Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dismisses Xbox Backwards Compatibility
kukyfrope writes "In a recent interview on U.K. site Kikizo Peter Moore, Microsoft's head of the Interactive Entertainment business, claims that Microsoft has 'under promised and over delivered' Xbox game compatibility on the Xbox 360. He states that gamers are now looking more towards next-gen titles, forgetting about the majority of Xbox titles." From the article: "Moore's comments shouldn't be misunderstood. MS will be adding to its backwards compatibility list, but it hardly seems like a priority now that the 360 is hitting its stride and the original Xbox is getting less and less support."
backwards compatibility would become an immediate issue if the 360 games stopped selling or really slumped in sales. Otherwise, why should they worry about it if they're making money? After all, earning a profit to M$ is customer satisfaction, because if customers weren't satisfied, they wouldn't be buying more games still, right? /end of work day cynicism dump complete
stuff |
...count the number of Xbox 1 titles you own, multiply that by around $50, and multiply the result by "PWN3D!"
Hmm ok.
Why pay $60 USD for one XBox 360 game when you can get two or three XBox games for the same amount? If I was looking for a new console, I might get an XBox if backward compability is not there on XBox 360. (Not that I would pay $600+ for a console.) It'll be a while before there are some must die for XBox 360 games.
I will buy a 360 is if certain games are supported via BC, I didn't have an xbox but there were certain games that i did want to get. So until I can play JSRF, Panzer Dragon Orta, Shenmue 2. And then I will still only get a 360 after too human comes out.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Well, I for one have been looking forward to more backward compatibility. I hope they don't stop or even slow this down. Considering Nintendo will have its entire library of old-school titles available, ignoring, even partially, backward compatibility seems as though it would be a bad move. I never had an old XBox, and I am looking forward to playing some of the titles I haven't yet. It also immediately builds a catalog of titles up that are available for a system. And what about those people that paid good dough for the titles they bought in the old day? If their old XBox dies, are they supposed to just throw 'em out the window? Hopefully they'll keep moving full steam, to try to reach the goal of making all (or most all) of the old titles have a profile for download.
My guess is that they simply looked at the stats on XBox Live to see how many systems are being used to play non-360 games. It must be a rather low number, otherwise Moore wouldn't be making such bold statements.
On the other hand, people who have the 360 may not have owned the original XBox or its games, so the data might be a bit skewed. However, this is not whom Moore is addressing here.
Back in my day you couldn't force an NES cartridge into an SNES even going uphill in the snow. It just laughed at you til the plastic broke! Backwards compatibility. HA!
For example, it seems very tempting, if you are a video game company, to make a PS2 game that will play on the PS3, than to make a PS3 game. After all, if you make a PS2 game, you can sell for both platforms. But if you make a PS3 game, you can only sell on the new platform.
Where as, if there is no backwards compatibility, you are more likely to make games for the new platform than the old.
So I would say that backwards compatibility can be a problem. If you are spending a lot of money on a new box, you want to make sure they are going to be developing games the fully use its capabilites.
I applaud microsoft for having backwards-compatibility on the X360. Sure, it's not perfect compatibility, but it does allow me to play some of my old XBox games on my X360, making for a nice transition as I acquire more X360 titles.
Certainly, it could be more compatible, but you do have to give them credit for what they have done. Sony was able to do this better as they did not change the underlying architecture (PS1 - MIPS R3000, PS2 - MIPS R5900), whereas Microsoft has (XBox - x86 P3, X360 - PPC Cell).
I can say from experience that writing programs for PPC is a whole new ball game when you're used to x86, and I can only imagine emulating x86 code on PPC being somewhere along the lines of a total nightmare.
Certainly, I do have some disappointment that it isn't 100% backwards compatible, but at least they didn't pull a Nintendo by offering absolutely no backwards compatibility.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
He states that gamers are now looking more towards next-gen titles, forgetting about the majority of Xbox titles.
