Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Xbox To Lack Backwards Compatibility?
An anonymous reader writes "Biz news site Gamesindustry.biz is reporting that Microsoft's Xbox 2 won't be backward compatible with games for the current Xbox, and quoting 'sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives' explaining some of the thinking behind the decision. All very cloak and dagger, although I guess whoever told them would probably be in line for a firing if they found out... So, is Microsoft right or wrong on this one? Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
According to a source close to the project, internal Microsoft figures suggest that only 10 per cent of PlayStation 2 purchasers were interested in the console's ability to play titles developed for the original PlayStation.
This is also coming from the company that did consumer research that found their controller was superior. I am apparently one of the 10% of people that thought that the PS2's backwards compatibility was important, apparently one of the small minority of people that believed the XBox controller to be clunky and uncomfortable (in fact caused serious cramping after short use), and that small group that seriously believes that part of the reason that MS has dominated the market place on the PC side was for backward compatibility with their products.
MS is changing the architecture, the design, and the graphics chip (ATI, no HD, and non-Intel) which will obviously force emulation (which, according to the article, was being planned) but I would think it would be far more worth it just for a base of titles. I believe the PS2 did *so* well because of the large base of titles that came from the PS1 and I can't imagine that the XB2 will be debuting with any base if they don't have backwards compatibility.
I think I've played more PS1 games on my PS2 than normal PS2 games.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
Rumors I've heard say that IBM PPC 97x cpu's will be used.
I thought this quote from the article summed it up nicely. How many people, do you think, held out for the ps2 over the dreamcast because of backwards compatibility?
I wonder if this was the real reason that they dropped the backward compatibility:
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
That is what made the 2nd edition Gameboy such a hit... and the 3rd.. and 4th... and #th version of Gameboy because you could still play your old classic games on them.
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
I think this is a feature more people want then will actually ever use. It'd be nice to have, but it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me in buying a new system.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWBackwards Compatibility?
Have we ever used the backwards compatibility on the PS2? Does a bear crap in the woods? (For the sarcasm impaired, that's "yes".)
I've got a collection of about 60 PSOne disks, from "Resident Evil" through "Final Fantasy" looping into "Dance Dance Revolution" and plenty of others I haven't even gotten to yet. And I've got quite a few PS2 games as well (and to be fair, naturally I have a Gamecube and Xbox).
I'll be honest: I think the Xbox 2 has shot themselves in the foot, because now it's not a 3 way battle, it's a 4 way battle between the Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, and Xbox2.
Sony made a brilliant move when they made the PS2 backwards compatible, and have stated they plan to have PSOne games all they way until 2008 (as I seem to recall). People who are cheap can still get a PSOne for about $79-$100, and games for around $20-$30 (infrequently, but it still happens even today). Sony gets a cut off of those games.
Now, you look at the PS2. If you want just one PS2 game, the choice is pretty damned easy: no additional space needed in your room, same connectors even! Just junk that old PSOne and go PS2, and you can play all your old games and those "few" PS2 games you're thinking about. And once you're in, over the years it gets harder to go back to the old stuff.
With the Xbox, that choice is no longer there. I have Xbox games I like (though to be honest, I've never gotten into Halo. Go figure.). Now when the Xbox2 comes out, I'm going to be looking at it and say "Well, I could buy it now for that 1 game I must have, but eh - I'll wait until they build up a library that I care about."
Yes, there will be "must have" games upon launch, but if comes down to space (already at a premium with 3 consoles), or cost (another $299 for one or two games), people will look at the backwards compatible PS3 (and, if the rumors of the Gamecube 2 or whatever are correct) with a lot more favor.
Granted, in the past there was no backwards compatibility (NES -> SNES -> N64), but the game market has learned a valuable lesson.
There will be Xbox 2 games that I'll want eventually that will make it worth the purchase price, but I'm willing to bet that initial sales will be "electronics enthusiasts only" until a larger library gets built up.
As the article mentions, it will certainly eat into the "First Mover" advantage the Xbox Next is hoping to gain. Even when the PS2 came out, there were still good upcoming PSOne games to look forward to. So unless Microsoft does what they usually do and remove all Xbox One games from the shelves (example: when Office XP comes to stores, Office 2000 becomes impossible to find, etc), or keeping Live out of the hands of anyone but Xbox Next owners, they'll find the current base slow to pick up.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
That's almost a stupid question. Pretty much everyone I know with a PS2 has played an original playstation game at least once.
We probably have a 50/50 mix of PS1/PS2 games. The old ones were left-overs from the long since dead PS1. My son regulary pulls out some of the old RPG games (and PS1 memory card). Still running just fine and now on the 2'nd PS2!
Backward compatability was and still is a huge selling point for the Playstation 2.
-- Rick
I am a avid xbox gamer and would consider an upgrade if I could play my old games on the xbox2. I also would have loved to see a way to transfer the saved settings from my xbox->xbox2 perhaps over the ethernet cable but I guess that will never happen either. This is a very sad article to read given how superior the xbox is to the PS2 for graphic and sound quality. The xbox was truely an inovative game console.
This is not good for MS. Releasing two consoles so close together without backwards compatability? Wow. If they kept the compatability I would actually predict XBOX2 to make a splash, but early adoption, lack of development tools, and no backwards compatability? Can you say Itanium?
--Kevin
Are there ANY reasons why you WOULDNT make it backwards compadible? I really cannot think of any reason why not.. .besides maybe if they switched to a different format, HD-DVD discs or something... and that's stretching it.
Hmmm.
Backwards compatibility was the biggest selling point for the PS2 in my opinion. While I do not use it often, it is nice to occasionally fire up and older game. I have replayed a few Final Fantasy games, and the occasional random game that I have lyeing around. - ZT
Well, I was thinking about buying a game console, and it's mostly about the number of decent games out there.. they don't have to be new.
so for me, if I get a ps2, backwards compatibility will be nice.
however, for microsoft, they obviously want everyone to buy all new games, because the more sales the better.
Believe it when you see it in the stores or are holding an official MS press release. Until then, this is all speculation.
They won't run XBox 1 games of the new XBox, but the dev kits for the new XBox run off a modded windows NT kernel that runs off a G5
After being chipped of course.
Hell, that's about all I use it for. I still play FF7 (never did get "Knights of the Round"), and use it to play DVDs, but I only own one PS2 game, and I don't have any free time, so my copy of Xenosaga just kinda sits there, unloved.
Xbox won't be hurt so badly by this, as they don't have nearly as big a base of existing customers to piss off, but the back-compat feature was one of the bigger reasons I finally sprung for a PS2.
quoting 'sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives' explaining some of the thinking behind the decision
3. Profit!
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I want to know if it will be cheaper because of this. If there is a discount due to not having two chips in it then I'm all for it. Otherwise, I can't wait for PS3.
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
my PS2's backward compatibility exactly once. But, I imagine that if a PS3 came out, I would be much more interested in playing PS2 games on it. Not sure why, maybe PS2 games are better?
Tomorrow $SOME_OTHER_GAME_SITE will report that it will include backwards compatibility, and compatibility with Sega Saturn and Apple Pippin!
It was actually widely speculated that Xbox would play Dreamcast games. Some asshat at $TOP_GAMER_NEWZ_SITE noticed that MSFT and Sega were working together, and jumped to a huge conclusion. Of course, they were working to hammer out marketing deals for Sega games on the Xbox platform.
Blah. Wait for official word, I hate speculation.
It'll probably be compatible. Or else it won't be called Xbox at all, they'd abandon and start a whole new "brand". But with Xbox just starting to pick up a good head of steam, they'd be foolish to kill compatibility on any "Xbox 2" at this point.
So it could be a PS2-PSX thing, or a SNES-N64 thing. Who knows.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I use it all the time. They still haven't come out with a PS2 game as good as Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo!!
There seems to be a total lack of creativity in most modern games lately. I spend more time playing old games than new games. I even have an emulator on my PC that lets me play my old favorites from the days of Amiga and C-64.
I don't think this will affect future sales of XBox 2's as much as it will hurt current sales. People will be much more likely to get a PS2 console or game if they have the option to keep playing it on the PS3.
If Sony keeps the compatibility going, I don't see MS displacing them any time soon.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Wow. I guess Microsoft wants to continue losing money on this box too. I thought with games, the object was to win.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
Yeah, I've actually been using it lately to play Final Fantasy Tactics. The recent GBA sequel kind of lacks some of the charm of the original. And I've heard that DDR fans rotate through the PS2 DDR games (only two, I think), then the PS editions, then back to PS2...
Kind of bugs me that the memory cards AREN'T compatible.
To play through Final Fantasy 7 at least twice, Metal Gear Solid before playing MGS2, and pretty much any worthwhile PS1 game that came out and I never played cause I never actually owned a PS1.
Don't need to either. It's also handy to keep older games from hitting the shitter simply cause the console it came out on is dead (like dreamcast and saturn games which are increasingly hard to find consoles for.)
It'll be awesome if the PS3 has backwards compatibility with both previous systems. Keeps the legacy of the systems alive and the games played.
If MS does not make the next-box backasswards compatible then they just lost my business and a shitload of my friends' business as well.
-- The box said Windows 2000 or better... so I installed Linux
I personally bought my PS2 because of compatibility with old ps games. Think of how many parents/purchasers are going to look at the wasted old titles and then see the PlayStation 3 and its 1000+ game library. As cool as the new Xbox will be, I'll wait for the PS3 as well, and show Microsoft how I vote with my wallet.
"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
Um yeah who the hell doesn't?! I play all my PS1 games on my PS2 and look forward to playing my PS2-PS1 games on my PS3 when it comes out. As much as i'd hate to see the Xbox go the Nintendo route and fuck over their consumer base I think MS should....
The reason is the Xbox is great, but it's so freeking easy to pirate the games on it, and I understand if they want to make it more secure/proprietary. As it is now, you put your mod chip in and a larger drive, flash the bios and install the new dashboard and from then on any game you rent you simply hit "copy to hard drive" and its yours. You NEVER buy games...EVER...
With the PS2 yeah you can mod it to play burned copies, but then you got to fuck with your burner software and be picky about your cd media. Also the mod chip for the PS2 is a solder only and not a "stick and screw" chip like some of the the xbox ones.
Ave Molech Setting
I'm rather shocked by this decision.... While I guess it won't affect me currently because I already have an X-Box, I'll be quite pissed if it breaks and the X-Box 2 can't play my games.
I use PlayStation games in my PlayStation 2 all of the time, and the ability to do so is the primary reason why I bought a PlayStation 2. There are plenty of PlayStation games that, in my opinion, are by far better then their descendants (especially some baseball games).
Finally, there's the obvious point that people who spent lots of money on X-Box games will want to be able to continue playing them--backwards compatibility surely matters to them (and people who spend lots of money on games are the folks Microsoft wants to target!).
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but I don't see how it would be possible to emulate a P3 700 class CPU on a 1.xGHz processor of a completely different archecture. They don't even share endianess (is that a word?)
When IBM and ATI announced they be supplying the parts I thought right away there would be no backwards compatibility.
Maybe they'll sneak an XBox1-on-a-chip in there?
I play my PS1 games all the time, and my PS1 itself long ago kicked the bucket.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
It's not important to me. If I were to buy the latest/greatest gaming platform from a company, I'd want to use it's features. I mean, by the time that the Xbox2 comes out, Xbox's will be dirt cheap from ebay and other sources, if you really want them, It would be cheaper to buy them seperately than for Microsoft to tack on the extra development costs of making it backward compatible. I'd rather have a slightly cheaper cost on the Xbox2 and not have backward compatability. What do the rest of you think?
I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
The fact that the PS2 plays PS2 games plus PS1 games plus DVDs plus CDs made buying the PS2 a no-brainer. There really are some very good PS1 games out there, and I'm pretty sure I have almost as many PS1 games as PS2 games in my collection.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
I play a few games religiously like Bushido Blade 1 and 2 that are PS1 games on my PS2. I also use some of the final fantasy remake games on my PS2.
Would be a crying shame if they did kill the compat. I don't buy microgarbage anyway so if they do kill it, no skin off my back.
"It's not stealing if you don't get caught!"
I ran Pitfall 3D (the Playstation 1 version) on my PS2. It mostly worked fine. There were a few crashes and a few minor visual glitches, but I managed to complete the entire game. I'm not much of a gamer, so I found it quite a challenge - the controls don't seem as well programmed as a game such as Jack and Daxter. Since my wife like the game on PS1, I appreciated the backwards compatibility.
I agree that backward compatability with my gaming console was not a big issue for me with my PS-2, and if I owned a X-Box it would not be a big issue for me with Xenon, I still the option should be there. :)
Microsoft is smart enough to make it backward compatable, they just choose not to.
I am a minimalist - so when a new console comes out, I want to be able to get rid of my old one. I do not want three-six consoles in my entertainment rack - it creates clutter - it requires funky adapters - it's annoying!
I think this is a bad move on M$'s part, but they make many bad moves and still come on top - so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Luckily - I am cheap and still utilizing my PS2 and will probably upgrade to PS3 one-two years after it comes out
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
....
slashdot. Old news for nerds. Stuff that's socialist.
Let's look at the history of backwards compatible game systems...
GBA can play GBC and GB games.
PS2 can play PS games.
I believe there was one other major console with backwards compatibility.
Wow... that's a lot of systems.
Since when has backwards compatibilty been really important? If I want to play N64 games I still have to buy an N64, but you don't see people complaining about Gamecube not having backwards compatibility. Hell, Nintendo's new console isn't supposed to have backwards compatibility.
And one last thing, this is old news. People have known about the backwards compatibility issue for a while...
..story on my homepage when I've specifically excluded the Games category from my homepage?
Some geeks just don't care about games.
I have the PS1 and the PS2 and I must admit I never had any desire to play my PS1 games again. Guess I'm one of the consumers who rather buy/rent something new than play a old game that I already spent hours on.
I don't play that many games to start with, but I wanted compatibility with the PS1 games I did play. The compatibility is what helps people to justify the money they spend on the console, which helps justify game development budgets, which stimulates console purchase.... With console prices increasing faster than income, making your console even more inconvenient, single-use (money for DVD play), and expensive (with the need to buy all new, expensive games) doesn't seem like the way to go.
2) Some more stuff about backward compatibility from a while back here. I don't find it that surprising that Microsoft is willing to break with the Xbox when they release the successor: it will only be energy and money that they lose on their way to trying to be profitable in the video game industry.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
It's actually kind of scary for me really. Probably unlike a lot of people on Slashdot... I buy consoles to play console style games, and not much more. I don't use my console to play media, I just use it to play games.
Now I have never had much interest in the Xbox, because as a CONSOLE, it's completely hopeless. The architecture is just fundamentally flawed from my viewpoint, given that it's just a scaled down PC, and attracts PC style games.
The architecture of the next Xbox seems to be a lot more in line with what a person should expect from a console. As in, it's designed to actually play games, instead of a general purpose machine. If Microsoft is actually fixing their architecture mistakes this time around, and doing it with enough conviction to actually drop backward compatability, I am getting a little on the nervous side. One of the things really wrong with Microsoft's culture is that it almost NEVER drops backward compatability, resulting in some genuinely horrid products (Windows 95 and Internet Explorer come first to mind).
I dunno, I can't help but think that Microsoft is making some good decisions here when it comes to gaming... It's almost as if they are adopting a Nintendo viewpoint, and putting the games first and the business second.
All the time. There are a lot of great games that came out on the PS1 that have no PS2 equal. About 1/3 of my playstation games are PS1 games.
Unless game developers come out with some "ultra kick-ass" games for the XBox2.. I won;t be getting one because I wouldn't be able to play all my current games on it.
This probably wouldn't be an issue for the people that are "Rent-Play-Return" types.
I have played playstation 1 games on my Playstation 2 before. Although somewhat despressing but eh....Silent Hill 1 is worth it. Although playing Tony Hawk Pro Skater 4 on a PS2 made me want to kill myself.
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
That would allow Microsoft to take a good advantage over PS3, setting its market before the PS3 arrival. But here users will wait until good titles, and also PS3 are there. As PS3 should be backward compatible, it will allow Sony to sell its gaming system quicker and at a higher price than Microsoft.
Besides, if it isn't backward compatible, we can't play our beloved Halo any more....but by that time, Halo 2 will be out! :D
Seriously, backwards compatibility is great and why they are considering to exclude that from the specs of the XBox2 is beyond my comprehension. I had a PS1 and ton's o games that I loved, I got a PS2 because it was faster and better than the PS1. I loved the fact that I could play my old games without having an additional plugin in my power strip being taken up by having a PS1 and a PS2.
