360's Backwards Compatibility Weak?

GamesIndustry.biz is reporting that the backwards compatibility that Microsoft offered up at the Monday press conference may not be anything approaching what we're used to. Due to the massive design changes in the shift from the Xbox to the 360, Xbox titles may have to be recompiled in order to work on the next-gen console. From the article: "The news has raised more questions than it answers, however, as it suggests that gamers may need to purchase titles they already own in order to play them on an Xbox 360 - and almost certainly means that only a sub-set of Xbox games will ever be playable on the new console." Update: 05/20 15:08 GMT by Z : The article has been updated with a quote from MS specifically saying that gamers will *not* need to repurchase Xbox titles to play them on the 360.

Comments

Well Linux users who...

[Anonymous Coward]

...recompile their kernels every 3 days would be used to this idea, no?

Re:Well Linux users who...

[Saige]

OK, this isn't really a reply to the parent, but getting something at the top of the thread.

NO, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO RECOMPILE XBOX GAMES.

So this article is completely and totally garbage.

Thank you. That is all.

Re:Well Linux users who...

[Pxtl]

Even if there was a need, it wouldn't be that bad. Think about it - all the content is already on the disks. All the 360s are already online - so all MS needs to do is release a replacement of the binary executable (which is tiny compared to the game content) - say a 5 meg download, tops. Use the CD in drive as proof of purchase - you need it anyways for the game content. Then just store the new binaries on the HDD.

No biggie at all.

Backwards compatible?

[NickHydroxide]

How can this be called backwards compatibility? If this is true, then this really is a poor showing from MS.

The only way they may avoid pissing too many people off, and making such a system viable is to offer the recompiled versions available for free download for people who have already purchased that particular game.

As TFA states, though, backwards compatibility for a small class of games is idiotic.

Re:Backwards compatible?

[damsa]

Yeah if this backwards compatible, then wouldn't the Game Cube be backwards compatible.

Re:Backwards compatible?

[KDR_11k]

To be fair, Nintendo also calls that "backwards compatibility" since the Revolution won't accept NES, SNES or N64 media, you need to repurchase those too.

Re:Backwards compatible?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, Nintendo also calls that "backwards compatibility" since the Revolution won't accept NES, SNES or N64 media, you need to repurchase those too.

Except whenever I hear backwards compatability referred to for the Revolution, its always followed by "with the Gamecube". Nintendo promised their libraries would be available for download, but that's not the same as being able to put in any random 'cube game in to the console and expecting it to work. This would be more like saying that the GBA is compatible with the SNES since several games have been rereleased for it.

Then again, how big is the library of good games for the Xbox? Its growning now, but for the longest time it only had Halo. If there's one system where they might be able to get away with this, this would be the one...

Re:Backwards compatible?

[CastrTroy]

But it will be directly backwards compatible with the GC. Which is the previous version of their console.

Re:Backwards compatible?

[shoptroll]

I think you're looking at emulation in those cases, not recompiling everything.

I'm also willing to be that we'll see a peripheral that allows you to play GB/GBA games as well at some point, or they'll find a way to make the Game Boy Player hook up to it.

Re:Backwards compatible?

[PeelBoy]

First of all Nintendo Revolution IS backwards compatible with the Gamecube and takes Gamecube disks.

Second of all Nintendo said the Revolution EMULATES NES, SNES and N64 games and allows those games to be downloaded through their online service. They haven't said anything about charging for that service, yet, as far as I know.

I doubt they will charge full price for each and every NES game you download. A few bucks should get you a nice bit of games, maybe all of them.

Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[HaloZero]

The Xbox 360 has way more processing power than the original Xbox. If I can run VirtualPC on my PowerPC G4, and usably run Windows XP Pro (sandboxing), and an application or two, there's no reason that they can't simply run an emulator as a subset of the operating system. There's space on the hard disk for something like that. I realise the processor instruction set is different from the original Xbox, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the code has to be recompiled. The fun part would be detecting if the game requires the emulator on startup, and then calling it.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Evan Meakyl]

Indeed. But you can get money from the recompiled version :)

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[interiot]

It's much more than simply the instruction set is different:

• the CPU instruction set is different
• the GPU instruction set is different
• there are Three different CPU's, so you really want to get as much code running in parallel as possible

In short, the differences are fairly massive. Transmeta has the ability to run code fast on one core... backwards compatibility for the XBox requires running code fast on the equivalent of 2-3 cores... not an easy job.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[gl4ss]

well.. my GUESS at this whole thing is that they have an emulator running that 'recompiles' the stuff on the fly - BUT it doesn't work with every game.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[binaryspiral]

I was amazed they even suggested they were going to be BC and yet go with ATI and PowerPC hardware.

I was expecting another PC turned game console when the XBOX II hit the market - just beefier hardware and maybe some whizbang features like wifi that seems to be standard now.

Microsoft going with non-pc like hardware was the answer to xbox hacks and modchips, which I think just pissed them off enough to drop pc hardware. I don't think they know how the market will react to the XBOX being the only nextgen console that isn't BC.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[KDR_11k]

I believe that choice came after they looked at the Gamecube and the profits Nintendo is raking in despite a lower retail price and only minimally less power. Had they added some RAM and a few more MHz to the system they'd probably have a system on par with the XBox that could be sold at a profit when sold for the XB's price.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Kosi]

No, you can't. You could, if there were idiots around who'd buy these versions.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[justforaday]

And I assure you, there are idiots around who would buy those versions. Hence, Evan's comment still stands...

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[squiggleslash]

The rumours were originally that Microsoft's reason for buying VirtualPC was so that they could use the technology in the next generation Xbox precisely to overcome architectural differences when implementing backward compatability. The counter to this, I guess, is that emulating an Xbox on the type of hardware we're talking about would stretch the limits of what VPC can do. And stretching the limits when it comes to games that rely on precise timings can be a problem.

Still, it's kind of amusing. My first thought on reading the article summary was to wonder if most Xbox games came with source code...

My second thought is that perhaps Microsoft has gone about this the wrong way. Maybe .net should be the basis of the Xbox development platform, with JIT techniques used to recompile everything as optimally as possible. This has few downsides, and makes implementing backward compatability much, much, easier. No stupid emulators. Just a JIT compiler on the new platform that recompiles old code in such a way that the timings are as close to the originally targetted platform as possible.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[frikazoyd]

Recompiles on the fly? Huh? Look, there's currently two ways to get incompatible software to run efficiently.

1: Total recompile. Problem with that is, if it is closed source code, you have to re-release that, which is what the article implies.

2: Emulation. Meaning, you have an application that takes the instructions and "on the fly" converts them into useable instructions.

Now, what the heck is "recompiling on the fly"? If I understand correctly, you mean it re-interprets the source code as you go along. But the old games are in binary, so all you have is the instructions. Oh, wait that's emulation. Besides, if you tried compiling then running an executable before it is done compiling, you're going to run out of program to run before it is done compiling.

Anyway, all this talk of emulating the Xbox is a bit of hooey. You need a LOT more machine than you want to emulate in order to properly do it, without stutter. A lot more than the difference between the Xbox 360 and the Xbox.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[HalfFlat]

By 'recompiling on the fly', the grandparent poster is probably refering to a process where library or hardware interfaces are emulated, and the code itself is translated as needed, with the results being cached somewhere (like the hard disk.)

The most famous example of this sort of thing would have to be Digital's FX!32 for the Alpha, which according to reports, would run x86 Windows code under NT for Alpha at approximately 40% the speed of natively compiled code. Not too shabby!

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part would be detecting if the game requires the emulator on startup, and then calling it.

Actually no, that would be a no brainer, HaloZero. OMG. I just did a 360 man, like, totally rad to the max.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[gl4ss]

exactly something like that. ..and if it's really going to be as powerful as their pr says it is, then the biggest problem will be odd-job compatibility.

plus, there's a reason why I put the '' marks around recompile...

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Jonny_eh]

Having multiple cores isn't a problem. Even one of those cores is much faster than the xbox's processor. The objective isn't to make the old xbox games run faster. The problem remains the instruction sets. The GPU instructions are probably harder to emulate properly than the CPU instructions.

A recompile would almost certainly resolve issues with the CPU instruction sets, but I bet most games use special NVIDIA instructions that do not exist on ATI hardware. That could cause lots of graphical anomolies.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[jericho4.0]

JIT

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Anonymous Coward]

From everything I've seen between my GC and Xbox the only difference I see is that the GC mini disks which can only hold ~1.5GB compared to the Dual Layered Xbox disks require more highly compressed movies and sounds.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[rreyelts]

Recompiles on the fly?

