Cost of the current stuff is irrelevant compared to this kind of mass production.
2 cores took a lot of research to properly implement... 3 cores? in 15 months? in a 500$ machine? 1 mb of l2 cache is pricey too. I don't doubt the mzh. It's perfectly feasible, but not a 3 core chip and not with 1mb of shared cache. that means the cache is either wired 3 ways with the GPU or the GPU is on die with 3 other chips. if it's bussed then it's not shared any more then the currect P4's have a shared cache with the hard drive. Also, the economies of scale will work against Ms as they are not licencing but instead buying components. They don't makes the CPU/GPU thus as time goes on the cost fall slowly. And the Xbox hasn't been a high production machines. There are more P4 3.0mzh 's out then Xboxes.
Enter the Matrix at 1080i. It may not be a great game, but it squirts geek juice all over the place. ... problbly not. We would have read the reviews and passed, because any true geek knows movie licence suck 99/100 time.
You forget its a console not a PC. Less ram is made up for with a monster memory bandwidth. This means that they can just demand the textures as their used instead of caching everyone for the next 4 scenes in mem. The ps2 messed up because the video ram was smaller then the textures required ina scene but having a very large cache defeats the purpose of havign a large pipe to jam them through.
Not forgetting that we're talking about hardware that probably won't hit the market for about 15 months.
Given that the G5 have onyl started to roll out recently, and that a 3 core CPU hasn't come otu for anything yet. It's pretty unlikly 15 months will make it cheap enough to throw in a console.
The Xbox's strength isnt Japanese games/developers, it's western games/developers, and arguably, it doesnt need Japanese games/developers to win on the world market. As for playing second fiddle to Nintendo, that is highly arguable, as the two consoles are pretty much neck-and-neck, each claiming to have a lead in sales.
Only in America. In the rest of the world it's #3 at best. Often coming in #4 or #5 to the PSone or to other systems. And yes they do need the japanese companies, they make up mor ethen 50% of the market for games. They develope around 50% of all titles.
Over the last week or so, there have been a lot of XBox 2 related stories and now this "leak". I wonder if Microsoft is leaking all of this information to A) keep XBox in the news during a quiet summer and B) get some free advice from the community of interested gamers. Given its PC roots, I'd be willing to guess that XBox gamers are more technically knowledgeable as a group compared to other console gamers. If this is true, then their opinions with respect to XBox 2 specs could be valuable.
Given it's target audience is teenage American boys who enjoy sports games I would guess this is not true. The game library doesn't have much beyond Halo to attract a true geek.
The point I was trying to make is that it is possible. With Microsoft's backingit should be possible to emulate an Xbox1 perfectly. There are some crappy emulators out there, but there are some great ones, and Connectix (who Microsoft just bought) has put out some of the best. VGS(Virtual Game Station) is the most compatable Playstation 1 emulator out there VirtualPC is also the most compatable PC emulator (as far as I know the only PC emulator that supports WinXP, OpenBSD, and Linux that actually emulates the CPU) Even if they had to create tweaks for every game out there, it would be doable. The Xbox doesn't have that many games, so a tweak database is within reason. I think it is technically possible for them to emulate an Xbox1, I doubt it will happen though for a number of reasons
Nvidia licensing issue Cut into profits of selling new games Cut into profits of selling new developer tools However, if Microsoft threw enough money at Xbox1 emulation I think they could do it. Hell, maybe they are planning to do it but will not have it done for launch.
Lack of HD is a huge technical hurdle. In 1 year, to get a perfect version of Xbox emu will be dificult. not impossible. It's not worth it for the xbox because of it's small game library. For sony it only makes sense with their massive library.
Or they could just convince a bunch of geeks that they're somehow hurting Microsoft if they buy the console, then a lot of people will buy it and turn it into a linux box while Microsoft uses the sales numbers to justify devlopers getting onboard to make good games.
Oh, and would you mind using italics to quote instead of bold? It's kind of annoying.
there. hehehe if geeks could make that much difference. Anti-ms geeks are highly concentrated here but fairly sparse in real life because theres more to worry about then the evil doings of one Multi nation corp. Only U grads who get jobs that don't in some way depend on MS... I do computer virus/spyware clean up. If it weren't for MS I'd be unemployed.