Try telling that to my friends who own Xbox360s and complain that they have to keep their Xbox around to play a couple games they really like. Maybe they aren't the majority, but I know a few. I don't mean to come off sounding fanboy-ish, but that's one thing I think Sony did well. I only need to have my PS2 hooked up to play all of my PS1 and PS2 games.
Slackware
That's some nerve to quote this from the article:
...
Moore's comments shouldn't be misunderstood. MS will be adding to its backwards compatibility list
and still call the article
Microsoft Dismisses Xbox Compatibility
My major complaint would be that they seemed to focus on the low hanging fruit, the games that were easiest to do, rather than on the best-selling games as was promised. I just checked the list and see that Soul Caliber II still isn't on it. I'm pretty sure that it sold very well. On the plus side, I see that they've added DOA 3 and Ninja Gaiden since the last time I checked, so they are indeed still working on it.
The ps2 managed this by putting a ps1 in as the sound chip.
It's new hardware this time and the ps2 hasn't shrunk enough to put on a chip
so there must be a fair bit of emulation going on.
Anyone have any solid knowledge about this?
Look, sorry, I love my 360, think MS are probably actually now heading to win this round of the console wars and all that stuff...
But...
This article is bullshit.
Seriously, the backwards compatibility on the 360 was disappointing at launch, but we were promised it would improve. Since then, it has barely improved and many of the old A-list X-Box titles are still missing from the compatibility list. Hell, there are still major releases coming out for the X-Box which aren't compatible with the 360. Given we're now 6 months after launch, this is taking on the tone of a bad joke. The very few updates to the compatibility list that have appeared have been extremely short and have mostly been for C-list titles.
Burnout 3 (which I much prefer to Revenge), MechAssault 2, Chronicles of Riddick, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Star Wars Republic Commando aren't "forgotten" titles. They're titles which, as recently as 12 months ago in some cases, were being promoted as major, front-line titles. They're games I still get the urge to play on a regular basis. Hell, they're good. Many of these are among the later wave of X-Box titles which did so much to reclaim its credibility as a platform for games other than Halo. To still have these unplayable on the 360 is a farce.
I don't think there's any technical reason for this (seems the debian guys keep supporting them in the newest releases; so you can't say MSFT doesn't have the resources) -- so I think it's a deliberate strategy, where Microsoft and it's partners plan the end-of-life for products just to make people upgrade.
In this case, I think they're hoping people have to buy the Xbox360 version of the game they already have for the XBox - and everyone wins except the consumer.
What's with the comment about gamers not paying attention to older titles? Did Microsoft suddenly release them as freeware? No... so there's a regonizable commercial demand for them, yes?
Some of my favorite titles took backwards compatibility to the next step - importability. Like with the old Might and Magic games you could import characters from the previous game. The sega genesis had a hardware piece that would let you play master system games on the newer 16 bit console. That's right folks - 20th century technology. And it didn't cost 600 bucks either.
Sadly, this, like Vista (also suffering compatibility issues), would rather see you purchase new titles than allow you to enjoy your old ones.
If Microsoft ran an MMO, all your armor would break every time you gained a level.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
This is pretty typical. The XBox 360 marketing push seems to be all about, "if we messed it up, it wasn't important anyway".
Backward Compatibility, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
A tilt sensing controller, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
Free online, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
1020p, which the PS3 has and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
An HD-DVD/Bluray drive, which the PS3 has and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
But:
HDTV video, which the XBox 360 has and the Wii doesn't: Something gamers need!
Fancy nerd-porn graphics with lots of cores and shaders, which the XBox 360 has and the Wii doesn't: Something gamers need!
And of course, let's not forget that invisible line that separates $400 (A reasonable price!) from $500 (extortion).
Apparently it's easier to try to convince gamers they didn't want a feature, than it would have been to get that feature right in the first place.
XBox: Hacked.
X360: Far from it.
That's pretty much what it gets down to. A game company, facing the choice between releasing a game for a hacked (and "old") console or one for a new, unhacked, will release for the latter. For a few good reasons:
Yes, there are fewer X360s than XBoxes around. But many people who have a 360 also have an XBox. I.e. they'll get it, whether it's for the X or the 360. If it's for the old X, they might get a copy instead of buying it. Can't do that for the 360.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They have the cpu (EE) and graphics portions (GS) combined on a chip.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2
They could slap that into a PS3 and emulate the rest. Backwards compatability won't be as big of a problem on the PS3 as it is on the 360.
If I go to the game store and ask for a copy of Halo, I will very much care if you hand me a copy of Killzone instead.
But if you ask for a copy of Halo 2, I have every right to reach from the "Used CDs :: Rock :: N" section and grab the other Halo 2.
how many PS1 games did you buy or play on your PS2 in the last three years?
At least Lego Racers, a few Mega Man games, Dance Dance Revolution Konamix, and a couple other games that my PStwo's laser reads more accurately than my PS1's does. Little cousins who don't take care of CDs can be a female dog, no?
And this attitude is what is irritating me. There are some must play titles that are still not on the list. Some games are just cool to play and how corny is it to have to keep the old xbox hooked up to the set along with the new one. Sony spoiled me. At least I know I am spoiled though.
My humor is probably your flamebait
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/09
Not really in their interest to get BC working for that particular title...
Er, what do you think MS bases their decisions on, if not their beliefs about what gamers want? Do you think that somewhere in MS headquarters, someone is cackling with glee, saying "Wow, 1080P is really important to gamers, but we're not going to offer it just out of SPITE!"?
I guess I just don't see the (implied) incompetence or evil intent. If they thought something was important, they'd do it, no? And if they don't do something, presumably that means that they don't think it's important (enough) to gamers. They may be wrong, and the market will show if that's the case, but it sounds like you're trying to cast MS as somehow in the wrong about basic product design decisions that they have absolutely no incentive to be wrong about.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Taken from the backward compatibility FAQ on the 360 web site:
Q: Are you intentionally trying to keep a game off the list because you want us to buy the Xbox 360 version?
A: Not at all. Our goal remains to get every game to be backward compatible. The only things influencing what games we're working on are how popular the title is, and how easy it is to make backward compatible. Several original Xbox games on the list already have Xbox 360 counterparts.
Emphasis mine.
Seems that eventually they want all games to be compatible. True, Microsoft hasn't claimed that every game is compatible right now. From what they've said, they certainly leave you with the impression that games on the compatibility will run fine and anyone with a 360 knows that is simply not the case. Compatibility is improving every month, but regardless of what Microsoft claims there will be many games that never make the list. It's just not worth the effort.
XBox: Hacked
XBox 360: Hacked
You can't play any GB game older than GBA on the DS.
O RLY?
Unless the process you describe allows you to plug NES carts into the Gamecube
You plug the NES Game Pak -> CopyNES -> PC -> (optional) text translation, cheats, or other mods -> CF reader -> CF card -> GBA Movie Player.
By that standard, the Xbox is backward compatible to the Atari 2600 (and almost every other popular console).
The difference is that with the Game Boy Player + GBA Movie Player:
Wow, sounds a lot like Nintendo with the Gamecube.
Weak third party support: that's okay, gamers want First Party Nintendo games.
No Online Support: that's okay, gamers don't want online
No Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound: that's okay, gamers don't want 5.1
And for the Wii -
No HD support: that's okay, gamers don't care about hi-def
No, what gamers wanted was GBA connectivity to the Gamecube (which I find hilarious that Sony is going to do with the PSP), Luigi, and Kirby games, and the ever important and innovative eReader! pardon me if my faith in Nintendo is not at an all time high.
Also, you fail to mention that the online models for Wii and PS3 haven't been released yet. Yes, they say they're free, but how much will you have to pay for NES games, how many games will be online enabled, etc... You don't think Sony is going to charge for things in it's online store?
What about Xbox Live Silver? Gamers do get free time (too much if you ask me). Xbox Live is well worth the money. You have centralized servers, one gamertag, everything is connected. I know if a friend is playing UNO - and I know this while I'm playing GRAW. I don't have to remember myriad usernames and passwords, I don't have to deal with as many kids acting like fools, because they will get banned, rather than just creating a new user ID.
Have you tried the DS Wifi multiplayer (which Nintendo says the Wii online will be based on)? Yeah, I know I like to keep track of a friend code more reminiscient of a Kid Icarus save code.
1080P? How many televisions currently support it? It's not even a standard for goodness sake!
Blu-Ray? Again, not a standard. With the impending format war, I'd rather decide which to go to, rather than having the choice made for me. Take Blu-Ray out of the PS3, and you may have an affordable system.
Backwards Compatibility? Advantage Sony - they've done admirably in this department, but then again, until the PS3 is released, it's unproven. Do you think Nintendo is going to have every NES, SNES, N64 game playable on day 1? It was my hope, and MSFT's expectation (from E305) that eventually, Xbox games would include the emulation for the 360. It hasn't panned out yet.
And tilt sensing controller? Unproven yet again. Let's see it in action, see if it actually adds to gameplay instead of feeling like a gimmick. Yes, people are excited about it, but I remember the PowerGlove being all the rage for a short time, and people were pretty stoked about the Virtual Boy too.
I know it's fashionable to pound MSFT for everything they say or do, but what business doesn't put a spin on their product's highlights and shortcomings?
AC (aka Moron), in cased you haven't neither the PS3 nor the Wii has been released. Currently, its vaporware, which is easy to pump up. Its a bit early to assert they have free online or '%100 backwards computability'. That might be the claim, but Sony has occasionally lied before.... Given the wildly divergent architecture and hardware, I would bet a tidy sum that many games will not be playable. Also, blu-ray is not needed for today's games. If you can fit Oblivion on a DVD, the space crunch is over-hyped.
~nate
Er, what do you think MS bases their decisions on, if not their beliefs about what gamers want?
Personally?
I think MS based their decisions with the XBox 360 on a desperate, obsessive desire to beat Sony to market, overriding all other concerns.
I think if Microsoft had been willing to ship the XBox 360 in Q4 2006 instead of rushing themselves, the XBox 360 would have been a very different system indeed.
They may be wrong, and the market will show if that's the case
This is in fact exactly what I personally believe will happen.
And have they?
In discussing what the consoles have or don't have, let's not forget what we, the consumers have. We have... the Xbox 360. Until the other consoles come out, they might as well not have anything. All Microsoft is competing against at the moment is ideas.
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
The Xbox 360's selective backwards-compatibility is one of several reasons I chose not to invest in one. Sure, I can play Halo on my 360, but what if I want to play more obscure games like Otogi and JSRF? I have to haul out the Xbox.
Seriously, everyone has a handful of older and less-well-known games in their collection that they like to come back to now and then, but having to haul an entire console out of storage and hooking it up to the TV is a hassle. Sony is aware of this and made the PS2/PS3 backwards-compatible with all games, and have done the best job of it out of all of the major consoles. Nintendo is sensitive to retro-gamers to a lesser extent (it's not just a coincidense that the SNES, N64, and GameCube all have the exact same RCA cable/plug,) and now the Wii will be able to play GameCube games and will introduce the virtual console. Microsoft missed the boat on this one--backwards-compatibility is an extremely convenient feature, and the way it's been halfassed on the 360 is next to worthless compared to what the competition is offering.
I'm going to be entering college in the fall and living in a dorm room with 1-2 other guys. Obviously, space is commodity, and backwards-compatibility saves space. Is backwards-compatibility a make-or-break feature? No, but it's still part of the whole, and in my view, it demonstrates Microsoft's commitment to Xbox owners is limited to those who only bought topselling games.
Sorry Microsoft, your unenthusiastic attitude towards backwards compatibility is another decision that's tipping the scales against the 360.
