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-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.
For Microsoft, these hard choices are the price of not working with the same partners. Any sane observer knows that Microsoft will do what it must to please its current Xbox consumers.
Fluff. M$ 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
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.
No, that's generally a Nintendo marketing deal. NES games weren't compatible with the SNES, SNES games weren't compatible with the Nintendo 64, and so on. Sega (and I'm no Sega fanboy here, but really, I can't deny history) with the Genesis also had an adapter so you could at least continue to play Sega Master System (SMS) games on the Genesis. They didn't continue that tradition with their future systems unfortunately, but then those probably would have died on their own anyways.
Sony has a good thing going by being compatible though, and Microsoft would do well to stay compatible as well-- people aren't interested in having 50 systems piled in front of their TV's, and if systems start being incompatible again, that's exactly what the consumer will be forced to deal with.
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
It was standard practice before when each console was using cartridges that were all different sizes, but with optical media being used it's much more viable to include backwards compatibility.
The playstation 2 was the only "sequel" console of a optical media console so they're the only ones who have had a chance to play with it. I hope everyone follows in their foot steps.
It's a huge selling point, atleast it is in my books.
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!!!!
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.
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
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).
The numbers on XBox Live fail to impress. I wouldn't say that online gaming is moving that many units. I haven't checked current numbers but XBox sales haven't shot up recently due to XBox Live getting better market penetration. If anything, I would say that XBox Live offers a nice service but Halo was what made XBox the console it is today.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Many people do not want stacks of consoles if they can get away with fewer. That's a reason emulation is popular, too.
end of line
I bought Loderunner for the PS1 at a bargain bin. I originally played that on Ye Olde Apple ][ many moons ago, love this game!
Here's the scary part: My four year old son loves Loderunner, I'd say he plays it as much as Crash Team Racing.
The point: Good games are just that, no matter what their age.
And I expect my PSone system to die way before the game discs do, based on the number of dead CDROM drives I've seen over the years.
Anything is possible given time and money.
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.
Being able to play PS1 games is the reason for having a PS3? Sorry, I don't buy it - I think being able to play PS3 games is the reason for having a PS3. 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. In fact, the only reason Sony included it is because they could - not because they had to. It just so happened that they could manage to use a PS1 CPU for the I/O functions of the PS2, which made backward compatibility very easy to include. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.
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.
If MS can lower costs and include better functionality in the Xbox 2 at the expense of backward compatibility, they should do it. People with short memories and/or attention spans always look at whatever's successful in the current generation and automatically think it's suicide if every other company doesn't follow the exact same template - this industry has never worked that way. There's no such thing as a "standard feature" in the game console industry and even if there was, with only two major systems to have it, backward compatibility wouldn't even come close to being one of those standards.
argh!! it's this sort of response that typifies the driving force in game development today.
people care more about the amount of polygons or pixel shaders in a game engine than if it is actually fun to play.
likewise, game companies are spending more and more money on games that produce good screenshots and less and less on games that are actually fun.
i don't care what year it is, a good 2d fighter is still fun as hell. but you can find one? no, instead you get DOA or MK:DA, which look great but have about 1/10th the playability of SF2.
i mean ffs, by your logic hollywood squares must be more fun than baseball because it uses a computer and was invented later.
sorry for venting, but i really think this attitude has been destroying any innovation (besides 3d tech) in gaming for years now.
not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. [...] being able to play them is the point in having a game system.
Ummm how do you figure?
The modern console gaming industry has been around for 15 years (dating from NES). Console gaming as a whole has been around for much longer than that.
In all that time, the only game console that was backwards compatible before the release of the PS2 was the Atari 2600/5200/7800, and AFAIK the 5200 and 7800 did pretty poorly. I'm not counting the Sega Master System here because both versions were a simultaneous release; it wasn't backwards compatibility so much as it was a pricing point.
Yet you speak like backwards compatibility is a staple of the console gaming industry?
Could I put my NES games into my SNES? Nope. SNES games into N64? Nope. Genesis Carts into my Dreamcast? Nope.
Did that deter me from buying any of the above systems?
Nope.
Why would I buy them? Because they offered a compelling gaming experience that I couldn't get elsewhere. Just because XBOX2 won't support the previous gen's games doesn't mean that it won't be able to offer an equally compelling and unique experience...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
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.
Ah, but part of the benefits of known hardware like a console is that you can abandon the abstraction layers for speed when you need it.
I'd be willing to bet that almost every Xbox game is laden with hardware specific calls, done in assembler, to tweak the bejeezus out of it in parts.
That is something that you can't make backwards compatible without essentially cloning nVidia's chips, and that's the IP violation.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
And then you have to deal with constant upgrades to get the new games to work. And then there are the constant driver installes to get that shiny new game to work. But, let us not forget that half of your old games stop working because of said hardware a driver updates and you spend more time than it's worth to try to get them to work.
I have had PC games die becuase I upgraded the following:
- Video card
- Video card drivers
- Soundcard
- Motherboard
- Added RAM to system (I'm not kidding)
- Win 98, Win 2K
And let us not forget the games that work, but are unplayable because the computer is just too damned fast and you die before you realize that the game has started.
All of my old PSX games still work just like the day I bought them. All of my DreamCast games also still work. All of my XBox games still work. They will all keep working until either the discs or the consioles fail. Almost none of my PC games I bought when the PSX was new still works.
Sorry, but I'm tired of playing that game.
As for the price of the unit, how much was your last video card upgrade? How about the one before that? And the one before that? My PSX and my DC will never need to be upgraded. They will always play any game released for them. Since I bought my Xbox I have not upgraded my PCs video card. Hell, if it wasn't for the motherboard failure, I wouldn't have upgraded anything on my PC since I bought my XBox.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.