Friends help you move...
REAL Friends help you move dead bodies... ^_^
Microsoft can use their virtual pc technology to run the x86 instructions on the PowerPC architecture. However, if the PowerPC processor they are using from IBM is based on the POWER architecture, they'll lack the ability to run in big-endian. VPC is supposed to support the G5s later this year. So it's not out the realm of possibility. Remember, Nintendo generally doesn't have backwards compatibility. Breaking compatibility would allow them the flexibility of changing their controller as well.
people don't actualy buy the Xbox for the games, right?
I play all of my old PS1 games on my pS2 console. I see no point in having to dig out my PS1 just to play a game, that should be compatible with PS2. I think M$ needs to get off the money train. It isn't about compatibility, it's marketshare. When you make a product then improve it in teh next generation implementation yet leave out retro compatability, then there is a problem with your business model. You cut off any developement of the original platform. By this same token according to M$ all our PC games should not be compatible with our current systems. I still play DOOM yes I said DOOM. It would cheese me off to no end if I had to dig out an old i286 to play it.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
One Word... Parappa.
BUT I have PS1 games for my PS2. So suck on that.
For gamers who need to be up to the minute; backwards compatibility is not important.
But for the value gamer; the ones who wait until PS2 games are re-released as "Classics" with the red boarder and sell for $20 (instead of $50)- these are the people who will pick up older games and play them on their modern system.
Cheap skates of the world, Unite!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
Damn straight. I have 82 PS1 games and never have owned the original playstation, just the PS2. Along with gameboy backward compatibility. I use the gameboy player more than I ever actually use my gba. To me it's a big deal if the X-box 2 isn't backward compatible. I'll get over it if it's not, but I would much rather it was.
Some games like Intelligent Qube (the only game better than Tetris in my opinion) will never come out on another system. The creator was really teed off at Sony over a licensing issue and vowed he would never license the game again.
The game Devil Dice is one of the most innovative games to ever come out for any system. It too will never come to another system or be reproduced as a classic.
As far universal play with all ages - there's hardly a game that can beat Crash Bash - because it's easy to pick up and is more of a cooperative game that requires only one player to be good.
Super Puzzle Fighter and Tecmo Stackers are also very very good games.
Plus I don't think any good light gun games have come out for the PS2 - especially non violent games like Point Blank.
I haven't purchased a PS2 because all the games that aare decent are covered under the PS1.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
On one hand, yeah backwards compatibility is really cool to have. On the other hand this is completely different considering the options. A quick search on the playstation webpage excluding the playstation 2 games yields 61 pages with 20 games on each page, and a final page of 4 more games. That is 1224 games. Xbox has 16 pages of 25 games on each page. That is only 400 games. That is give or take 25, because for some reason XBox.com decides not to number their pages, or give a page skip feature. Now the need for backwards compatability is much less for the Xbox2 than the PS2 did.
What Microsoft may be failing to realize is that the difference between PS1 and PS2 was huge. Keeping a backwards mode let users consolidate on one console in the interim - but PS2's visuals and sound were so much better it would likely drive much of the installed base to migrate to PS2 games.
Will Xbox 2 be that much better than Xbox? I doubt it. Unless the quality of games for the new platform absolutely blows away the earlier games, there'll be little incentive for people to abandon their existing games and migrate. Few people will keep two consoles from the same vendor on-hand, so that means the installed base stays on Xbox 1 for the foreseeable future.
Sony's made their share of idiot moves, but they did the PS2 transition the right way. Though relatively few people may use the backwards compatibility features once they buy it, having it is a nice safety net that lets console buyers feel they don't have to toss all their $50 games if they don't want to.
Of course, once they have that warm and fuzzy feeling, they immediately will chuck their old games to buy all the swank new ones.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
If you listen carefully, you can hear all the Halo fanboys scream in agony...
Backwards compatibility makes a big difference when a system is starting out. I remember telling my parents about each new system, and the first thing they'd ask was "Does it play the old games?".
This is great because it's proving my new theory that Microsoft has not learned from the mistakes that every other company has done in the past. Bad controller design, no "mascot" or established franchise, and now kicking backwards compatibility.
The PS2 roared out of the gates, because even though it had a small launch library, it didn't matter cause there were already 600+ games on the market that it could use. Add in DVD playback and it's no wonder the thing did so well. Same principle applies for Nintendo's GB series. The DS will work too cause it plays GBA games.
I guess this just proves how ready Bill is to profit off the XBox.
Insert Sig Here
For a good laugh, go back and read some of the early postings and comments on Slashdot regarding the Xbox.
They were about as wrong as it gets.
The Xbox team has proved that they know what their doing. They have earned my trust.
Backward compatability is nice, but I could care less if its there or not. If the Xbox and Live are any indication, the second generation is gonna rock hard and non-ideological gamers will gravitate towards it just like they did with the Xbox.
"So, is Microsoft right or wrong on this one?"
They're wrong, of course! Uh.. later I'll come up with a reason, I was just a little short on karma.
"Derp de derp."
Calm down, once the first modchips are released I'm sure it'll be a matter of weeks until Xbox1 games work on Xbox2 through an emulator.
Wait, here me out on this.
Im only talking about the ps2 Japan launch.
The real reason that the ps2 was so sucessful IN JAPAN was not because of backwards compatability, or even top tier ps2 games. It was due to it being the least expensive dvd player on the market.
When it was released in japan, dvd had not really taken off. People saw the ps2, saw it was the cheapest dvd player, it played their psx games (which they already had.. so thats a space-saver there) and they could buy these nifty new games for it too.
There is no "edge" like dvd playability for any of the new systems. Finding that hook that appeals to the large market is going to be really tough. Sure, Ill get a ps3, but not on opening day. Probably not even in the first year. There are a metric crapload of great games out now. Why bother spending 50$ on the new one that has slightly better facial animation, when there is a massive bin of old 15$ games that are freaking great!? (both graphically and otherwise. the next gen systems will not be as big of a graphics leap as past systems)
Im probably just being bitter.
no
...they have such excellent backwards compatibility with their other product lines.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I imagine people will be building on yellow dog to put linux on this thing :)
My PS2 is backward compatable?? Just kidding. I was a late buyer, so I never had an original playstation. I went straight from my Coleco to PS2. In renting or buying games, I've never seen any original PS games that got my attention enough to want them.
:)
I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there that had a PS then bought a PS2, and wanted to continue playing their games. It's much like the PC gaming market. There were plenty of people playing their DOS based games, who wanted to continue playing them on their Win95 boxes. Eventually, that number becomes a minority, but eventually those games get abandon for the newer/better/faster/prettier games. Well, except for those hardcore users who still play Atari games on their Windows 2600 emulators.
Cam you play your original Nintendo games on a Game Cube? Nope. Newer consoles mean newer games. If you are really hell-bent on playing your older games, plug that old console back in.
It doesn't really matter to me, I wouldn't own a Xbox. When I went shopping for new game consoles, every time I tried out an Xbox in the stores, they were either crashed, or would crash while I was playing the game. That's anything but impressive. The Xbox was the only game consle in most stores that I went to, with a reset button that customers could press. For me, it was a decision between PS2 and Game Cube, and I got the PS2 because the rental section at my local Blockbuster had/has more PS2 games.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Most people I know (including myself), bought a PS2 before the GC or XBox for exactly this reason. It's a huge selling point, and rightfully so - I still play tons of PS1 games.
other MS products, in particular, their operating systems. Any idea in terms of bloat percentage, and speed optimization in current MS OS products due to backwards compatibility?
I wonder how long it will take to find the security hole in the XB2?
I play probably as much if not more PS1 games on my PS2. Why? They are cheaper, and they do not get any less fun because some new game comes out with less gameplay and more realistic cinematic scenes.
Seriously, There are only a couple of PS2 games I really like (GTA3, FFX, GT3, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid 2, and oddly enough, Rygar). There are hundreds of good PS1 games out there, and you don't have to drop $50 to get them.
I think I can safely say I wouldn't have bought the PS2 if it did not play PS1 games (the DVD player was also a factor, since I dod not want to have to buy another DVD player for my room.
Finkployd
I hate to say it, but in the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, Microsoft might be right about the 10% figure.
Sure, when the PS2 first came out, I'm sure like 50% of the users bought it for that reason "hey, it can run my old games, and new games too!!!"
But the PS2 has been out for how long now? It's the oldest system out there that's still getting games developed for it. It's been around for-flipping-ever.
I personally doubt too many people now-a-days see the original PS games as much of anything to buy (ecept as stocking stuffers). And most probably don't give the compatibility a second though. This might balance out the early figures to something really low (maybe not 10%, but like 15% or 20%).
It all comes down to support. Do you make a conviluted system that can do new and advanced stuff while supporting something old or different? Or do you focus all of your efforts into making something that plays the new stuff well.
It's kind of (KIND OF) like what Apple did. They wiped the slate clean (or clean-ish) when they went with OS X. It was a new architecture, something entirely different. And while they support some OX Classic stuff, it's sort of a new thing all together.
Personally, I won't mind so much. Sure, it'll take up more room having the 2 systems, but I have a switch-box and plenty of inputs available.
I'd rather they try to get the XBOX 2 to be streamlined and run well then have it emulate the XBOX 1.
...we'll be able to hack the Xbox 2 and install the Linux kernel... and so to play Xbox 1 games with an emulator ;-)
-- Ne me laissez pas tellement triste: écrivez-moi vite qu'il est revenu...
Look at the problems with Office reading old versions of the same. Standard M$ garbage.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Gaming history is chock-full of technically superior products that died because of lack of game development. Remember the Jaguar? Sega Saturn? Dreamcast? All of these consoles failed in the marketplace, not because of their backward compatibility (or lack of it), but because they didn't have the wide range of available titles that their competitors had.
If the Xbox2 (or whatever it will be called) lacks backward compatibility, initial sales may be slow due to lack of titles, but as soon as Halo 697 or KOTR 2 or whatever "killer game" gets released, than sales will pick up.
You can't have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.
As long as there is this constant goal of "obsoleting" "old" technology. This happens on programming projects all the time. "Oh look! It works! Let's start over!"
It takes developers two years to even approach a reasonably efficient workflow with new tools. The reason people don't use 90% of the features of new software is because they don't have time. It's replaced by something entirely new within a few months.
Same thing with consoles. "Better graphics! Faster polygons! Faster sound! Faster! Better! Easier! More! More! More!" Nobody cares any more. There isn't time to have fun. We have to run and stand in line at Best Buy to replace everything again.
Enough. It's the same product in a different box. Progress is worth working towards.
Waste is not.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Everyone is posting that if the XBox gets to market sooner it will have an advantage over the PS2, as if first-to-market is the only reason people bought the PS2 even though it was technically inferior.
Not so.
Most of the reason was that people liked the idea of being able to play their old games, a significant investment, on the same console.
No back-compat doesn't surprise me and I assumed this would be the case when they switched graphics processors because the optimizations would be all fUx0r3d.
I bought a PS2 only because there was a particular PlayStation game (DDR) that I just had to have, and figured I'd probably want some of those upcoming PS2 games as well, so I splurged.
You can bet that if the PS2 didn't support backwards compatibility, I never would have bought it.
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
ps1 compatability was key for me when there were three games, and one of them was dark cloud. I bought early ( pre-order from Playstation.com ).
...so, to me it was like buying 2 consoles, and a dvd player ( my vcr busted the week before, too... only player I had was my vaio at that point... )
If I hadn't been able to play the other games on it, I would never have bought it. I didn't own a playstation, left that to my brother...
It was absolutely critical to my choice to shell out all that money, at the time.
Now don't get cocky... ;) ;)
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Are you going to want to invest the money for a Xbox game if it won't run on next year's xbox2? So game developers wait, and fewer new games come out for the existing platform, causing people to be more interested in the competition...
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
All the gamers that are looking for the next best way to kill aliens in them shooter games, they're always looking for the next big thing, and the game industry caters to them pretty constantly. They probably don't want the old console.
Crash and Spyro still rock out, though. My wife will occasionally kill off a weekend afternoon and just walk the pattern in the first Spyro. But then you've also got your cutting edge stuff like Prince of Persia.
Backwards compatibility rules!
Information wants to be $1.98/lb.
I got FFVII and a PS1 memory card to go with it, only to find out that FF7 is the Most. Overrated. Game. Ever. I guess the graphics must have been good for the time, because the plotting and characters are nothing to write home about.
(I didn't have a PS1 since I was a diehard PC gamer until I got married.)
Castlevania - Symphony of the Night.
Reason alone to use the PS2's backwards compatability.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Anyone wanna bet that the "leak" from Microsoft's senior executives is really a hoax designed to throw everyone else off? Not having backwards compatibility runs against Microsoft's past philosophy. Heck, most DOS stuff and Windows 1.X stuff still runs well under XP!
Hook both systems up! I did it with my NES and Super Nintendo. Having one box that can do it all may matter to some, but not me.
thats a bunch of crap. greedy paranoid bastards.
|plastic....or gasoline?|
When have they ever had anything in the games department that was backwards compatible? Every tried to play any MS technology games? How about any old ones for replay?
ID and EPIC make excelelent games that aren't locked in to the MSFT monopoly technobloat. The X-Box is just another gaming device that they can't figure out.
They should stay with Office. They can do that - but wait - who needs that anymore?
Oh well, this too shall pass.
Surfs off to find better tools and topics...
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
if the public already has some games they can play on it, they're less tempted to spend (more) money on the new games...ofcourse, it wouldn't be that big a hit anyway if they DID go backwards compatible, cause why spend the money on a new system and not get the new games for it...in other words *shrugs* I guess a few more bucks in Gates' acct is actually worth screwing the gaming public over. This is why I'll never buy an xbox
If the console was backwards compatable, some of the weaknesses and flaws in the original could possibly carry over. I could see this being a big enough incentive to NOT be backwards compatable.
It was the only selling point for my wife when I got my PS2. She wanted a gamecube and didn't like any PS2 games; thankfully she founds lots of PS1 games that she enjoyed and I got my PS2. :)
..this is but a fantasy..
Reverse compatibility was a primary selling factor in me purchasing the GBASP, it meant I had 20+ games to play with.
Since people who buy an XBox2 wanting reverse compatibility will obviously already own an XBox, I can see how it might be perceived as not that big a deal. But shelf real-estate in my entertainment unit is already pretty scarce, tv, vcr, dvd, xbox, gc, stereo, satelite... Reverse compatibility would allow me to swap units, rather than having to try and force one in.
Having the XBox2 not be reverse compatible would definetly push off me purchasing one, as the unit probably wont have enough games to warrent a purchase & reorganize my entertainment unit.
paul reinheimer
Hey There,
... ...
... ...
First off.
I don't have a PS2.
My buddy does.
He thought backward compatibility was awesome.
Why?
Because he still had a bunch of titles available to play
while he waited for the new PS2 tiles that he was interested in
to hit the shelves.
I don't understand why this wouldn't be a trivial thing for xBox?
It's all standard hardware?
Even if the new consoles were going to be specialized
wouldn't it be a matter of building the appropriate VM
so that it could kick in when an old title was inserted?
Cheers,
-- The Dude
is this a shock to anyone? Its using a powerPC archtecture this time around, i know i dont have to explain why the next xbox won't be backwards compatible unless they use emulation. On a side not, my original xbox will be sitting pretty in my entertainment center for quite some time due to my excellent Xbox Media Center. This thing plays games?
Anyone ever thought that these 'super secret leaks' are actually feeling out the market without looking like they are feeling out the market? It is a standard IT strategy. Let out a rumor that X is about to happen and see who screams. If no one made noise about it, I would bet highly that xbox 2 would NOT be compatable.
In God we trust, all others require data.
In dorm rooms and such, there isn't a lot of room to have extra consoles laying around. There are many great games for the PSX that I play to this day, and the fact that the PS2 came with backwards compatibility had a big effect on my purchasing decision. It also didn't hurt that when the PS2 was launched it already had an instant library of thousands of games you could play on it.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
XBox2 won't be compatible with the XBox, but there is a more sinister plan that was hatched at MS and they don't want you to know about it.
Think about it. PPC CPU, ATI Graphics, No Hard Drive. Sound like any system that's on the market today? It's the GameCube with more power. Nentendo wants out of making consoles so they have partnered with the devil so they can focus on making great games. MS will let them sell a GC2 which will be compatible with XBox2 and GC Games.
Until MS breaks into the japaness (where all the truely great games are made) they will never take over the gaming market, they know this. The best way for them to get that is to partner with (or even buy) Nentendo.
So, don't be shocked when the XBox2 comes out and they advertise that you can play GameCube games with it.