I see a lot of people trying to compare the backwards compatibility issues with the XBox to previous systems in previous generations, good thought, but it really isn't a practical comparison. Who cares if the SNES didn't have BC, yet was a huge success; at the time the SNES came out, there was no standard of backwards compatibility. Heck, there wasn't any standard as to what a "next generation system" was supposed to be, as it was the first HUGE second generation of any particular line of consoles. We only started applying this "console generation" nametag when the SNES came out. Few people, even now, realize that there were more than one generation of Atari, and the Sega MasterSystem was by no means a household name in its day, at least not to the scale of the NES and major consoles since. Remember, gaming that penetrated more than just a small elite demographic was still in it's infancy. The SNES really set the gold standard, amongst mainstream culture, as to what a "next generation" was supposed to be: more buttons on the controller, doubled bit-rate (though few people actually knew what that meant), and a certain level of improvement in all around performance. No, I haven't forgotten the Genesis, and it might be accurate to say that it set the "next generation" standard first.
But now we come to the present. Two of the biggest consoles of our day, the PS2 and the GBA, thrust into the minds of millions of gamers, the concept that backwards compatibility is both possible and practical in a generation leap. Before these systems, people excepted that, as a toy, each console played its own games, and that was it. That's all changed, though. People let slide Nintendos failiour in backwards compatability on the GameCube due to its substantial change in media format, and the XBox was the first system in its line. But after the PS2, people EXPECT it, and the DS just helped to reenforce this. Nintendo has made clear, for quite some time, that its next console would be backwards compatable with the GameCube (only later did it add the rest of their systems to the list of playable content); and people have never even stopped to ask Sony whether the PS3 would play PS1 and PS2 games, they just assume that it will continue the trend. Before the name "360" was coined, everyone refered to the next MS system as the "XBox 2" for this very reason, and most were litterally shocked when MS announed that their second system would only be partially backwards compatable.
What I'm trying to say is that, similar to the "doubled bit-rate" expectation in the generation leaps of yesteryear, backwards compatability has become a standard, and is expected in the generation leaps of today. Maybe people shouldn't think this way—who's to say? But never the less, that is the current state of the market, and Microsoft failed to realize this. While this may not be killing blow against them, it's a noticable blemish in, what seems to be, a fairly smooth generational transition.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Sony did change the underlying architecture from ps1 to ps2. They achieved backwards compatibility by using a die shrunk ps1 processor as the I/O contoller on the ps2.
Sony is able to also achieve backwards compatibility with the ps3 with a similar technique. They will use the combined "Dragon" ps2 processor/vpu in some capacity on the ps3. This is the advantage of owning the design of your chips. Microsoft could never combined the Pentium III and the GeForce 3 chips in the Xbox into a single chip both from a technical/financial feasiblity standpoint and from a intellectual property standpoint.
Similarly the Nintendo DS must use a separate ARM7 processor to play Gameboy Advance games while the DS games use an ARM9 processor. Yes, the Nintendo DS is dual processor, but only for backwards compatibility. Likewise, the Gameboy Advance had an original Gameboy Color processor in it which actually was just a higher clocked original Gameboy cpu.
This is also why the Nintendo DS does not support original Gameboy and Gameboy Color games. Nintendo decided not to support these formats because it would have either required using 3 processors or they would give up the ability to use off-the-shelf components and use a custom chip design.
Super Gameboy, Gameboy color, gameboy advance, Nintendo DS, Wii. Nintendo didn't invent backwards compatibility, but "pulling a Nintendo" is hardly appropriate for a company with a large portfolio of highly successful backward compatible products.
Unless you have a Microsoft brand printer it's not Microsoft's responsibility to update its drivers to work with NT.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Microsoft made a bad mistake by not ensuring full backwards compatibility. Firstly, because with the PS2 Sony has made it an expected feature. It pointless saying "Oh, the SNES never had it, and the N64 never had it", the fact is the PS2 *did*, and the PS3 and Wii will, so it's now a major factor in a console's viability.