The term I see most oftenly used to describe this is dynamic recompilation. Dynamic recompilation differs from basic emulation in that it attempts to perform block optimizations across instruction windows (basic blocks) and caches the results for repeated execution. Contrast to basic emulation, which is interpretive in nature.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Hott of the World]

30 minutes on 2 CDs? I can't lose!

Zoidberg's on his way to becoming a crafty consumer!

Hello, Operator? I'll take 8!

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[IntergalacticWalrus]

The CPU is only the tip of the iceberg. Yeah, it's not a problem for Microsoft since they already have an excellent x86 emulation core from VPC. But the CPU is only a small part of the original XBox hardware. The rest of the hardware was provided by nVidia, which Microsoft made an enemy by going ATI for their new hardware, so you can count on it that nVidia won't allow Microsoft to emulate their hardware.

Re:Recompiled? Bullcrap.

[Icupnimpn2]

I live in Central Florida and I know someone who was working for ATI on the graphics for the X-Box 360. I grilled them a few months ago on various subjects. Now, they weren't privy to all of the information about Microsoft's plans for this and that, but it was their impression that if Microsoft wanted backwards compatibility they could do it in software. They didn't mention anything about recompilation or any of that jazz.

If this is accurate

[Xxanmorph]

I wouldn't really call that "backwards compatible", more like "not backwards compatible".

Re:If this is accurate

[damsa]

I can see this being used in marketing by other industries. New electric car backwards compatible with gasoline cars. Use your old gas on your brand new electric car today.

Disclaimer, use of gas may require buying of new engine, drive train, transmission.

Re:If this is accurate

[wheany]

"Is your new console backwards compatible?"

"Well, it's not backwards compatible."

Re:If this is accurate

[Babbster]

Except that right in TFA, it says this:

"At launch, Xbox 360 will be backward compatible with the top Xbox games," Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf told GamesIndustry.biz today. "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new 'version' - your original games will work on Xbox 360."

What I read from that is that a) they're working on emulation and b) the top priority is to get the top-selling games working. This is very similar to MAME people getting something like "Donkey Kong" to work before worrying about more obscure titles like "League Bowling." Admittedly, it's a different process overall, but prioritization in this fashion seems very reasonable (though I guess Tecmo fans who wanted to play PS1 Gallop Racer on their PS2 might disagree).

One advantage that Xbox 360 seems to have is that they should be able to update their emulator through Xbox Live as time goes by and they work out any kinks in the process.

In other words, let the speculation about whether there will be backwards compatibility in Xbox 360 end, and let the speculation about specific games that WON'T work in the 360 begin.

Not so much precompiles as..

[AkaXakA]

Not so much precompiles as it's mostly going to be emulated (VirtualPC!), but of course some re-releases are inevitable.

Backwards compatibility is hard

[AndrewStephens]

I am sure that a lot of comments are going to say the 360 is powerful enough to emulate the slowish x86 in the current xbox, which is true. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple - the rest of the hardware (graphics/sound/controller, etc) is different as well. It may be that Microsoft decided that it was more trouble than it was worth.

Personally, I think it is a mistake, but obviously Microsoft couldn't afford to pull a playstation2 and put an entire PS1 on the die. This is the downside of going with off-the-shelf parts and not designing your own chips. No way were they ever going to convince Intel and whoever did their video hardware on the xbox to provide a mega-cheap shrunken version that they could cram onto the 360 motherboard.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[sehryan]

It can't be that hard. Nintendo is making the Revolution compatible with their entire catalog of games going back to the NES days.

I'll say it again: THEIR ENTIRE CATALOG OF GAMES

And yet, the Revolution is the smallest console shown at E3, and Nintendo is hoping to make it even smaller before launch.

Microsoft cares not for the gaming community, only how to make money off of them. Why let you play Halo and Halo 2 on the 360 for free, when you can pay to buy those games again?

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[wheany]

Writing emulators for NES, SNES and GB(C) is pretty trivial these days, and with N64 they have some inside information.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[chrismcdirty]

And like the OP said, Nintendo has always had custom hardware made. I'm sure by now it's not very hard to fit an NES or SNES on a single die, and possibly even an N64. I assume it will be able to play GCN games because the hardware will be similar enough (PPC CPU & ATI GPU).

On another thought, is anybody actually sure what Nintendo's process of publishing a game entails? For all we know, they own source code to the entire back catalog of games that they can recompile and allow us to download.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[PhoenixFlare]

I assume it will be able to play GCN games because the hardware will be similar enough

Yes, it will. This was one of the first things that was confirmed.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Megane]

Besides, I recall hearing years ago when people were trying to make N64 emulators that the "Reality Engine" graphics chip in the N64 was designed in such a way that you could translate use of it into API calls for a 3D system like OpenGL or DirectX, and get higher resolution graphics too.

Of course I'd still prefer an external add-on unit with cartridge slots so that I can play real cartridges through their emulators. It's not like they have to worry about people using it to dump cartridges, since they're already all dumped.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[MindStalker]

GCN games can be played directly, all other games will be downloadable. Of course they might not offer unpopular games. Personally I have some unpopular favorites... Either way you are right, they may recompile these games especially the N64 games. The SNES and NES games would be a waste of nintendos time to recompile as emulators are able to do these flawlessly.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think it is a mistake

I don't think it's that much of a mistake... even the XBox owners I know agree that there are pitifully few *really good* titles that they'll want to keep on playing for the next few years, and those people already have XBoxes. For the naysayers like myself who didn't buy the XBox, the number of good games is even lower (let's say Jade Empire, and maybe a couple of others).

Naturally, not everyone agrees on which titles are good, but there's a fairly obvious pattern in the game sales. Should Microsoft really bother bending over backwards to include backwards compatibility for such a minority on each game? Far better to make the few popular games work, and forget the dross. The three people who are pissed that "Blinx the Timesweeper" doesn't run on the new console aren't exactly going to matter much in Microsoft's big plan.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

...but obviously Microsoft couldn't afford to pull a playstation2 and put an entire PS1 on the die.

Um, nope. The PS2 CPU is just a PS2. The PS1 processor is a seperate chip used by the PS2 to handle I/O. Not on the "die". Just being pedantic sorry.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[stu42j]

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier if they had just used a faster x86, faster nvidia, etc?

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard. there is quite a difference between nes/snes emulation and xbox emulation. i have an nes emulator on my phone.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Paul Slocum]

Although I'm a Nintendo fan, I have to point out that as far as the Revolution's backward compatibility with retro Nintendo consoles, it's not like you're going to be able to just take a NES cart and plug it into the Revolution, so it's not truly backwards compatible either. And you may have to re-buy those old games off a Nintendo website (I doubt it's going to just work with standard ROMs and they're going to give them away for free).

Also, Microsoft never actually said you'd have to re-buy the games. That was just something the article suggested might happen. I tend to think that a more likely scenario would be that you send in your original version and get a free copy of the recompiled game, or a disk that contains both versions.

-paul

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[PeelBoy]

When you say buy do you mean $5-$10 bucks for probably hundreds of games? Who cares. You could still afford to buy the Revolution, the entire game library from all of Nintendo's previous systems excluding the gb/gba and gamecube and STILL have spent half as much as it costs to buy a fucking PS3

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Detritus]

Nintendo has the advantage that the Game Cube uses a Power PC CPU and an ATI graphics chip, just like the Revolution. So they have a much easier task of making the Revolution compatible with the Game Cube. They didn't switch to a completely incompatible CPU and graphics chip like Microsoft did with the Xbox 360.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[brkello]

It is backward compaatible with the game cube. I would love to see you try to cram a NES cart in your Revolution. They will have emulators for their very old system. It's not as simple to emulate the previous gen, particularly the way MS makes their system.

Nintendo cares for the gaming community as much as MS does. They all just want to make money. They might "get" gamers a little better (at least on this point, not so much on others), but they are still out for a profit. How your biased, factually inaccurate post got modded up so high is beyond me.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[bluk]

I think the more likely scenario is that you download "compatibility enhancements" off of Xbox Live. It is far easier to download and probably a lot cheaper than it is to do any physical exchanges. You also have to think that this Christmas the number of original Xbox games sold would plunge if you hear that you must exchange your game to make it play on Xbox 360.

I certainly wouldn't buy any game that I knew I was going to have to exchange. I would buy it if all it required was a download upgrade.

