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?"
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
Backwards 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
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.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
This is THE lesson they learned from the PC. While backward compatability severely limited the potential of the PC, it was absolutely required to maintain continuity (check OS/2 sales for reference). The game market is different. If you really need a box for your old XBox games, get an XBox (for prolly >$100 by then).
;)
This will cause some consumer backlash, however. Maybe it will affect sales, maybe it won't.... Since when has the game (or PC, for that matter) market been directed by technical truth rather than marketing FUD?
Hey! Now there is poetic justice! Good luck, BillyBoy!
Are you talking about the original controller? If so then I think it's safe to say the majority of gamers (read as: humans with human-sized hands) agree it was a POS, but the scaled down s-controller is perfectly comfortable.
In my experience, having lived with 5 roomates with varying console preferences and having both a PS2 and an Xbox on the same communal tv, the PS2 users cause their hands to cramp up using the xbox because they insist on keeping their fingers in the L1L2 R1R2 positions when those buttons don't exist on the xbox controller. If you relax your hands and approach it as a different controller - not as a poorly designed PS2 contoller - then there shouldn't be any trouble at all.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
If you make your console backwards compatible, it helps your consumers out by a) reducing the amount of space they have to dedicate in their entertainment center for consoles and b) reduces the rats nest of cables that is bound to be connected to said TV. Plus, the original X-Box isn't very "stackable"
Blech! I'll just keep my little gamecube.
I bought my PS2 basically as a DVD player that also would play bargain-bin RPGs, e.g. all those PS1 titles I missed out on before. Since then I've bought a few PS2 titles, but most of my playstation library is made up of cheap old PS1 games.
Never having had a PS1, backwards compatibility on the PS2 was a big deal for me, it was like getting two systems in one. I don't have an x-box, and I'm not likely to get the next one of that line either but the ability to play a bargain-bin Panzer Dragoon Orta or Halo certainly would be appealing.
Game Boy has been the best example of backwards compatibility; the fanciest GBA SP of today and even the dual-screened Gameboy of the future will still play the original circa-1988 games. Granted, the Game Boy evolved in small increments, but apart from HDTV resolution and more megahertz, what's the next x-box going to do that the current one doesn't?
Even for folks that don't actually take advantage of a system's backwards compatibility, it's a strong selling point. The device seems more universal. AMD's x86-64 is cool for some of the same reasons. It's the new hotness, but the old and busted stuff still works on it.
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?
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...
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.
...Which explains why you can't tell any of the buttons apart from the others.
That's the thing I like most about the 'Cube controller. You always know which button your thumb is on, and you can always find whichever button you want from there. If you have large thumbs it'll be quite easy to press more than one at a time, but I don't get that often, and usually it doesn't matter when I do.
I find it difficult to remember which button is where on the PS2, causing problems when I first start to play a game, I get cramp if I try to keep one finger trained on each shoulder button and if I try one betwen two I'm very innacurate. I need to look at the controller to find start and analouge, and the face buttons are too far apart for my liking.
The Xbox controller (which I haven't used for a while, so bear with me) has 6 'main' buttons, all of which feel exactly the same and all of which require a single thumb between them, making it exceedingly hard to find the right button. I have my finger on one button, and when I need to press another, I have to consciously think about where my thumb goes if I'm to have much chance of hitting the right one, and then consciously move it back so that I get it right next time as well. The buttons between the control sticks, whatever they're called, suffer from the same problem as the PS2.
The controller not feeling right in my hand I can cope with. I can cope with not being able to get the control stick straight forwards (which really bugs me). I can cope with having to stop moving to press the control sticks down. I just can't cope with a layout that seems to change every few seconds and which has tiny buttons that need a thumbnail and plenty of hand/eye co-ordination to push. The 'Cube doesn't need hand-eye co-ordination, or even active participation. It just needs a fairly average sense of touch. Telling a large circle from a small circle is easy, telling one dome from another dome less than a centimetre away isn't.