My sons typically keep four consoles plugged into the set in the family room at any given time. This week, it's XBOX, SNES, NES, Genesis. Previously, the PlayStation took the place of the Genesis. When they get bored, it'll change again. All but the XBOX daisy-chain on the RF input to the tube.
Most of those consoles aren't very big (the NES is a 2nd-generation unit with the sloping top surface). I wouldn't want to put another XBOX-sized thing in that cabinet. Heck, I can get mini-ATX lan-party boxen smaller than that.
On the other hand, without a hard drive, the XENON/XBOX2 could be significantly smaller and cheaper than the next Sony box, which is designed to be a whole home entertainment box.
My guess? Microsoft is bowing to the pressure of the media companies to not build a media box that could be a PVR, hence no drive. Why they switched to ATI and PowerPC, I haven't a clue. Hmm.. perhaps we'll see Mac-based emulators of the XENON?
Design for Use, not Construction!
When I bought my Playstation 2, I didn't particularly care about backwards compatibility. Why not? Because I already had a PS 1. This is relevant because the current installed base of Xboxes is a lot less than what the installed base of Playstations was when PS2 came out -- which means there's more people that could benefit from Xbox 2 backwards compatibility than were able to benefit from Playstation 2 backwards compatibility. I would be more inclined to by an Xbox 2 if I knew that by buying one, I could also play all the Xbox games that I can't play now because I don't have an Xbox.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Actually the best game I have for my PS2 __is__ a PS1 game: Nitrous Oxide. It beats anything I've seen for ps2. I wish they'd remake it.
I haven't purchased a PS2 because all the games that aare decent are covered under the PS1.
While not console exclusive, beyond good and evil and price of persia: sands of time, really are fantastic. Not to mention rez, one of the best gaming experiences around. (available on dreamcast also)
I use my PS2 backwards compatibility all the time. Over half the games I play are PS1 games. I would never have bought a PS2 If I couldn't have played all my old games on it.
Even though my PS2 supports PS1 games, I dont have any to try, athough if I did, I'm sure I would have used it.
Not looking to PS but instead to the other successful console, Gamecube. have any of Nintendo's consoles been backwards compatible? No, and no one complains about that do they?
I dont have, and never will have an xbox, but I think this could be a fake "leak". Perhaps they cant decide themselves whether to allow backwards compatible support, so they intentionally "leak" this sort of decision and listen to the crowds reaction to base their decision on. I sure wouldn't put it past them, expect maybe for the listening part.
Are they smoking crack?
Or have they taken some figures out of context? This 10% might be true for PS2 purchasers who have never owned a PS1 console but for the majority of people who want to upgrade their PS1, backwards compatibility is important. Backwards compatibility also keeps users busy while games for the new platform are being developed.
If they are citing real numbers then their polling methodology is flawed. It's like stating that only 10% of PS2 purchasers were interested in the the console's ability to play DVDs.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In fact anyone I've spoken to with a PS2 has brought up the backwards compatability thing. It was even one of my considerations when I got mine, and I didn't have any PS1 titles.. I just knew they'd be out there. Granted, since I bought it I've only taken in 3 or 4 PS1 titles, but I still consider it an advantage. When (I guess it's when now) I buy a PS3, backwards compatability with my PS2 games will be one of the selling points since I've invested $TooMuch on my game library.
If I had an XBox, I wouldn't want to have two devices milling about in my entertainment center, especially two devices the size of XBoxes. And then, on down the line, will Live be an Xbox2 only service? If so what happens to everyone who likes playing the original Halo online?
Funnily enough MS seems to think it can afford to do research that supports what it wants to believe is true. I guess technically they -can- afford to, but not if they want to make money on any future ventures. It's a company wide problem from what I can see that needs to be solved.
And yeah the XBox default controllers are huge.
-- The unsig...
Why would J Allred say that backwards compatiblilty WOULD be in the next xbox system, and that some developers may end up designing games for the first xbox long after Xbox 2 comes out.
This website just wants to get slashdotted again. Dont play into it.
Are ad revenues that bad nowadays?
History seems to be on their side. As far as I know, the PS2 is the ONLY popular console ever to be backward compatible. I mean let's run down the big successes console wise:
Atari 2600: First gen.
NES: First gen.
SNES: Planned to be backward compatible, not implemented in release.
N64: Not backward compatible.
Gamecube: Not backward compatible.
SMS: First gen.
Genesis: Not backward compatible.
PS1: First gen.
PS2: Backward compatible.
That's all of the most successful consoles I can think of. Of those, only ONE was backward compatible. Even most of the lesser consoles were not compatible with anything else.
Saturn: Not backward compatible.
Dreamcast: Not backward compatible.
Neo Geo: First (and only) gen.
Jaguar: Not backward compatible.
Now maybe backward compatibility is now huge, amybe now that Sony has started it, it is the one thing that no one will live without. That, however, remains unproven. History indicates that non-backward compatible consoles can be successful. Current evidence seems to support this too. Despite competition from the PS2 and X-box, and lots of raging on graphics quality, the GameCube has done quite well for itself.
Usually when this topic comes up before a new console is released everyone answers a definite yes. We need backward compatibility. But when the console actually comes out everyone buys and plays the new games and rarely goes back to the old ones. Its the way of the console.
Its one of those topics that the media AND players blow so out or proportion and then never admit they were wrong later on when the console is released.
I mean, the Xbox is a single x86 CPU, and the Xbox2 is a dual PPC design. So simply running in a 'compatibility' mode (like how DOS/win16 aps run on the current windows OSs) would have been out of the question. In order to play older Xbox games, emulation would be needed.
And how could it be done? For one thing, part of what makes the unit faster is the Dual CPUs. But you can't use two CPUs to emulate one. Xbox emulation would have to be done primarily on only one CPU. You might be able to get somewhere with dynamic recompiling, but any app that does anything 'tricky' is going to pose a huge problem. You might be able to get somewhere with Ultra HLE style emulation. But you're not going to get it perfect. And if it's not perfect, it can't be a selling point.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Save for the mobile gaming systems, none of Nintendo's large gaming systems have been backwards compatible, nobody seemed to mind.
It makes a big difference for me if the games are backwards compatible.
When I carry my laptop around, I also carry my playstation titles with me (vacations, business trips)
My iBook can play old PS1 titles very nicely under Connectix Virtual Gamestation and I can use a playstation style controller through USB.
There is a fairly decent PS2 emulator for OSX - if Sony were to drop backwards compatibility it might break some of the emulators for quite some time. (Something I'm sure THEY wouldn't mind)
But... I buy games so I can play them on my laptop and on consoles and occasionally on my desktop.
There are few games that beat some of the original PS1 games: like Geom Cube, Intelligent Qube, Devil Dice, Crash Bash, Super Puzzle Fighter, Tecmo Stackers.
The Xbox hasn't had many compelling games or even decent emulators for use on laptops, so I could care less - this will make a big difference if the PS3 isn't backward compatible.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The Nintendo Gameboy Advance SP still plays the original Tetris game that shipped with the version 1 gameboy in 1989. I was amazed by this fact, and was the major reason that I bought one a couple of weeks ago. Having a game base which includes all the previously released titles for all the previous game systems highly makes the system more appealing I believe.
One of the reasons I purchased a PS2 first was the larger supply of games. A year later, I was given an Xbox for Christmas, and so far the only xbox specific game I really have enjoyed is Halo.
While I enjoy playing games on the Xbox more than the ps2 (I have developed a fondness for the xbox-s controller as well as better graphics) I still rarely ever find any fun or interesting games for the xbox I really want to play.
They have to get the price under $50, AND it has to outperform the original X-Box. Having a killer game or two wouldn't hurt either. I find it amazing that they would ditch backward compatibility, knowing full well the new consoles would have to sell for peanuts.
Get the new XBOX2 now. It's slightly faster... TO THE MAX!
(stolen from the simpsons of course)
Just wait until the XBox 3 comes out - then you can buy all of your XBox and XBox 2 titles all over again - 'cause you know Micro$oft needs the money to stay on the cutting edge.
But seriously - didn't they just kill whatever remaining market they had for the XBox? - who would buy one now knowing it's going to be orphaned?
(but then again - it does make a good, cheap linux box)
I lost interest in console games years ago when Nintendo failed to support backwards compatibility. The crappy original console they made would eventually start to fail reading games. After buying a few of those I refused to go to a new console from them if it did not support playing the old games. I did eventually get back into console gaming with the original PlayStation. I then bought the PS2 when it came out. I can replace the old beat up Playstaions I have and not have to lose the ability to play the games. I love it. I bought an X-box as well but if the are not going to support backwards compatibility looks like I will not be buying X-Box2. I never bought another Nintendo system after the original. Hell, my Atari 5200 had an adaptor to allow me to play my Atari 2600 games.
My PSOne game collection:
WipeOut
WipeOut XL / 2097
Wip3out
No One Can Stop Mr Domino!
The Sentinel Returns
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee
Oddworld: Abe's Exxodus
Rollcage
Rollcage 2
Colony Wars III: Red Sun
Most of these acclaimed classics have no equivalent PS2 game... WipeOut Fusion is sufficiently different to the first three that it can't really be called the same game, and of course Oddworld Inhabitants are Bill's bitches now.
I also played Driver on PS2, until GTA3 came out, and played Silent Hill on it too. Looking forward to Driv3r...
I bought the GameCube partly for the ability to play the N64 Zelda games, which I had never played but had heard such wonderful things about. (And indeed, they are wonderful games.)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
On the PS2 we used the PS 1 games almost exclusively until decent PS2 games came out. I could never give up Super Puzzle Fighter 2 Turbo!
I plan on buying a Playstation 3. I won't buy Nintendo's next console unless they pull off a miracle as I've been burned by them too often in the past. I may buy the Nintendo DS but I'm waiting to see what the games are like when it comes out. I won't get the PSP because its going to be overpriced and have no battery life (feel free to disagree on that point -- I'll just say I told you so when it launches.) I won't buy the next X-Box for the reason listed above.
Why am I going with the Playstation 3? Simple. The Playstation library is the largest library around, the machines are backwards compatible, and if you wait long enough almost everything is ported to it anyway. The few X-Box and Nintendo exclusive titles worth playing I'll just live without. I have more fun playing with my kids anyway.
The main reason I could convice my wife to let me get a PS2 was that we could buy all those dirt-cheap PS1 games to play on it.
Only bad thing is when I played one of those games nearly to the end and then it froze I got told by tech-support that they couldn't do anything about it as it wasn't designed to do that, it was just an extra feature.
If you want to voice your opinion, saying Sony PS is better than MS Xbox, then tell all the little kiddies out there to hold out for a PS3. I think MS knows that they are going to gain some profit from the kiddie market just by pushing out a newer version, no matter how crappy it is.
I use my PS2 to play PS1 games more than twice per month, and if my nephew is spending any time at my house he will use it for PS1 games every day he's here. My favorite PS1 game is Crash Team Racing, the best cart game for the Sony platform. The RPG's made for the PS1 are better than anything else available... well until Fable (maybe)
-W
Everyone with an XBOX game already has an XBOX with 100% compatability. All this means is folks don't throw away their XBOX when they purchase an XBOX Next. That's probably not that huge a deal.
Sure, but you can't emulate a hard drive in ram (unless they're using flash ram, which I kinda doubt). I mean, you can during the game's run, but any game that uses the hard drive for persistence (most of them, I think) won't work on the new Xbox, even if CPU emulation was perfect.
Maybe they were planning some crazy networked filesystem (keep your data on xbox live or something) but that wouldn't be helpful for people who didn't want to pay xbox live fees...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It was widely believed, however, that Microsoft had retained a team of hardware emulation experts to work on the problem
I'm tired right now but correct me if I'm wrong. IBM is producing the chips for XBOX2 so most likely it will be POWER/PPC based. VirtualPC emulated Windows on the Macintosh platform. This does involve making system calls, but it also requires emulating an x86 processor. It is known that PPC emulates x86 better than x86 emulates PPC. Microsoft bought VirtualPC. That gave them the IP of VirtualPC which did a good and (I assume) effecient job of emulating x86. This does sound too much like tinfoil from my perspective. That means if XBOX 2 drops backwards compatibility then it must be for market purposes (nobody wants it or it would eat into later profits) or that the bungled something in the architecture, or that it is not remotely PPC based; take your pick.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
i haven't bought my PS2 yet, but, when I do the backwards-compatibility is certainly important
Whether this story turns out to be true or false, the overall impression I am getting is that MS is taking a step backwards with their next console. The original Xbox was the apitamy of console inovation (at least I thought so). In all the areas that the PS2 let us down, the Xbox came to the rescue; but not only did it have supiror graphics, it excelled in other ways first and foremost the inclusion of a hard disk. It's unfortunate that few games used it to their advantage, but its still a good idea. Xbox also fully supported Dolby Digital 5.1 and HDTV, and it came with a built in ethernet card (tripped up only by the fact that Xbox Live took 2 years to come out). Even the little controler cord break away thingies were pretty damn cool. I think the thing is so popular with hardcore gamers (other than the hacking potential) is because it packed so many good ideas in one box, which made it easier to ignore that the thing was from Microsoft and that it did not have the library that PS2 did.
But what of Xbox2, from the rumors at least, it seems nothing more than a box with better graphics. Where's the inovation? I have not heard any good new ideas. Granted I have not heard any from Sony or Nintendo either, but considering MS wants to release Xbox2 before Sony releases PS3, you'd think we'd be hearing somthing about the unit that is actully impressive.
Sadly, if it is just a box with better graphics, and its released before PS3, it will suffer the same fate as Dreamcast (which was a great console, better than the PS2 in my opinion). People will wait for PS3 because there will be no good reason to get an Xbox, especily since the PS3 will probably have the same or better graphics (as is the assumption with any console that is released later).
Microsoft has shown that they can innovate when faced with an uphill battle (browser wars), so I hold out hope that at least some of these rumors are wrong and Microsoft has a killer secret that we dont know of yet that will make the Xbox2 seem much more desierable.
the reason my cousin gave his old PS1 to my nieces and nephews was that he didn't need it anymore to play his PS1 games once he got his PS2. Several of my friends have their PS2 and play PS1 games on it. I love the backwards compatibility.
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
While not console exclusive,..... price of persia: sands of time, really are fantastic.
I'm thinking of getting this one.
Does anyone have a recommendation of PS2 vs PC for it?
Because we all know the disaster the SNES was without backwards compatability.
I had a PSX and a stack of games that got to be about one meter high. One of the key selling points for me with getting a PS2 was that I wasn't going to need to keep a PSX around to play the ones I hadn't finished (or just felt like playing again).
People who have lots of X-Box games aren't going to want to have to hope that four years from now when their original X-Box is long broken that they can find a working used one and toss cash into it. They would much rather just play old games on the new console.
KOTOR, and its upcoming sequel, are still going to be fun to go back and play a few years down the road, you know.
People who are cheap can still get a PSOne for about $79-$100
I'm hoping you live in Australia, otherwise you got robbed.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
If this turns out to be official it will be really sad. I was never a fan of the PS, so I didn't care when the PS2 came out. But my boss at the time got me excited about Xbox to where I was one of the crazy people to buy one on release day for an outrageous price. Problem is that now with me finishing college, I just don't have enough money to be able to buy a whole new console and new everything plus keep up with the original Xbox stuff. MS won't have the same kind of support for the Xbox 2 as they did for the original becuase most people will stick with what they have.
Out of the 10 gaming machines I own (not including PC). Only 2 are backwards compatable. GBA and PS2. So why is it such a surprise that the next Xbox may not be?
OK, I'll bite.
I own a PS2 and have never used the backwards compatibility features. Since I did not own a PSOne prior to the PS2, I do not have a large library of PS1 games lying around. Though I've occasionally thought of picking up one of the bargain bin PS1 games, I've never done so -- There are plenty of good PS2 games I haven't played, not to mention that I'd also need to pick up a PS1 mem card in order to play the older games.
I'm sure that there are people who had large libraries of PS1 games that they didn't part with, but does this really apply to XBox? The PS1 had a longer, more popular run than the XBox will have had. There are plenty of "classic" PS1 games worth owning (Final Fantasy series, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil), how many XBox Games fall into that category?
...the reason to avoid backward compatability is actually to accomodate a major change in archetecture which improves the quality of the games, I'm all for it.
If it is the coice between Dazzling Graphics and superior realism and gameplay, fine.
In other words, if it is the new hotness, dump the old-and-busted.
I am, however, not holding my breath
--QTone42
Gay or French? No, just Gay, thank you.
