why is it an advantage for sony?? they are up to their second generation now, and their first generation are still selling. What makes you think they will have problems if they change to something that's not backwards compatible? You mean millions of people will suddenly realise that Sony are trying to screw them out of more money and won't buy a new console from them? Or are you saying people aren't planning on buying the latest greatest because their current one works fine?
Console companies make their money from the games, not the consoles. They don't give a flying toss if you can't play your collection of 300 1st and 2nd gen games. They want you to buy all the amazing new 3rd gen games. Because that US$50 multiplied by 800 gazillion divided by their percentage + the license they're charging the developers in the first place is where they're getting rich.
Same with MS. They want you to buy their new hardware and a whole new collection of games. What's the best way to ensure that? No backwards compatibility. You have 300 games, which means you have one of their consoles. Keep it AND your 300 games and let it sit alongside your new console with new games.
btw - what are you comparing the Xbox's "lack of games" to? the PS2, PC, c64, personal bias?
The GBA has the graphics of the SNES, yet people are buying Gameboy Players to use them on the big screen.So to me it appears that backwards compatibility is fairly important to people
I agree with part of that. But backwards compatibility isn't relevant in your example. You've just told me that if a SNES game is re-released on the GBA, you will go out and buy it and play it. If you were interested in backwards compatibility, you would expect a SNES cart port on your GBA.
Maybe my throwing in mention of blocky graphics threw everyone. But I still believe that MORE people would rather buy another copy of a good game than expect to play it on their next console.
Think about it this way: backwards compatibility hampers tech advancements. First, you have to have the same media. Second, you have to have hardware to support the old instructions.
The first instance saves development costs, but the second adds to the them. And if the media has to stay the same, then potentially new media (smaller, faster, better) won't break through because everyone still has a desire to use the old media.
If a new console is developed without bothering with the previous generations, then two things will happen: 1, it'll probably be cheaper (relatively), and 2, it'll pack more punch. The designers won't be held back.
The only down side is that 3rd party developers will have a bigger learning curve to take full advantage of the hardware. But as the years go by, that becomes less and less of an issue as the languages and devkits get further away from the hardware.
There's always exceptions, don't get me wrong. It's just that the majority of people will just buy new games. Even if it's a re-released SNES game, most people will just buy the new one instead of worrying about being able to play the original cart in the new hardware.
I personally don't like have a whole bunch of consoles cluttering up the place, and having to switch between them.
Heh.. that's one of the things I love about being a geek.:) I don't have all my consoles currently plugged in cos I do't have the shelf space, but I will always have at least 3 plugged in to my TV and video via a switcher. I really need to buy or build myself a super cabinet to fit them all into.
Yeh, I'm aware of the things you can do to it by modding it, but I was referring to an unmodded Xbox. From another post it seems you can rip CDs onto the hard drive without modding it.
What if there is no hard drive available bundled, but available as an after-market product? Like the PS2... would you still think about it?
In all liklihood, that's all they'll do.. Not add the hard drive to reduce weight and cost initially, but still leave a slot free to add it in later. But I still think it would be better if it was a 2.5" drive... I think I said 3.5" in my original post, but I made a mistake:) I meant 2.5".
And as for the more non-gaming features, what exactly do you mean? a media center? I know Sony are working towards this, and I know Nintendo actively worked against this with the release of the Gamecube.
I personally agree with Nintendo, but I think the majority of people would prefer to have an all-in-one system.
each to their own tho. as long as there is choice. I'm going to buy them all anyway:)
And as evidenced by sales of Gameboy Advance games, people still enjoy SNES games and enjoy playing them.
Yes, but they're not playing the original media. They're buying the game again.
I would wager a guess that you have no idea how the PS2 does emulation of the PS1.
Why don't you tell me? And while you're at it, please tell me how understanding how the emulation works is even remotely relevant to your next statement?
Until you do a study and have hard numbers to back up how many people use the backwards compatibility of the PS2, your statements are just unbacked ranting.
"unbacked" ranting is better than being a complete cumwad. Give me "unbacked" ranting any day.
Seeing as how the XBOX is much more impressive graphically than the PS2, it's hard to take the 'not originally developed with gaming in mind' comment too seriously.
He was referring to PC hardware in general. The x86 architecture... Of course the frame buffers used were created with games in mind, but the basic machine architecture was not.
This includes other things like hard drives, CD-ROMs, etc. Cartridges may have been designed with games in mind because of their quick load times, but HDs and CDs weren't. They're just cheap hardware utilised in a console - but they weren't developed with gaming in mind.
