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.'"
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?
And I would rather not have another console taking up space. If one console can play the games of an older console, then great. That is why I have my Dreamcast with all my NES games on a cd, instead of my NES hooked up (and yes I do own a NES).
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.
I worked at MSG Studios for three years on two projects one was a X-Box game the other was a port of a X-Box game to PC (you can guess which one) and I can tell you that if MS goes with a ATI GPU with the next Xbox then there is NO way they can have backward compatibility with games from the old Xbox. On the game we ported to PC we had to re-write whole sections of the graphics engine just to support non-NVIDIA chips and since the old Xbox games do not have this support then they won't work on the new one... so stop your bitching and moaning.
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...
This is true as well. Unfortunately most people find that the DVD player has one major flaw: compatibility. This is unfortunate, because (at least with the later drivers) the interface and remote were very high-quality.
(Oddly, compatibility isn't a PS2-specific problem. The XBOX has problems as well, and so do most dedicated DVD players! I found this out pretty quickly when shopping for one. I ended up with a $70 Samsung, which has no reported issues, and even played most of the way through a cracked DVD, but I like the PS2's UI much better.)
However I don't think any of these things were the "biggest". I think the biggest thing going for the PS2 was Sony hype, riding on the success of the PS1. :-) Fortunately for Sony they were able to back it up with a great library. And hopefully they will continue the trend with the PS3.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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 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.
No. Second hand XBox1s will not be as cheap as second hand playstations precisely because you need the old consoles to play the old games! They're not obsolete as soon as you've upgraded..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
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.
I see trademark issues here...
What trademark issues? It's entirely legal for two companies to use similar marks, so long as there does not exist a significant potential for consumer confusion. Bob McDonald's Auto Repair, for instance, isn't in any danger from the restaurant chain. A relevant precedent is the case of Apple Computer and Apple Records, both of which got to keep using their marks.
Now, clearly the Xbox and NeXT exist in a similar market, unlike Apple Computer and Apple Records. But NeXT computers aren't being manufactured or sold anymore. How the hell can you get confused into thinking that an Xbox Next would have anything to do with NeXT computers? We're not talking about a recognizable, clear brand here (such as "Atari"), we're talking about a simple English word -- it's much more difficult to get confused into thinking that the two marks are related.
All of this is assuming, of course, that someone actually owns the trademark on NeXT and it is still valid. Considering that the computers are not being manufactured anymore, it is entirely possible that this is not the case.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck