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.'"
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
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.
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 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).
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?!
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.
As it must be said a million times, if you have an Xbox, and the Xbox Next has backwards compatibility, then perhaps you might upgrade, keep both consoles...whatever. Now, If you have a PS2, and wanted to play some of the original Xbox games, then perhaps that might entice you to buy an Xbox Next with backwards compatibility for your next generation console, then you can check out all the old games and the new ones.
Traditionally, it takes a while for games to get good on any console, so if the Xbox Next has backwards compatibility, you instantly get access to all the finely-tuned later cycle games released for the Xbox.
It amazes me how many people have commented "I already have an Xbox, what would backwards compatibility do for me? Nothing", and then say that's why backwards compatibility isn't worthwhile. They should instead look at things from the point of view of the console maker trying to entice people over to their system, and maybe consider what the console maker would base their choice on.