exactly! I mean, I just downloaded all mine!
Err..
How far would backwards compatibility with XBox 1 go? Backwards compatibility with XBox 1 would mean that the XBox hacking community immediately has a means by which to run arbitrary code on the XBox 2... by utilizing the buffer overflows in MechAssault and 007: Agent Under Fire. Is this really how Microsoft wants to start out? Could they really sandbox something like VirtualPC well enough to prevent users from booting illegal copies of games, or modifying the contents of their hard drives?
Isn't the XBox2 also a PPC box? Isn't that a rather *significant* obstacle even if video chipset problems are resolved? I have never seen a 700 PIII emulated in software at a gaming-acceptable rate anywhere. Anyone more informed about this?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If they were smart, they'd just release an XBox emulator for Windows with XBox2. Or better yet, for Windows Media Center Edition only.
This article seems to be focused on competting with *one* aspect of the Sony Playstation consoles.
Factors that it has not taken into account:
1) PS2's emulation is only about 98% complette. There are still several games that do not work or aren't playable on the PS2 emulator.
2) PS2 emulator does not maintain backward compatiblity for new hardware. Even in cases where it would seem natural for an emulator to maintain compatiblity (emulating a PSOne memory card on a PS2 memory card), it fails too. So, if your PSOne joystick or light gun breaks, you can't just use the PS2 one. The mem/joystick swapping commonly involved in using the emulator makes it less desirable.
3) Consoles classicly do not provide backward compatiblity or emulation. Sega's Dreamcast provided no backward compatiblity and Nintendo has never designed any of the consoles to be backward compatible with the previous.
This all leads to the true bottom line question, which will have more marketing value:
A) Providing PS2 style limited emulation/useablity for older games.
B) Providing Nintendo style "free" bonus ports of the previous console games.
For those not familar with Nintendo Gamecube marketing, previous console games have become thrown-in items as parts of other games. So, for example, if you buy Metriod Prime and Metriod Fusion then you get access to original Metriod for free. Also, if you buy three out of five new titles or subscribe to nintendo power mag then you get the classic Zelda games for free.
So... considering that Sony owned all the IP for PSOne (well, except the trademark "PlayStation"), adding limited emulation was the cheapest cost item for Sony. But since Microsoft is licensing third-party IP for their console makes them more similar to Nintendo. Also, Microsoft owns the majority of popular titles for Xbox1 or can buy rights to them cheaper than licensing nVidea IP and porting Connectix. Therefore, I think the cost of porting "free" bonus Xbox1 games as part of Xbox-NG titles will provide more marketing power per dollar then having true compatiablity. By porting they can convert the games to use ATI shaders and Xbox-NG sound thus avoiding nVidea IP complettely retaining similar or "enhanced" look-feel.
Donald Duck is going to have a SCREAMING ORGASM when he gets his XBOX 2.
It could risk broadly interpreting its prior deal with Nvidia by using Nvidia's technology and not paying for it. That would risk a lawsuit.
Since when has Microsoft cared about lawsuits? I mean, c'mon, this is the company that took on the DOJ and got nothing more than a slap on the wrist!
And IP? Since when have they cared about anybody (else)'s IP?
It could choose to simplify matters, forget about compatibility, and endure the wrath of consumers.
Since when has Microsoft cared about the wrath of its consumers?
Moreover, he suggests that current Xbox games make use of Nvidia's proprietary graphics shaders and that Microsoft might have to license them to use them again.
That's what you get for using proprietary technology.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I have a PS2, I don't have a PS1, and I don't have any PS1 games. Anyone who has a library of PS1 games presumably already has a PS1 to play them on. Wasn't the PS2's backward-compatibility more for people like me, who want to play the occasional classic PS1 game we come across without having to buy a PS1? And just how many people like me are there?
I've purchased more PS1 games after I sold my PS1 than I did when I had it. If the PS2 didn't have backwards compatability, I would've waited a little longer (I didn't buy it at launch, though) to buy it, and would've kept my PS1. At this point, though, I've got enough consoles in my living room that I'd be a bit irritated to have to increase the number of boxes sitting next to the TV.
I don't know if "shooting themselves in the foot" is accurate, but I do believe it could make a very big difference in early sales if one of the three consoles has it and the other two don't.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
I'm sure they could port Halo, the XBox game, to the XBox2 for much cheaper than including the backwards compatibility in hardware! Just recently Halo was ported to the PPC chip.
I mean, really... why build the backwards compatibility hardware when you only have to port one game? Oh wait... I haven't checked in a few days... Did they released something else for the XBox?
Nosce te Ipsum
Personally, I think that backwards compatibility could still be done without trampling all over nVidia...as long as they keep the hard disk or a disk-like storage mechanism.
Xbox developers are specifically prohibited from writing to the metal. For any graphics calls, sound calls, I/O calls, or any hardware call, they have to go through the API. In that way, developing on the Xbox is rather like developing against a system abstraction layer. Change the kernel but keep the entry points the same, and you should work fine. After all, most games use the vertex shaders (which are well-documented and implemented on ATI's cards), so I don't see a problem.
As for the IP issues, the only issue I can see is implementing some nVidia-specific texture formats, but since most of them were not supported or recommended by Xbox Developer Services, few (if any) games use them.
The possible flipside is that VirtualPC technology may not work on the IBM processors. VirtualPC will not work on the G5 due to the elimination of a certain addressing mode. If that addressing mode is still gone in the processors made for MS, then backwards compatibility just got 100's of times harder to implement.
