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.'"
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
I see trademark issues here...
What?
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, 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...