Fast foward to the present, and we've got three PS2 consoles (one per kid), no XBoxen, and prolly another $700 of PS2 games (plus the original $700 of PS1 games, many of which still get played regularly.
From time-to-time I've thought about getting an Xbox, mostly because of my pursuit of the "ideal home info-tainment device." But I can't reconcile the thought of just tossing-out $1,400 worth of games, and refuse to have a "stack" of game consoles next to each TV.--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
Granted, there are some games that don't work, but the vast majority do.
I have and Xbox and it plays Xbox games just fine. If I want to play the old games I will use the old Xbox. I want to play new games. When I finsih a game, I am usually done with it. I replay maybe 1% of games, 90% of the games I buy I finish (or get tired of) and sell.
When/if I buy and Xbox2, I want to play Xbox2 games on it. Period. I guess I am part of the 90%.
Changing the Xbox architecture is a necessity to make the venture profitable, and breaking compatability is an unfortunate side effect.
Unlike the PS2, the Xbox2 won't need binary compatability to have a large library of games at launch. They are still using a Windows/DirectX environment, so ports should be simple for any PC/Xbox developer to release for all three simultaneously.
For great justice.
Backwards compatibility was definitely one of my concerns in going from PS1 to PS2. Granted, the main reason I bought a PS2 was the Gran Turismo franchise, and will probably the only reason I would consider buying (if and when it comes out) a PS3...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Since it's so radically different in its design, what's the point of re-using the name of a console with which it's incompatible?
By completely ruling-out compatibility, don't they just eliminate all of the gain that association with the X-Box name gives them?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Now, if somebody can create a mod-chip for the PS2 to play XBox games... that would be the best of both worlds!
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
So I won't be able to run 007 Agent Under Fire?!?!
That game is kick ass...the graphics, the sound, the extras...all fantastic, um er...
Oh crap...nevermind... I've never played the game, I just use it to load Linux on my X-Box
TDz.
I, for one, definitely do this. I still have a half-dozen or so PS1 games that I have yet to play. It's nice not to have yet another console sitting under my television.
Genesis is backwards compatable with the SMS Powerbase add-on
SNES had "Innovation Super 8" which would let you play NES on SNES. Super Nintendo has Super Game Boy so thats kinda "sideways compatable". Same deal with GBA player on GameCube
Which is also along the lines of Colecovisions' Atari 2600 game converter.
Unless you were talking purely base hardware.
Atari 7800 was directly compatable with Atari 2600 games, except those which had proprietary chips in them (Pitfall 2 for example, IIRC) which were few and far between.
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Thank you everyone who has helped MS with this marketing survey. If you didn't realise that the "leak" was something intentionally floated by MS Marketing to determine what the impact on sales would be if they dropped backward compatability; consider yourself taken. Next time at least see if they will pay you for your participation in a marketing survey.
Right when they announced they would be using an IBM G5 chip I knew that there would be no backwards compatability and those who thought there might be are smoking crack. Like microsoft would emulate xbox1 games on the xbox2 showing people that emulating the xbox1(hardware and all) is possible. The only suggestion I have is cross your fingers and hope those open source xbox emulators break more ground and someone ports it to your xbox2 (probably have to be ported to MacOS X first to see if the hardware emulation will be any good).
i think they might also have chosen to skip backwards compadibility to force people who buy the xbox 2 to buy more xbox2 games...after all they lose money on each (xbox) unit they sell, and i assume the same will be true for the xbox2...so if they sell lots of xbox2's and no games for it, they will lose money overall.
When I purchased my PS2 many moons ago I only had 3 PS2 games and no money (I had to buy a bundle pack at the time) I played most of my PS1 games until I was able to get more PS2 titles. 10% seems about right because PS2 now has a large selection of titles so now there is not as much of a need for me to play my old PS1 games. I must admit I do still play FF7 on my PS2 once in a while. If the XBox2 is going to launch with a large selection of titles and one title is included in the purchase of an XBox2 (I have not seen that since the NES days) Then I would considering purchasing an XB2 even if it was not backward compatible but if not I will probably wait until they drop the price 3 or 4 times before I think about getting one.
my newphew comes over and brings his PS1 games to play on my PS2.
This isn't about backward-compatibility five years after a new console hits; it's about easing the transition from one platform to the next. By providing backward-compatibility for the PSX generation of games, Sony ensured that people who bought the PS2 could still play their PSX games on it until there were enough native PS2 games for it to obviate the old games. Sony used the PSX's huge game library as a springboard for the PS2. It was a great strategic move, both for Sony and for gamers.
I don't play many of my PSX titles today on my PS2. But i did when I got the PS2 and titles for it were thin on the ground. For the Xbox 2 to cut off the old generation of games from the new hardware is to force users to make a huge step--and investment--upward, which will have the effect of making gamers hold off on getting the Xbox 2 until the library of games for it has achieved critical mass.
This isn't totally new news, the change in architecture and video chips prevents backwards compatibility between the Xbox and the Xbox 2. People in the games industry have known about this for a while. With regard to the PS2 backward compatibility. I play PSone games on my PS2 all the time, backwards compatibility has a lot to do with building your platform, it's also a lot of the reason the GameBoy is so dominant, a brand new Game Boy Advance SP can play 15 year old black and white game boy games. And the Playstation 3 will likely have PSone and PS2 emulation built into it as well.
Personally, backwards compatibility on the PS2 meant buying it months earlier, as I otherwise would have been unwilling to drop FF IX midway. But the question is what portion of the X-Box 1 owners market who WOULD buy the new Box if it had compatibility WON'T if it doesn't. The fact is that early adoptors of consoles are willing to put up with high prices and forced bundling by retailers in the days when demand outpaces supply. (See the unopened extra PS2 controller and the copy of Star Wars: Starfighter I haven't touched since the week I got and finished it.) I don't think having to switch consoles to play the old games will be a big road block to selling the new console. And remember that, in a game company's eyes, selling a new game is making money, while encouraging me to play games I've already paid for (or worse bought used, with all the money going to the reseller) is squandering the limited gaming hours I might otherwise buy new games occupy. Maybe not the most consumer friendly decision, but then they ARE trying to make money....
You're right, it's not the endianess. The instruction code is different, I spoke without thinking the whole thing out.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?
I did for maybe 1-2months when i first bought my PS2 (playing tony hawk 2 for ps1), but after that I never played/bought any PS1 games..
The main benefit for me was not the backwards compatibility but the built in dvd player =)
After 6+ years of working for Microsoft, and dealing with their ever bloating operating systems, I have heard them say, for every new release, "We won't go backwards compatible for legacy hardware" or "we won't be BC for old programs". This decision changes about the 3rd quarter to release, and the testers are swamped with testing legacy hardware and old programs... By the time they ship, they are not BC with about 10% of what they once thought they would not be supporting. Don't worry, the consumer base is $$ to Micro$oft, and they will be BC with all old games...it will just take them 6 months before release to figure it out and kill their testers to get it tested...
--E--
You mentioned that you're on your second PS2; please tell me you didn't junk the first one because of "disk read errors". I was eventually unable to play nearly all of my games on the PS2 because of this problem. Popping the sucker open, cleaning the laser lens and dumping the dirt out of the CD tray solved the problem.
Given that there are almost 2 decent XBox-only games on the market, it's not that big of a deal. Right?
And just for the record, the 5200 had an add-on unit (with the graphics and I/O chips of a 2600), but it was incompatible with most of the early 4-port base units.
Also, for whoever said all of Atari's later units were backwards compatible, they forgot about the Jaguar, which wasn't backwards compatible with anything. But their 8-bit computer line maintained a lot of backward compatibility, if you don't count wierdnesses with the 1200.
As for the Super 8, I have a Tri-Star which is esentially the same thing. It's another case of a whole game system (including the CPU, apparently) that goes into a cartridge slot. The only thing it uses the base unit for is power and I/O (since the controller port was esentially the same between the NES and SNES, only with a different connector).
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
It's my theory that the XBOX is Microsoft's test platform for "secure computing". It only runs games, so nobody's going to be running mission-critical applications on it. If this is true, then the XBOX-2 would be a second attempt at a "secure" system, and backward compatibility is of little concern.
Do you care to speculate on this speculation?
This signature has Super Cow Powers
If 10% regarded backward compatability as a deal-breaker, MS may decide that it wasn't important for those 10%. However, the one thing I didn't see mentioned is the number of games purchased by the 10% that are "hard core" enough to care. Most game systems are bought by parents for kids, and they buy about one game a year. The profit is in the markup on the software. So, someone that buys 2 games a year or more is worth much more than the average buyer.
So, if those 10% are the same people that want the backward compatability because they are heavy game buyers, then MS shot themselves in the foot. If they buy games like the average buyer, then it isn't that big of a deal. My guess is that the people interested in backward compatability are interested in it for the sole reason that they have built up a library at a rate greater than the average user and will continue to do so, and that the effect on their sales (both system and software) will be greater than anticipated because of that.
Learn to love Alaska
There's nothing stopping you from keeping your original Xbox when the Xbox 2 comes out.
Use that to play your old games.
The Xbox isn't a Playstation. There aren't that many games, really (and only about 20 or so are GOOD), and backwards comptability isn't going to really expand it's game library that much.
My feeling about backwards comptability is this: If it costs almost nothing to add to the console (which was the case with the PS2), then great. But if it's going to take major re-engineering that will drive the price up...
Well, if the price is going to go up, I'd rather have it be because the console is being made more powerful. Not because of backwards compatability hacks.
The only original Xbox game that might be worth playing on an XB2 would be Halo. And even that game is overrated.
It's too expensive to add backwards compatibility to consoles IMO. If you want to play old games, just leave your xbox hooked up or wait until a good xbox emulator/translator is released for the PC.
Yes, if there were only 10% PS2 owners cared about backward compatibility, those 10% are surely the first ones buying PS2 thus, leaving both Nintendo, Sega, and Microsoft in the dust. Let's say that there are 10 Million PS2 Owners, statistically, PS3 is guarranteed to sell 1 million unit when it was released.....providing if SONY can produce enough of them. I still play my PSone games on the PS2.
I'd pay extra for a console that was not only backward compatible with it's previous version but also with other older consoles. I don't stop playing games just because they aren't the newest coolest thing out anymore. I play lots of PS1 and Dreamcast games and now and then even break out old favorites like Super Mario Brothers, Sonic, or even Atari classics. I have so many boxes plugged to my tv that I've actually popped the fuse for my living room by turning them all on at once.
;)
So in short.. I'm another of that 10% that likes consoles to be backward compatible.
If the PS3 would not only support PS1 and PS2 games but also Atari, Nintendo, Sega, games that'd definately cinche me buying one. Even if they only added an extra chip or two to the console to add that support and I had to buy all those old games on a PS3 compatible DVD or download them from the network to the PS3 harddrive. That sort of legacy support would be cheap and easy to add and I would be willing to pay extra for it. I'm sure Atari, Nintendo, Sega, etc could be talked into cutting a pretty good licensing deal for the rights too. They license the rights to Sony and then they can all put out their Classic Collections and make a profit selling to all us old people that remember those games with fondness.. and no code hacking required.
My #1 classic game wish? DOS games! Since it's difficult to get proper play on a moden PC from the old Commander Keen, Wolf 3D, etc games I'd love to be able to buy these on disk and just pop them in my PS3 and have them play like a console game. No changes to the game. No new artwork. Just emulate a standard PC hardware configuration from the decade required and load up FreeDOS and run the game. It couldn't be that hard to do. Make it so it can use cd-r's and put a tutorial on the Net for us gamers to make our our discs for games that are no longer available to buy.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If the X2 is not backwards compatable then M$ needs to demonstrate to gamers, even in their current user base, that there is some huge compelling reason to buy an X2 at all.
With PS1/PS2 the prior games base was a big soft cushion that gauranteed that if all else failed you already liked this system, but on top of that there was a serious upgrade to graphics and sound that came with it. For non-backwards-compatible consoles such as NES to SNES to N64 there were literally exponential increases in processing power which made up for a lack of compatability.
At this point in the console world we are hitting diminishing returns. The current generation is already extremely powerful, and one is left to wonder what the next gen has left to offer us. Short of Full Motion Video quality graphics, I'd argue there's not a whole hell of a lot.
We're probably not going to see some incredibly innovative and widely-enjoyed new form of control, or gameplay, or even game genre. Let's face it, you're gonna be playing Splinter Cell: Pandora Next Week Sometime, Halo 3, and Other Popular Game Part 2+ on your new X2, and even then w/o backwards compatability the game base will be tiny compared to what's already available for the Xbox.
First adopters can't be stopped, hell I'd think at this point they're a standard in the equation used to predict new console sales. Geeks will be geeks, a certain set of people will buy it cuz it's new. But after that people with an XBox/GC/PS2 are gonna be looking at $500+ to get the new system and 2 games, or they could spend half that and get 8 new titles for their still-damn-fine-quality systems.
For people that have no system at all - parents with kids just now old enough to want a gaming system, ppl with new spare income, whatever - the price difference between a new X2 system with no used games market, and an XBox at the new MSRP of $99 with 100 used titles available in the bin next to it, it's no question - the cheaper system still kicks more than enough ass to be worthwhile. (we're not counting spoiled kids who neeeeeeeed the newest toys, they all should be shot anyway if they only reason they need thing A over thing B is because Bobby next door has thing A)
The other point, made by many a poster already, is that of space. I friggin love Halo, I will worship Halo 2, and I will want to play both for a long time to come. But now you tell me I need to keep 2 cubic feet of space free in addition to the spot for the X2, oh and different controllers too you say? Even as a devoted XBox fan, I can't agree with this line of thinking at all. At every marketable point, in every way, an X2 that is not backwards compatible cannot possible shake up the console market and win this for M$.
So tell me, please, Microsoft; why the hell do I want your new machine?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Believe it when you see it in the stores or are holding an official MS press release.
People believe things that appear in official MS press releases?
In fact, backwards compatibility was one of the PS/2's selling points. I didn't want to have to buy yet another console in order to play some of the older games, like Jedi Power Battles or Metal Gear Solid.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Think about this for a minute. People saying "man, I bought plenty of ps1 games for my ps2" probably bought them at a used game store. So no licensee received any money. Killing backwards compatibility means people HAVE to buy games new, from licensees. This makes the game people more money and it makes Microsoft more money. All Microsoft has to do is recreate their success with Halo on some new game and the mindless masses will buy the system just to play it.
"According to a source close to the project, internal Microsoft figures suggest that only 10 per cent of PlayStation 2 purchasers were interested in the console's ability to play titles developed for the original PlayStation."
So let me get this straight if only 10% of PS2 owners wanted backwards compatability, that is what? 7 MILLION users!!! Count 'em, seven million. That is over 50% of the XBox userbase by numbers sold. That is nothing to sneeze at. I was a bit excited about XBOX2, since I thought it would have a chance by doing backwards compatability. But I think that Sony will have a XBox Live competitor on the PS3, if it does, I won't even consider an XBOX2.
You could probably emulate a Cray on an Atari 2600 if you had the time to waste.
I once had to write an emulator for a fictional RISC architecture on an Motorola 68080 processor. It's all about mapping the low-level instruction set (and hardware registers) from one architecture (the emulated) to multiple instructions on the other architecture (the emulator); typically as subroutines.
You then create a subroutine on the emulator that runs the fetch-decode-execute cycle for the emulated architecture. Your decode routine figures out which subroutine it needs to call for the particular execute statment it's decoded and then dispatches the call. Note that this is for a very simple emulator that doesn't attempt to provide any device support (eg. monitor, keyboard, mouse).
The original NES games {Zelda, Mario, etc...}, have recently been ported to the Gameboy SP. If they sell, then it can be taken as proof that people will buy old games for new systems. I've bought tetris for ps1, and several other platforms, for various reasons throughout the years.
I don't really care about the Xbox2 not being backwards compatible. I have an Xbox and when the Xbox2 comes out, I will have different games to play, and I don't need to waste my life anymore playing whatever god forsaken games I've already wasted countless hours of my life on. New consoles are released to allow new titles and new levels of gaming to be had. It's not to relish everything from the darkages so you can still play your resident evil 1, which was released about a decade ago. Move on
970 has dropped little endian mode. But that's OK because the thing that really helps x86 emulation is little endian addressing.
How can anyone seriously expect any backwards compatibility for Xbox2? The Xbox2 is rumored to be using a powerpc processor provided from IBM. There is no easy way to provide backwards compatibility on this new system outside of 32-bit x86 software emulation (very slow and not suitable for gaming on the powerpc chip set).