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
but when the PS2 came out, I bought it. After getting a few good PS2 games, I started looking at the older PS1 games as well. Bought a couple of those and enjoy them every bit as much as the PS2 games. So, backwards compatability, per se, wasn't an issue, it is nice having the choice of basically two libraries to choose from.
Let me guess, the first Harry Potter game? Someone fucked up the PS2 one, which meant that the only Playstation Potter that christmas was the PS1 version.
Next Box.
Because as much fun as it is to have 100 consoles laying around, I actually do need room for other things. I've got a Nintendo, a Super Nintendo, a Sega Genesis, a Playstation 2 and an X-Box. If Playstation 3 and X-Box 2 aren't backward compatible then the list of consoles that need to be in my game room jumps by two. I'm running out of room in the gameroom man. It's nice when the next generation of a console can play the previous generatoins games for space purposes. I can get rid of the old consoles cause they are no loger necessary. It also has to do with sales. I'm not going to fork out the money for an X-Box 2 or PS3 unless there is a very strong line up of titles for those platforms at launch time. There never usually is and when that's the case then I wait to buy. Now if a system is backward compatible and I can play all my old games on it, I'll probably preorder the thing. Even if there is only one new game I want, I can still justify the purchase because I can play all my old games on it. When new stuff comes out I can snap it up if I want it. If there isn't backward compatibility it's going to hurt sales at launch because I know I'm not the only one who is going to pass because they can't justify the cost if there isn't a bunch of cool new games that will be available at launch time to buy. I've heard other people in this talkback say the exact same thing. Also, just because backward compatibility had never really happened before the PS2 doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen in the future and that it's not necessary. Cars didn't used to have any interchangable parts. Should we have kept it that way? Heck no. Intechangeable parts, where possible, makes things a ton easier on the consumer for a variety of reasons. Same with backward compatibility. It makes sense and it makes things easier for the consumer who doesn't want to have to keep 100 consoles around so he can play his old games.
Backwards compatibility is extremely overrated, and the only reason people think about it at all is because of the PS2 - which would have been successful with or without it.
Completely, 100% wrong. People had vast game libraries after owning their Playstations for so long. Buying a Playstation 2 meant they could continue playing their entire game library while still adding onto it. You're being moronic if you think that's not a benefit. It's the same advantage the Gameboy Advance had--you didn't have to abandon your old game library. You could keep playing it on the new system, and now with a backlit display and other advantages.
Don't be silly. Backwards-compatibility is a HUGE advantage to a console's success. People don't feel like they're replacing anything--they feel like they're merely upgrading to the next best thing, and can keep on playing their old games alongside the new ones.
Short answer : The XBox ( and it's games ) didn't sell well enough to justify keeping any next-generation XBox compatible with previous games.
Uh, you might have a point in your post, and personally I'd be a *lot* more concerned if they decided to remove the HD than to not make it backwards-compatible... but I have to ask...
Why the past-tense? The XBox is still current, and the XBox 2 won't be ready for years. (For instance, they're still talking about issues like this... it's not like XBox 2 is being released tomorrow.)
Comment of the year
Just so you know...
Have nvidia forgotten about Dawn sleeping with the enemy already?
n g/
http://www.rage3d.com/content/articles/atidawni
I think a lot of people forget the biggest thing going for the PS2 when it debuted wasn't the games but the builtin DVD player. At the time DVD players were going for ~$200-300 by themselves. A $300 PS2 that could play PS2 games, PSOne games, and DVDs must have been a real bargain for a lot of people. In fact, if I remember some gamezine article from a few years back Sony was afraid the PS2 would cannibalize sales of their standalone DVD players. It was a hit in Japan not because of the games, admit it the first batch of PS2 games were crap, but due to the small living quarters the PS2 fit 3 devices in one.
There has only been one other home console I can think of offhand with backward compatibility built in: the Atari 7800. And we all know what a great success that system was. Mind you, this is in an industry that now has nearly a 30 year history, and has seen upwards of 100 programmable home console systems (both major and minor) released in various territories.
Riiight. The backwards-compability of the Atari 7800 had a factor in the downfall of Atari in the 80s. What crack are you smoking?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the XBOX running Windows? Therefore, for any game not to run on the XBOX 2 that ran on the XBOX, wouldn't XBOX 2 have to be running an OS that isn't backwards compatible with previous versions of Windows? I suppose that's possible - or maybe they're just making the switch to Linux.
Seriously though, even if they have a lot of inline functions (which doesn't seem real likely - but I don't make XBOX games, so I may very well be wrong), is the hardware change going to be so radical that they go to a different chipset? Perhaps they anticipate going to 64-bit hardware, but I doubt that would be a serious impediment either.
Just guessing, but I think maybe it has something to do with the encryption scheme they use to encode the games. They probably want to radically change it, in case someone cracks (has it already been done?) it. If it's done at a hardware level, I can imagine that they wouldn't be too keen on adding support to unencode original XBOX games. That motivation could partially explain what he means by 'intellectual property'. Maybe.
Sorry if I got something (or everything) grossly wrong here, which is quite possible as I don't know much about the XBOX, and I'm a little shakey on some of the other issues.
they own it, it runs on PowerPC, end of story.
It's interesting because YOU FAIL IT, lamer!
If it is SUCH a big deal, allow another vendor to create emulator hardware. Then the truly de-evolutionists can buy the extra parts and leave us cheap bastards to the 'new only' consoles.
With a total of three G5 processors and Microsoft now owning VirtualPC, how outrageous would it be for MS to provide Xbox emulation using a variant of VirtualPC?