I didn't read it in the first place......
You try reading it again.
good job cumwad.
In order for Nintendo to come out on top, they need to do something spectacular - that's not anti-Nintendo, that's just the truth. Isn't it? Please, tell me if you think that it is not true.
I didn't give my opinion of whether it was true or not. I was reiterating what was said in the article... you know.. for the dipshits that didn't bother to read the fucking thing....
a lot of people are whining about backwards compatibility being important. but realistically, how many owners of PS2s are still buying PS1 games? A few, but not many. Once they see games on the PS2, they don't want blocky PS1 games...
How many Nintendo consoles have offered backwards compatibility? The Gameboys. Gamecube has a completely different type of media. Usually Nintendo have stuck to carts, but they're on proprietary CDs.
People are still buying their new games. People aren't complaining that they can't plug their N64 games and their SNES games into the cube...
Same for Xbox. New architecture will just mean a new box. Who gives a toss iff it can't play old Xbox games? Your old Xbox will do that.
If you don't have a current-gen Xbox when the next-gen is released, you're not going to go out and buy old Xbox games. They'll be too blocky, or too low-res.
You'll move on. And you'll accept that.
Don't impel the designers of the next-gen consoles to add backwards compatibility that you won't ACTUALLY use.
[ob-bleat] I was irked when reading digitaltaco's comments. he's constantly referring to the CURRENT generation of consoles as NEXT-GEN.
A lot of people do this and it's stupid. [/ob-bleat]
However, the rest of the article was spot on. Amid the complaints and disbelief that the next Xbox will possibly ship without a hard drive, I think that it's a smart move.
First - what is the hard drive used for? (other than by people who hack it to put linux on it): - saving games - game updates via Xbox Live - MP3s.
Game saves aren't that big. In fact, every single one of my games tells me I still have 50000+ blocks free.
I'm unsure how big Live updates for games are, but surely they wouldn't go over a few hundred megs per game over the lifetime of a game.
As for MP3s, I don't even know how this is done. Is it possible without hacking the Xbox? Can it be done while retaining a playable Xbox still usable with Live?
I think the best solution is memory cards. Either removable solid state drives, or flash cards. The capacity of Flash Cards and Memory Sticks these days will allow people to have a few of them usable with updatable Live games. The only problem is the cost of the cards.
Microsoft will have to weigh up the cost vs size/portability/weight of the console as a whole.
But that doesn't mean they can't put in a 3.5" drive with 5-10 gigs....They could even make the drives removable.
I like smaller, lighter consoles, but I'd hate to pay $200 per gig of memory cards, even if it did support full updates for 4-5 games, plus several other saves...
I'm sure if microsoft could afford more disk arrays, and could get clusters of hundreds of thousands of machines actually playing nice together running windows, they would have a quality search engine.
I think the phrase "next generation console" has got out of hand. Consider this: before the current batch of consoles was released, the makers were calling them their next-gen consoles. Now, people continue to call them next-gen consoles, even though they are the CURRENT generation.
Now the media are telling us that Nintendo's next console will be a next-gen console. Of course it is THEIR next-gen console, but it's not A next-gen console.
I wish people would stop referring to the current generation of consoles as next-gen as if it were a spec.
The second thing that comes out of this article is a quote from Nintendo saying that the GC is the most popular console among younger gamers.
Well, duh! For a start, that's who most of their games are targeted at and because it's the cheapest console, parents who are low on cash are more likely to buy their children the cheapest console they can.
They might be surprised to see how many people are still buying old segas and old nintendos for their kids from auction sites for $20 or less. Low income families, or catholic families who have to budget for 8000 kids are going to go for the cheapest they can which will still provide entertainment for their children.
the source code is still going to be available by virtue of the GPL. therefore, this statement is plain wrong.
people have always been paying for redhat to get support. redhat are now just getting rid of their free-for-download option and bundling support by default.
because this means that now the Xbox live updates will have started development. There is to be a new planet added and I think it is in the PC version. The extras (unsure what else) will be released on Xbox soon.
Slashdot Mirror
why is it an advantage for sony?? they are up to their second generation now, and their first generation are still selling. What makes you think they will have problems if they change to something that's not backwards compatible? You mean millions of people will suddenly realise that Sony are trying to screw them out of more money and won't buy a new console from them? Or are you saying people aren't planning on buying the latest greatest because their current one works fine?