If you are opposed to carrying ID or "papers" then don't -- there aren't any laws on the books requiring you to do so. In my state you don't even technically need your license on you to drive -- it just needs to be valid and you need to be able to present it in 24 hours if called upon. That still doesn't mean you can refuse to identify yourself.
When ever you are driving a vehicle the authorities have the right to demand papers (licence registration) at any time for any reason. And since Americans spend a significant amounts of time driving isn't this equivilent to identification on demand?
I said "Genesis CDX", not "32X". The Genesis CDX was a Genesis and a Sega CD in one housing. Thus, the console "Genesis CDX" was not a new platform from the console "Genesis plus Sega CD accessory". In fact, because of a few short-sighted hardware design decisions Sega made on the CDX, Sega couldn't get the 32X to work with the CDX.
Ok her'es my logic. We can agree that the PS2 is a seperate system fromt he PS1 right?
Now PS1 games play on the Ps2 but not the other way around. And the PS2 contains the PS1 hardware.
Now SegaCD can play genesis games but a genesis can't play a Sega cd game. The CDX contains Genesis hardware.
The Duo can play TG16 games, the tg16 can't play cd duo games. The Duo conatins CDX hardware.
The 32x can play Sega games but the genesis can't play 32x games. The 32x contains (well it needs a genesis) genesis hardware.
Each one uses the same controller. So the major diff is that the PS2's marketed as a succesor while the others were more upgrades/add-ons. But concptually they could be seperate platforms.
Actually this is already getting done. CxBx is a semi-working Xbox compatability layer for Windows. A few commercial games are playable and one of the developers has a ATI card. So it should be doable.
Theres a huge gulf between Semi-working and Consumer level product. Epsxemu is a great PSX EMu but requuires altering 4-5 setting between games. Even games in the same series or released at the same time. Thats not consumer level no how much better it looks then a normal PSX. N64 has a emu but nowhere near consumer level. Bleem was ok, but still a seperate bleem pack for each set of 5 games.... no wonder thye died (that and sony suing them every other day). Having an ATI card isn't the problem. The problem is making sure it work 100% with all games without significant glitches. You can code around individual games on EMU's but you will have to make it general or have every special case taken care of in the Xbox Next. It's possible but is it going to happen? I don't know. It's unlikly. Also the Shader programs and the actualy GPU is property of Nvidia so whil the Emu guys can cobble it together ATI would get their Asses sued if they tried.
Why do companies not use interchangable parts. The case scenarios go on and on.
They do. The controller is interchangable with other controllers, the mem cards, the CD-drive can be replaced so can the main boards and the power supply and the io parts. It's just cheaper to make parts all at once. Thats why consoles aren't like Computers. In fact most computers come with a loaded motherboard because it's cheaper then fabing more parts.
Ok, didn't want to bring this up but it's well known that game companies make money off the games. Why would they even think of offering backwards compatability if they can just charge you again for a slightly altered version of what you had?
Because it's just cheaper to keep minting FF7 instead of doign a port to the PS2 using the FFx engine. However they may someday do that.
Short econ lesson. Would you buy a $500 console so the games would be 20 bucks each? Probably not and the ones that did wouldn't buy more than one. This maxes out the profit based solely on the unit and has a set quantity.
You have to learn somethign about econ. the price of a game isn't $50 becaus eit costs $49 to make, it costs $50 because thats the price the market will bear. In parts of asia the games are cheaper. Because thats the price the market will bear.
Now look at the current model. Offer a console at lower than cost and then charge 50/game which keep coming out well after the console is finalized. There is a better market for games at $50 than consoles at $500.
You release a game at $50 to both recoup the cost of promotign and devloping it and to grab as much money from the audience that will buy it right when it comes out. then after sales dip you lower the price to trade high margin for volume. After the next dip you drop it to a economy pack or edition to grab the dollars of those who didn't get it before.
Point is that the business people aren't stupid. They have this billion industry pinned and when they choose not put backwards compatability in a console, they do it from a econmical stance.