I don't own a PS1 or PS2.
I for one would be VASTLY more likely to buy a PS3 if it means I can play all the PS1 and PS2 titles as well.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
While backward compatability severely limited the potential of the PC, it was absolutely required to maintain continuity (check OS/2 sales for reference).
OS/2 seems to be a pretty poor example, as it was capable of running most legacy DOS software and 16-bit Windows software as well as, if not better than, Microsoft's original operating systems.
It was only when development began for Win95 and NT's 32-bit codebases -- which differed from what came before and from OS/2 -- that OS/2 began to lose marketshare.
OS/2 failed because of a lack of lateral compatibility, not backward.
If leveraging a previous library works, then maybe they should make the XBox 2 backwards compatible with the Playstation 2
I moved from the short lived Sega Dreamcast to the Xbox and I absolutely love the Xbox controller - it doesn't force me to squish up my hands like the tiny PS2 pad and it has nice high-travel triggers so you can actually make use of the analog sensitivity (I don't care if the R and L buttons on the PS2 have 4 billion levels of pressure if there's only enough travel to have about 3 different levels). The control sticks are well placed for where the thumbs naturally extend to rather than forcing them to be permenantly and uncomfortably bent downwards. Finally, your fingers sit nicely in the grooves in the back rather than wrapping right around and putting stress on your knuckles.
Atari's 7800 was fully backwards compatible with the 2600 (VCS). The gameboy color, gameboy advance, and now gameboy DS are all fully backwards compatible with the original gameboy.
;)
Add-ons have been made for several consoles to allow for backwards compatibility, including the Genesis->SMS.
Of course, it's a bit of a gamble. The GBA probably wouldn't have done nearly so well if it hadn't kept GB compatibility, nor would the PS2 have had nearly as much initial demand without it, but it certainly didn't do much to save the 7800.
Come to think of it, the 7800 and the XBOX are remarkably similar in one other respect - both had atrocious controllers.
That green slime had it coming.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
Also, backwards compatible means I can trade in my old console when I get a new one. It reduces the cost of the purchase, and I don't loose any of the games I bought for the old system.
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 don't think ANYONE expected backwards compatibility, and it hasn't really been an industry standard. Playstation/Playstation 2 was THE major exception in U.S. console gaming.
Nintendo has actually made it a business model to resell and repackage old games. Super Mario Bros. for the NES has been re-released a number of times for many systems, including the SNES and the Game Boy Advance/SP. Names are used for branding. People will associate it with something... whether it be cool graphics, Halo, XBox Live, etc. Name association may mean backwards compatibility to some, but only if you started playing during the Playstation era.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
PPC is just much better overall. Better instruction set, lower power consumption, less heat, smaller die size, etc. When you get into game consoles you realize just how much x86 sucks.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Don't underestimate the power of backward compatibility....
:p
Tekken, Rayman, Final Fantasy, and a some other titles are still frequently used in my PS-2.
"Backward compatibility only helps you get people when the console is new."
-No. Not 'only'. It also helps when the developer creates the SAME game for the new console. With maybe a few more lens flares. Well. Lens flares have never made a game good and seldom better.
If what you say should be true we would have to relay on the developers to release the same games over and over or almost the same games, just a bit better, AND we would have to be stupid enough to buy them over and over.
I see it as more or less having to replace me CD collection every 4-5 years. Which is just no-no.
It's been this way with Windows and Office too, but lately it seems like it is going to stop. Or.. Maybe MS will add some lens flares to the Office Helper
it's whether the user thinks they're going to play them that matters.
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
They would also need to come up with some crazy new motherboard component that can deal with both x86 and PPC hardware, and switch between them.
They would also have to develop the operating system and hardware drivers for both CPUs. They obviously already have it developed for PPC, and they have whatever iteration of the OS Xbox used developed for x86. But, still.. that would be a major task to sync them together and fully test it for both CPUs.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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...