The Xbox retails for $149 dollars now. Even if you were to buy this system now, you would get plenty of enjoyment before having to pony up for the new Xbox. If you are a current Xbox owner with a large library of games, simply buy a new Xbox when the Xbox2 comes out and put it away in the closet in case your original system craps out.
I am sure that the pricing on the original Xbox will be below $99 at that time. The most important point here is to move on!
or any equally well written PS2 game. The level size is simply huge. You can easily keep 20 saves on a single card, or even more if the game isnt written with kitchen sink technology, at $10 per card.
I think MS is missing a big selling point not offering backwards compatibility. I think if they really went for it and offered a backwards compatibility that improved old games i.e. increased the resolution and frame rate of the games (perhaps adding the AA and higher AF too), it would really be a big selling point.
:)
Imagine a hi-res Halo 2 or Chronicles of Riddick at 60fps. It would be a big selling point for me anyway!
But since MS won't/can't licence nVidia's shaders I guess this backwards compatibility thing a moot point.
For the franchise gamer, backwards capability is a must. It isn't like everyone has a PS2 and a Gamecube to then play MSG: Twin Snakes. And the new Siphon Filter has been a while coming.
And when you get that new console, how many new games do you have? 2 maybe? Backwards capability allows you do build a catalog.
What is music when you despise all sound?
It raises doubt, which is a bad thing in the consumer appliance business.
:wq
It costs a lot of money to launch a new game console that only has handful of games available. If it is really powerfull and if they sell the hardware at a loss they can get the hard-core gamers onboard and build from there.
My questions is how do they explain why they are doing this twice? Is all they money they have lost on the original just a write off, a trial run for the console they really wanted to build?
I've been tempted to buy an XBox, but now I am glad I didn't. There is not enough room left in the closet where I keep my Sega Dreamcast.
It took a real world war to end the airplane's patent wars. - Fâché Rouge -
Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?
Yes, maybe two or more years ago. I never owned an original Playstation and liked some of the games (tony hawk 1 & 2, gran turismo 1 & 2, final fantasy 7 & 9 to name a few). I never owned a dvd player either. So when I bought my PS2, I got a 3-in-1 deal and it was well worth it. I never play any PS1 games anymore since i have about 25 PS2 games (Playstation2 titles are way better then Xbox IMO)
"Software is like sex: it's better when it's free."
They already did that on their Windows and Office products.
XBox is basically just a PC. So... Microsoft announces that because they "care" so much about the comments they're receiving about backward compatability that they're releasing something (software, hardware?) that makes it so you can play old XBox games on your PC. Of course they do this knowing it will make pirating XBox games much easier, but since they didn't make any money on the XBox they don't care, all they care about is that it will wipe out the market for "value gamers" who care about backward compatability, leaving XBox2 the only platform (for the time being) for new games that you can't just steal.
Again, just wild speculation from an anti-M$ nut
I was all hyped about my PS2 being able to play PS1 games...for about 2 days and then i never used it for PS1 again, whats the point when i have a perfectly good PS1 that runs the damn games better?
Not many know this, but backwards compatibility hurts the system in some ways, the PS2 for example only has 2 controller ports because the PS1 is the IO system, and it couldnt be changed to 4 without removing said compatibility.
How could that comment be Insightful?
If you don't own a PS1 or PS2 -- odds are you aren't in the target market they're selling to.
What does it matter if backwards compatibility makes it 'more likely' for you to buy a console, when you don't buy consoles?
Unless of course you're a nintendo/sega console fan... but in that case you just lend credence to the argument that backwards compatibility doesn't keep purchasers away from buying consoles.
I've got a PS1 and a PS2, and I use the backwards compatibility all the time. PS1 has some great games. Plus, I had a couple dozen games for PS1 when I bought a PS2--my daughter and I still love playing quite a few of them (not the least of which is Krash Karts).
The article says that Microsoft believes only 10% of PS2 owners were interested in older PS1 games. I don't doubt that. There is a big difference though: When you compare PS2 games to PS1 games, the PS2 games are usually a pretty big step up. XBox to XBox2 is not likely to be as big a leap, so there will still I think be plenty of interest in XBox games.
This is going to wind up being a terrible move for them, I absolutely believe that. Unless XBox2 has something revolutionary that makes people forget XBox 1, this is just going to alienate people, as the opinion at the end of the article says.
Leave it to Microsoft to actually have a good product and then royally shoot themselves in the foot.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I had a PS1 and a handful (20 or so) games for it... I traded it in at a local Gamestop towards a PS2 (I forget the deal they were running - $50-100, I think, not sure exactly). I kept my games, bought like one or two new PS2 games, and now had 22 games and a new system... Over time, I eventually stopped playing my PS1 games, and traded them in.
What backwards compatibility gives you is a method to upgrade over time, without having to shell out a ton of money for a new system and games simultaneously.
-T
A lot of people either traded in or sold their PS1 console to buy a shiny new PS2 console.
Not only did they get money back (or at least a discount) towards a new console, they already had a library of games to play while getting in on some early new console action.
This may not affect sales of the XboX2 in the long run. But a lot of gamers (including me) will wait for the 2nd or 3rd price drop to get a new XboX2. However, by then they may have invested too much in a PS3 and just skip MS.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
I personally own both a PS2, and an XBox. I bought the XBox solely for Halo, and eventually Halo 2. (I have since gotten a few other titles, but they were afterthoughts) The PS2 on the other hand in my main choice, even today. I am a huge fan of RPG games, I own virtually every game Squaresoft/Square-Enix has made since PS1. I can honestly say that while recently the majority of my playing time is spent playing the newer titles, I have put some serious time into my PS1 titles on the PS2. My library of games is about a 3:1 ratio of old games to new. In time, this will probably even out, but collecting a large library of good RPG titles takes a long period of time for any console.
The stupidity of your average American is just about the same as the average European, we simply show it off better.
The point isn't that you'll be able to store the data, it's what you do with it after the system is rebooted.
I'm assuming most xbox games use the hard drive for persistance (i.e. saved games), losing it would be a disaster for RPGs and the like.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yes, I've used backwards stuff. However, my PS2 was one of the original models, so it doesnt play things properly anymore, however I can still play Final Fantasy VII just fine, and thats all that matters...
This move by MS is really stupid. They're shooting themselves in the foot. Nintendo didn't exactly do this (N64 -> GameCube), but at least they have a sufficient market of games that people actually want to play. The only thing that Xbox really has going for it is perhaps Halo 2, it basically dropped out of the sky with no existing franchise of games to base itself upon.
If the PS2 did not have the backwards compatibility, it would have prevented a lot of people from purchasing it right off the bat. I almost ditched my PS1 instantaneously right after the first price drop. I play a lot of the older titles for PS1 on my PS2, with the PS2 games mixed in. I do miss my hardware Gameshark though.
I know what a ramdrive is. I also know they go bybye when power is lost. It's possible they might let people store their data on Xbox live servers, but it wouldn't work that well with older games. And people would have to pay to keep their saved games. Not something needed on older Xboxes.
The question isn't "can it be done" but rather "can it be done well enough to be a selling point."
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
History has shown us ESPECIALLY with the PS2 that backwards compatability does not bring in extra money for the company. Frequently those who plan to play the older games do so because they are cheep and still run on the older system. Those who do end up playing the PS games on a PS2 almost always either play the games they already have or ripped games. What does this mean? little to no return on investment for Sony. XBOX has pretty good protection as far as copy protection is concerned...don't flame me saying anything different because I do know what's possible with the XBOX and its DVD games. The XBOX is probably the most straight forward system developed to date :
DVD discs: as opposed to game cube's mini dvd's
Hard drive: as opposed to ps2's "interesting" hard drive addition
games that finally cross the barrier of consoles
The XBOX has crossed boundries before, especially with it's technology and low price for such a machines. They've already lost money in this venture, and I thank them for the days worth of play time that initial 200 dollar investment has provided.
As it stands we all know that the real money comes from the software sold for both computers and game consoles (liscensing and what not). So if XBox2 has backward compatability it will most likely become something that is similar to the PS2 backwards compatatbility and will not provide Microsoft with monitary gain....besides doing so would cost them money which we know they have already SHELLED out to produce both consoles in spite of low prices on the boxes.
My thought is that lack of backwards compatibility will kill them in the first 6 months. That's when the XBox Next's library will be thin. Backwards compatibility adds to the library. Someone who doesn't own an XBox will be looking at shelling out $300 for an XBox Next with maybe two or three games on it, or shelling out for an XBox or PS2 for half that with hundreds of games available. And if you have an XBox already, it means having to keep it around even after you've got the XBox Next so you can continue to play the games you already bought. Compare that to the PS3, which from all indications will play PS2 games nicely and let people upgrading to a PS3 sell their old PS2 for some cash and still keep their game library. Unless XBox Next has a really killer "Must Have!" game in the first 3-4 months of it's life, it's going to kind of hang around as another Sega Dreamcast as people stick with the consoles with more games available and wait for the PS3.
YES! In fact, I have used it for several games, for the following reasons:
- It just flat out took me a long time to finish the game (Final Fantasy series, MGS VR Missions), because I got distracted with other games/work/bright lights
- The game has a fun head-to-head mode (Soul Blade, Syphon Filter II)
- The game is fun to play more than once (MGS, Syphon Filter)
- I keep the game around for nostalgic purposes (Doom, Warhawk, Original demo disks)
- The game is only available for the PSOne (Final Fantasy IV-VIII)
It's good to be able to sell the old hardware, but keep the games you like to play for use with the new hardware.BTW, the PS2 can speed up disk access and perform smoothing on some PS1 games, which is kind of neat.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
I use my backwards compatability every day. PS1 games play fine in the PS2, why do I need to hook up the PS1?
As for the xBox, well, lets see.
1. XBox-1 comfortably seats 7.
2. XBox-2, going by the American "bigger means better", will comfortably seat at least 9.
3. Putting the two next to each other will probably cause a small black hole to form in my living room.
Since singularities tend to disrupt the gaming process, I need to give this idea a big thumbs down.
Well I have. If for nothing else than Metal Gear Solid. Even the dated graphics can't reduce the appeal of this modern classic.
Or, in other words, Microsoft (or rather, the prevailing faction Joel called the MSDN camp) just really doesn't quite get the idea of "backward compatibility". So, if it's correct to infer that the current evidence implies that the market is saturating, then Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot badly.
Of course, some of the market for XBox2 will be for newcomers: while Mumsy and Dadzy may not be willing to by an X-unit for Junior at age 10, they may be more willing (or more tired of the whining) by age 15-- and Junior may have gotten a larger allowance. On the other hand, not all Xbox purchasers are in the teen demographic.
There may be some interesting conceptual connections to M$/RIAA/MPAA attitudes on intellectual property law-- no, you can't play PacMan/Shreck/Bethoven's Fifth for your unit N on your Unit N+1, you have to buy A WHOLE NEW COPY! And for EVERY OTHER THING you have a copy of! Wheee! This, however, is not likely to make consumers with stagnant disposable incomes enraptured of the platform. (Especially given the outsourcing impact of globablization on that disposable income.) Built in obsolescene is one thing; this, however, has the potential for going way too far way too fast.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
What's the point of all this? This point of all this is that the leap from PS1 to PS2 was so great that I could see people making that jump even with out backwards compatibility. The leap from XBox to XBox2 isn't going to be that great to the average gamer. Therefore, how many kids or adults with XBoxes are honestly going to look at games like KOTOR, Madden, etc. and say to themselves that the current XBox just isn't cutting it and that they NEED an XBox2? I know I won't. I don't know who will.
Oh look, there are a few more polygons, time to upgrade. I don't think so. The XBox as it currently stands now is great. So unless they plan on maintaining two systems, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot big time. I don't think the desire to upgrade will be THAT great.
I've PS2 also and I've played exactly zero PS1 games with it. When I change to another console, I'll sell my PS2 and all the games I own for that so that I don't have to fork that much / any more money for the next console and a few games. I don't know about you guys but as long as games cost way over 50 bucks it really doesn't matter if the box costs 150 or 250 bucks -- it's only a bit more than one game!
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
Nintendo did the same thing release after release... i dont really thing it'll matter that much
Come on. If you have an XBox already it can still play old Xbox games. If you buy a new XBox2 you still have your old XBox to play the old Xbox Games.
In reality is this really an issue?
Bet this
Microsoft always SAY things won't be backwards compatable, but rest assured they'll backport XBox 2 games to Xbox just like .Net ...Oh wait...
May the Maths Be with you!
Give me a break! Of course there will always be exceptions, but how many people honestly care that much about backwards compatibility? Sure, it's nice to have but it is almost never a deciding factor - after all, if you just wanted to play the original games you would buy the original(old) system. And, if you were not interested enough in the original system's games to buy the old system, why whould you pay more for a newer system - you wouldn't! - unless the primary reason to get the system is to play the new games .
Hell, I own all 3 systems. I've used the backwards compatibility of the ps2 since I never owned a PS and was curious about a couple older games (such as wildguns), but it never played a determining factor, in whether I would get the system.
MS is looking at the big picture-yes they may ptentially lose some users (come on, though, does anybody really expect it to even amount a million users). But, they are looking at trying to gain several times (like 10x to 100x) what they would lose. Remember, there is a fairly large opportunity cost associated with retaining backwaqrds compatibility when you consider how much the hardware has changed (change of processor family, graphics card brand, and possible exclusion of hard drive).
I understand the technical reasons why Microsoft are in this situation - they changed the CPU, the system architecture and the video card architecture. The problem is, consumers don't give a crap about any of that stuff. They care about playing good fun games, and price.
The Xbox 2 will launch with one or two good games, and a small bunch of other below-average games. At this stage, with backward compatibility, X1 users would sell their X1 to get some cash, and buy an X2. They could play the one good new game, and all their old X1 games. Without backward compatibility... well, most X1 owners of reasonable means and intelligence stick to playing their X1.
As X2 development continues, X1 games drop in price, which is another reason for current X1 owners to not buy an X2.
When I got my PS2, I kind of had PS compatability in mind. Of course, I have a friend with tons of PS games, and I liked being able to borrow them, as I have on numerous occasions.
As for Xbox, if you can't play Halo or Crimson Skies on the 'next generation xbox,' then Microshaft can go hang.
Give me backwards compatability or give me... er... Well, something worthwhile!
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
... in backward compatibility (ie: the technical side) isn't the real issue here.
Gamers recurring to old games instead of new games, is! (ie: buying power)
Let me explain, up until very recently my ps1 game collection was bigger than all other current generation collections together (ps2,gc,pc). I bought my last ps1 game a scant 3 months ago... yup, at the bargain bin! I wonder how many games I 've let pass thinking that a ps1 $10 buck game would be a wiser choice... and by the time I finish taht ps1 game maybe the ps2 game will reach the bargain bin too...
What microsft doesnt want is gamers going through the bargain bin of Halo... err I mean Xbox games instead of buying NEW (read full price) games...
What they are saying to me essentially is this: "Buy the X-Box and it's games now, or you won't have another chance to play those games."
I hope I made some sense... and I have decided that the living room will reamin X-Box free...
I wish I could filter out the annoying Pickens articles...
If microsoft wants my advice, i'd say the one place they should look is Itanium. By not running the old 32-bit apps they alienated their customers and broke compatibility. AMD comes out years later with a dual mode chip that does both, and now intel look like fools, when they INVENTED the damn x86 architecture in the first place.
breaking compatibility alienates your current customers, and they are by far the ones most likely to buy your new stuff. If they break compatibility they better have a game as ground-breaking as Halo to be a system-seller for the xbox2 or they will lose the whole market to the PS3. Microsoft is clearly becoming soft and complacent from being too used to their desktop monopoly if they think they can get away with just doing whatever they please in the gaming market.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
What if the Xbox2 could be had for less than $150? The rumors say it's going to run on a PowerPC and have no hard drive. That sounds a lot like a GameCube to me. Throwing away all the PC crap in the X1 might allow them to drop the cost drastically. It might also simplify development, making the platform slightly more attractive to console game writers. Obviously this is pure speculation, but maybe the gambit they're making is that they can come out with something which is the cheapest, most beautiful, and easiest to develop for, and that more games will be ported to it if it's that accessible.
Or they could just be stupid.
when the previous system breaks.
that's it. Sony needs to have backwards compatibility, because they make bad hardware. Nintendo has never had it in their home consoles, because their systems don't break.
Otherwise, backwards compatibility only serves to drive the price up.
Mobile systems are different, because asking a consumer to carry 3 systems hurts the mobile aspect.
The features they end up adding (whether it's to MS Office or Windows or whatever) often seem more closely aligned with what THEY want than what consumers want.