This Christmas will certainly be an interesting learning lesson for MSFT and others in the industry. People will find out if backwards compatibility is such a big deal, if publishers are willing to keep on an old platform when the new platform isn't backwards compatible 100% (PS1 games still were made after PS2 hit), if releasing your console first is such a good idea (Dreamcast vs. PS2), etc. If the Xbox 360 wins over the next few years, it will turn heads.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[bluk]

I'm sorry but if the Revolution debuts at $100 or even less than $200, I'd be surprised. Nintendo also hasn't been too keen on keeping their classic prices low (look at GBA remakes of their old games). I really root for Nintendo because they are the ones that are focused on the games. They're willing to take some risks. I don't think I will ever see such a madness as Donkey Konga on any other platform. But let's be real. Nintendo does like milking their old games, and it doesn't come cheap.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Skasta]

One thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that up to the current generation, most games were programmed in the native assembly language of the processor, so there really is no such thing as a recompile. They might be able to translate from one assembly language to the next, but emulation seems more straightforward

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

"How your biased, factually inaccurate post got modded up so high is beyond me"

Beyond you? This is slashdot for christ sakes, it's simple.

"MS is teh evil!!" + "company XYZ (or better yet, Apple) is great and is looking out for you!" = +5 Insightful.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Saige]

Microsoft cares not for the gaming community, only how to make money off of them. Why let you play Halo and Halo 2 on the 360 for free, when you can pay to buy those games again?

Yeah, cause of course this has been confirmed by Microsoft, right?

I'd make some comment about how unfair it is to take a rumor that's being passed around - one that's been more or less contradicted by a recent interview in Engadget - and use it to attack a company. But this is Slashdot, and people have found a lot flimsier reasons to attack MS. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Look - a large part of the Xbox crew are serious gamers - of COURSE they care about the gaming community. And I fully expect that the Xbox 360 is going to play my copies of Halo and Halo 2 just fine without having to spend another dime on those games.

And I'll probably still be playing tons of Halo 2 when the 360 comes out. :)

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[KDR_11k]

The GBA remakes cost that much because a GBA cart costs quite some money to make, from what I've heard you need to sell it for 20 just to break even.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't develop current-generation games but I find it highly unlikely that games are coded in assembler anymore - maybe parts of them, but for the most I would assume it would be in a high-level language - there is no point to using assembler for most stuff.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[MindStalker]

Thats what he said, NES/SNES were pure assembly. Games for the N64 were probably a mix of assembly for the really important stuff and compiled code for other stuff. The GC probably has a lot of compiled stuff, but also remember that the older game companies have large assembly knowledge and they arn't going to throw this completly out of the window.

Re:Backwards compatibility is hard

[algae]

It's easier to emulate x86 on PowerPC than vice versa. I'm guessing that Xbox backwards-compatibility has something to do with why MS bought VirtualPC, a software package that lets you, surprise, emulate x86 on PowerPC.

Whooptie doo, one possibility

[Filiks]

If the average game executable and some key files that need recompiling are 100MB, and I bet most are more like 20MB, MS could release a DVD with 100 recompiled games on it. Just put in the disc, select all the games you and your friends play, wait a minute for the files to copy to the HD, then put in the games actual DVD and play. Since the files are copied to the HD, you only have to do this once.

Better yet, make the files downloadable for those with broadband. Problem solved, and only about 2GB of hard drive space used for twenty games.

Re:Whooptie doo, one possibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, since the 360 ships with a hard drive, they could just put the recompiled binaries for current games on the machine ahead of time.

Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[Scott Robinson]

This is just a theory, but it seems reasonable that they could simply recompile and tune the binaries, and then place them on X-Box Live.

Any X-Box 360 hooked up to the network could download the new binaries (not too large) and then run them.

Wa-la, backwards compatibility and a pushing factor for online access.

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wa-la? Is that like Walla Walla, Washington or something? Oh, or maybe you mean voila (veeeee, not a double-yoo)...

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[Drantin]

The phrase is "voila"

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[DingerX]

Actually, the approved phrase is:

Wa-la[voilà|videlicet|ecce]
But even that's not fully backwards compatible; don't expect your linear-B titles to work.

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[sehryan]

You mean, sort of like what Nintendo has already announced they are going to do with the Revolution?

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[xutopia]

you mean the word is "voila" :-P

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[KDR_11k]

Note the implementation: Nintendo doesn't offer only a new set of binaries that you have to supply with datafiles yourself, they supply the whole game for a fee and perhaps the occassional freebie if they feel like it. What he was suggesting was that MS should simply put only the data that needs to be recompiled on Live and the XB360 takes all the datafiles (that don't need recompilation) from the corresponding game disk, kinda like how Linux versions work with most games. The entire game isn't sold via Live.

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[seann]

they really could be on to something here.

thats too great of an idea to be thrown away.

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[Deadguy2322]

Ah, yet anoither twit who never found the driver settings menu on the PS2. Power up with an empty drive, then push Triangle. You can turn on load acceleration and texture smoothing for PS1 games. A lot less painful, you stubby-dicked Troll!

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Almost, there's a grave accent on the a (à in HTML), so it's "voilà"

Re:Backwards compat. for those on Live.

[SuiteSisterMary]

Oh, I found those settings. They don't help a whole lot.

Hell, Final Fantasy X has just as bad a problem. Lulu's hair rendered as four rectangles, with flex points? It reminded me of Albert's cape in Legend of Dragoon. Necklaces and belts rendered by putting flat textures on flat planes? Yipes.

Actually, it reminded me alot of FF8 on the PC; same textures, sharper polys. Which in turn reminded me of FF7 on the PC, which looked much better. Why? Very very few textures; almost everything was shaded. Which means that it looked nice when you upped the resolution.

Troll? Hardly. Simply pointing out that, hey, you've got a hard drive, and an ethernet port. Not to mention a graphics library which was designed around the idea of having one set of code work on multiple graphics boards. Why not take advantage of all this?

Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting to get the feeling that they actually are trying to get themselves laughed out of the console market...

Is there anyone left that is really going to go out and buy an xbox 360?

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[defkkon]

I'm starting to get the feeling that they actually are trying to get themselves laughed out of the console market... Is there anyone left that is really going to go out and buy an xbox 360?

I am. There's lots of titles that I'm looking forward to. Some originals, some sequals.
The key for me is Xbox Live. I own the GC, PS2, and Xbox - I enjoy each of them based on their respective strengths. The integrated and well-designed online experience of Live is well worth purchasing the console, for me.
You can downplay Live all you want, but to me that's key to Microsoft's strategy. For a measly $80 a year, you can an integrated online service that is monitored. They tweak the performance, they listen to feedback and suspend/ban accounts, and they offer some great downloadable content. The Xbox 360 may not be as powerful as the PS3, but there's a lot more to a good console than just power.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[chrismcdirty]

I haven't made a decision on the Xbox 360 yet. I wasn't an adopter of the original, but I admit there are some pretty good games for it.

I also assume I will buy Revolution, as I have bought every other Nintendo console. The announced features also have me intrigued.

But I can tell you right now I won't be buying a PS3 for that estimated price of $465. I was fairly outraged when I could only buy my GCN for $350, and that came with 3 games. Let's say you want to buy a PS3, another control, and 2 games. What's it gonna cost? $465 + $30 + $50 + $50 = $595. That's just outrageous for a console.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[chrismcdirty]

there's a lot more to a good console than just power.

That's a funny statement in this context. Because Microsoft pretty much told us the exact opposite until the time Live was actually launched. They played number games all because they could to the general public. The computer savvy know that a PPC CPU at 433 MHz was basically on par, if not better, than a Celeron at 733 MHz. But if you can throw that your processor is nearly twice as high as the competitor's to the general public, they'll eat it up. It was so out of hand that the president of Tecmo was claiming that the GCN could never run the original DOA... and that game wasn't very impressive looking.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, there is no 'estimated price of $465"

The only thing that has been stated about the initial price of the PS3 is it will be UNDER $465(or whatever the figure the Sony exec gave).