Secondly, because by positioning the 360 and original XBox as entirely separate consoles, they are now in a position of competing with themselves for marketshare. Whereas Sony were happy enough to share shelf space with PS1 titles, with MS they want to drop the XBox like a hot potato to get increased space for the 360. Given that the XBox was a popular console, this has left somewhat of a bad taste in the mouth. People are not used to seeing a successful system dropped so quickly. If you got an XBox for Christmas last year (and Microsoft is still more than happy to flog them to you to clear their inventory), it's going to be a bit of a slap in the mouth when you go into your local game shop and see the utter dearth of titles. It doesn't speak well for their customer relations.
Add to the fact that Microsoft is struggling to get out any killer games that aren't just more of the same, this is a real make or break time for them. Sony could really destroy them, if they launch well. Luckily for MS, it doesn't look like that is going to happen, but they are skating on thin ice. To win the next gen, they have got to make PS2 owners upgrade to 360s. I'm not sure they can make that happen. If they had full backwards compatibility, they could at least have a powerful incentive for current XBox owners to upgrade to the 360. Now they'll say "well, to keep my old games I need to keep my old XBox around anyway, so why not get a PS3/Wii instead?"
And as for saying that it's much harder for MS to implement backwards compatibility - that may be true, but it's neither here nor there. It was Microsoft's problem to work that one out, and they had enough time and resources to do it.
had a Master System in a cart that pretty much just borrowed the input/output from the host Genesis - that's why it worked so well. Pretty much exactly the same as the GB/GBA adaptors that Nintendo sold for the Snes/GC.
### Backward Compatibility, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't
Wii is a very similar architecture to Gamecube, so backward compability is trivial, XBox360 is a completly different beast then XBox, so backward compability for old games is hard. Doesn't mean that Microsoft shouldn't spend some more time to improve compability, but its a harder task then Nintendo has. Can't say anything about the PS3, not sure if they go emulation or just stick a PS2 into the PS3 box.
### A tilt sensing controller, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't: Not important, gamers didn't really want it anyway.
Sony cloned Nintendo and didn't even tell the developers of their new features till a few weeks before E3, so there exist nothing that shows if the controller is actually usefull in most games, let alone the removal of rumble. Microsoft released their console long before that and Microsoft actually was the first to release a tilting controller back in 1999 for the PC, didn't work for them, so they didn't try it again, instead they simply improved their current controller, nothing wrong with that.
### Free online, which the Wii and PS3 have and the XBox 360 doesn't
PS3s press conference didn't make it look exactly 'free', half the talk was about buying stuff via PS3 online, the basic access might be free, but they seem to intend to make money whereever they can. Beside from that we havn't seen either PS3 or Nintendo Online in action, if they get close to what Microsoft has developed has to be seen. XBox Live is out now, Sony and Nintendos stuff isn't.
### 1020p, which the PS3 has and the XBox 360 doesn't
Its 1080p, anyway, hardly any HDTV supports, so its really no big deal to leave it out if it keeps costs down (hint: ~$200 price difference have a reason...).
Better backward compability and free online would of course be nice for the XBox360, but I find little to complain about Microsoft, they might not be the most innovative in town, but they deliver a good product for a fair price. Nintendos 'we don't do graphics' approach might be more innovative, but there are certainly enough games around we don't mind a bit more graphical bang for the buck.
Sure enough its not because the X360 does not have enough power
Sure enough its not because the hardware is SO different ( Its still a PC )
What could really be the reason for X360 to not being fully backward compatible ?
My guess is that M$ are incompetent in the emulation area.
We all have fun on our emulators to Emulate any computer/game console ever made.
Piracy aint an issue here since X360 hasn't been hacked yet.
Out of the 18 XBox titles I have I can play exactly 0 on the 360.
;)
Of course that is because they are on my hard drive
But if you buy the less expensive version, will you be able to save your games? Not unless you also get one of the adapters they say they're making so you can plug your PS1 and PS2 memory cards in.
whether MS will follow this pattern with the XBox 7200 or whatever they name the next one...