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-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.
not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. Hopefully, the playstation 3 will still play playstation 1 games. sure, those games won't look as cool as the newest games, but being able to play them is the point in having a game system.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
For Microsoft, these hard choices are the price of not working with the same partners. Any sane observer knows that Microsoft will do what it must to please its current Xbox consumers.
Fluff. M$ 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!
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.
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.
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 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.
'It's virtually impossible on many levels,'
If something is 'virtually impossible', let's just say that it is 'possible'
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...
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).
'On an intellectual-property level' What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?
Well, if you think about it, most of the games won't be just writing to DirectX/Direct3D only. Most or all of the pretty engines are going to be writing (for example) shader code directly for the Nvidia GPU that is built in to the XBOX.
Since we know that XBOX++ will not contain an Nvidia GPU (they're going with ATI instead), it is pretty safe to say that using binaries compiled for the current XBOX will not work. If they did, then that would mean that the graphics chips would have to be functionally identical (or at least close enough) to the Nvidia part. Nvidia probably holds a bunch of patents surrounding the chip which currently preclude this unless MS and/or ATI wants to get sued to oblivion.
Mechanik
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
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.
My blood doesn't "just boil", it "explosively vaporizes". (After I attain a safe distance from the "dump" aforementioned.)
Don't start me on "taking showers", either. 'Course, where slashdotters are concerned, that's not a subject that comes up any too frequently.
Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
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.
I just thought that I'd clear up the common misconception that there is a performance or innovation cost for including the PS2's backward compatibility. There wasn't. The PS2 contains the entirety of the PSOne hardware, PSOne games are played natively, not emulated, and the PSOne hardware controls I/O when a PS2 game is running. Because Sony already had chip fabs and such for the PSOne chips, repurposing those chips in the new system actyally saved them money. Being able to play the old games was just a benefit of this route.
Bork Bork Bork!!
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.
I'm buying the first console that is backwards compatible with my old IntelliVision games.
TRON!
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?
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
Yeah, old music is crappy too! Same with old paintings! Oh, and don't forget old people... they are the crappiest of them all!
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.
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
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...
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
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.