I wonder if they're scared of the original Xbox games being more popular than the new games. They look at the worst case scenario: People will buy an Xbox 2 (and they'll lose money on each sale) and then buy and sell older games used rather than try out the new titles.
Therefore, in this mindset, adding backwards compatibility is a way to enable (what they call) pirates to buy the system and not buy new games, in the same way that they view as pirates those who buy the current system just for emulation or for running Linux.
"No, no. Our customers have been BEGGING for us to try and keep Java, Netscape, Linux, and Apple from succeeding. They call us up and say: 'I'm worried I might accidentally mod my Xbox to emulate NES games and the thought of that sickens us! We have too many choices! Please, do something about this!' So you see, it's a feature."
Alex.
it's whether the user thinks they're going to play them that matters.
The question should be, of the early buyers of the PS2, how many were influenced by backward compatibility, not, of all PS2 owners, how many value backward compatibility. The more recent buyers probably don't value it at all.
Anyone tried installing Windows XP on Pentium 70 Mhtz with 32 MB of RAM and 200 MB harddrive? I didn't think so. :)
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
I never got a PS2... but if I did, I sure would have used it, if not for the games, but definatly for the controllers and other PS1 accessories that I bought.
In the end, it would have saved me cash since I wouldn't have to buy 4 new controllers and 4 way adaptor.
In a written statement issued today, a Micro$oft spokesperson said:
"Our enhanced XBox2 platform will bring gaming to a new generation with outstanding graphics, unrivaled technology and performance while also appealing to existing gamers wishing to protect their investment in legacy games from other platforms through our licencing of the IBM PS2 MCA architecture [Ed: Check this out - shouldn't that be something to do with 'Sony'?]
AT&ROFLMAO
Go ask any Xbox fan to name off their top 5 Xbox games. Almost everybody will name Halo. Halo came out in 2001 and people still play it very frequently in 2004. Halo 2 will probably be more popular than Halo. If one of the biggest games for the Xbox (for many, the only selling point) will not work on the Xbox:Next, what reason do people have to purchase another system? This lack of compatability will end up hurting both the Xbox:Next and Halo 2.
You have the consoles listed with their respective company names. If you spent a microsecond of thought on that you'd realize of course those don't count as part of the console's name and the console's names are entirely unrelated.
..... a relation of some sort?
The list is really:
Entertainment System (Family Computer)
Super Entertainment System
64
GameCube
CD
Saturn
Dreamcast
Just like how we don't include the company name when referring to them casually, except when it helps the acronym. So yes, different name, different console, different games (i.e. DIFFERENT).
This is unlike:
Playstation
Playstation 2
XBox
XBox Next
where the names are obviously "built-off" one another, maybe even an "upgraded" versionpossibly indicating
So there.
I have to agree with many posters that the backwards compatability in the PS2 was a rampant success. I'm not sure where Microsoft get's it's numbers from, but I doubt their accuracy.
The bottom line is that, if you have a number of games on System A1, and you want to buy System A2. you're looking for a couple of features:
People are notorious for wanting things when asked, but never following through. Case in point-- a prominent company did a survey of which color people would buy for their portable stereo. Most said the new orange color, but when offered one on the way out, almost all of them chose the tradtional black color.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Your conclusion is pretty lousy in that in all the systems you listed, the big winner is in fact the one that has backward compatibility. Out of all the Nintendo systems you listed, each successive system has been less and less successful commercially. I also wonder why you neglected to list Sega's Saturn and Dreamcast consoles or maybe those did so awful you forgot they existed? Again, failed systems that were not backward compatible.
Hmmm!
Nintendo is the only console make that can get away with building a new box that is not compatible with the last generation games. But yet they maintained compatibility whith CBG when they released GBA.
I didn't and won't buy a new platform that requires me to lose my investment in the title's I've already purchased. Count me in the 10% Though I never bought a PSOne it is very important to me and my kids to be able to play the cheaper and older titles on the PSTwo.
I didn't invite the Nintedo64 into my house, but since it's here, it serves to remind me why I don't have a Nintendo GameCube. Not only does that box leave out the DVD player (a requirement I would think for any console today) but there was no potential for playing N64 games.
So the gamnecube still comes not into my house.
As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC
Having never owned a PS1, i was over joyed to find FF7 for $20 down at the local EB
Backward compatability is awesome beacuse, quite frankly, with my NES, SNES, n64, and PS2, i am running out of space and outlets around my tv
And some people might say 'ditch the old systems' but I can tell you that, on more then one occasion, my buddies and i have consumed a case of beer and a friday evening reveling in the glory of blades of steel and no newfangledshinyassxbox2 is going to convince me that it isn't an awesome game
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
Have you tried tweaking the laser pickup on the drive? The early PS2s are known to slip out of alignment, making it harder for them to read certain types of discs. I don't know if PS1 games are one of the problem formats or not, though...
The tv show X-Play on TechTV had a segment on cracking open your PS2 to adjust the laser, but I think their web article on the subject got lost in the G4 merger (like averything else). You can probably still find instructions elsewhere on the web.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The real reason for the purchase was to go up against VMWare in the server consolidation arena.
On the other hand, the same company also produced a good commercial PS1 emulator, so hang on to your tinfoil hat.
It seems to me Microsoft could do the same thing for the Nvidia emulation rights they did for DVD playback. The only reason Xboxs don't play DVDs out of the box is because that requires a license fee to the DVD consortium per unit and they wanted the avoid that to keep console cost down.
Thus you had the Xbox "DVD playback kit", the cost of which included said licensing fee. I would think that if the money was right Microsoft could work out a deal with Nvidia that allows emulation(or perhaps even the inclusion of the original chipset) in a "kit" that plugs somewhere into the new unit.
That said, I believe some games(notably Halo and Ninja Gaiden) used a Gig of the hardrive as a memory cache. Micorsoft has a deal with M-Systems to build solid state hardrive-like storage. You might need a kit and one of these plug in drives for backwards compatibility, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like this. I'd be buying one of these drives in the 40Gb range anyways for custom soundtracks, downloadable content, and holding my Xbox1 saves.
WTF? You're getting away with this on /.? Take a look at Windows XP. You can run programs from 9 years ago (Windows 95) on that system! Compatibility is a key part of the Windows business.
Having said that, we know that MS love to botch backwards compatibility for some apps (such as competing word processors...ahem). It comes down to this: MS are a past master at the compatibility game. If there are architectural reasons to break with Xbox 1 they will surely sweeten the deal for their favoured development partners - with the ultimate aim of cornering the console market, of course.
Play with MS, get burnt.
Absolutely. Some games on the PS1 are fun enough to go back to when I finish a newer game and don't have any new ones that I want yet. My original Playstation no longer works, but I still check out games I never got around to and replay classics that I enjoyed -- trying to crack that last secret or beat my last high score. Sometimes I'll even pick up games for under $20 that I wasn't willing to fork over $40-50 originally when they were released for the Playstation, and enjoy them without feeling like they aren't worth the money.
That backwards compatibility also made it possible to find games to play in the early days of the PS2s release - until the volume of PS2 games increased to a reasonable level. I would not have purchased my PS2 on release day otherwise -- since few consoles have more than a dozen titles in the early days.
If Microsoft chooses not to offer backwards compatibility, it will not be a surprise. Nintendo and Sega didn't. Microsoft's pc games have pretty high system requirements that prevent them being played on earlier computers. So, why would we expect the Xbox to be any different.
Personally, I think their intro price may be more critical than whether they have backwards compatibility. Also, if they have higher quality on the release games and a larger quantity of soon-after-release games than the Xbox had, it may not matter as much. But if they only have one good game at launch and trickle out only a few games over the year, not many people will be willing to fork over the price of six or more Xbox games on a next gen console. It's the games that sell the console.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Everyone keeps assuming the PS3 will have backwards compatibility, but that's by no means a done deal. The PS3 will be a much more significant hardware modification than the PS2, I wouldn't be surprised is Sony just gave up on it and released a newer, smaller PSTwo (just like the little white PSOne) that everyone can play their games on. They can do it, they're the market leader.
There's a reason why we see PS1 games still on the shelfs at stores like Bestbuy, while we don't see Dreamcast, Saturn, etc. There are a legion of casual gamers out there that are happy with PS1 games. PS2 backwards compability increased the shlef-life of PS1 games immensely, just the same way PS3 should increase the shelflife of PS2 games. That benefits both the developer and consumer.
Personally, when I have to decide to buy a cross-platform game that is on all three systems, I always choose the PS2 even though the XB or GC may have better graphics. The reason is quite simple, that's because I know that if I invest in this game that I will be able to play it 5+ years later on the PS3(maybe even PS4).
Having backwards compatibiliy may not help the Xbox Next immensly, however it should be incredibily important to the original Xbox's games. There are so many people that still buy and play Halo, and Halo2 will only be out ~1year before the XB Next is out and I'm sure ppl will continue to play that game for years to come. But perhaps to MS, XB games won't be very important, nor worth the investment, when XB Next comes out.
Err and this is a detriment to Microsoft how? You really think people are going to say "Don't buy Xbox2, they charge you to save your games"?
Or that Microsoft, like Blizzard's Diablo 2, could allow the save games go on the server, just to prevent cheating, but are still free?
I'm not saying you're not raising a valid point, but I doubt it will be said loudly enough for the lack of HDD to become a non-selling point for Xbox2 except for people who wouldn't buy an Xbox 2 anyways. (I'm sure you could find people who wouldn't buy one, short of being paid to own one.)
Not having the capability inside the box, means Microsoft can always change their minds too, as in "The first megabyte is free, then it's one tenth of a cent per byte." Especially since they control the size of each save game.
...the time I bought a Macintosh LC because it had an Apple ][ co-processor card. I used it the first week or so, then six months later realized I'd completely left the Apple ][ behind.
And like the time I made three partitions on my box when I loaded Mac OS X 10.0 (one for OS X, one for OS 9, and one for LinuxPPC). Once again, six months down the road, I realized that I didn't use Linux anymore, now that I could do it all in OS X. Then, maybe a few more months went by, I realized that I'd moved pasty any Classic apps I used to use and no longer needed OS 9.
Backward compatibility is a safety blanket. You think you needed, but then you realize down the road that it wasn't really necessary.
That said, I really hope Xbox NeXT is backward compatible. heheheh
Before you judge and insist that Microsoft is only doing this to screw everyone over just sit back and remember what Hellish kludges that Sony had to do in order to get PS2 to be backwards compatible. What Sony did was take the original PS1 CPU, which was custom and proprietary, and hodge-podge it into the I/O SPU of the PS2. Doing such increased the cost and complexity of the system.
Now granted Sony, having designed both chips was in a better position to pull this kind of crap off. However Microsoft is talking about going from Intel IA32 x86 with an nVidia chipset to IBM Power4 with an ATI chipset. Short of releasing the XBox2 as two physically separate machines in the same box I don't see how they could pull that off. The CPUs speak completely different byte encoding.
It would take a feat of magic to get the two to work together in a seamless fashion in a small box for $300 or less.
My mother doesn't know that there is a difference between playstation and PS2, so she keeps buying me Playstation games. Thanks to mother, I do use the backwards compatibility in my PS2.
Yep, more than half of the games played on the PS2 we have are PS1 games.
Shrug.
I wouldn't buy anything from M$ if it were the last thing on earth left to buy, so a moot point as far as I care.
Later all
First of all as the parent thread states if you OWN gen1 games you probably own a gen1 consol.
Not if guests come over. My aunt, whose family had replaced a broken PS1 with a PS2, can hold dance parties only because I have DDR Konamix (for PS1) and a pair of dance pads.
Asking whether or not people use the feature is a good idea. The answer from me and most people I know is: HELL YES.
The PS1 had awesome games for its time and when PS2 came out, the big questions was whether it was backwards compatible. Would all those hundreds of dollars(thousands, in some cases) of games be playable?
Backwards compatibility ensures that you get to keep your customer base and grow it.
If you made each new platform a well... new platform, you are basically rebuilding your base over and over again.
That is stupid from a business perspective and a social one. You increase your marketting overhead and get less and less gain from each iteration of your platform because forcing people to buy new games with each new platform increases the cost of owning that platform.
A $150 PS2 can play just about all PS1(hundreds ) games and all PS2 games.
The xbox2 is going to be able to play _just_ xbox2 games, huh?
That, my friend, is lame. Literally, figuratively, and conceptually.
This is the reason why I will remain a loyal Sony game console supporter. Because they actually make decisions with long term goals in mind.
Winged Power Photography
Perhaps not offering backwards compatability is the reason that they are pushing for a much early release than the PS3. With a year or two of game development the XBOX2 should have a very good game selection by the time the PS3 comes out.
The console is general sold near price or even at a loss in order to make money off the far more lucrative games.
Though the PS2 console itself was sold at cost around launch time, Sony still makes money on every sale of a PS1 game or Columbia TriStar DVD video that you put into a PS2 console.
While it's true that people who have Xbox games will likely have an Xbox, how will Microsoft expect to gain any *new* converts if they don't at least offer backwards compatibility. I dropped out of the console wars when the 64bit systems started coming out, and only recently (a year ago) got back in. All of the consoles were the same price, with the Gamecube about 50 bucks cheaper (Canadian, eh!), so it came down to games. Even if the PS2 had come out at the exact same time as the Xbox and Gamecube, it still would have a huge library of games. At the time, all Xbox really had in it's future was Halo... at 70 bucks. Gamecube really didn't have games aimed at me, they were aiming at kids and at best, teens. PS2, on the other hand, had 20 dollar PS1 games, and 30 dollar PS2 games (Greatest Hits). Guess which one won out? PS2, hands down. Xbox 2 will have no chance at gaining me as a convert if it doesn't have backwards compatibility. I ain't waiting for a year for good games (good=fun). Buying an Xbox2 with no good games is like buying the BMW with no tires, gas, seats or windows.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
Atari 2600: First gen.
The Atari series had lots of backwards compatibility throughout the years. Even Atari's competitors were backwards compatible to Atari - Coleco and Intellivision. This is obvious and strong historical evidence.
NES: First gen.
SNES: Planned to be backward compatible, not implemented in release.
N64: Not backward compatible.
Gamecube: Not backward compatible.
The Super Famicom was backwards compatible to the Famicom. The Super Nintendo was supposed to be backwards compatible but wasn't and this was widely considered bad by everybody at the time.
The N64 and Gamecude have not been backwards compatible, but the SNES was Nintendo's last king of the home console. This is more evidence.
SMS: First gen.
Genesis: Not backward compatible.
Saturn: Not backward compatible.
Dreamcast: Not backward compatible.
The Sega Master System was just a revamped Sega Mark III which was infact backwards compatible to the Mark I and II softwares.
The Sega Genesis had an adaptor to play the Master system games. The Genesis was also updated by the Sega CD and the 32X (US). The Saturn came out (US) on the heels of the 32x but without backwards compatibility and the Saturn failed in the US. (There are many other good reasons like the fact that Sega of America was completely out of touch with video games in general and later all fired)
The Dreamcast had no backwards compatiblity, and was released too soon - it has failed worldwide in a similar way the Saturn failed in America.
Neo Geo: First (and only) gen.
Jaguar: Not backward compatible.
The cartridge Neo Geo was followed by a less effective CD based system , ditching cartridges due to cost, that failed terribly.
The Jaguar had nothing to be compatible to? The system before the Jaguar, The Panther, was never released.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
If adding BC in ANY way compromises the superiority of the next Xbox, then I vote no. MS should focus exclusively on developing simply the best gaming console (again).
http://www.techyrants.com
except a handheld is *by definition* not a console
By whose definition? I couldn't find any clear distinction between TV-top video game systems and handheld video game systems in this dictionary.
Sure its a very small percentage of people that will use the backward compatibility cuz we will all want to be playing the xbox2 version of all the games that we play today. that being said what's the big deal of spending a few 100k on programming an emulator in the context of a 100s of millions dollar system launch? You could have guaranteed compatibility with a few of the top xbox games at first(ie halo 2), If people are doing this sort of thing forfun I am sure you could get something done for a relatively small cost relative to the consoles launch.
The main difference between Sony and Microsoft is that Microsoft doesn't make its crucial components of the hardware.
This is, I believe, the main reason for Microsoft's eventual failure in this market. They're very successful with "we do the software, let others do the hardware" model in both the PC and mobile (pocket pc). The rules of the game change considerably in the console market.
Compatibility was not a problem for Sony, for instance. They just put the old chip on PS2 and also gave it a side function in non-emulation mode.
Microsoft, OTOH, can either be incompatible between releases or find itself at the mercy of CPU/video card manufacturers. They opted for the former, but it might just as well be a bad idea in the long run.