Please! Everyone knows that it's XBOX#
n/t
I have to laugh at this. Anyone who ponied up their hard earned cash for a product from Microsoft expecting *not* to have a forced upgrade is very funny. Thank god there are alternatives in the game console market-space.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Just use one of the other Xbox emulators. One will probably be good enough by the time the Xbox Next comes out ;^)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Right now, my XBox is compatible with:
There is a tremendous amount of dumb thinking going on here...
First off, people claiming that "Backwards Compatibility is worthless..." really have no clue do they?
Okay, how many games are available during a new console's release, on avg.???
Usually 8-20 games....
How many of those are GOOD???
Usually 3-4....
It take a while to get an installed base of games. And as so many claim "it's all about the games"
Now, PS2 made gold by being BWCompatible. If it wasn't, Christmas would roll around and a child would receive a new fangled console with what...one game...maybe two??? And with many kids beating games within a weak and most early games being sub-standard. That amounts to a short amount of fun. Then comes the re-hooking of the old system. The swap between the two. Trying to fit multiple systems in the entertainment center (especially if you own a PS2, Gamecube and Xbox, and now have to fit a PS3, Gamecube, Gamecube 2, Xbox, and Xbox2. Yeah...alright...now I need a room just for game consoles. Sure I can toss out my old unit. But wait, I've got a few games that I really like, say like Morrowind or Fable, etc. that aren't out for Xbox2. Now how do I get my game fix?
No...this is a concern...but Microsoft could pull off a mastermind.
1. Continue with this "no backwards compatibility fud"...don't state such. Just NEVER answer the question...keep dodging it. This will make SONY think they have an edge. Heck, they might even decide to save some money and drop compatibility if they know Xbox won't be compatible.
2. As the game console will have around 10x the processing power. Write an emulator. State that NOT all games will work properly (make no guarantees). But get it to the point where 90% of games work without a hitch and that less than 2% of games are incompatible to the point of preventing game play.
3. Now here's the real catcher....add features to the emulation. Particular FULL SCREEN ANTI-ALIASING. You've got 10x the power of the old. To emulate you probably only need 4x the power. You've still got overheard and you've got a processor that can do full-screen anti-aliasing. When coding the 'emulator' code it so that it can automatically take advantage of such advanced function. (In other words, anti-alias all Xbox1 games...). Have a setting so that said feature can be both 'disabled' and temporarily 'de-activated'.
Now you've got a killer marketing gimic. Get XboxII and play the future....not only does the XboxII allow you to game like never before....but it also allows you to play the past. Drop in an original Xbox game and don't be surprised if it's clearer and crisper than ever before. That's right, not only does XBoxII play games for the original Xbox system but with full-screen anti-aliasing your old games will look better than ever before.
All this is coding in software (sure, it requires a fair amount of investment in coding time)...but it also negates any cost for additional hardware. Thus they gain the feature of backwards compatibility but do not raise actual manufacturing costs. And the advertising gimic alone of being able to play old games in higher visual quality than before should help show Microsoft is really in for the long-term and on the cutting edge. It's one thing to add features and improvements for new games on a new platform. It's another apple when you can take and improve on older games. (Think of it akin the line doublers for HDTV's to improve older broadcasts. Are they as good as an actual HDTV signal? NO WAY...but they're WAYYYY BETTER than the original signal was.]]]
- Jason
theSaj@porthaven.com
For starters, the specs are still rumor. Nothing is near being final, as far as official statements are concerned.
:)
You can speculate until you are blue in the face, but that will not change the end product. I would suggest waiting until a bit closer to the XB2 launch date. Actually, let's even wait until there is a launch date.
I'm just not going to get excited about this product until it is actually a product. We'll know for sure what is coming later on. Until then, just chill and mod your original XB. It's got a couple of years of being useful left in it.
BTW, microsoft does not care what you think regarding backwards compatibility. They do not seem to mind losing money on things like this. From everything I have read, MS has yet to even turn a profit on the original XB. I see this as more of a 'betting on the future' thing, much like it's slow domination of the browser market. They just want their product in your entertainment console for now, and will do whatever it takes. Profit comes later.
Peace out
Backwards compatibility will being in more customers than may be expected I think, because of the money advantage. I don't have an X-Box because I keep waiting for it to drop to gamecube levels (which incidently, I waited for with the gamecube too) I'm not really keen on paying $200 for a system that's going to be replaced in a year or so and for which no new games are going to be produced. However, I would be more inclined to buy an X-Box 2 at slightly higher prices if I knew that I could pick up all the old X-Box games for cheap and still be able to get the new hits.
Not to flame or anything, but the only console to have anything resembling backwards compatability so far is the PS2. And that was only when the original game coders followed the instructions and didn't cut shortcuts. If you are wondering about shortcuts, try playing an original version of FFVII on your PS2, you miss 3/4's the cut scenes. Backwards Compatability is really needed to have people buy right away, but shouldn't better versions of games come out?
How to Speak Leet
It is my birthday this week and I was given an XBox early. With all this talk, I am wondering if that was a poor investment (for the other person). Also, I have just two games, with plans to purchase more, so what should I do? When will this Xbox 2 even be coming out?
Click here or here.
In a perfect world, these companies would realize they'd make a hell of a lot more money selling games instead of consoles.
Rather than making a kick ass game for the Xbox and being able to sell it only to those who buy an Xbox, why not make a kick ass game that works on anything? Then you are selling to gamers, not Xbox gamers.
This is why I don't buy anything but PC games. I'm not paying $300 or thereabouts for a console to play one game I like, and hope to hell there are other games worth playing.
If they won't make a version that works on my PC, then I assume they aren't interested in selling it to me anyway. I'll spend my money elsewhere in that case. Or wait for someone to make an illegal ROM and play it on an emulator (hint, if we're willing to break the license to play it on unauthorized equipment, you're snubbing potential buyers.)