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[chrismcdirty]

Don't you know that "under $465" is advertiser speak for $464.99? Watch a commercial that actually advertises a price. Every single one of them says under [price figure], then shows in small print that the actually price is a penny less.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[defkkon]

...Because Microsoft pretty much told us the exact opposite until the time Live was actually launched...But if you can throw that your processor is nearly twice as high as the competitor's to the general public, they'll eat it up

I absolutely agree. When Xbox launched, it was all about the power. I guess that's one of the few advantages to launching your console later than the PS2. :)

I also agree that the public eats up hardware specs. This is usually the downfall of Nintendo - they push the fact that hardware power needs to be paired with great game-making. This round of the console wars, it seems like it may be a thorn in Microsoft's side as well. They have this great online service that really can help improve the online gaming experience, but it could all be for nothing if people ignore it and look at the PS3 specs.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[CastrTroy]

Yes. Processor is just 1 thing. The xbox just had stock RAM. The GCN had 24 megs of SRAM, which is very fast ram basically attached to the CPU. This gives a huge performance increase.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[KDR_11k]

Additionally, Goldman Sachs believes the XBox 360 will cost more than expected. Brace yourself for two 450 dollar consoles.

On the other hand, the first estimate of the PSP price was around 450 US Dollars as well.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[tepples]

The xbox just had stock RAM. The GCN had 24 megs of SRAM, which is very fast ram basically attached to the CPU

Actually, the GameCube had 1T-SRAM, which is apparently DRAM with a really sneaky buffering mechanism. (MoSys's site has "free reg. req." to download more detailed PDFs, but some of the required information does not appear to apply to hobbyists still seeking employment.)

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[justforaday]

Something everyone seems to be forgetting is that that is the price after conversion. It's entirely possible that it will be that price in Japan, but debut here at $500.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[0kComputer]

Its funny how much faith people are putting in Sony's specs considering 1. The cell chip doesn't exist yet 2. Sony's track record of bullshit, i.e. emotion engine type crap.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just outrageous for a console.

Nope, only for the poor maybe. I hope you don't buy one, then maybe I can get my hands on one sooner.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Microsoft's track record of BS?

And what about Microsoft's faith in their hardware? From what I read it sounds like they are having doubts as to their configuration, and might consider making upgrades later(i.e. blue-ray).

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[Rallion]

You do know that Live is no longer a unique feature, right? And hell, it seems very likely that Nintendo's first party games will be free to play. Free is less than $80.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[defkkon]

So far, Live is still unique. Until Nintendo announces a monitored service, that is.

Here's the thing - I used to play a LOT of PC titles online. It was great, mostly because it was free. Then people start to cheat. They start to greif. Then they start acting like assholes, spewing insults, racist comments, etc.

What I like is the fact that I leave feedback on them, and the Live team will review this feed back each week. Those offending accounts are either suspended, banned, or have their voice-capablities removed.

Until Nintendo or Sony unveils a similar service (free OR pad, because I'll gladly pay for this) I still feel that Live is unique. Especially since it is a COMMON platform across all games. If a guy gets banned from Halo 2, he can't go on Ghost Recon 2 and do the same shit. If he's banned from Live, he's banned from it all.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[brkello]

Actually, he's right. There is no estimated price for $465. There was an estimate that it was going to cost under x amount of yen. Someone converted that to US currency and that amount was about $465. Obviously, the price of the system will not be $464.99. That is such a stupid number and I don't know why people are so daft to jump all over it. If it will be priced in that range even, it would be $499.99, $449.99, or $399.99. I imagine it will largely depend on how much the other systems cost and the prices will drop a bit fairly quickly if they start out at that price point.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[jericho4.0]

I think enough people have seen and touched the cell to confirm that it exists. There was a IBM demo at E3, too.

Re:Just How Much Worse Can It Get For Microsoft?

[SScorpio]

I find that hard to believe. Normally the hardware and actual games will be priced higher in Japan and lower in America. We'll have to see what happens in about a year though.

Wether they have it or not

[Primal_theory]

They will try to say that it does, because that is a BIG spending point on parents, I know for a fact that if a console doesn't have backwards compatability, you have to really convince them otherwise to buy it, because they HATE wasting money on games....

(From a guy who lives inside a gamecrazy, not really, but almost)

Re:Wether they have it or not

[barawn]

I know for a fact that if a console doesn't have backwards compatability, you have to really convince them otherwise to buy it, because they HATE wasting money on games....

But the parents won't ask "Is this backwards compatible?" just like they won't ask "Does this have the AltiVec vector instruction set for the PowerPC?" (Note that I don't know, nor care, whether it does :) )

They'll say "Can Jimmy play the Xbox games he already has on it?" and they can't say "Yes" if this is true. They'll probably also ask "can he play these games on it?" and point to the $10 preowned Xbox section, and they'll have to say "No". They'll then ask "which ones can he play" and the people will point to the $30-$60 Xbox 360 games. And I'm assuming that rereleased Xbox games will be in the $30 range. Maybe.

That's the point with backward compatibility. It's not about playing your old games. Microsoft didn't demolish the competition in the last generation - hell, it's not even guaranteed that they'll end up in 2nd place, as Microsoft's shifting to Xbox 360, Nintendo's still got Zelda: Twilight Princess, and only 2 million consoles separate the two worldwide.

So not everyone has an Xbox. Backwards compatibility gives people cheap games to buy at launch. Cheap, as in $10 cheap. And when you're asking people to plunk down $300-400 on a console, there better be $10 cheap games. And I don't honestly think that companies could recompile an old game for the Xbox 360, bug test it thoroughly, fix any bugs (because oh, there will be bugs), rinse, repeat, then redo the box art, manufacture the game, repackage, and redistribute, and still sell the game for $10-15.

That's what backwards compatibility really means to consumers. $10-15 games at launch. If they don't have that, it just doesn't matter.

Re:Wether they have it or not

[Primal_theory]

Well almost every time I got a new gameboy for b-day or xmas (when i was much, much younger), they made sure the 15 games i had for the gameboy before it worked on it...

And sometimes you just want to play old games, and not have the old console, For instance, I still haven't traded in my N64, Nor will I ever, because there is nothing quite as good (for AI Multiplay), As perfect dark, that game was soo much fun, I still play it every now and then, and It was soo far ahead of its time (it supported surround sound AND a hidef of sorts)...And I guess even though the new ones are coming out, i'm afraid it will be turned into one of those "generic" ones, where its just nothing special and nothing new added to the feild, which is why people like games that add new things (perfect dark, super smash bros, halo, etc, etc, etc...)

Re:Wether they have it or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Parents buy what the child wants. If they are comfortable spending that much money on something for their kid, very few are going to worry about backward compatibility.

Re:Wether they have it or not

[Pranadevil2k]

To me backwards compatibility is not "Can I get games on the cheap?" It's "Can I play the stuff I own, and will I be able to play the good games I missed?" If I haven't played Final Fantasy XII by the time the PS3 comes out, I'm going to be angry if I can't play it on my new system, regardless of how much the game itself cost. Now that I think about it, there aren't really a lot of games on the X-Box that I'd miss. Nothing I can think of is anything I'd care about playing ever again, especially after the sequals to them have been released for the 360. Not like anything on the X-Box except maybe Morrowind and KOTOR had any kind of storyline that I'd be missing out on.

Re:Wether they have it or not

[Tachikoma]

I'm excited that the PS3 is going to be backwards compatible, because I have a ps2 now and I still play Tony Hawk 2 and FFVII which are both ps1 games. I always wanted an Xbox, pretty much only for Halo, but being in college didn't have cash to throw away for both, so I chose ps2 so I could play my ps1 games still. So why now that I have a job would I even bother buying anything xbox knowing that the games that are backwards compatable are limited and I would need to re-buy games I loved or keep my old xbox around. I certainly don't have my ps1 anymore.

Who here is really surprised that xbox 360 isn't completely backwards compatible? If people will dish out $400 for a system, they WILL rebuy games so they can play them on their new system, ergo MS makes more money. Coincidence? No young padawan, the dark side it is. Why would MS make it cheaper for you? That certainly doesn't benefit them.

Last I heard there might be a system in place to download games with the xbox 360 right? I might be wrong, but lets say there is. You pay $50 for xbox live right? Wouldn't you pay $100 if you got to play or download re-released games? Or say $5 per game you download? Not that those numbers are accurate or anything, it is the idea that is important. MS knows that if you have something expensive, you'll shell out $$ to get more use of it.

Re:Wether they have it or not

[barawn]

Who here is really surprised that xbox 360 isn't completely backwards compatible? If people will dish out $400 for a system, they WILL rebuy games so they can play them on their new system, ergo MS makes more money.

If you go into a store saying "I'm willing to buy an Xbox 360" then it doesn't matter.

But undecided people don't buy systems on hardware. They buy systems on games. I'm not talking about people who know intimate hardware details and hacking potential each box has. I'm talking about most consumers. I'm not talking about people who have an Xbox already and enough disposable income to buy another one. I'm talking about the average person.

