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?"

Comments

one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[garcia]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Rick the Red]

emulation... would be far more worth it just for a base of titles.

Let's put it this way: If the Xbox2 won't play my Xbox1 games, requiring me to keep both an Xbox1 and Xbox2 connected to my TV, then why should I buy an Xbox2? I'm free to buy any other console that won't play my Xbox1 games: PS3, GameSphere, whatever -- even a PS2, which will be like free by then and have about 100 times more titles.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[pegr]

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! ;)

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[ron_ivi]

Not backwared compatible? Does that mean it won't run Linux?

bummer.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[gabebear]

reminds me of Microsoft's Get the Facts crap. I actually ordered their free Windows/Linux evaluation kit. Funniest thing I've ever seen, and it cost them $3.82 just to ship the crap to me, not to mention the cost of materials. I'm now using the folder they gave me for my Comp-Sci classes.

I imagine they backed themselves into a hole by going with an Nvidia chipset. They don't own licences to emulate all of Nvidia's shader stuff on ATI hardware, so they do a "study" showing how it doesn't matter. Sony on the other had has licenced (or cross-licenced) pretty much everything in the PS2.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[VividU]

Exactly. The Xbox controller has taken on a mythical status all its own.

It's by far the most ergonomical of all controllers.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Jtheletter]

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)

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[foidulus]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[gabec]

One point to think of, regarding "How many of you Slashdotters have used the backwards compatibility on Playstation 2's" is that, well, actually making use of PS2's backwards compatibility is most likely quite rare, but when it was a *new* console it meant that the console immediately had 100x the games of any competitor.

Backward compatibility only helps you get people when the console is new. I remember the arguments when XBox first came out: "Well, I could get an XBox but it has *no* games! What am I going to do, play Halo for the next two years waiting for real games?"

Of course, it turns out that most of my friends *do* solely play Halo... :P

For XBox Next it's a matter of the lesser of two evils: do we cut out the possibility for hacks (Linux) or do we cut out our feet off *again* by having a virtually non-existant game library? Of course, with the massive changes to the hardware that are coming backwards compatibility would have an extremely high price anyway.

Have there been any consoles other than PS2 that offered backwards compatibility?

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[molarmass192]

No man, it's a different CPU endian since they're going PPC instead of Intel for XB2. They'd need to emulate an x86 CPU to get the XB1 game bytecode to run on the XB2. That's fine for normal proggies but for graphics instensive, CPU optimized code like games, it would take a hell of a lot of CPU horse power to make the games enjoyable under an emulator.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[ev1lcanuck]

First, thanks for the link to their get the facts - I had them send me the evaluation kit just so they could pay for it. Plus I get that warm fuzzy feeling when I get mail.

Second, I definitely agree with you, that they've backed themselves into a hole in more than one way. They've decided to change the entire architecture of the system, removing HDDs, going for a different chipset etc. It will be next to impossible for them to get the licenses and then make the thing emulate in time for release.

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.

Looks like Microsoft made some bad decisions here. Surprise, surprise!

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[gfody]

reminds me of a screen shot I once saw of a funny error message when starting windows:
"cpu not detected. using software emulation"

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Weirdofreak]

...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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Teppy]

If leveraging a previous library works, then maybe they should make the XBox 2 backwards compatible with the Playstation 2

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[computechnica]

The Gameboy Advance has backward compatibility with all old Gameboy and Gameboy Color cartridges. It helped me transition from the old to the new. I sold my old Playstation and Gameboy color for store credit at Game-Exchange. Then went and bought a new PS2 and GBA and could still use my old games. Nintendo thinks it is important, the Gameboy DS will have two cartridge slots for compatibility all the way back to 1988 version of Tetris(which helped launch the Gameboy)

Maybe Micro$oft is trying to prevent a similar upgrade chain?

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[MoonBuggy]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Aqua OS X]

"Of course, it turns out that most of my friends *do* solely play Halo... :P" :) hehe, ya I own an Xbox and a ton of games.... but I only play Halo. Although the other games I own are quite fun, console Halo is video crack.

I know at least 4 other people in a similar situation ;).