Console companies make their money from the games, not the consoles. They don't give a flying toss if you can't play your collection of 300 1st and 2nd gen games. They want you to buy all the amazing new 3rd gen games. Because that US$50 multiplied by 800 gazillion divided by their percentage + the license they're charging the developers in the first place is where they're getting rich.
Same with MS. They want you to buy their new hardware and a whole new collection of games. What's the best way to ensure that? No backwards compatibility. You have 300 games, which means you have one of their consoles. Keep it AND your 300 games and let it sit alongside your new console with new games.
btw - what are you comparing the Xbox's "lack of games" to? the PS2, PC, c64, personal bias?
I agree with part of that. But backwards compatibility isn't relevant in your example. You've just told me that if a SNES game is re-released on the GBA, you will go out and buy it and play it. If you were interested in backwards compatibility, you would expect a SNES cart port on your GBA.
Maybe my throwing in mention of blocky graphics threw everyone. But I still believe that MORE people would rather buy another copy of a good game than expect to play it on their next console.
Think about it this way: backwards compatibility hampers tech advancements. First, you have to have the same media. Second, you have to have hardware to support the old instructions.
The first instance saves development costs, but the second adds to the them. And if the media has to stay the same, then potentially new media (smaller, faster, better) won't break through because everyone still has a desire to use the old media.
If a new console is developed without bothering with the previous generations, then two things will happen: 1, it'll probably be cheaper (relatively), and 2, it'll pack more punch. The designers won't be held back.
The only down side is that 3rd party developers will have a bigger learning curve to take full advantage of the hardware. But as the years go by, that becomes less and less of an issue as the languages and devkits get further away from the hardware.
There's always exceptions, don't get me wrong. It's just that the majority of people will just buy new games. Even if it's a re-released SNES game, most people will just buy the new one instead of worrying about being able to play the original cart in the new hardware.
I personally don't like have a whole bunch of consoles cluttering up the place, and having to switch between them.
Heh.. that's one of the things I love about being a geek. :) I don't have all my consoles currently plugged in cos I do't have the shelf space, but I will always have at least 3 plugged in to my TV and video via a switcher. I really need to buy or build myself a super cabinet to fit them all into.
Yeh, I'm aware of the things you can do to it by modding it, but I was referring to an unmodded Xbox. From another post it seems you can rip CDs onto the hard drive without modding it.
What if there is no hard drive available bundled, but available as an after-market product? Like the PS2... would you still think about it?
In all liklihood, that's all they'll do.. Not add the hard drive to reduce weight and cost initially, but still leave a slot free to add it in later. But I still think it would be better if it was a 2.5" drive... I think I said 3.5" in my original post, but I made a mistake :) I meant 2.5".
The MP3/music thing makes sense...
:)
And as for the more non-gaming features, what exactly do you mean? a media center? I know Sony are working towards this, and I know Nintendo actively worked against this with the release of the Gamecube.
I personally agree with Nintendo, but I think the majority of people would prefer to have an all-in-one system.
each to their own tho. as long as there is choice. I'm going to buy them all anyway
Yes, but they're not playing the original media. They're buying the game again.
I would wager a guess that you have no idea how the PS2 does emulation of the PS1.
Why don't you tell me? And while you're at it, please tell me how understanding how the emulation works is even remotely relevant to your next statement?
Until you do a study and have hard numbers to back up how many people use the backwards compatibility of the PS2, your statements are just unbacked ranting.
"unbacked" ranting is better than being a complete cumwad. Give me "unbacked" ranting any day.
He was referring to PC hardware in general. The x86 architecture... Of course the frame buffers used were created with games in mind, but the basic machine architecture was not.
This includes other things like hard drives, CD-ROMs, etc. Cartridges may have been designed with games in mind because of their quick load times, but HDs and CDs weren't. They're just cheap hardware utilised in a console - but they weren't developed with gaming in mind.
You try reading it again.
good job cumwad.
In order for Nintendo to come out on top, they need to do something spectacular - that's not anti-Nintendo, that's just the truth. Isn't it? Please, tell me if you think that it is not true.
I didn't give my opinion of whether it was true or not. I was reiterating what was said in the article... you know.. for the dipshits that didn't bother to read the fucking thing....
a lot of people are whining about backwards compatibility being important. but realistically, how many owners of PS2s are still buying PS1 games? A few, but not many. Once they see games on the PS2, they don't want blocky PS1 games...