Backwards compatibility provides a system with a huge pool of cheap games. It suddenly makes that $300 system with $10 games look less expensive than the $200 system with $50 games, and certainly less expensive than the other $300 system with $50 games.

Keep in mind that the Xbox completely flopped versus the PS2 in the last generation, regardless of what geeks think - at best, they stole 10% market share from Sony. If they want to try the same strategy as last time - that is, just cater to the geeks, have a blast - but they sure as heck didn't make money with that strategy before.

If Microsoft is targeting the people who have $500 + disposable income for games, I don't think they'll make much inroads in the market.

Re:Wether they have it or not

[Primal_theory]

Also, don't forget, that, though the xbox did loose overall, they have beat the ps2 a few months in a row at one point in time (not in total sales but sales for that month)... And barawn does have a point with the cost of games, if games do eventually rise to 60$ like they are supposed to, well then...

Shiver-me-effin-timbers
Beacuse There Is No way, at all, that i will EVER pay 60 per game, i'll pirate all the low-popularity ones, and then buy the ones i really like...

From the viewpoint of a teenager, I have quite a few choices, because of my large variety of hobbies! I have to choose from:
New Pc Parts (am planning on a 500gb hdd soon)
Xbox 360 right when it comes out
More psp games (comon crack that 1.5!)
Paintball (in general, i'm sick of using cores!)
Driver's Training: Rents are paying for half but still!

I also have a savings account, which i put 3/4ths of my gift money into every time i get some, so i plan to buy a car and pay for some amount of colledge (not full colledge, just a trade school)...

And well, THIS SHIT GETS EXPENSIVE!, And you old folks can't tell me to go get a job, my exteme case of add (and the lack of working meds) prohibits me from doing most jobs that a 15yr old kid would have, so i'm gonna have to drop some hobbies....which i don't wanna do!

what I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think will happen, if recompiling is needed, is that the executable (xbe) will be offered as a free/low cost download on xbox live and will require the game DVD to be inserted to play to grab all the media etc. Essentially a patch to make it work on the 360. Keep in mind that xbox live will be a free service for 360, as only the premium features cost money. Microsoft would be making a big mistake if it offered backwards compatibility for only paying subscribers.

Re:what I think...

[KDR_11k]

Low cost is already too expensive. That kind of stuff is free in the PC world and unlike Live there is no reason paid-for binaries are better than free ones.

Re:what I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I really am inclined to think it will be free. Xbox live currently is a paid service but will be largely free for xbox 360. Microsoft knows how important live will be in the next gen of consoles so they are willing to offer most of the features for free. Keep in mind that with emulation maybe only the top xbox games will run fine at xbox 360 release, but over time they can tweak and add to the emulation so that other games will run as well.

You would just simply download the recompiled xbe on live for free(hopefully), pop in your game disc and go to town on your favorite xbox game.

This is cynical.

[cluke]

Basically, they do not have backwards compatibility in the proper sense of the term, but as it is perceived to be such a make or break feature, they are just going to LIE about it??

Re:This is cynical.

[Lally Singh]

This is somehow surprising to you? From MS?

Re:This is cynical.

[StocDred]

Put this on the list with those faked screenshots from Xbox launch, the DVD capability that became a separate purchase, and the invention of timed exclusives. (Splinter Cell! ONLY ON XBOX! For three months!)

I Don't Know What I'm More Pissed About

[Anonymous Coward]

The 360 NOT backward compatible

or

Microsoft outright lying about being backward compatible

First that embarrassing MTV thing and now this...

Free, but for a price?

[sloose]

A bit of speculation here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft gave the recompiled versions out for free over Xbox Live, but only to people who are gold subscribers. Could be a good ploy to get people who aren't interested in Xbox Live to join up.

Re:Free, but for a price?

[Gulthek]

Large outcry from that, which wouldn't be past Microsoft. But I'd still say it'd be more likely that they would put these games on the silver network which is officially for game content downloads, extra game content purchases, and little stuff like scoreboards.

XBox Live! Gold is officially for game playing ability.

Of course who knows what these tiers will actually mean come release time.

Re:Free, but for a price?

[MajroMax]

Large outcry from that, which wouldn't be past Microsoft. But I'd still say it'd be more likely that they would put these games on the silver network which is officially for game content downloads, extra game content purchases, and little stuff like scoreboards.

This seems reasonable enough, it doesn't quite make sense to me (see below). More interestingly, what do they intend to do about third-party games where Microsoft doesn't have the right to recompile/redistribute the executable?

Especially for semi-popular games that are no longer being sold new, it wouldn't be in Developer Z's interest to recompile, retest, and rerelease the executable.

In short, I feel that there's no way that Microsoft will be able to offer this level of "backwards compatibility" for free. My guess for the price-point of a downloaded compatibility upgrade will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 (waived for Halo, and maybe a couple other extremely popular games). It would make sense for XBox Live Gold Super Duper Ultra Level to offer free backwards compatibility, but at $5/game, I'm not sure if Microsoft's accountants could justify including it in the monthly cost.

Re:Free, but for a price?

[MajroMax]

Well, it turns out that I was wrong. The original article was updated to include comments from Microsoft, which say that they will not charge for new versions of games. Given that, the difference between emulating the original and distributing recompiled executables is academic for anyone with an internet connection.

Doom 360

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Ah! Cretian Humor!

[mjpaci]

You have a better chance of getting your Linear-B titles working than your Linear-A titles thanks to Michael Ventris.

(go look it up on Wikipedia)

--Mike

Re:Ah! Cretian Humor!

[tepples]

Ventris? Didn't he make that puzzle game with falling blocks?

It's Greek to me.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"Backwards Compatibility" doesn't matter to me

[Albigg]

I'm lucky if I play through 5-10 new games a year. I'm a family guy gamer. When I want to play a game, I want the best there is. Simply because I don't get much time playing games. Why waste time on crap? FPS? I'll get the best one that is available. I won't care about playing Halo 2 on the 360 since something else will be out. Much better. It isn't just the graphics / game play / number of polygons whatever. You have to think about multiplayer. Will there be lots of players on Halo 2 a year and a half from now? Maybe, but most will have moved on I'm sure. I don't play old games, I play the latest and greatest. Call it hype if you want, I just enjoy the best that is available.

Re:"Backwards Compatibility" doesn't matter to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I just enjoy the best that is available.

me too. sometimes the best that is available is an older game. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy Tactics, and MGS still get quite a bit of play time in my ps2.

newest != best

Re:"Backwards Compatibility" doesn't matter to me

[Rallion]

Halo 2? If you play the best, shouldn't you be playing Goldeneye or something? Maybe Timesplitters 2. Halo 2 isn't the best, it's just the most hyped. And how newthe game is has nothing to do with how fun it is to play.

Re:Buy again?

[theVP]

Have fun playing games on Live with a mod chip installed. If I had the cash for a 2nd Xbox, I'd totally mod the 2nd one, but I fail to see the point in modding if I take away my functionality.

If the thing has enough storage

[dtfinch]

They could just ship the xbox 360 with the recompiled binaries for the top x games, and just detect when one of those CD's is inserted and run the embedded version instead. There's no added piracy risk, because they're useless without the data from the CD anyway, so it's just a matter of them asking the game publisher "hey, do you want it to work or not?" and then getting it to work.

What a load of trolls

[JFMulder]

Sorry, but I'm surprised none of the people here who got 3+ for their comments have read this article.

They clearly say they are going to EMULATE the top titles. Now, they say that if they manage to emulate Halo2, there's good chance that games that use a subset of funcionality will also work. Hence, they target a few games, and they get collateral compatibility from these high-end titles.

Re:What a load of trolls

[cluke]

You don't emulate games, man, you emulate hard-ware. So, if what you're saying is they are going to do a half-assed emulator 'just good enough' to run a selected sub-set of games, then fair enough but that isn't backwards compatibility.

Re:What a load of trolls

[JFMulder]

Yeah, I didn't express myself correctly, but the truth is, in all the xbox executive interviews I've read, they said they would have compatibility with SELECTED games. People who aren't interrested enough into the 360 to read the articles are just jumping the gun here. The headline for the slashdot articles are just sensationalist and not reflecting what has been said in conference and interviews.

Re:What a load of trolls

[Saige]

Shhh... quiet!

This is a Slashdot article on a Microsoft product - there's no room for reality here! You have to bash MS for things that they're not doing, and explain why they now are responsible for everything wrong in your life!