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Xaroth]

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. ;)

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[boarder8925]

How many of you Slashdotters have used the backwards compatibility on PlayStation 2s?

I'm one of them. After my PlayStation broke, I was very grateful for the backwards compatibility.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[TechniMyoko]

I actually find the cubes the worst of the controllers. The dpad is too small the lip at the top of the shoulder buttons prevent holding both the shoulder and Z at the same time. there shouldve been a Z equivalent on the left side the bean arrangement is stupid, if you havent gotten used to the 4 circular buttons by now go back to the nes. you cant push B and X at the same time the c stick is just bad. it shouldve been the same kind of stick as the other one. my small fingers get pinched in the middle a lot the start button is too far from either side for small hands the only things they got right were the one analog stick (not the c stick), and the b button

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Tsiangkun]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Creepy]

I had thought this might be one of the reasons MS bought VirtualPC - at least, I did when I heard that the CPU they were going to use was PowerPC. Now I'm not so sure - emulating/overriding the nVidia graphics subsystem may not be possible. I was thinking they'd port the API layer and only emulate instructions as necessary (like the WINE on PPC proposed - probably much easier to do with the original source code).

The main reason to switch to the PowerPC was the "computer on a chip" tech that makes building them MUCH cheaper. Rumor has it that Sony and Microsoft may even use the same multi-core chip (and Nintendo a similar one). Not that it matters much - the GPU(s) is going to matter more for polygon count.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[johnnyb]

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[-noefordeg-]

Don't underestimate the power of backward compatibility....

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 :p

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[PixelSlut]

The cpu wouldn't cost that much more, but any amount is a lot in this field. When Xbox came out, they were pretty much selling them at cost in order to compete. So even an extra $40 is a pretty large amount.

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.

Re:one of the reasons they prospered w/the PC?

[Rick the Red]

why would they make such a big change in the architecture

To make it cheaper to produce. The Xbox1 is a PC with game console-like feature. The Xbox2 will be a game console with PC-like features. Microsoft is losing money on every Xbox they sell; Sony is making money on every PS2 they sell, even with the recent price cut.

Used it?

[cbrocious]

I think I've played more PS1 games on my PS2 than normal PS2 games.

Re:Used it?

[federal_employee]

Backwards compatibility is why I bought PS/2 over the other consoles. I still play my PS/1 games.

Re:Used it?

[NanoGator]

"I think I've played more PS1 games on my PS2 than normal PS2 games."

Think that little tidbit of info will affect whether or not you buy a PS3?

Re:Used it?

[swerk]

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.

Re:Used it?

[twilightzero]

Same here. I never owned a PS1 at all but that was a HUGE part of my deicison to get a PS2. I wanted some games from the PS2 *coughfinalfantasyXcough* but I loved the fact that I could go back and play all these PS1 games that I missed. Several of my friends have huge PS1 libraries so it was heaven for me to go through and experience all this stuff I previously wished I could play.

Re:Used it?

[zariok]

I have a 1st generation PS2 (ie got it the DAY it came out)... it barely plays ANY PS1 games.

I noticed when purchasing the DVD Remote, it "upgraded" the DVD software by placing a new version on the memory card, but have yet to find something what "updates" the PS1 emulator/driver.

I started picking up some oldie, but goodie, games that I can't even play due to not owning a PS1 anymore. Those include the afore mentioned Castlevania, various Mega Mans and MK Trilogy.

Any thoughts?

Re:Used it?

[Alsee]

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.

-

Bad Move for MS

[(54)T-Dub]

In the article Microsoft claims that only 10% of the PS2 owners care about backwards compatibility. They are probably right, but what percentage of people who bought the ps2 in the first year cared about backwards compatibility. I think backwards compatibility makes it easy to justify the high cost of buying a console early if you know that you can still play the golden oldies and you won't have to fork over $50 a pop for each game, especially if your old console is starting to show some wear and tear. If MS wants to take an early lead they had better reconsider.
I thought this quote from the article summed it up nicely.