Your saying the N-gage was a brilliant design? How about the marketing and business plan around the 32x or the saturn. How about Enron? Business are just people. They are no smarter or dumber then anyone else. Just because you happen to make money doesn't mean you won't make dumb decisions. The ass hat who owns the WWE makes a lot of money but every business he tries outside wrasslin fails. witness the XFL. Why? because he steps out of his area of expertise into a arena he has no experience beign in. So he crawls out with his tail between his leg and moves one. MS went into the console industry and is losing money. Thats fine, their goal is not to be #1 game console. They want a safe propriatary media center to replace the PC. The Pc is a market they reached saturation in, they must expand into other industries to ensure that they will never become obsolete. Like the last buggy whip maker, fater the automobile. They will lose money and keep trying.
Now your point seems to be BAckwards compatability isn't important. That remains to be seen. If sony stays #1 and Xbox next is still #3 then maybe it's important. Only time will tell. My guess is that Backwards compatibility will lock in an audience like it does for the PC, they made too much of a IP investment on the last platform and thus will want to preserve the investment through BC.
Backwards compatability will become much less important than having the hot new game and hot new way to play it (currently wireless networking).
It does, however matter until those games come out for system X. The first wave of games always are sub par. So untilt he kilelr comes, it'll tide over the early adoptors who in turn spread good word about system X. so initially, the first 4-6 months after release, it's vey important. As the system gets older it becomes less and less important. as someone else said, only 10% of Ps2 owners care. But that 10% is greater then the Xbox install base.
First, if you want to play an XBOX game, use an XBOX. If you want to play an XBOX Next game, use an XBOX. I don't think I should be able to play Nintindo 16 bit games on a Game Cube without buying a compatible cartredge. This idea that everything is on a glorified DVD has people thinking they should just work in everything. Now excuse me while I go plug my Genesis up and throw in a Master's Cartredge.
why? Why not have BW compat all the way back? if it costs little why not have it as a feature? It mean your library will last as long as the media and not the machine (the machines break down before the games do 90% of the time). My nintendo is dead. My PS1 is on it's last legs. My genesis is also dead. My SNES is just barely hanging on. I'd liek to still play FF6 when it eventually dies.
Perhaps but it actually had some hard ware differences. And the sega Cd and 32 X were seperate platforms. Evidence: You can't play a 32x game on a genesis. Maybe it's a bit too much to say their seperate consoles but they were seperate platforms. Like the Atari 5200/800/600. How much different is sega CDX from a Sega and a PS2 from a PS1? Both of them allow you to play games you couldn't before and play games you have now. The CDX had extra chips to help out, and the 32X had a lot of extra hardware.
In the same line of reasoning. You want to play "Happy Scrappy Bounty Hunter Saga 4" -- it's more profitable for the company to sell the "new version" since the "old version" probably is no longer in stores and will be bought through eBay or a local used video game store.
For a lot of games this is not true. FF7 is still sold in stores as is FF8 FF9 FF tactics GTA Crash bash, Crash bandicoot, Legend of Dragoon. Theres a lto of classic games still for resale. And the issue with used games is still an issue with any generation. If you keep the games that still sell in print, you will simply net more money. The cd +case +docs are cheap less then 1$. You already payed off developement and you no longer promote so it's almost pure profit. Possibly greater then the initital take for most new games.
The idea is to get away from moving parts that keep costs up. Flash memory has just about all the desireable features of a disk - except rewrite lifespan. Flash is faster and follows semiconductor economies of scale (gets cheaper, like chips; not bigger like discs). It just can't be used for swap space and you can count the number of titles that use it for that on one hand. (the frequent rewrites of swap usage would burn through flash memory so fast consumers would sue)
Thats fine for a memory card replacement but replacing a cache? The limited R/W lifespan makes it a useless device for caching.
The way to emulate a graphic game on a new architecture is to capture the API calls into your library (in this case directX). The captured calls are then run at fully optimized speed on the new CPU and GPU.
The porblem wiht this is that there calls will be implemented in different ways so you will have graphic glitches. Why? because the rest of the code assumes a certain behavior and if it does somethign subtly different.. for instance the new algroithm draws the flare 3 pixels smaller.. and the other elements don't over that 3 pixels you'll have a glitch. Of if the Z buffer is slightly different, then the water will look really fucked. So it's not as easy as you think. API is one thing, Full compatibility is another.
