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.
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
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
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
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!
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 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.
On further thought and comparison... backwards compatibility is like airbags in a car, while they are not often used, you are glad to have them when you want/need them.
"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 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?
Yes, but Microsoft purchased Connectix and acquired Virtual PC, which has an emulation engine that should be fast enough to emulate the x86 processor in the XB1 at the XB2's processor speed.
Presumably the appeal of PowerPC is that, while emulating x86 on PowerPC is somewhat feasible (if a bit slow) because of the much greater number of PPC general-purpose registers, it is impossible to emulate the PowerPC on the x86 without severe performance impacts.
This is a very nice copy protection method for Microsoft -- all those Windows users out there can't just download an XB2 emulator and start playing.
May we never see th
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
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.
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.
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.
The costs outweigh the benefits.
Costs can be other than financial. For instance, some technical hurdle that would cripple your machine if you wanted backwards compatibility.
This is a move from x86 to PPC architecture. Perhaps backwards compatibility would have meant including the old GPUs, etc.
SNES wasn't backwards compatible with NES for similar reasons. They would have wasted too much silicon doing old stuff. Same with N64, Gamecube, and no doubt Gamecube 2.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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
"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.
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.
great, you nutfucker, what's the point of your post?
Probably that changing processor architecture would make backwards compatibility a lot harder / more expensive.
Or maybe he was just fucking nuts.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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?
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.
Yes, but Microsoft purchased Connectix and acquired Virtual PC, which has an emulation engine that should be fast enough to emulate the x86 processor in the XB1 at the XB2's processor speed.
Presumably the appeal of PowerPC is that, while emulating x86 on PowerPC is somewhat feasible (if a bit slow) because of the much greater number of PPC general-purpose registers, it is impossible to emulate the PowerPC on the x86 without severe performance impacts.
This is a very nice copy protection method for Microsoft -- all those Windows users out there can't just download an XB2 emulator and start playing.
You can emulate the CPU, but they cant emulate Nvidias propriatary GPU. They don't have legals rights to and Nvidia is now backing the competition so it's gonna cost a lot to licence it. Also Emulation is never perfect. even havign the same chip on the PS2 doesn't garentee compatibility. a handful of games don't play. Now how many good working PS1 emulators do you see around? I used a few and there is always glitches, special patches for certain games ect... For a comsumer product thats nto goign to fly (ie. twiddling 16 settings each game to make it work). Forget emulation. Xbox just won't be Backwards compatable.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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. --
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.
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."
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).
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/
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.
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.
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
they still make money on the older Ps1 games. the PS2 is a smash hit. So I don't really know how thats an exampel of it not making them any money. If your into economy games (greatest hits ect..) it's unlikly you'd buy the expensive stuff anyway so yoru just wringing the optimal amoutn of profit formt he amrket.. it doesn't seem like their undercutting themselves. No more so then the celerons undercut the P4's.
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
Far be it for me (a chronic typoist) to critisize yrou grammar.. but what are you saying? You have some deep insight as to how copying games is harder for the xbox? Since I know most of my friends do it... it doesn't seem that hard. Get game. Press copy. Play game.
games that finally cross the barrier of consoles
another no-sequiter. How did it cross barriers? by being #3? by losing money? does it play Gc games ? does it play PS2 games?
Backwards compatibility sells older games. which you still profit from.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
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 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.
... 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...
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.
it's whether the user thinks they're going to play them that matters.
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.
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
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.
Not really. If you walked into a store, people didn't ask for an "Entertainment System" or a "64" -- it was always a "Nintendo" -- then you were asked "What kind?"
With Microsoft having established itself as a brand known for mostly klutzy operating systems and applications, or more broadly, software, the Xbox can't use (and probably doesn't want to use) the Microsoft name too heavily. There's a reason it wasn't called "Windows Box with Games!". With Sony, you have to give the product some name since they have so many thousands.
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad idea that it's not backwards compatible - I AM saying that naming it Xbox2 or Next or whatever is sensible from a marketing point of view, regardless of compatibility.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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.
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.
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.
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.
why? Why not have BW compat all the way back? if it costs little why not have it as a feature? It mean your library will last as long as the media and not the machine (the machines break down before the games do 90% of the time). My nintendo is dead. My PS1 is on it's last legs. My genesis is also dead. My SNES is just barely hanging on. I'd liek to still play FF6 when it eventually dies.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Everyone thinks the consumer has the say in this backwards compatability stuff. Microsoft and others are right to try and make money off games when they're selling their consoles at a loss. They've got to make money somehow or we wouldn't have consoles at all.
Short econ lesson. Would you buy a $500 console so the games would be 20 bucks each? Probably not and the ones that did wouldn't buy more than one. This maxes out the profit based solely on the unit and has a set quantity.
Now look at the current model. Offer a console at lower than cost and then charge 50/game which keep coming out well after the console is finalized. There is a better market for games at $50 than consoles at $500.
Point is that the business people aren't stupid. They have this billion industry pinned and when they choose not put backwards compatability in a console, they do it from a econmical stance.
Why do companies not use interchangable parts. The case scenarios go on and on.
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
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.
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...