You start mentioning truth here, people are going to start assuming that MS is paying you and come harass you personally for being evil, since only evil paid MS supporters have anything less than a raving hatred for the company.

Re:What a load of trolls

[gabebear]

Sorry, but I'm surprised none of the people here who got 3+ for their comments have read this article.

They clearly say they are going to EMULATE the top titles.

That article says no such thing!

Emulation isn't even mentioned in the article. The interview is vague as Hell on how they are going to get bakcwards compatiblity and ends with "the execution [of XBox compatibility] will speak for itself".

So, have you read this article?

Re:What a load of trolls

[JFMulder]

Lifted from the article :
I'd say what we will do is pick a set of titles and do all the technical work to get those to work. The truth is when you do some of those titles, you do get dozens to hundreds of other titles because you take any game that pushes the system and exercises it. If you can make backward compatibility happen for it, you'd handle any game that has a subset of what it does.

That screams emulation to me. Make sure X game that pushes the system really hard works. If it works, you might have other games working. So he is not spelling out EMULATION, but that's exactly how a developper would go about writing an emulator. Pick a target, write for it, and see what happens with other apps. If he meant recompiling each applications and rewriting part of the code, then there would not be any crossover. You'd have to rewrite code for everygame.

Re:What a load of trolls

[gabebear]

That's also what they would say if they were designing APIs in a XBox1 work-alike setup. Recompiling an Xbox1 game doesn't mean a complete rewrite. A lot of what they would be doing to get Xbox1 games to compile for the XBox360 is writing APIs that act exactly like they did on the XBox1. The XBox360 development enviroment is going to be very similar to the XBox1.

Creating a work-alike API for the XBox1 would be very hard, but definately possible. I'm not sure with the hardware they announced that a simple binary emulator(like the current Virtual PC) would work at all.

If they go with an emulator I'd guess they would pass as many API calls to the host as possible, similar to what DarWine is trying to do with QEMU. You can currently only use DarWine to compile windows programs on MacOSX, but x86 binary compatability is planned for the second phase.

Microsoft definately has their work cut out for them wether they are emulating or recompiling. If they can't get at least 75% of XBox1 games working on the XBox360 at launch, then announcing backwards compatability is going to hurt them rather then help them.

Possibly Great For Nintendo

[10101001 10101001]

If this logic holds (ie, enough people buy it), Nintendo can stretch it a bit further by advertising their GBA/Nintendo DS system as backwards compatible with the SNES and NES.

Backwards Compatibility

[Spartan 118]

XBOX 360 is only supposed to have a launch library of 15 Games so it would be better to just have all the other XBOX games avaiable from the start to make it more bearable. If they don't do this the PS3 will have it easy until their launch date, only having to compete with few games.

Re:Backwards Compatibility

[KirkH]

Not sure where you got your info, but everything I've read has estimated a Xbox 360 launch library of 25-40 games.

Re:Backwards Compatibility

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm not sure how long you've been around console releases but this is always the case. Huge claims of hardware capabilities, big prices for the console and accessories, and then it makes a nice conversation piece for a couple months because there is one or two good games and the usual littany of sports/rehashed titles.

All of the competition is basically on even footing even with staggered release dates, and the impending release of Halo 3. Sony and Nintendo just have to release their hardware a couple weeks early as is always the case and steal MS's Halo thunder. A christmas release does give an edge but we've yet to begin the real marketing battles, and things like the problems with backwards compatibility and false claims will also put a damper on MS's release if these things keep cropping up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's about the GPU

[Dr. Spork]

From what I understand, emulating the CPU is not a problem. However, realtime emulation of the GPU is much harder. An optimized vector processor does not automatically have an easy time emulating a weaker but differently optimized vector processor. This is why Sony just included the PS1 GPU inside the PS2. Microsoft can't do that because Nvidia hates them and they would charge them a fortune for it. Check out this article for more details about this.

I wouldn't be surprised

[Dr. Spork]

Also, since the 360 ships with a hard drive, they could just put the recompiled binaries for current games on the machine ahead of time.

I wouln't be surprised if this really was their plan. That's maybe why they say they'll only support the "most popular" games, to avoid having to cram the hard drive full of stuff.

I can imagine this working pretty well, that is, being pretty much seamless to the the normal Joe User. For the obscure games, they may program the 360 to pop up a window when the disk is inserted asking you if you want to download a "compatibility patch" from Microsoft. The Xbox1 disks pressed more recently might include this compatibility patch on them. Yeah, not exactly optimal, but not catastrophic either.

The bonus is that the recompiled games might be set to run explicitly in 720p and with all sorts of anti-aliasing and other fancy graphics stuff that the first xbox can't do. This may encourage people to buy the 360 just to see their favorite games looking better. (I wonder if the PS3 will offer something similar for PS2 games...)

Not Backwards Compatibility

[calibanDNS]

Nintendo does this with the GBA and old NES and SNES games, but at least they have the balls to admit that they're just using it to try to make more money with a new system and old properties instead of claiming it is 'backwards compatibility' between the GBA and SNES.

As long as MS and XBox developers allow owners of the original XBox games to download these updates to the old games for free, it should be acceptable. But otherwise, this is a scam. And in no way can this be called 'backwards compatibility'.

What they might try to do....

[rubberbando]

If the games will run through recompilation, here is what I think they could do.

They will probably have it limited to those who buy the more expensive version of the 360 with the hard drive and combined with XBox Live, download the recompiled executable to run off the hard drive while reading the data from the CD/DVD.

Never mind emulation...

[Hamster Lover]

I wonder if the cost of emulating the old Xbox on new hardware would be significantly reduced if MS pursued a hardware solution. That is, if they followed Sony's PS compatiblity method in the PS2 through inclusion of miniturized integrated PS circuitry.

By including certain hardware elements from the old Xbox, such as the Nvidia graphics chip, they could avoid legal entanglements and guarantee compatibility. On the other hand, I don't think MS considers backwards compatiblity to be high on their priority list and, at least at this stage, it appears MS is making a weak effort.

Re:Never mind emulation...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

That's not an option, as nVidia is quite pissed at Microsoft now so there's no way in hell they're going to cooperate.

Besides from what we can tell right now Microsoft seems more to be going the "recompilation" route, not emulation.

Agreed

[Dr. Spork]

I totally agree. I bet this is what they will do. What's more, since they now have the luxury of shipping new game "guts" they can tweak them for 720p and allow the new GPU to process the hell out of the graphics, so that the same game will look substantially better on the 360 (since it doesn't have to be exactly the same game).

The Bleem Strategy

[blueZhift]

Back in the day, there was a copy called Bleem that essentially sold emulators for the Sega Dreamcast that allowed it to play selected Playstation games, such as Gran Turismo 2, etc.. You would have to buy the appropriate "Bleem Pack" to play a given set of games. Perhaps Xbox 360 backwards compatibility will take this approach. The Xbox would download the appropriate patches and settings to play a given previous generation game. If they can support say the 50 most popular Xbox games, then they may be able to get away with it. Heck, the PS2 does not play 100 percent of the first generation Playstation games either.

In any case, if the end user has to go out and buy a title again, then backwards compatibility is a lie and I sincerely hope that Sony and Nintendo pummels them mercilessly! Seriously though, I think Microsoft will pull it off somehow. They have more than enough resources and talent to do the job. Yeah, I know, this is /., MS is evil! But they _do_ have a lot of talented and passionate people working on this. So I think they'll pull it off.

Little did they know...

[lpangelrob2]

Little did Microsoft know that they should've included source, and a copy of GCC*, with every game they sold.

*With a custom --xbox flag, of course, to prevent piracy.

Nice Try

[rAiNsT0rm]

As I've been modded a troll for saying exactly this, maybe now people will realize that there is no way to make the Xbox backwards compatible. The Xbox was a cobbled together console based on PC hardware with no way to provide backwards compatibility on a PPC CPU... this is Slashdot you'd think more people could have figured this out from the initial announcement, but alas the hype has gotten the better of a lot of fanboys.

I hate to tell you too that the shared memory of the Xbox 360 is going to be a downfall, as bandwidth is going to be a big issue. Developers are already grumbling about this. That 22Gb/s bandwith is going to be eaten up pretty quickly with all of the bandwidth hungry components fighting for their share. Do some simple math on the numbers involved with HD resolutions, AA, system processing, memory, and other overhead and the XBOX 360's shiny hype-filled exterior begins to dull a bit... it is most definitely NOT 15 times more powerful than the Xbox. Sony is actually pretty on target with the Xbox 1.5 comments. (I'm no longer a Sony guy either, so this is not said with any bias or loyalty.)