The Raven
The Turbo graphics / Duo were.
The Turbo Duo was a TurboGrafx 16 plus a TG CD accessory in one housing. Calling it a "new console" is like calling the Genesis CDX a "new console".
I own an Xbox, I don't own a PS2... however I HAVE both (and most other systems you can think of) between me and my roommates. We play all of them. I don't particularly favor any one over the others, they all have their ups and downs.
About the backwards compatibility thing, I would guess that 90% of the 10% of PS2 people that cared about backwards compatibility probably already owned a PS1. I mean if I didn't have a PS1, I wouldn't buy a PS2 and then go out and buy PS1 games...
Following that logic, chances are the only people that care about backwards compatibility in the Xbox Next already own an Xbox. Also, chances are if people are happy with their Xbox they'll buy an Xbox2 - if they're not, they wont... backwards compatible or not.
The only real reason I'm hoping for backwards compatibility in the Xbox Next is because my Xbox is so beat up and used that it's becoming more and more flakey. And for Halo 2, which if it's anything like Halo 1 I'll be wanting to play it for a long long time. Also Rallisport Challenge 2.
Ehhhhhh.........
I farted
I use my PS2 only for Final Fantasy series. All other games are inferior in graphics to XBOX. Believe, I have FFVII,FFTactics, running on my XBOX, but the gameplay sucks so bad, I really had to go buy PS2. I did love Tekken and GT3, but they are old now. Final Fantasy never gets old.
I also have Gamecube.For Gamecube I buy family and party games. (exception: Zelda WW, and Eternal Darkness). Note that, Gamecube has no previous version, yet the most popular games (Mario Party 5, for example) have Mario and all the other Nintendo Characters. What characters and/or trademark games does XBOX have? I can think of only HALO, and I really think that now (not when HALO came out) there are better games around..
XBOX is by far the best console in the market. Not the XBOX you see on the store, but the XBOX you create yourself. You put in modchip and a bigger hard-drive and you are ready to go. I only have couple of pure XBOX-games, but it plays games from NES, SNES,PLAYSTATION and other consoles. Besides, you can get port of Quake, Doom and stuff if you have the original media.
XBOX world is filled with movies, emulators and old good games, and XBOX-games aren't bad either =) . But this is all something, Microsoft is about to drop in their next-gen console.
The SMS used a Z80, while the Genesis used a Motorola 68000.
The Genesis had two CPUs running in parallel: a 68000 and a Z80. Its graphics chip had a Sega Master System back-compat mode, and an SMS compatible sound chip ran in parallel with the Genesis's new Yamaha FM chip. The Power Base Converter just used this built-in SMS circuitry along with some minimal glue logic to translate cartridge bus protocols.
Plus the Game Gear was essentially a miniaturized SMS, and an adapter quickly became available.
The Power Base Converter was a stripped-down SMS that plugged into the Genesis' cart slot.
You're thinking of Super Game Boy, which just ran video, audio, and joypad through the Super NES.
Virtual PC was recently added to the list of software bought out by Microsoft. For those of you don't know, it emulates an x86 machine. Currently there is no hardware acceleration support, but the new version coming out I think at the end of the year will have this feature. The Xbox 2 has a processor similar to the Powermac G5....
What does this mean?
I would assume that this means they bought out the technology not only to be able to sell it to Mac users themselves, but also to use it for the Xbox 2 to emulate old games since the first Xbox uses a PC processor.
When I downloaded DosEmu (as an RPM), I got out all of the DOS CD and disks that I had that could still be read. Tomb Raider ran just fine.
A Genesis boot up in SMS mode when it starts. All Genesis ROMs switch it over to Genesis mode at start. You just needed an adaptor to plug the carts in. A MD version of Phantasy Star was released, but it was really just a SMS cart in a Genesis casing.
Game Gear could play SMS, too. Phantasy Star anywhere! (For five hours)
SNES
Super Game Boy.
SMS: First gen.
Genesis: Not backward compatible.
As others have pointed out, it appears you never owned a Power Base Converter, which plugged into the Genesis and had a slot for Sega Master System, much like Super Game Boy or 32X. You also missed the following:
One reason in particular for PS2: FINAL FANTASY VII - still the greatest Final Fantasy of all time. Also all of the other Final Fantasy's including Anthology and Collections (for those nostalgic periods in your life). Also, do you ever feel like just popping in some GTA - I don't mean 3 or Vice City or whatever the new one is, although those are fun, it still can't beat the classic for originality.
Now on to the subject of XBox. Halo 2 will be shipping by November the 8th I believe. Then Microsoft will be releasing the XBox 2 probably within the following year and a half. It going to really piss me off If I have to drag my entire XBox setup with me to a friends house to play Halo 2 just because all he has is an XBox 2!!!
So for those who haven't gotten the message, yes, backwards-compatability is important. In fact, it is extremely important. If you need more proof, just look at how popular the GameBoy line is and has been.
I know of one 2600 game that was effectively impossible to play on a 7800: Space Shuttle. The problem was a hardware one, though, not software. Space Shuttle was so horrendously complex that they needed to remap both of the difficulty switches, the select switch, and the color/b&w switch to perform in-game functions. The problem is that the 7800 replaced the color/b&w toggle with the pause button. The pause button sent the exact same signal as the color/b&w button (Try it! Put something older like Combat or Space Invaders into a 7800 and press Pause; the game switches to black-and-white); the way it worked, though, was to continuously send a "color" signal except when the button was depressed; it then switched to "black-and-white" until the button was released, at which point it reverted to "color" again.
In order to play Space Shuttle on a 7800, then, there would be points in the game when you'd be required to hold down the pause button for minutes at a time. Unless you had a patient assistant to do this for you, though, you were doomed to lose; there were just too many other controls you had to manipulate to keep a finger thus occupied.
And yet, you have a GameCube, even though it wasn't backwards compatible with N64, which wasn't compatible with SNES, which wasn't compatible with NES..
Backwards compatibility is nice, but not if it compromises the new features of the machine.
Will the market dominance of Nintendo ever end??
There were a lot of disgruntled PS2 early adopters who found its low-res graphics (an artifact from PSX days) to be less-than-impressive.
The PS2 has a PSX on a chip inside it. That's how it maintains backwards compatibility. The reason the PS2's early games sucked is because of the steep learning curve associated with developing games for it (it was completely different from PSX). Developers just didn't know all the tricks yet. There was no watering down to ensure compatibility.
The newest hot hyped game will sell the console, and Microsoft has the money to make it happen. Halo was going to appear on the Mac first. It might have changed the face of computing as hard core gamers plunked down thousands on new Power Macs just to play Halo. So, Microsoft bought Budgie and in that single move made the X-box a success. The hot new game makes all the sales. Backwards compatability is just "value added" and Microsoft can do without it. Look, Alienware and Falcon wouldn't even be companies if this were not true. If it weren't for games and machismo, there wouldn't be a need for a processor over 1500 MHz except in the digital arts and database/server market. You sure don't need it for Word or the Internet.
Microsoft can throw enough money at X-box 2 that enough people will buy it, that people will want to develop for it and pay Microsoft a licensing for it.
Obviously they will make MORE money if they don't have redesign the whole box every time,but, it's early in the game for them, and they are just chaning their bets on the dominate hardware for the next few years. Seems like they are betting on the PPC and ATI. I'd bet real money that this X-Box will sell.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
With the GBA player (which I have/love) you can play gameboy and gameboy advance games.
Almost. A couple Game Boy titles such as Workboy required a device that connected to the original Game Boy's larger serial port. These titles don't even work with Game Boy Pocket, the first to introduce a serial port in the same form factor as the one used on Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance systems and the Game Boy Player accessory. In addition, a few GBA titles will crash on purpose on Game Boy Player because the copyright owner doesn't want the user to videotape the FMV and sell copies, and unlike the PS2 and the Xbox, the Cube can't output Macrovision copy-distortion encoding.
First, if you want to play an XBOX game, use an XBOX. If you want to play an XBOX Next game, use an XBOX. I don't think I should be able to play Nintindo 16 bit games on a Game Cube without buying a compatible cartredge. This idea that everything is on a glorified DVD has people thinking they should just work in everything. Now excuse me while I go plug my Genesis up and throw in a Master's Cartredge.
The Game boy is popular because it's currently the best hand held out there. There are people now willing to challenge that, and the hot new game will drive the market. Backwards compatability will become much less important than having the hot new game and hot new way to play it (currently wireless networking).
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
Atari, Sega, Nintendo. Ask them about how NOT making their consoles backwards compatible - made them in the end, obsolete.
Does Atari even make a console? Not anymore!
Does Sega make a console? RIP Dreamcast!
Just look at Gamecube dimsal sales compared to PS2. PS2 got it right. That's why everyone else is playing "catch up".
If Sony could do it with PS1 ---- PS2, M$ should be able to do it, too! Making your game system backwards compatible is the smart thing to do.
I was going to get an XB2 just to play the cool stuff that's on XBOX and not on PS2...I'm rethinking that decision.
Backwards compatability will become much less important than having the hot new game and hot new way to play it (currently wireless networking).
It does, however matter until those games come out for system X. The first wave of games always are sub par. So untilt he kilelr comes, it'll tide over the early adoptors who in turn spread good word about system X. so initially, the first 4-6 months after release, it's vey important. As the system gets older it becomes less and less important. as someone else said, only 10% of Ps2 owners care. But that 10% is greater then the Xbox install base.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Super Puzzle Fighter and Tecmo Stackers are also very very good games.
Super Puzzle Fighter came out on at least one Sega system, and it was called Baku Baku Animal. Plus Capcom ported it to Game Boy Advance, and all GameCube owners can play it. Besides, isn't Tecmo Stackers just a Puyo clone, or did I miss something when reading the back of the box?
There's nothing stopping you from keeping your original Xbox
Other than the end of out-of-warranty repair service? Microsoft likes to end-of-life PC operating systems still in wide use on older hardware.
MCA (micro channel architecture) was something from the IBM Personal System/2 computer. If this Microsoft PR statement is true, you may be able to play old PC games on the Xbox 2 without modding it.
Q: How does one politely ask a female for anal sex?
.?
A: Are you backward compatible . .
Hence, backward compatibility plays a big role in my purchase for a console.
The Nintendo Gameboy Advance SP still plays the original Tetris game that shipped with the version 1 gameboy in 1989. I was amazed by this fact
It also plays Tetanus On Drugs, which simulates Tetris under the influence of hallucinogens. Have you tried it?
"Third, backwards compatibility was a huge advantage for the PS2 when it came to the market. It meant that people could buy their console and go home and play some excellent games from the PS1 instead of being forced to suffer through some of those horrendous launch titles. Having the backwards compatibility simply adds more value to the purchase."
I would argue this:
Third, backwards compatibility was a huge dsadvantage for the PS2 when it came to the market. It meant that people could buy some excellent PS1 games instead of being forced to suffer through some of the most horrendous launch titles. Lauch titles which, I should say, the developers weren't encouraged to improve at all because of how Sony could rely on the PS1 titles to sell the system. There weren't any really good PS2 titles out for many years because of this, far longer than most consoles at the start of their life!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
company don't believe backwards compatibility to be an important feature for consoles
Or maybe they just think that they dont have so many titles to lose. They could be right.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
cuz my current xbox is only a coupla years old. i did the mechassault exploit to load it with xebian, but the grandkids insist it also play games. i have a large collection of current xbox games.
what i don't need is a collection of increasingly more expensive game consoles.
Serenity now, insanity later.
lets see Game boy systems are always backwards compatible. (gb, gb pocket, color, adv, adv sp) Genesis played Master system games Game Gear played Master system games. ps2 playes ps games.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Have there been any consoles other than PS2 that offered backwards compatibility?
The Atari 7800 was backwards-compatible with 2600 carts.
AtariAge FAQ
I own a PS2, got a bunch of games for it, plus a bunch of PS1 games (which I previously played emulated on PC).
Now, the PS2 seems to be going dying (it's having issues reading DVD's, oh no!), ah well I bought it used years ago.
Now, if PS3 plays my PS2 games, plus comes out with some decents ones in its own... then I'll probably buy in. I can give my PS2 to somebody who doesn't have one, or maybe mod it for linux, whatever, and still have a spiffy PS2 that handles all my previous consoles.
Yes, but you might also consider that for various consoles, the data-media often didn't look all that similar (in concept yes, but different enough in form). I couldn't pop my NES cartridge into an SNES slot.
However, Playstation 2 still uses DVD's, and can read CD's. So will XBox.
End result:
"OK, so I can put my XBox-1 disc in here, and DAMNIT why doesn't it work....!"
Try explaining hardware shader differences to Joe average... he will just see that the old game fits in there and thus should work.
Of course it was not going to be backwards compatible, they are going to be using a IBM RISC chip with some of there own micro code in it and the fact that they have moved away for NVidia and going with ATI. I am pretty sure NVidia is not going to hand over the spec for there XBox chip so ATI can add it in. But I really do not see a problem with it not being able to run XBox games. If you look over the history of games consoles Sony is the only one that has done it(As far as I know). I have to say I am looking forward to seeing the new machine. I will say that I think the PS3 is going to kick its ass but I have always gone for Sony over other game consoles so my view is tainted.
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
This is a gamble based upon the supposed abstraction of the hardware away from the software. Unfortunately for users and developers, no matter how good XNA becomes as a "Right Once Compile Anywhere" game platform, it cannot eliminate the need to compile and for the user to have to subsequently purchase the newly compiled version if their is sufficient reason to do so.
If the Xbox Next is worth buying (time will tell) and it's not backward compatible. That means I will have to have 4 controllers for my original xbox (4 player Halo) two controllers for my PS2, and any number of controllers for my xbox Next (it's MS so of coarse they'll want to sell you 3 more controllers at $35 a pop). Who cares about the clutter behind the TV. But that's going to make a posible 10 controller in front of the TV. Talk about cable snarl.
What's up with MS's naming conventions, is the 3rd generation Xbox going to be the Xbox Apple, or Xbox BSD (OS X, neXt...) val1s
It seems that the only thing the Xbox2 is going to have in common with the Xbox1 is a WinNT based kernel, which should make it reasonably easy to develop games on. Who knows? If Microsoft comes out with some super cool feature it could swallow the market before Sony can get the PS3 out. Even without a HD they could include a PVR with HD-DVD-RWs. The Xbox2 will probably ship with an HD-DVD drive which can hold 20gigs on a single layer and 32 gigs on 2 layers (64 gigs per disc!).
given that this is exactly how the PS2's backward compatability works, it's definately possible.
the PS2 has the main emotion engine cpu thing for all the fancy ps2 stuff... and also has another processor that is usually used for controlling the i/o and stuff... just so happens that this is the same processor as used in the original playstation. how convenient...
both cpu's use mips cores though... so i'm not sure how difficult it would have been to just emulate the ps1 on the ps2's main cpu... but this was probably just the easiest way of doing it.
"Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?"
:p
*** slowly raises hand ***
Ya sure they are not the best games, but my kids play them and it is a lot cheaper than buying new games. Personally I will never buy another MS product, I am not giving one more cent to the MS tax, and this just reenforces my bias.
Just how many xbox titles do you own that you'll will want to play on xbox next?
Halo2.. DOA Ultimate.. Ninja Gaiden..
Thats it for me!
It was essential in the beginning. If you don't like driving games and film spinoffs (or already have enough of them to sink a ship) and you want to play something else for a change, there's plenty of PS1 choice out there that runs perfectly well on the PS2. If the XBox 2 isn't backward compatible, the only stuff available for XBox2 for months - possibly years - will be the old driving games and film spinoff rubbish. So if XBox 2 isn't backward compatible, they'll have to sell it for the same or less than the XBox 1 so that people'll actually buy it. Not that I have an XBox 1 anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference to me. The next hardware on my list is a projector, then probably a media centre PC.
I picked up a ps2 probably within the first 100 as they where released in australia. one of the compelling reasons is the back catalogue of software. The sweet spot in terms of developers writing for platforms is probably starts from the 3rd or 4th series of title releases. This means as soon as I got the ps2 home I had compelling games.
some of these are for the ankle biters but show me the latest *equivalent* (all for less than $40).
low res graphics comes second to playability for me anyway. this may explain why I still enjoy playing trek and adventure (one of the first games I played ~ on a commodore pet) on my openbsd box.
It's the how well games play, not the dancing bear. get it?
ps: I wouln't mind getting a gamecube there's some great games written for it.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I thought the PS2 had a whole extra processor installed that was exactly like a PS1 processor and was only used for backwards compatibility?