How many Nintendo consoles have offered backwards compatibility? The Gameboys. Gamecube has a completely different type of media. Usually Nintendo have stuck to carts, but they're on proprietary CDs.
People are still buying their new games. People aren't complaining that they can't plug their N64 games and their SNES games into the cube...
Same for Xbox. New architecture will just mean a new box. Who gives a toss iff it can't play old Xbox games? Your old Xbox will do that.
If you don't have a current-gen Xbox when the next-gen is released, you're not going to go out and buy old Xbox games. They'll be too blocky, or too low-res.
You'll move on. And you'll accept that.
Don't impel the designers of the next-gen consoles to add backwards compatibility that you won't ACTUALLY use.
[ob-bleat]
I was irked when reading digitaltaco's comments. he's constantly referring to the CURRENT generation of consoles as NEXT-GEN.
A lot of people do this and it's stupid.
[/ob-bleat]
However, the rest of the article was spot on. Amid the complaints and disbelief that the next Xbox will possibly ship without a hard drive, I think that it's a smart move.
First - what is the hard drive used for? (other than by people who hack it to put linux on it):
- saving games
- game updates via Xbox Live
- MP3s.
Game saves aren't that big. In fact, every single one of my games tells me I still have 50000+ blocks free.
I'm unsure how big Live updates for games are, but surely they wouldn't go over a few hundred megs per game over the lifetime of a game.
As for MP3s, I don't even know how this is done. Is it possible without hacking the Xbox? Can it be done while retaining a playable Xbox still usable with Live?
I think the best solution is memory cards. Either removable solid state drives, or flash cards. The capacity of Flash Cards and Memory Sticks these days will allow people to have a few of them usable with updatable Live games. The only problem is the cost of the cards.
Microsoft will have to weigh up the cost vs size/portability/weight of the console as a whole.
But that doesn't mean they can't put in a 3.5" drive with 5-10 gigs....They could even make the drives removable.
I like smaller, lighter consoles, but I'd hate to pay $200 per gig of memory cards, even if it did support full updates for 4-5 games, plus several other saves...
try reading it again. they all said they liked nintendo. however, they said that nintendo need to do some spectacular to come out on top...
no, it's just you. :)
that's the joy of Preferences!
hehe.. I remember myself and others being too paranoid to walk around in anything but a tiptoe around the old burners for fear of coasters... :)
nudging the desk would certainly do it.
First off, why is such a worthless OS front page news on /.?
Well, considering /. displays all news of the day on the front page, then what are their options?
I'm at panasonic house, so can sit on our roof... pretty good view from there, but the sun hurts my eyes :(
I said the 80's, not the 1600's... ;)
you don't get out much do you? sure they offer LESS games on the mac, but usually it's the better ones... try www.macgamefiles.com and apple's game updates section
admittedly, I have a mac and several consoles dating back to the 80's, but I'm just that kind of guy.
maybe google just has more disk space.
I'm sure if microsoft could afford more disk arrays, and could get clusters of hundreds of thousands of machines actually playing nice together running windows, they would have a quality search engine.
I think the phrase "next generation console" has got out of hand. Consider this: before the current batch of consoles was released, the makers were calling them their next-gen consoles. Now, people continue to call them next-gen consoles, even though they are the CURRENT generation.
Now the media are telling us that Nintendo's next console will be a next-gen console. Of course it is THEIR next-gen console, but it's not A next-gen console.
I wish people would stop referring to the current generation of consoles as next-gen as if it were a spec.
The second thing that comes out of this article is a quote from Nintendo saying that the GC is the most popular console among younger gamers.
Well, duh! For a start, that's who most of their games are targeted at and because it's the cheapest console, parents who are low on cash are more likely to buy their children the cheapest console they can.
They might be surprised to see how many people are still buying old segas and old nintendos for their kids from auction sites for $20 or less. Low income families, or catholic families who have to budget for 8000 kids are going to go for the cheapest they can which will still provide entertainment for their children.
we can only hope.
the source code is still going to be available by virtue of the GPL. therefore, this statement is plain wrong.
people have always been paying for redhat to get support. redhat are now just getting rid of their free-for-download option and bundling support by default.
this is mid 2001.
get up with the play motherfuckers
it's a nice dream isn't it?
:)
Apple beat all the linux distro makers to it.
OSX is now the OS that works as an OS should
because this means that now the Xbox live updates will have started development. There is to be a new planet added and I think it is in the PC version. The extras (unsure what else) will be released on Xbox soon.
KOTOR is a fucking legendary game. ironically.