The Revolution has this game in the bag by playing the backfield right now. Let the two "Big Guns" slug it out and sling all the mud they want at each other while no one even targets them... then once the fervor is over release the full details and have no easy open media forum for rebuttal. They spring a few new titles, release the innovations of their controller, their low price-point, and the reality that their processing power is right in line with the competition, and bingo you've got a winner.

Re:Nice Try

[badasscat]

They spring a few new titles, release the innovations of their controller, their low price-point, and the reality that their processing power is right in line with the competition, and bingo you've got a winner.

You could have copied and pasted this from 2001 and been talking about the GameCube.

Didn't happen then - what makes you think it'll happen this time? There's a reason why Sony and MS are successful (and why even Nintendo was successful in the 80's and early 90's), and it wasn't because they hung back and let their bigger competitors hog all the media attention.

Of course, I say that realizing that "success" has different definitions depending on who you talk to... Nintendo is profitable with their limited market share and maybe they're content with that. But they're losing share with every new hardware launch lately, and that can't keep going on forever. Profits do depend on actually selling some product.

Re:Nice Try

[aftk2]

Please explain to me how the Revolution's processing power is "right in line with the competition."

Re:Nice Try

[Saige]

Well, remember how overstated the Xbox and PS2 were in regards to processing power when compared to the GameCube? When it came to reality, the GC was right alongside the other two consoles, even though they weren't claiming the same numbers.

Right now, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are being touted with these insane numbers that have no basis to actual GAMES - who cares how many FLOPS the PS3 can do, a very small part of the processing a game has to do is floating point.

Let's wait and see - in regards to the reality of what's created, the Revolution may not be far off the others.

Re:Nice Try

[rAiNsT0rm]

It is actually quite true, the Revolution wil be based on a 3 core custom CPU, and a custom GPU with most of the same features as the Xbox 360 and even a few additional ones such as the VGA output for monitors. The PS3 will have a slight edge on it power-wise (as it does on the Xbox 360 for the same reasons) but not by very much.

Wipe away the marketing hype and look at the real numbers. The Xbox 360 has 512MB *shared* memory between CPU and GPU (if this was a pc with shared video ram people would be dissing it left and right) and a cpu with three cores, The PS3 has a single core supported with symmetrical processing units (just glorified math co-processors bolted on) the GPU is where it pulls away a bit... the Revolution is right in line with these specs. That is how I arrive at my statement and it is totally accurate.

Re:Nice Try

[overbom]

Nice try, whatever. Microsoft acquired Connectix, who made virtual PC for the Mac, which allows Macs to emulate an X86 environment. XNA / directX is already present on the damn machine. It's not that it's not possible. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that it's hard, and Microsoft doesn't want to expend the resources to do it 100%.

BTW, you accuse a lot of people of being fanboys, and checking your post history, it sounds like you're already dead set on the revolution and nothing else will suffice. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I'd like you to meet pot. Pot, meet kettle. You two should get along just fine.

Re:Nice Try

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'll agree that the raw stats they provide aren't good indicators for performance in release titles, I've got to dispute one thing you've said.

About 90% of the operations performed in a modern 3D game are floating point operations. Every frame requires at minimum one transform which amounts to 4 floating point operations *PER VERTEX*, and that ignores the likelyhood that multiple on screen objects are moving independantly of one another (each requiring it's own transforms, in addition to the world transform). The average non-player critter model in a game is currently somewhere in the 300-1000 poly range (with roughly as many vertexes). Scenery is easily at multi-thousand vertex levels.

Re:Nice Try

[Saige]

The information I have seen comes directly from someone involved on the base software for one of the consoles, who has had the opportunties to analyze what games are actually DOING while they're running.

From the data that's been gathered, games spend 10-20% of their time doing floating point - unless explicitly written otherwise). This is from profiling actual running game code.

Re:Nice Try

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm quite aware of the Connectix purchase, and it has no bearing here. MS has already stated they are going to require recompiles for any sort of "backwards compatability," your argument is poor here: "MS could do it but its hard", so that's why they wouldn't expend the time or resources to true backwards compatability... which is a major factor, and its so much harder than designing an entire console and development software for it?!? They can't do it because it can't be done.

I accuse people who blatantly disregard fact in favor of hype, because there is no other excuse for people to try to defend ridiculous claims such as how the XBOX 360 is REALLY 15 times more powerful than XBOX 1, it makes no logical sense. I, in fact, have been a member of the *Sony* videogame media for over 4 years and have quite a bit of experience with consoles, programming for them, and covering the hardware and software. My credentials prove I am no fanboy of Nintendo, I don't even own a n64 or GC! I simply state facts that Sony and MS are getting off course with these next gen consoles and Nintendo is filling the actual wants and needs of customers. I'm not dead set on it, it could be a huge flop, I'm hoping not because it is the only one of the three to offer affordable gaming, accessible gaming, innovative and fun concepts, and not try to create another media center.

After this long reviewing games and systems one becomes jaded, I don;t want more of the same, I'm looking for someone to offer something new and fresh and renew my love for gaming... so far the Revolution is the only one to be doiung that or at least heading that way. For those who love their FPS's stay with MS or Sony, no matter to me.

Re:Nice Try

[ctid]

I don't understand why you lump Sony and MS together and say they are successful, while downplaying Nintendo's success. According to figures presented at the BBC, the proportions of the console market are:

1. 43% Playstation 2
   
2. 19% Xbox
   
3. 14% Gamecube
   

It would be more accurate to say that MS and Nintendo are about as successful as each other, but nowhere near as successful as Sony. But this does demonstrate the wisdom of your comment:

There's a reason why Sony and MS are successful (and why even Nintendo was successful in the 80's and early 90's), and it wasn't because they hung back and let their bigger competitors hog all the media attention.

I think that is more true than you know!

They could release the xbe's on live

[mcnut]

This will work essentially like a xbox live game update has before. Microsoft will send you a recompiled default.xbe, it will stay on your harddrive and is automatically loaded instead of the one on the cd. All the other data is still valid. Now, they may have totally different instruction sets, but programming for the xbox is a high enough level language that the API's could be identical, or have backwards compatibility in mind (this is Microsoft we're talking about). Therefore, it may just be as simple as firing up the project, running it through the new libraries set to compile for the xbox360

Re:They could release the xbe's on live

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but what you forget is that this is built on a couple of assumptions that are not true in the majority of house holds; these asumptions are that you have an internet connection that is fast enough to painlessly download patches, and that you have your XBox connected to this internet connection.

Certainly for most of the people who are highly technically minded (ie. geeks who read slashdot) this isn't a problem, but for a family that has to buy their system from Best Buy so that it can be installed in their home this is a huge obsticle. If microsoft truly wants mass market success they have to be willing to make everything readily available and usable by the dumbest people in society; that is the people who watch "Pimp my ride" and are excited that the car has a PS2 in it.

SUGGESTS. MAY.

[jfisherwa]

GamesIndustry.biz is full of speculation on this one, and I am perfectly capable of matching them on their bullshit blow-by-blow if this is what they call news.

It is just as possible that Microsoft may include updates to 'classic' titles as part of their basic/free Live service.

There are no links, references, sources or quotes in that article. Don't waste your time, people.

The Different GPU shouldn't a problem

[LWATCDR]

The XBox runs a modified w2k kernel and DirectX. One of the big selling points to developers was that you could port your Windows games to it with little effort. Now unless the program goes right to the hardware This should make running under Virtual PC pretty simple. You have a very well defined hardware target and a limited software library to support. A group of Microsoft developers could tweaking VirtualPC to handle all the current games. The reason for the comment about limited support for old XBox games could be.
1. They still do not have the hardware done so they do not know if it will be fast enough.
2. Some big seller like Halo2 breaks rules and goes right to the hardware.
3. They do not want it. They will make more money if you buy all new games.
4. It really will not matter. People with old Xbox games already own the XBox.

As to using .net odds are pretty good that VirtualPC already uses a jit compiler. I have a sneaking feeling that you will see a move to .net for XB360 development. It has so much freaking hardware that it might be fast enough to use .net for games. It would free Microsoft from being tied to the X86 which right now really is being kept alive by AMD with a large chunk of IBM tech like SOI.