"We do expect Microsoft to launch its console first, perhaps as early as 2005," says Pachter. "Should it choose to do so without backward compatibility or significant third-party software support, we expect to see its first-mover advantage evaporate."

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:

Speculation about the backwards compatibility functionality has been rife since it emerged that Xbox 2 ... will have radically different hardware to the original system, with a non-x86 processor, no hard drive and an ATI, rather than NVIDIA, graphics chipset ...
It was widely believed, however, that Microsoft had retained a team of hardware emulation experts to work on the problem - although concerns over the viability of such an endeavour were voiced by some experts, especially regarding the company's ability to emulate the functions of the graphics unit in the Xbox without violating NVIDIA's intellectual property rights.

Re:Bad Move for MS

[Mordaximus]

10% of PS2 owners is Xbox's entire market share!

GameBoy!

[Kjuib]

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.

Foot, meet bullet

[Dark Paladin]

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.

Re:Foot, meet bullet

[stratjakt]

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.

I'd rather have a cutting edge console than something that'd been watered down so it can still run old stuff.

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. In fact, the first run of games didn't exactly blow away the PSX versions. There was also much ado about the handful of PSX games that were incompatible. It gave them an early black eye.

I'll buy an Xbox 2 for the same reason I've bought any other console: It has some kick-ass games that i want to play. If all it had going for it was compatibility (ie; PS2 for the first year), it'll sit on the shelves.

Compatibility is nice, but not a selling point by itself.

Use PS2 Backward Compatability? Absolutely!

[abcxyz]

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

That sucks

[ayf6]

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.

Re:That sucks

[AdrainB]

They really messed up when they came up with the Windows Media Edition instead of making that the killer app for the X-Box. I've chipped my X-Box and run X-Box Media Center on it. To do the same thing with Windows Media Edition would cost $2000.

Thats it....

[kpansky]

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?

Total BS

[Sampy]

Believe it when you see it in the stores or are holding an official MS press release. Until then, this is all speculation.

Amazing

[foidulus]

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

Duuhhh...

[MarkGriz]

quoting 'sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives' explaining some of the thinking behind the decision

3. Profit!

You gotta be fucking shittin me....

[greymond]

"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.

Major architectural differences?

[MisterP]

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?

Re:Major architectural differences?

[melatonin]

They don't even share endianess

Actually, any PowerPC chip can run in big-endian or little-endian. The reason is, back in the PReP days (then CHRP), PPC was supposed to be The Chip to use for All Operating Systems, as AIX, Solaris, NT, Apple's Copland, and most importantly, Taligent, were supposed to be able to run all on one computer (one box). Ah, those were the days. Computing was expected to have a very different future.

Pre-G5, PPC chips had instructions to convert between big and little endian data or something, or maybe address different endian data. This is why Virtual PC for G5s doesn't exist yet; G5s are missing endian-related instructions that are used by current versions of VPC.

I never had a PS 1... value gamers

[mekkab]

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!

knee-jerk

[NanoGator]

"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.

If the XBOX weren't so big, I wouldn't care.

[unfortunateson]

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?

Xbox vs. Playstation 1

[daveo0331]

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.

Yeah me too, funny that...

[Simon Carr]

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.

Re:Yeah me too, funny that...

[demi]

It's also interesting that there's been a lot of recent discussion about the problems people have playing classic games on new PCs: for example, Tomb Raider, the original is a great game but it's hard (I hear) to get playing on a new PC. I love the fact I can just pop the game in my PS2 and play it, and without the disadvantages of keeping the old console around.

Plus, you know, things break. I really hope the PS3 has PS2 and PS1 emulation so I can continue to play all my games, even the old one, with one console. Without this support, even if you can keep the old consoles around they eventually break and it's not the same as if there is current support for the platform.

Well I dunno

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Well I dunno

[Blindman]

SMS: First gen.
Genesis: Not backward compatible.

Actually, there was an adapter that you could buy to make the Genesis backwards compatible. It isn't exactly the same thing as out of the box backwards compatibility, but I don't recall the adapter being very expensive.