I don't think they did. PS/3 will be based on the Cell processor co-developed with IBM and it doesn't look anything like the PS2 architecture. I think the next generation of games will need a complete break from the old architectures. Software emulation may be possible, considering the amount of performance promised in these new consoles, but it's just as likely both Sony and Microsoft will be telling you to buy new versions of those old games. IN the case of Microsoft, it looks like all they need is a new version of Halo and their done with all the X-box compatibility anyone cares about!
I'm afraid you'll all have to keep those old consoles alive.
I definitely use PS2's PS1 compatibility for those Final Fantasy games!
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
...a fifty dollar backwards compatability module?
I wonder if that would be possible
http://brandonbloom.name
I thought one of the features of the Xbox was that it's hardware is basically a standardized PC. This made the Xbox an easy port for lots of primarily PC based games. Even Bungie was bought and sidetracked Halo from PC development to Xbox for release. Others would include Medal of Honor, Ghost Recon, Morrowind, (Doom3) etc. Will the Xbox2's lineup of games be compromised because suddenly having an xbox port of your game is not just some changes to the PC version, but a completely new platform? Did Microsoft use the PC format of the XBox to help obtain developers? What affect will this change have on the developers (if any)?
(On the other hand, will this hardware change help game development for the Mac?)
I haven't bought a new console since a sega genesis 10(?) years ago. I was looking at new PC games and realized that I would have to upgrade the damn thing AGAIN to play the games I wanted.
Screw that - the $200 U.S. to get a system (with all the trimmings) is a lot cheaper than upgrading my computer just for games.
I looked around at several stores and noticed that the number of PS games out numbered the number of xbox games by a factor or 2 or 3. In addition, although the games released in the last 8 weeks or so were the same $50-60, for older games, the PS games were much cheaper.
I walked out with a PS2 and a stack of games.
open mind: teaching computers the stuff
Anyone with money and who is willing to spend it on a console, is part of the market.
Of course, nobody is the market. That would be like saying the market is one person, and we're talking about PS3 and Xbox2 here, not the 3DO.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Other Consoles that were backwards compatible in some form or another:
...
Genesis (played Master System games, with attachment that cost as much as a master system)
Game Boy Pocket/Color/Advance
Game Gear (played Master System games, with cheap attachment)
Nomad (played Genesis games)
N64 (played SNES / NES games, with 3rd party attachment)
Turbo Duo (Played normal TurboGraphix 16 and CD games)
Turbo Express Portable (played normal TG16 games)
It doesn't look like there have been enough backwards-compatible systems to say whether or not it is a blessing or a curse to system sales. It is true that the backwards compatibility of the Genesis saddled it with using the Z80 as a sound processor, which created that trademark Genesis thuddy, explody sound. Backwards compatibility in the PS2 added greatly to the complexity of programming for it, but it looks like it was the right move for the system. The Game Boy has always been helped by backwards compatibility, though the great simplicity of the system makes this less of a chore. As few people (on these shores) had a Turbo Graphix or a Sega Master System, the benefits of backwards compatibility on the Genesis and the Duo was minimal.
The moral of the story seems to be if you have a successful system, make it backwards compatible. Is the XBox successful enough to warrant that tradeoff?
The ______ Agenda
developers, developers, developers...
...who never had a PS1, and had to hike all the way to my friends' houses in order to be able to sample great stuff like Bushido Blade and several Final Fantasies, Tekken, and what nots.
When the PS2 came out, the fact that it could run PS1 games was a HUGE selling point for me. In fact, after I bought it, I didn't even have money to buy a single PS2 game! But I was fine -- I got an used copy of Soulreaver and borrowed several beauts like Final Fantasy Tactics, Driver, etc. Lots of fun.
I've already assembled my collection of PS2 titles -- including games my friends have bought -- which includes all the essentials like FFX, SoulCalibur II, a couple of Metal Gears, and even Time Crisis III (GunCon included). And yet, to this day, I'm still playing classics like Vagrant Story and Chrono Cross.
A big "Yay!" for backward compatibility. \o/
While slashdotters may buy a system with no care in the world if it has backward compatibility, we're all also the same market for 500 dollar graphics cards.
However, for parents buying systems for their kids at christmas, backward compatibility is a huge selling point. You pay 2-300 dollars just for the system, and the games are 50 bucks on top of that! Wait, I can buy PS1 games as well for under 20 dollars?
Folks, I think we have a winner.
Microsoft's console has continued to be the butt of bad jokes. Spending 200 dollars for a console and then another 40 just to play Halo when Halo is now available for the PC, well, it seems a bit odd.
i heavily use the ps2's backward compatibility, there is a tremendous amount of good ps1 games out there. in fact, when i first bought my ps2, i bought an old ps1 game to play on it before even buying a real ps2 game to play on my ps2!!
(Gran Turismo) -- if you are a fan, then you will know what i mean.
Supposedly the hard parts are going to be the hard drive and the graphics.
But the graphics is solveable, the hard drive isn't.
Wouldn't we be suprized if they released a "docking" station that would connect the XBOX to XBOX2?
Or maybe they don't want no h4x0rs playing on their new toy.
Fellowship 9/11
Isn't it more traditional for us to hate legacy systems than it is for us to demand compatibility with them?
Seems like the bane of any programmer's existence is the requirement to make your system work with some outdated Cobol piece of crap from the 70s. Why limit the possibilities of the new system by forcing it to work with the old one?
Why are video games any different? I think the PS2 would have been a better system if they had scrapped the backward compatibility. It would've meant that much more time devoted toward developing new capabilities instead of maintaining old ones. With all the hardware flaws and shortcomings of the PS2, it could certainly be argued that more time spent of the new features would've been a good thing.
Backwards compatibility did not convince me to buy a PS2 and it wouldn't convince me to buy an Xbox Next. I want new games. I already have the hardware I need to play the old ones (I sold my PS2, still have my old PSX). New games are what really sell a console--backward compatibility is just a token offering as far as I'm concerned.
As the owner of a launch Xbox, that is sorely on its last legs, I can say with certainty that I would have purchased Xbox 2 on its launch day if it were backwards compatible. One of the main selling points would be the fact that my current crop of Xbox games would still be usable long after my crap Thompson DVD drive finally dies.
Now however I will evaluate all the consoles throughly and make my choice based on all factors since I will have to start from square one anyway. There is a real good possibility that I will be the owner of a PS3, something I would never even consider if Xbox 2 went backwards.
About the only good thing for gamers I see coming out of this is that when Xbox 2 comes out, the Xbox 1's will fly off the shelves. Bad thing for Microsfot, b/c they will be in essence competing with Sony, Nintendo, and themselves. Not a good spot to be in.
Of course. I have many cool PS1 games which I want to run on the PS2 and, no I don't want both of them connected to the TV, one is enought thanks.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
-- Jack
Personally more than half of my games are ps1 games, and I think I spend close to half the time on my ps2 playing the older games.
What we're all forgetting is that, while we all love buying old PS1 games to play on our Playstation, Sony doesn't make any money off a used copy of Final Fantasy VII.
They also don't make any money off the console, especially not at launch. It's common knowledge that consoles are sold at very low margins, sometimes none at all, for the manufacturer. They are priced to capture the market, which is then exploited by the $50 video games one buys for the console.
So Microsoft gains no direct, and almost no indirect advantage by including costly and difficult backwards compatibility in the XBox2. While it would add customer goodwill and possibly increase the value of their product, it doesn't translate into hard profits, and so when they make up a study to justify their marketing decisions, of course it isn't important.
There is a lesson to be learned with backwards compatability and the video game industry in general.
The trend of selling new video game systems every five or so years is having a negative effect on installed base and units sold -- the sales and installed base of such systems has actually been decreasing over time. Look at the numbers
Nintendo NES -- 59-60 million units
SNES - 49 million units
N64 - 34 Million units
GC - 13 million units
Notice the steady decrease in unit sales and this applies to every console maker! It happened with sega and everone else. The only exception is Sony because they are the industry leader. The problem you see now is that you have people and users that SKIP whole console generations and pick up the latest console which has backwards compatability with a whole playstation line of games that is going to keep upping your installed base over time, not decrease it because 1) Everyone gets a video game machine that plays ALL of their old games not just new ones. 2) Bonus: It doubles as a DVD player and I'm sure the PS3 will probably do so as well since it was in the PS2. 3) It's backward compatable with memory cards and controllers (Big money saver).
So whenever you do your customers a favor you increase your profits because a) you dont have to reinvent the wheel in regards to memory cards and controllers and b) your costs for producing the same controllers/memory cards over that length of time you have time to significantly cut costs because the initial investment for producing them has already been payed so you can charge very little. I can get brand new playstation 1/2 controllers for $12CDN at walmart! A GC controller is over 2x as expensive. Sony knows how to win customers they are doing everything that their competitors are not.
And yet, you have a GameCube, even though it wasn't backwards compatible with N64, which wasn't compatible with SNES, which wasn't compatible with NES..
Do you think it's a coincidence that the XBox and Gamecube have similar market share, while the PS2 has almost an order of magnitude more units sold?
I think that while you can sell a console without backwards compatibility, Sony accidentally lumbered into an amazing truth - you break through a sales barrier of sorts when backwards compatibility is a feature of your console. XBox and Gamecube are rubbing hard against such a ceiling, while the PS2 seems to have no issues reaching ever growing heights of sales.
It doesn't hurt that the PS2 has such a wide range of stuff as well, like the EyeToy (which is apparently an amazing hit).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you knew the XBox NeXT was supposed to be out in 2005, and didn't have one now... you might very well wait for 2005 to play a game like Halo 2 rather than buy an "obsolete" console now (as any console become the very moment a release date is issued for the next model).
So by stating it's not backwards compatible, they avoid cannibalizing some XBox sales now.
I still think in the long run it will hurt them with the next console, and at best they'll be able to sell as many of the next versions of the console as they have now.
The paranoid among you might think that perhaps they are claiming lack of backwards compatibility now, only to offer it later after the threat of sales cannibalizations is gone - but the architectural differences are just too vast to really offer such a thing.
I really wonder if Sony is going to offer backwards compatibility in the PS3, they almost have no choice it would seem.
If the PS3 does offer backwards compatibility, I think they may well become as ubiquitous as TV sets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...that the Playstation 2's backwards compatibility was vastly simplified since it used the Playstation 1's main CPU as its audio chip. So when you stick in a PS1 game, it cleverly routes main CPU functions over there, which results in extremely good compatibility without the need for messy and expensive (processor and development-wise) emulation.
Backward compatibility for the XBox2 (if rumors are to be believed) is much more of a herculean task, particularly since with video games people expect it to Just Work (even moreso than a Mac). No if's and's or but's. While I agree that backwards compatibility is a very important feature (especially at launch), it's by no means a trivial one, particularly given the public falling out between Microsoft and NVidia.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
That's the big secret! Keep quiet, you.
I miss one secret meeting and the whole master plan leaks out. Doh!
But, really, at this stage it would make more sense for MS to go to Apple for help on the XB2. If they are, in fact, going to use a PPC processor in it, there are many advantages in collaboration for both sides. MS tapping Apple for hardware design clout doesn't seem very far-fetched, and if the Mac then became a target for ports of console games, Apple would benefit. Of course it would be absolutely priceless to see a division of MS to go with a solution that supports the iPod instead of some MS approved, non-Firewire WMA portable.
I'm still waiting for Apple to bust out a good use/reason they went with "Pod" instead of something more in line with it's music capabilities. Music and gaming demographics would seem to have a lot of overlap, so using one to store saved games (or anything else you'd be inclined to jam a HD into a console for) seems like a reasonable start.
I bought an Xbox because I knew the ps3 would be backwards compatible so why bother getting a ps2?
:)
Also the Xbox had all the media functionality I wanted (except video in bastards) so I didn't really care about the games, but heck when in rome with a big HD
1. Make it compatible with PS2 titles.
2. Put an extra power outlet on the back, along with a jack for a special octopus cable that plugs into the video and controller ports of an Xbox. Put a switch on the new system that switches the video/controllers over to the old system.
So even though I'm joking about #1 (although does anyone remember Bleem?), I think #2 is a good idea. Wonder why no one does it? (Aside from the fact that they're too cheap to.) I suppose you can make an external device to do this, too. If you make one and are successful, send me a few $, okay? Please?
Though the PS2 console itself was sold at cost around launch time, Sony still makes money on every sale of a PS1 game or Columbia TriStar DVD video that you put into a PS2 console.
One word rebuttal: used
I am an XBox owner, who loves his xbox to death due to the many applications of the xbox. I was fully prepared to buy an XBox 2 until I heard first that it would run on apple, then that a HDD would not be in it, and then that the XBox will not be backwards compatible. Due to the fact that the Play Station 3 will probably be backwards compatible, I will probably buy one of those, since it will allow me access to a huge library of PS2 games that I've missed by being an XBox owner.
Microsoft is really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Anyone see a pattern with their new console launches?
...I am proof that intelligent beings are not always intelligent...
I think this is not a smart move by Microsoft. Because sometimes there are games you love for one reason or another, and they just don't make a version for your system. I bought a PS2 because it was compatible. Because I went to an arcade and played 'Rival Schools United By Fate' and thought it was the best game I had ever seen. Sure it's just Capcom, but is there really an explanation for games you love? But Rival Schools is only available in PS format. If my PS2 didn't play it, I wouldn't have bought a PS2 and the subsequent games of theirs I wanted. My boyfriend was thinking about getting any number of systems and just bought a GameBoy Advance so he could play his old school games. There are no explanations for the games you love, but there is commerce in their nostalgia. This move makes me happier I invested in PlayStation rather than XBox and I will continue to do so because of their mutual respect for me. Even though my PS2 is broken, stupid piece of crap.
>the Atari 7800 was backwards-compatible with the 2600 (but not the 5200... go figure)
That's clearly because 7800 is a multiple of 2600, but not a multiple of 5200.
Yes.. I've played, and bought, old PS1 games for my PS2. There's still good games made for PS1. One of my favourites is still the Vandal Hearts series.
I agree as lots of people here on this message board that Microsoft is making a mistake not having the X-Box backwards compatibility.
I play playstation games on my playstation 2 all the time. Just the other day I was playing final fantasy tactics!
We all give such a huge shit about xbox, obviously. 700 fucking posts.. what the fuck?? Slashdot has become a kiddy playground! Games are a WASTE OF TIME assholes!
Becuase,everyone spent their money on xbox, if they release 2 not to be backwards compatible, they will still sell more 1's for a higher price... if xbox2 can play xbox1 games, then xbox1's value will be much less...
Microsoft, being greedy?!?! Couldnt be true...
really, old games are still hot. how popular is Mame, c64, amiga, nes, etc games on emulators?
Ok, none of the consoles have the capability to run mame stuff on it out of the box (but after you mod it, you can, and almost everybody with a chip does just that). now backwards compatibility is nothing more.
The older consoles, using cartridges, almost never had backwards compatibility, because i guess it wasn't always as easy to do (cartridge format changes every generation, cpu's were not that fast etc) but todays consoles surely can do all that now, and i think there have been enough posts here that show a lot of people use it.
in fact it looks like only 10% don't want it, instead of the other way around.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
It certainly wasn't to improve the product for the Mac market. It seems that they've run into more snags that make it unprofitable to continue the backwards compatibilty options for the XBox2. This might have something to do with why they've delayed the Office package for Macintosh that includes the new VPC for an undisclosed amount of time too.
I don't care much about the backwards compatibility because my XBOX isn't going anywhere anytime soon. With a fully modded system that runs my NES, SNES, GBA, and XBOX games and has good controllers (yes, I love the hamburger controllers), why the hell would I get rid of it for an XBOX 2? Maybe a few years later when the library of XBOX 2 games expands.
DVD Video was still relatively new at the time the PlayStation 2 console was first sold in Japan and the United States, and though there were still plenty of used PS1 titles, there weren't many used copies of Columbia TriStar videos to go around. Remember how much DVD players cost at the time and how many people bought PS2 consoles as a relatively inexpensive way to watch Columbia TriStar videos.
It seems that this story is kinda out of data. When Microsoft announced that they were not going to use the same architecture (its central processor and blah blah blah) as the current Xbox it was stated that it would not be backwards compatible...... over six months ago. I have used backwards compatibility with my PS2 and am glad to have it, but I do not think it will be that big of an issue because when Xbox next comes out the current xbox will be going for cheap (much like the playstation one did after ps2 came out)s
Actually, the PS2 made playing PS1 titles with long load times a lot more enjoyable. I think we played more Worms on the PS2 then we ever did on the PS1.
Just my $0.02