Re:The Different GPU shouldn't a problem

[squiggleslash]

I understand what you're saying but you're focussing too much on API and not other details. Most emulators, and I'm assuming VPC is one of them, rarely manage to get more than 30% of the native speed of the target hardware when running on similar hardware, and that's if everything works well and JIT techniques are used. In other words, for the Xbox 360 to emulate an Xbox, I believe it has to be a little over three times as fast, at minimum.

"Aha!" I pretend to hear you cry, "Not so fast! The Xbox360 is well over three times as fast". Well, yes, which is why I said this would be pushing what VPC can do. But the 30% is not an exact 30%. There are some operations that will run well, and others that will not. So realistically, you want something many, many, times faster than that. And you want all that processing to be in the right place too, you're not going to find multiple cores makes it any easier.

As to using .net odds are pretty good that VirtualPC already uses a jit compiler.

Not exactly. Yes, it'll use some form of JIT compiler, but emulating an existing CPU is very different from the type of thing you can get away with when emulating a virtual one. The virtual one can have rules imposed that limit what type of code a program can implement. Self modifying code (which can be the result of something as simple as a game engine compiling a ruleset) and other tricks can seriously cripple a JIT compiler. This is why Java JITs tend to generate code that runs as fast as its C++ counterparts, but tools like VPC rarely achieve anything close to that level of performance.

The bottom line is that throwing in VPC isn't necessarily going to make it easy to run older games. Some will work, doubtlessly, others will run into glitches because they'll push the envelope in areas that work poorly under emulation. Microsoft, looking forward, would be better off encouraging the use of .net CLR (or a similar technology), it can then control how code is executed which, in turn, will make it easier to emulate in the future.

Re:The Different GPU shouldn't a problem

[LWATCDR]

Oh I do think that you will see a move to CLR.
I just think that the ATI VS nVidia argument is not an issue. The byte ordering on the CPUs is more of an issue.

Re:Buy again?

[gabebear]

HEY!!!, I paid for 2 of those games. Of course one of those was Mechwarrior for the express purpose of installing linux and then later installing EvolutionX.

I'm guessing I'll pick up a Revolution in about a year. I'm REALLY hoping this NES/SNES emulation stuff carries over to the DS.

Use your brain..

[LordZardoz]

If it has to be recompiled, it will probably end up just being a download of a new .exe over Live. They would not need to download the graphics, because those could probably still be pulled from the disk.

END COMMUNICATION

Direct X

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I missing something here or is the fact that all the games are developed using Direct X not enough to provide backwards compability.

As long as the games support Direct X they sould be compatiable - if they do not support Direct X then you have a problem.

JIT compilation

[Keeper]

Why do I get the feeling that the person they were talking to was referring to how they plan on emulating the x86 processor by using JIT compilation to translate x86 instructions to PPC instructions?

Quibbling trolls, no less.

[nobodyman]

Jimmy's Mom doesn't care about backwards compatible chipsets, or an xbox VM, or just-in-time native code swapping, or any of that.

As a previous post said, Jimmy's Mom is going to ask "Will it be able to play his XBox games?". "Yes" or "No" are really about as technical as you need to get (though it is important if "Yes" is contingent upon an XBox live subscription).

My guess is that "Compatibility" could be implemented in a couple ofways:

• Kludges in firmware and/or harddrive. 360 detects legacy game, looks it up in "Compatibility DB", if found, game loads and 360 does realtime swaps of unsupported instructions w/ native hacks. If this route, my guess is that the compatibility DB would include a core of top selling games, but could grow over time (via XBL or as a stowaway on a demo disc). My hunch is that this is the most likely scenario.
  
• Recompiled Binaries Same compatibility db check, but recompiled binaries get loaded up (and stay resident) in the roomier 512MB, and disc is still used for media (music, sounds, images, fmv, etc). This would actually be very cool, as it could open the potential for better visuals and performance for legacy games on the newer hardware. This would almost require an XBL subscription, IMHO. However, it's unlikely simply because it would require developer/publisher cooperation ("hey EA, give us your source for madden 2k4, okay?"), and you just know that one of the developers would have squeeled to the press by now.

Few people remember that PS2 compatibility was also limited (though probably not to the degree that XBox will be). If developers stuck to the API you were okay, but if your PS1 games tried to go against the metal or leveraged undocumented features that presumed a particular chipset... you were toast. My guess is that the same will hold true for PS3.

Re:Quibbling trolls, no less.

[SScorpio]

Few people remember that PS2 compatibility was also limited (though probably not to the degree that XBox will be). If developers stuck to the API you were okay, but if your PS1 games tried to go against the metal or leveraged undocumented features that presumed a particular chipset... you were toast. My guess is that the same will hold true for PS3.

The PS2 has enhancements such as faster disk loading and texturing smoothing to make some games better. These features didn't work in some games but you could turn them off and the games run fine just and look just like they were on the original PSX. I can't find the complete list of incompatibile games however it was somewhere like 20 or so games that had problems with the enhancement features turned off and or were just unplayable. And when you think of the size of the PSX's library that is less than 1% of the games not working as opposed to the Xbox 360 only running certain Xbox games as we are currently all assuming.

How large are the NES games?

[Erioll]

I'm just curious if anybody has an idea on the size of the NES games? I'm somewhat interested in the individual games, but I mean if you took the ENTIRE library of NES games, would they even add up to 1 CD's worth? SNES I'm sure would be more than that (they had many games at least a few megs large I'm sure), but NES? Maybe not...

Re:How large are the NES games?

[miyako]

Looking at the sizes for ROMs, an average NES game seems to be in the area of a few hundered k. I have about 12 nes roms (I only download roms for games I actually own, and still enjoy playing, since I don't have room for a dozen consoles in my entertainment center). The largest NES rom in my collection is Kirby's Adventure (one of the last NES games made IIRC) which sits in at about 775k. The smallest is Dragon Warrior, which is about 87k.
SNES ROMs tend to average a couple of megs. The earlier smaller ones at about 1.5 to 2 megs, and the later and larger games coming in at 5 or 6 megs.
N64 ROMs tend to be between 15 and 60 megs. I only have a few N64 ROMs, and they are on a different machine as this one won't run them at more than a couple of FPS, but IIRC Mario 64 is around 15 megs, and Conqurs Bad Fur Day is about 60 megs.
You would probably be able to easily fit the entire library of NES games on a CD. You could probably fit a large portion of the SNES library on a CD as well if you used some sort of compression.
For that matter, you could probably fit the entire library of decent N64 games on a CD, not because of their size, but because there are so few of them LOL.
That said, although it would be nice to be able to pop in a CD containing all your ROMs, nintendo has said that the games will be available for download, and I imagine that they will charge for the priviledge. I know there are a few games that I'd pay to be able to play on my TV again (Super Metroid comes to mind, love that game). I just wonder how long it will be until someone figgures out a way to convert standard ROMs into whatever format nintendo is using, assuming they use some non-standdard format as a means of antipiracy, and can trick the revolution into downloading games off a home server, sort of like the trick to load pirated games onto the GameCube.

the article has been updated

[Anonymous Coward]

It now seems to contradict itself

"At launch, Xbox 360 will be backward compatible with the top Xbox games," Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf told GamesIndustry.biz today. "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new 'version' - your original games will work on Xbox 360."

Schizophrenic

INCORRECT Re:It's about the GPU

[gorim]

Sony included the PS1 CPU inside the PS2, including the GTE (Geometry Transform Engine, a type of math co-processors for doing the obvious), but *NOT* the GPU.

The GPU of the PS1 is emulated in software on the main PS2 CPU, the Emotion Engine. This is extremely well documented in fact, and not just in the patents for the PS2.

Re:INCORRECT Re:It's about the GPU

[Dr. Spork]

Cool, thanks for the correction. I feel bad for writing down something that I think I'd heard... but then again, this is slashdot!

This why I'm eBaying my XBox games right now

[sammaffei]

As I said before, Microsoft's "limited backward compatabilty" stance has singled handedly devalued all of the games you currently own and has stifled the current games market with fears of incompatbilty. Good work.

I'm done with Bill's shinanigans. eBaying right now...

Total misconception

[hwilfong3]

They can run it thru an emulator just like PS2 does for the PS1 games.

simplier still

[XXIstCenturyBoy]

Why couldn't MS recompile the game engine only and offer it as a download on Live for owner of the original game? People wouldn't be expecting better graphics/sounds on a old game, so why change them or force anyone to buy a new cd. Don't give me the "because its MS" reply. Its quite possible to do it that way and would fit with their "Backward compatible for most popular title" statement.