Only on
Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO of Nvidia, says his guess is that the next Xbox won't be compatible with the old one. "It's virtually impossible on many levels," he adds. "On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too."
I wouldn't listen to him at all. I recall him promising the 'next generation' nVidia chipset and it arriving over a year late. I, along with many of my friends, waited for this new FX, cinematic experience, then proceeded to buy year old 9700Pro's due to nVidia's terrible performance.
This guy isn't honest to his loyal consumers, thus can not be trusted with comments regarding a company that (he feels) burned him.
I'm a reformed nVidia fanboy. I had 5 of their cards over the years, and will not buy another one until they actually produce a 'next generation' card that is actually 'next generation', as in being the fastest thing to come to market. They can forget me waiting on them while they 'finialize' or 'optimize' it before release.
I'm no fanboy, but ATI has done me well. The old 9700Pro overclocks very well. Enough that it scores the same as my former roomie's 9800Pro in 3Dmark.
No where is it written that the next XBox will play current XBox games.
According to the title the Xbox2 will play current XBox games. No where does the article provide any supporting evidence to this claim, and in fact largely runs counter to it. Nvidia says all but no, an unknown independent analyst agrees, ATI says that it is statistically possible, and some other unknown agrees with them. Microsoft says... Nothing. According to other sources Microsoft is "not guaranteeing" backwards compatibility, and if they decide not to include a hard drive such compatibility may not be possible at all.
nVidia may very well be playing to the press, but that doesn't mean such a thing wouldn't be difficult or expensive. Most systems achieve backwards compatibility by finding uses for the extra hardware. Software emulation for compatibility has never been attempted professionally in the console arena, but amature software emulation tends to lag two systems behind. You can push an XBox to do a meaningful SNES, but Dreamcast emulation is right out. With the right software the SNES could emulate the 2600, but not the NES.
Personally, I don't see why they don't just include a detachable Xbox chipset as a free add-on with an overpriced "premium" system with two controllers, and sell a regular setup with one controller for 100 dollars less.
But, as I mentioned before, no such thing has been announced yet.
The ______ Agenda
True dat
The PS2's backwards compatibility has practically nothing to do with the success of the PS1, and almost everything to do with Sony trying to save money. The PS2 actually includes most of the PS1's hardware. The PS1 processor actually handles I/O for the PS2, and since Sony already has fabrication facilities designed to produce those chips, it was a no-brainer. The backwards compatibility was just added because A) it was convenient and easy, and B) it's one more feature they can hype.
As opposed to what, buying an Xbox2 because it plays the original Halo? Yeah, that'd make sense...
I'm not arguing that backwards compatibility is a non-issue; it'd be nice. But ya know what? It's way overstated. I already have an Xbox, and anyone that doesn't will be able to get one dirt cheap by the time its successor rolls out. If Microsoft can include enhanced functionality in the Xbox2 and cut costs at the cost of losing backwards compatbility, I'm all for it. I'd rather my Xbox2 play Xbox2 games well, rather than cost a fortune with medicore performance because 5 people out there want it to play Xbox games, too.
Man... you're carrying the anti-Microsoft sentiment way too far. They may be greedy, law-breaking bastards, but they didn't get to where they are by being stupid and making a lot of poor business decisions.
And a personal rant: As an owner of all 3 consoles (well, two now... traded the Gamecube in), I'd easily put the Xbox as my favorite. It doesn't have the volume of good games that the PS2 does, but the (mostly exclusive) good titles it does have are just as high-quality, if not better. And honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about Dragon Ball or Final Fantasy or whatever the rage is with all the pre-teens with ADD these days; you take away those games (which are more "commercially successful" than "good" - heh, kinda like Windows), and there really isn't a whole lot left on the PS2. PS2 has SOCOM, Jak, Ratchet & Clank, and Armored Core, and the Xbox has Halo, Rainbow 6, Steel Batallion, and Crimson Skies. They're both great consoles, but when you take Xbox Live and upcoming games like Sudeki, Fable, and TFLO into account, I'd definitely give the edge to the Xbox. And the Gamecube? It was great for a while, but none of the games on that system have even the slightest bit of replayability except for Smash Bros. and Double Dash, both of which require a bunch of friends around to have a good time. Besides... these days, Nintendo's first-party characters are the $2 whores of the video game industry. They may not be as bad as Sega with Sonic, but...
I agree that ditching backwards compatability might not be a bad idea, but until suitable momentum is achieved for X-Box Next (or whatever it's going to be callled) the lack of backwards compatability is going to be a perceived strike against it...
Lots of people seem to be saying that backwards compatability doesn't matter now because it never mattered before. It's true that in the past, people bought their Super Nintendos and Sega Genesises and they liked it.
However, the fact is that the market has changed. The Super Nintendo was bought for kids who were to young to know any better by parents who didn't get it.
Now that adults own and play so many gaming systems, frugality and long-term play is a great deal more important that it was 20 years ago. A kid won't think "if my new console won't play my old games, it's like I've wasted hundreds of dollars on them, and I won't stand for that.", but an adult will.
If a 2001-era x86 PC can do HLE of a 1996-era N64, what stops a 2006-era PowerPC from doing HLE of a 2001-era x86 PC?
It is unlikely that they would be able to emulate the XBOX 1 hardware using something like VirtualPC. The system is to advanced. Emulating system calls in software is Extremely slow. Which is why Super Nintendo couldn't be emulated well until processors reached If I recall corretly somewhere around the 400mhz range. And that is using assembly to speed up emulation. The Super Nintendo's processor was extremely slow.