History has shown us ESPECIALLY with the PS2 that backwards compatability does not bring in extra money for the company. Frequently those who plan to play the older games do so because they are cheep and still run on the older system
they still make money on the older Ps1 games. the PS2 is a smash hit. So I don't really know how thats an exampel of it not making them any money. If your into economy games (greatest hits ect..) it's unlikly you'd buy the expensive stuff anyway so yoru just wringing the optimal amoutn of profit formt he amrket.. it doesn't seem like their undercutting themselves. No more so then the celerons undercut the P4's.
XBOX has pretty good protection as far as copy protection is concerned...don't flame me saying anything different because I do know what's possible with the XBOX and its DVD games
Far be it for me (a chronic typoist) to critisize yrou grammar.. but what are you saying? You have some deep insight as to how copying games is harder for the xbox? Since I know most of my friends do it... it doesn't seem that hard. Get game. Press copy. Play game.
games that finally cross the barrier of consoles
another no-sequiter. How did it cross barriers? by being #3? by losing money? does it play Gc games ? does it play PS2 games?
Backwards compatibility sells older games. which you still profit from.
Who needs to emulate the GPU? As long as they had a 3D API (I would be surprised if they didn't encourage game publishers to use DirectX), that's all they need to emulate. And the emulated graphics libraries wouldn't even need to be x86 code.
The Xbox api isn't the direct x api and it has custom gpu instructions and there is also the matter of the programmable shaders. The shader language willl change between Nvidia and ATI.
They changed CPU's and GPU's and dropped the Hard drive. Backwards compatibility would be hard. They need a CPU emu, a GPu emu that doesn't infringe on Nvidia's patents (thus it'll be graphically glitchy) and soemthig to pretend to be the HD.
Did you take a hammer to your Playstation? They would still be quite playable on that box.
Electronics don't live forever. They die. My PS1 lost the baring in the cd tray so it needs to have tape to hold the cd down. And it's now not loading some games because the electric motor on the cd player is going. i'm glad I have a PS2 to play my libraary of PS1 games.
If Xbox has good launch games, it will sell because gamers want to play games and many want to be "first on the block."
For this, MS has to convince third party developers that the machien has enough install base to make said games. So it's a catch 22. To get a higher install base, you must sell more units, to sell more units you must get the good games, to get the good games you have to have a large install base.....
In short, I consider backward compatibility one of those things that everyone talks about being important despite the fact that, outside the GBA and unsuccessful Atari consoles, it's only happened once. I consider the logic that backward compatibility sells consoles to be faulty since if one wants to play the old games the old console can be had on the cheap (as others have pointed out, the Xbox will almost certainly be $100 when Xbox 2 streets).
It's been shown that in that awkward first few months when no games comes out for a console, that backward compatability helps sell your console. It's effect can't be measured. Because the whole set of examples is too small. PS2 has it, SNEs didn't. Atari had it (and was very successful until shortly before the crash int he 80's). GB has it. TG16 had it. Genesis had it (in a way). The arguement is that it provides a smoother transition between consoles and it provides a easy way to maintain your current investment in older games.
Xbox 2 is pretty far away. but basing ti on past performance is a good indicator. SMS was #2 and so was the Genesis. NES did well makign $$$ and so did the SNES did really well making mad $$$ and the N64 made $$ and Gc made money. PS1 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS2 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS3 will problably be successful. Xbox was a mild success that loese money, Xbox 2 will also be a mild success that loses money.
The xbox is as innovative as a dell box. It's just a bunch of cobbled togeter commodity parts. It's has some nice features but MS won't be repeating most of them for the Xbox 2 becaue it's a money sink and thye now realise it. HD will be gone. Caching will no longer be used. Live is problably the best thign about the xbox. Hopefully they continue that.
Slashdot Mirror
Cost of the current stuff is irrelevant compared to this kind of mass production.