Re:Well I dunno

[gamgee5273]

Wait - you are forgetting three systems here: while clearly not as popular as the systems you mention above, the Atari 7800 was backwards-compatible with the 2600 (but not the 5200... go figure) and the Turbo Duo was backwards-compatible with the TurboGrafx 16 and the TG-CD.

But the third one is the most popular series of "consoles" of all time and the grandaddy of all backwards-compatibility: the Game Boy. The GBA and the GB Player for the GameCube can play almost all Game Boy games going back to 1989. Pretty impressive, and a huge selling point, IMHO. I think Sony is modeling their console plans on Nintendo's handheld strategy - and it works. I play PS1 and PS2 games on my PS2 regularly. Now if Nintendo can follow that course for the GC's successor...

To get back to the Xbox, however: I believe that Xbox Next will be fundamentally flawed if it does not allow backwards-compatibility. I don't currently own an Xbox, but if there were a few games I had to have on a Xbox Next, I might buy one of those if I could pick up the three or four Xbox games I want. However, if I can't go backwards... then there is nothing that could compel me to buy either the Xbox or the Xbox Next... except for Shenmue III (if it ever happens).

Re:Well I dunno

[jared_hanson]

You have correctly pointed out that history is on their side. However, the present is radically different that the past. Sony sucessfully proved that backwards compatibility can be done, and consumers welcomed it. This means that consumers will most likely expect it in the future. Sony changed the playing field, and it is Sony that Microsoft needs to contend with. They can't pull their usual shit over on the customers when better, market-leading alternatives exist.

The other factor, I believe is the disc based format. Speaking only of Nintendo (I'm not familiar with the others), they kept cartridge based consoles right up to the Gamecube. Those are seen more of as hardware rather than software, and people don't expect as stringent compatibility reqirements with those. However, discs are a different issue. Most mainstream discs (CDs, DVDs) are backwards compatible with newer players. CDs can be played in DVD players, for example. The new DVD standard (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) groups all have hardware backwards compatibility on their priority lists.

As such, I think a lot of XBOX customers are going to be dissapointed with this move. I didn't own a PS1, but baught a PS2 because they did a quality job with backwards compatibility, leaning me to trust them. I don't own an XBOX, and am not likely to pick up an XBOX Next if they don't demonstrate any reason for my doing so. Sony, for instance, won't obsolete my game library investment, but Microsoft wants to do exactly that. Why should I give Microsoft my money then, if they won't value what I have given them?

Trade-in, Trade-up

[DeadBugs]

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.

Using Backwards Compatiblity

[pyrrhonist]

Have any Slashdot readers ever actually used the backwards compatibility on their PlayStation 2?

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.

Re:More speculation

[*weasel]

The speculation is that they're going for several gig of flash ram instead of a hard drive.

The idea is to get away from moving parts that keep costs up. Flash memory has just about all the desireable features of a disk - except rewrite lifespan. Flash is faster and follows semiconductor economies of scale (gets cheaper, like chips; not bigger like discs). It just can't be used for swap space and you can count the number of titles that use it for that on one hand.
(the frequent rewrites of swap usage would burn through flash memory so fast consumers would sue)

But there's no reason they can't have the huge save games, custom soundtracks and downloadable content.

And if they allow the neXtBox to access songs/video from a network share/feed, I'll be its number 1 fan even without backwards compat.

Hell, no other the only other 'under the tv' console had backwards compat, and they did fine. Backwards compat would kick ass, but I sincerely doubt it's a deal-breaker for a significant portion of gamers. I mean... it's not like the XBox itself was backwards compatible with anything.

If it has the games, the gamers will follow.

Re:It's just a bloody name

[The-Bus]

To wit:

• Nintendo Entertainment System
  
• Super Nintendo Entertainment System
  
• Nintendo 64
  
• Nintendo GameCube (different media, natch)
  

• Sega CD
  
• Sega Saturn
  
• Sega Dreamcast
  

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.

irrelevant whether old games are played or not

[jeff munkyfaces]

it's whether the user thinks they're going to play them that matters.

Best $20 ever

[Psymunn]

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

backwards compatible consoles other than PS2

[cgenman]

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? ...

I'm switching camps...

[i-Chaos]

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?