Microsoft makes zero profit off the XBOX hardware.
Microsoft makes ALL its XBOX profit from the games.
Therefore the likelihood that XBOX2 will force you to buy NEW games is 100%.
This is not a technology issue, Microsoft didn't NEED to dump NVIDIA. This is purely a marketing and profit making exercise which includes their typical "we're in the business of raping our customers for cash" practices.
At least their stockholders will be happy.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I'm (again) falling back on my EB experience during the PS2 launch, and while it may have been a selling factor at first, I think most people realized that it really wasn't that big of a deal.
Someone here said that their kids played PSX games on the PS2. That might be true now, what with a system costing below the $200 waterline. The early adopters (at that $300 price point) though are generally people who are not kids, and if they are kids and rich enough to buy one, already own an Xbox anyway. With the exception of some hardcore RPG fans who collected the old PSX games, I can't think of anyone who, after having bought the PS2, really used to it sufficiently enough for it to have been a selling point. Generally, a large portion of these people came back and said how they'd forgotten how crappy the PSX graphics were and moved on.
If you've got Xbox games, you have an Xbox now. What good will an Xbox2 with backwards compatibility do for you except save space and cords on the entertainment center? If you don't own an Xbox now, you're probably not going to be the one preordering it at the $300 price point. By the time the Xbox2 reaches sub-$200, Xboxes will be found for $50 at your local gamestore anyway. So what gives?
I'm not saying it's not an issue. However, if I were designing the Xbox2 and the cost of backwards compatibility was lower performance, I'd take better performance anyday.
The backwards compatibility of the PS2 was overrated and a moot selling point anyway, and the same will be said of the next gen systems (if they have this feature at all).
What I think is a much more important issue is this talk of a year before the PS3. Sounds dangerously Sega-esque to me.
It's nice being able to pop-in any of the old Square games for some playtime when the feeling hits you. Right now I'm playing through FFIV for the PS2 again.
My PS1 is sitting in the Den awaiting my DDR dance pad for some good exercise...
I see the sales figures for PS/2 versus X-Box, and the X-Box looks like a failure. But whenever I talk to people about Console gaming they are ALL talking about the X-Box and it's games. It seems to be assumed that you wouldn't play on anyting else, and they get kinda freaked out if I mention that I will not buy an MS game of any kind.
This isn't just one group of friends, but includes people a coffee shops that I meet while traveling, on planes, and all kinds of locations.
How is the X-Box doing versus the PS/2 is console sales recently? Who outsold who during Xmas this year?
I just seems wierd that the stats I hear are so out of whack with personal experience.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Well, they are using 3 64 bit IBM processors. They will not be using the same CPUs Apple has dubbed the "G5." IBM makes a LOT of different semiconductors.
Moreover, the new xbox will not have 3 CPUs. It'll probably have 1 (perhaps 2), and the other 64 bit semiconductors will be used for other purposes.
Nevertheless, I agree, a 700mhz p3 shouldn't be too hard to emulate with a good a IBM CPU. VPC could probably pull off a 700mhz P3 on a modern dual1.8 or dual2ghz g5. Considering that the xbox will not have to run MacOS and a butt load of system services, they should have plenty of room to play.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
3 advanced G5's at say 3GHz + Darwin + Virtual PC + exclusive ATI graphics board design =
XBOX emulator
Sure Virtual PC and the interface to the graphics board have to be re-designed but Microsoft has full access to the former and ATI has full access to the the latter. Everyone has full access to Darwin.
No matter how "patented" the Nvidia stuff is all they have to do is achieve the same result using 3 generations later Video graphics capability and approximately 15 times the integer performance of whatever Intel crap they have in the Xbox. This does not even start to touch the Atlivec Vector processing available in 3 G5 chips!
It looks like Microsoft finally realizes that if you want high-end performance you go with something that was designed originally to use more than 64K at a time. (Hyperbole referring to ancient history is acceptable in most polite company).
If you are a person who cares about backward compatibility with current xbox titles, chances are you already have an xbox to play those on. Kind of a moot point if you ask me.
Right before, we, Microsoft reduce the price on our current model X-Box from $179.99 to $99.99 we leak rumors that, maybe, the new console won't support the old X1 games.
We know that if we said otherwise, some folks may be willing hold off on buying an X1. Waiting for an X2, and forgetting about the current X1 saves the purchase price of one X1 unit, but one must wait until X2 is released.
However, by indicating that the X2 will not support X1 games, we essentially tell the customers to go buy one now, b/c you may never get to play Halo otherwise. Oh, and by the way, we're offering a great deal on Mr. X1 right now. $80 off what your friends just paid a few months ago to buy one for X-mas.
This may just be all about moving more Generation One X-boxes between now and the actual realase of the Gen Two.
If they do not offer backwards compatability, then they can go the Nintendo route and offer remake games.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Out of curiousity, how does 10,000,000 machines consititute a failure? Is GameCube a failure then? Is Tivo a failure because it doesn't even approach VCR numbers?
Sony is a firmly-entrenched and formidable competitor. If MS is still selling 1/5 the systems in a few year, then yeah, by all means I'd expect MS to back out. Right now, though, they did pretty decent considering the dismal selling in Japan (now THAT was a failure).
Everybody has a computer. Microsoft could sell a official software version of Xbox that runs on a modern PC. They could even give that software away with an Xbox Next.
How could anybody compete with that?
Live wrong, impostor.
When I first got my Xbox, I loved it. Halo and Morowind were great games. As a few months wore on, I sold my Xbox and never regretted it. I keep track of the games at times but mostly for Gamecube. So far, I had a better experience.