2 cores took a lot of research to properly implement... 3 cores? in 15 months? in a 500$ machine? 1 mb of l2 cache is pricey too. I don't doubt the mzh. It's perfectly feasible, but not a 3 core chip and not with 1mb of shared cache. that means the cache is either wired 3 ways with the GPU or the GPU is on die with 3 other chips. if it's bussed then it's not shared any more then the currect P4's have a shared cache with the hard drive. Also, the economies of scale will work against Ms as they are not licencing but instead buying components. They don't makes the CPU/GPU thus as time goes on the cost fall slowly. And the Xbox hasn't been a high production machines. There are more P4 3.0mzh 's out then Xboxes.
Enter the Matrix at 1080i.
... problbly not. We would have read the reviews and passed, because any true geek knows movie licence suck 99/100 time.
It may not be a great game, but it squirts geek juice all over the place.
You forget its a console not a PC. Less ram is made up for with a monster memory bandwidth. This means that they can just demand the textures as their used instead of caching everyone for the next 4 scenes in mem. The ps2 messed up because the video ram was smaller then the textures required ina scene but having a very large cache defeats the purpose of havign a large pipe to jam them through.
Not forgetting that we're talking about hardware that probably won't hit the market for about 15 months.
Given that the G5 have onyl started to roll out recently, and that a 3 core CPU hasn't come otu for anything yet. It's pretty unlikly 15 months will make it cheap enough to throw in a console.
The Xbox's strength isnt Japanese games/developers, it's western games/developers, and arguably, it doesnt need Japanese games/developers to win on the world market. As for playing second fiddle to Nintendo, that is highly arguable, as the two consoles are pretty much neck-and-neck, each claiming to have a lead in sales.
Only in America. In the rest of the world it's #3 at best. Often coming in #4 or #5 to the PSone or to other systems. And yes they do need the japanese companies, they make up mor ethen 50% of the market for games. They develope around 50% of all titles.
Over the last week or so, there have been a lot of XBox 2 related stories and now this "leak". I wonder if Microsoft is leaking all of this information to A) keep XBox in the news during a quiet summer and B) get some free advice from the community of interested gamers. Given its PC roots, I'd be willing to guess that XBox gamers are more technically knowledgeable as a group compared to other console gamers. If this is true, then their opinions with respect to XBox 2 specs could be valuable.
Given it's target audience is teenage American boys who enjoy sports games I would guess this is not true. The game library doesn't have much beyond Halo to attract a true geek.
The point I was trying to make is that it is possible. With Microsoft's backingit should be possible to emulate an Xbox1 perfectly. There are some crappy emulators out there, but there are some great ones, and Connectix (who Microsoft just bought) has put out some of the best.
VGS(Virtual Game Station) is the most compatable Playstation 1 emulator out there
VirtualPC is also the most compatable PC emulator (as far as I know the only PC emulator that supports WinXP, OpenBSD, and Linux that actually emulates the CPU)
Even if they had to create tweaks for every game out there, it would be doable. The Xbox doesn't have that many games, so a tweak database is within reason.
I think it is technically possible for them to emulate an Xbox1, I doubt it will happen though for a number of reasons
Nvidia licensing issue
Cut into profits of selling new games
Cut into profits of selling new developer tools
However, if Microsoft threw enough money at Xbox1 emulation I think they could do it. Hell, maybe they are planning to do it but will not have it done for launch.
Lack of HD is a huge technical hurdle. In 1 year, to get a perfect version of Xbox emu will be dificult. not impossible. It's not worth it for the xbox because of it's small game library. For sony it only makes sense with their massive library.
Or they could just convince a bunch of geeks that they're somehow hurting Microsoft if they buy the console, then a lot of people will buy it and turn it into a linux box while Microsoft uses the sales numbers to justify devlopers getting onboard to make good games.
Oh, and would you mind using italics to quote instead of bold? It's kind of annoying.
there. hehehe if geeks could make that much difference. Anti-ms geeks are highly concentrated here but fairly sparse in real life because theres more to worry about then the evil doings of one Multi nation corp. Only U grads who get jobs that don't in some way depend on MS... I do computer virus/spyware clean up. If it weren't for MS I'd be unemployed.
Plus how would you know not to arrest someone for not giving you their name if... well... you don't know their name?
"Hey Bob, any outstanding warrants for a John Doe?"
I guess they'd just declare you an enemy combatant and hold you indefinetly in Guintanimo bay.