The real problem is, why can't they make better games for Xbox? Simple, it's purty lookin' graphics. That is all that matters to Xbox owners. I couldn't find any more good, fun games for Xbox. For Gamecube, I'd be bankrupt getting all the ones that are fun.
Fanboys are upset but it's true. If a game had OK grpahics but fun as hell, Xbox losers would never buy it. So stop the whining over backward compatibility already.
Is probably to prevent things like X-Box Linux and other unauthorised code from working on the new systems, thus preserving the royalty stream from the game developers.
New Digital Restrictions Munging will no doubt be in force to make sure the only thing you can put in your X-Box 2 is X-Box 2 games authorised by Microsoft.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Why not have MS just plop the nvidia chip in there for legacy? It could handle....I/O...or something.
Oh, wait.... nevermind.
I had a PS1, own a PS2 I still occasionally play Time Crisis (PS1 game) on my PS2. I don't own an X-Box and I personally don't think the one or two outstanding games released for it would compel me to buy one. I will be buying a PS3 though (even if only for the next gen of Gran Turismo games).
But I will consider getting an X-Box Next if they have backwards compatibility. Then I'd get the X-Box next and pick up the decent X-Box games to play on it (in conjunction with the new titles for the X-Box 2).
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
What are the avg. ages of those here playing Xbox, PS and other games...say on a daily or at least multiple time a week basis?
I used to love playing them when I was younger, but, that mostly faded when I hit last two years of high school. I guess back then, when I got a car, discovered beer and women in a big way...just didn't have time for them anymore. Now, with job and other responsibilities in life...I do good to stay awake a few hours in front of the tv before crashing and starting a new day....
Anyway, just curious about the age thing and how often you play...and how much $$'s you might spend on gaming...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Remember your roots, man!
Atari 7800 could play 2600 games.
Sega Genesis could play SMS games with an adapter.
Gameboy Color played Gameboy games, and Gameboy Advance plays both.
Commodore 128 played Commodore 64 games. (not quite a console, but it took cartridge games and used atari joysticks)
Among these examples are some colossal failures (the 7800) and some all-time successes (the Gameboys). It's neither fair to say that the PS2 is the first, or that going the backwards-compatibility route leads to failure OR success.
I think that perhaps you're drawing the wrong conclusion from the data.
To many people perhaps, backward compatibility for the PS2 was not a big deal. They would never play the dozen or so PSX games they had, opting instead to play the newer, better PS2 games coming out. These games were mostly in the sports, racing, fighting, and action/adventure genres. They'll go on to their Metal Gear 3s, their Silent Hill 4s, their Sport XYZ 2005 and love the improvements in graphics, physics, and play quality. And more power to them.
The people who appreciate backward compatibility are the ones who play games in the other genres. RPGs were a big draw for PSX, and people still pay big money for certain titles on ebay. Many would argue the PS2 has yet to field a better RPG than the best PSX RPGs. They would claim the PS2 has simply made them more 'movie-like' (FFX,X-2).
Puzzle games are another draw, as there are very few puzzle games on PS2. Puzzle games are not graphically demanding, and there are a TON of good, cute anime-like puzzle games from Japan. I still Play Puzzle Fighter, Magical Drop 3, the Puzzle Bobble series (aka Bust-a-Move in the US), and others.
But the one I am thinking most of these days are the dance/rythym games. Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) is extremely popular, but it's not the only game out there. Konami's other bemani games such as beatmania and Pop'n Music (DJ/keyboard games) or the DrumMania and Guitar Freaks games, the Parappa series, the Bust-a-Groove series, and the many other lesser-known rythym games (PacaPaca Passion and Dance!Dance!Dance! just to name a few). I was an early entry into this segment (1998), and have been playing these games ever since. Only a few games (A few DDR games, a couple beatmania and DrumMania games, and a ParaPara game) in this genre are PS2 games.
Personally, I still use my PSX to play these (many are imports and my PS2 isn't modded), but plenty of others don't.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
Appaerently the CEO of NVidia isn't in the loop.
About a year ago Microsoft sucked up Virtual PC [ http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/02/19/ma
Stan: There it is, the Okama GameSphere...
Kyle: Dude, it's got 128GHz DRAM.
Stan: What's that?
Kyle: Don't know, but it kicks ass!
GTRacer
- It's Japanese slang or something...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
i bought the XBOX 1 for halo. it ruled. and for a fleeting moment, i confused halo ruling for the XBOX ruling. it cost 50 bucks for the game, $349 bucks for the xbox, and $30 bucks for an additional controller. That's $500 bucks.
I've since bought about 3 more games for the XBOX, all of which were horrible. I've rented a dozen more..more awful games.
Then there were the promises. good games on the horizon! then when the horizon appeared, more crap. (note: i don't play sports games but i hear they're pretty good)
meanwhile, all my friends with PS2's were playing really excellent games while XBOX was dreaming up more ways of taking my money (XBOX Live).
guess what M$. fool me once - shame on you. fool me twice? PS3.
My XBOX now runs linux.
Go read some bible: nubible.com
The Model-T didn't have seatbelts, airbags, or crumple zones. However the fact that early cars didn't have those features isn't a good argument not to include them now. I certainly wouldn't want to get in a car without them (well, no airbag would probably be okay) Or if you want something a little more analogous, there weren't any car radios or CD players back then, but they're sure popular now.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I dont understand why youd want your next pc to play old pc games. Surely if you have old pc games you have an old pc to run it, so why play them on a new pc?
Does it still make sense?
I don't know about you, but I DO NOT want to play my crappy old Xbox games on the Xbox2! I trade my old games in at Gamespot before they lose all of their value. I expect the new games to be a thousand times better than the junk most developers are puttin' out right now. MS should be putting its resources into making a kick-@ss gaming platform. We don't need old crappy game compatibility limiting the resources and FORWARD thinking design prospects for the Xbox2. So, If you expect the XBox2 to be a kick-@ss platform and you've got a library of lousy Xbox games that most likely you will never be playing again(because their old and they s~ck), I suggest you sell them while you still have a chance.
First of all... We are talking Microsoft! They want market share. It is likely they will release their XBox2 system early with a hardware/software package that you can't refuse. "If" MS were smart they would add new useful features for hardcore gamers, hackers as well as couch potato's (ie. PS2 DVD player). I am talking about an optional-keyboard/mouse for gamers, HiDef DVD player, HDTV ATSC Tuner, Tivo, OSX & Linux distro, built in wireless, and every other gadget you may want but may never purchase seperately. Many cool hardware features can be integrated with little additional cost (time and money) and may actualy benefit the XBox2's primary function(gameplay). Now lets talk about saving space. Just like everyone who bought the PS2 for the DVD player,,, if I was in the market for any of the above mentioned items I would first consider the XBOX2.
Let's see what features XBOX2 and PS3 will actually have before we quickly rush to judgment.
You haven't? CXBX is an emulator for the Xbox. It's not perfect (well, it doesn't play many games yet - but does work with my own homebrew Xbox title, X-Marbles), but nothing prevents Microsoft from hiring Caustik, or someone as talented and creating a legal emulator for the system. If there's enough power, the DirectX layer can easily be re-written to support the ATI chipset.
FYI: There are actually two emulators out (the other emu's name eludes memory right now) - the "other" emu can actually bring Halo up.
All that from the part-time efforts of two enthusiasts who aren't even working together. Imagine that.
Rest assured, MS is working hard on an emulated solution. If not by launch, sometime after.
Yep, 30 and 35 for my wife and I and most of our (gameplaying) friends.
I used to love playing them when I was younger, but, that mostly faded when I hit last two years of high school. I guess back then, when I got a car, discovered beer and women in a big way...just didn't have time for them anymore. Now, with job and other responsibilities in life...I do good to stay awake a few hours in front of the tv before crashing and starting a new day....
There's your big mistake: Who has time for TV when you hve the Internet, an Xbox, and LAN parties? Speaking of which, I've seen plenty of beer, drugs and women at these events.
I feel sorry for those who "grew up" as they left high school/entered college. Sure, there's always new things on the horizon, but it doesn't mean having to give up what you like doing.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
OK, I want to play this XBox game... let me just unplug the XBox2 here... put it over in the cupboard, and get out the XBox untangle the cords, plug it all in and play my game.
OK... sick of that game now... I want to play that new one I just bought for my XBox2... let me just... etc. etc.
What a royal pain in the arse, and it means I can't really have all the cables hidden like I prefer as I wouldn't be able to easily access them to switch the machines over... how very narrow minded you are. And don't talk to me about signal switch boxes and the like, it still means I have to find somewhere to put two hulking great consoles, with two sets of more-than-likely incompatible controllers and accessories. BAH!
And, like many people... I DON'T HAVE an XBOX 1! And I'm not going to buy and XBox2 unless it comes with an impressive catalogue of games for it on launch... and what's the best way of ensuring that? Make it backwards compatible with the XBox1.
By not having backwards compatibility you have to fork out more money (For the XBox1) and have a HUGE increase in inconvenience in usage just so you can access the games that already exist.
I think the PS3 may be for me...
IBM PPC stuff (G5's) with ATI video. I read (macosrumors.com) they were expecting very good (fast) emulation in the next version (VPC) that makes use of G5 vector goodies...
Isn't that what people think he's using (PPC and ATI) for the XBOX 2?
slow down and stay off the spank my brethren...
Oh no! my xbox BSOD'ed!
Microsoft can't even make stable software. I'm surprised they can produce hardware that doesn't blow up or catch fire.
Kill Bill vol.1 --- Reference to Mr. Gates??
I THINK SO!
I still play old DOS games like Kings Quest 3 on my XP box :) Yup, that was sure a selling point for my Wintel PC. (removing tongue from cheek)
I don't know what you guys think, but there has been a lot of news surrounding the Xbox 2 these past few days. First talk about a mid 2005 up to very early 2006 release to jump start Sony, afterwards there were rumors about no HD, then speculation on the hardware and now this.
:
I don't remember how it was a year and a half before the PS2 came out or the Xbox came out, but these guys only have a year and a half, two at the most to sign all the deals (if they haven't been done yet) with the different partners, decide on the actual configuration (are we talking one, two threee CPUs? how much RAM? should we include an HD?) make emulation of Xbox games reality (if they are ion fact considering it) ship dev kits to developpers let them learn to play with the system and deliver launch titles. And don't forget testing the hardware to make sure everything is working correctly...
All this (and a lot more I probably forgot) in 18 to 24 months? Now, there's two scenarios
1) either Microsoft is very late in their schedule
2) they are way further in the system spec than they would let us believe
The games, well, they can be made now on top of DirectX on Windows and then fine tuned and ported to the Xbox2 a couple of months before the system launch, so that hurdle is removed.
As for the hardware, they have a few months to set a spec that won't cost them too much. (last time I checked, buying 3 CPUs cost a lot, 512 megs of RAM, even 256 is still at least 50$, but I'm sure they'll get some sort of deal. Oh, and a GPU is always expensive. And don't forget the HD!). G5 CPUs are relatively new if I'm not mistaken, so they must be pretty costly. This paragraph doesn't really make sense, so let me rephrase it in a simple sentence : judging from all the specs we are seeing right now, has anyone bothered even thinking about cost? 3 CPUs? 512 megs of RAM?
I'm really intrigued to see what cards Microsoft has in it's hands right now. Hopefully they'll show them at E3.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Microsoft purchased Virtual PC. If you put enough horsepower into the problem (and the neXBox is going to have 3 64 bit processors) then my guess is that it could emulate it reasonably.
And besides, if I didn't have so many machines, what would I have to sell on eBay to support myself when I can't hold a job due to extreme arthritis?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Is someone thinking about Virtual PC that is now controled by M$. Clearly there is no reason why you cannot have backward compatibity using virtualization since the specs for X2 ie, 3 dual core ppc processors will be able to run X1 games faster than X1 itself since X1 has only an intel PIII. If you don't believe me look at:p cvs.h tml
http://usuarios.lycos.es/hernandp/articles/v
More interesting for me would be to know how is M$ going to finance X2 since you are going to have 3 dual core processors(read = 3 intel P4 ht's = $500, yes i am being generous) and an ATI R500(read $200-300) plus the other specs. The X2 will cost m$ atleast $1000 to make. Clearly, even if they sell it in the $200-250 range, the loss will be too huge for them to make up merely using the $10-15 they get on each game.
Well I'm 29, my girlfriend is 26 and we both play on our PS2. Besides, try EyeToy at party after you had few drinks :-) ... that's what I call fun.
Microsoft lost 100$ for each console sold (even said in the article).
10,000,000 * 100 = 1 billion
They lost 1 billion $.
Can this be considered as a failure ? I guess so.
In my mind PS2 emulation by the PS3 is unlikely as well, simply because I can't see them including a PS2 CPU ('Emotion Engine') in the PS3, meaning it'll have to all be done in software, which is considerably harder.
Microsoft is aiming to sell the Xbox2 to the masses, to have a market share of 60% or more (just as Nintendo or Sony are aiming). So, if they have to drop backwards compatibility to do this, they will leave their 10% of market share without BC.
Nintendo has announced that the N5 will be BC with the Gamecube, but Nintendo would adopt the same position of Microsoft if this would increase by $50 dollars the N5 price. Do note that Nintendo is using a gamecube-like architecture for their N5.
I am not usually a Microsoft fan, but this is a good move. The Xbox2 will be too diferent to the Xbox to have any BC beyond the demo level. The people affected by it will be so little, and the advantages can be huge.
that PS2 owners say that the ps1 games look better?? If it was just the same hardware they should look the same, no?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The hardware is also PPC/ATI, Nintendo already showed plenty of interest to license their technology which will be obsolete by the time the Xbox2 comes out, and Microsoft is the last company not to have a whole deck of cards up their sleave.
just a thought.
Meaning: We are greedy bastards.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I realise I'm replying a day late, but I had to answer the question about verb tense : are XBox yearly console sales percentages trending upwards? No? Ok. And yea, if rumors are to be believed, the HD on Xbox2 will be an external add-on. Probably available in a bundle with other online-gaming-stuff that anyone serious will get anyway, but it will be an add-on, to make the machine cheaper in it's base configuration without hurting the bottom line so much.
I didn't say M$ were greedy or making poor business decisions. Quite the opposite. They're brilliant in the marketing department. Ignoring compatability is a fine decision for them in the Xbox line.
What I said is that it makes *no* sense for them to worry about backwards compatability with Xbox2. People who bought this round of Xbox will buy it regardless. Others will make the decision to buy Xbox2 v.s. PS3 based largely on what games they want to play, and the MS strategy there is/was to buy Bungie and make other exclusive games.
I have to say, though, I wonder if the majority of consumers want to have more than one console. It might just be me, but I think two consoles is one too many. No, I don't really count as a 'gamer'. Truthfully, if I had no previous games, I might buy an Xbox now that they have the GTA games. But I had previous PS games, and like the idea of having a lot of games to choose from, so I picked PS2, and would do so again, even though I know the Xbox is a better game machine in some respects. Actually, when I bought my PS2, Xbox was over a year from being introduced... but still having the previous games, I'd like to protect that investment, as I still play them. If I didn't play them, that'd be a different matter. I'm not hung up on my Sega Genesis games, let's put it that way.
Sony's backwards-compatabilty was, as you actually point out, quite by design- a design they're sticking with for PS3. For previous console owners, it helps make the decision of what to buy very easy, thus lessening defectors. Don't think Xbox- think Sega DreamCast ( remember that? Better graphics than PS2, before PS2, no backwards compatability, higher price, fewer games... dead ). Compatability isn't everything, but it isn't nothing either, especially for the leader.
Some posters have taken my comments a bit too far. Xbox isn't dead... it also isn't an instant market leader, and it's sales figures aren't trending upward. Neither of these facts means that it won't continue to have some good games- Microsoft will see to that. But it is a bit of a disappointment in terms of what some gamers and industry types had predicted. To gamers who love graphics and 'the best' above all else, of course the choice is Xbox... er, actually, the choice is a $4k computer...
Plus by making things backwards compaitble, you get a lot of free press. Imagine after the Xbox next comes out, a game company makes a new game for the orginal XBox. In their advertisements, they will say, "Now available for the XBox and the XBox Next. Bingo.. Free advertising.
System Link. I will buy another copy of Halo, and maybe Brute Force etc.
If i can system link both Xbox and the next Xbox, and play 8 player Halo, that will be well worth it