If you are opposed to carrying ID or "papers" then don't -- there aren't any laws on the books requiring you to do so. In my state you don't even technically need your license on you to drive -- it just needs to be valid and you need to be able to present it in 24 hours if called upon. That still doesn't mean you can refuse to identify yourself.
When ever you are driving a vehicle the authorities have the right to demand papers (licence registration) at any time for any reason. And since Americans spend a significant amounts of time driving isn't this equivilent to identification on demand?
I said "Genesis CDX", not "32X". The Genesis CDX was a Genesis and a Sega CD in one housing. Thus, the console "Genesis CDX" was not a new platform from the console "Genesis plus Sega CD accessory". In fact, because of a few short-sighted hardware design decisions Sega made on the CDX, Sega couldn't get the 32X to work with the CDX.
Ok her'es my logic. We can agree that the PS2 is a seperate system fromt he PS1 right?
Now PS1 games play on the Ps2 but not the other way around. And the PS2 contains the PS1 hardware.
Now SegaCD can play genesis games but a genesis can't play a Sega cd game. The CDX contains Genesis hardware.
The Duo can play TG16 games, the tg16 can't play cd duo games. The Duo conatins CDX hardware.
The 32x can play Sega games but the genesis can't play 32x games. The 32x contains (well it needs a genesis) genesis hardware.
Each one uses the same controller. So the major diff is that the PS2's marketed as a succesor while the others were more upgrades/add-ons. But concptually they could be seperate platforms.
Actually this is already getting done. CxBx is a semi-working Xbox compatability layer for Windows. A few commercial games are playable and one of the developers has a ATI card.
So it should be doable.
Theres a huge gulf between Semi-working and Consumer level product. Epsxemu is a great PSX EMu but requuires altering 4-5 setting between games. Even games in the same series or released at the same time. Thats not consumer level no how much better it looks then a normal PSX. N64 has a emu but nowhere near consumer level. Bleem was ok, but still a seperate bleem pack for each set of 5 games.... no wonder thye died (that and sony suing them every other day). Having an ATI card isn't the problem. The problem is making sure it work 100% with all games without significant glitches. You can code around individual games on EMU's but you will have to make it general or have every special case taken care of in the Xbox Next. It's possible but is it going to happen? I don't know. It's unlikly. Also the Shader programs and the actualy GPU is property of Nvidia so whil the Emu guys can cobble it together ATI would get their Asses sued if they tried.
Why do companies not use interchangable parts. The case scenarios go on and on.
They do. The controller is interchangable with other controllers, the mem cards, the CD-drive can be replaced so can the main boards and the power supply and the io parts. It's just cheaper to make parts all at once. Thats why consoles aren't like Computers. In fact most computers come with a loaded motherboard because it's cheaper then fabing more parts.
Ok, didn't want to bring this up but it's well known that game companies make money off the games. Why would they even think of offering backwards compatability if they can just charge you again for a slightly altered version of what you had?
Because it's just cheaper to keep minting FF7 instead of doign a port to the PS2 using the FFx engine. However they may someday do that.
Short econ lesson. Would you buy a $500 console so the games would be 20 bucks each? Probably not and the ones that did wouldn't buy more than one. This maxes out the profit based solely on the unit and has a set quantity.
You have to learn somethign about econ. the price of a game isn't $50 becaus eit costs $49 to make, it costs $50 because thats the price the market will bear. In parts of asia the games are cheaper. Because thats the price the market will bear.
Now look at the current model. Offer a console at lower than cost and then charge 50/game which keep coming out well after the console is finalized. There is a better market for games at $50 than consoles at $500.
You release a game at $50 to both recoup the cost of promotign and devloping it and to grab as much money from the audience that will buy it right when it comes out. then after sales dip you lower the price to trade high margin for volume. After the next dip you drop it to a economy pack or edition to grab the dollars of those who didn't get it before.
Point is that the business people aren't stupid. They have this billion industry pinned and when they choose not put backwards compatability in a console, they do it from a econmical stance.
Your saying the N-gage was a brilliant design? How about the marketing and business plan around the 32x or the saturn. How about Enron? Business are just people. They are no smarter or dumber then anyone else. Just because you happen to make money doesn't mean you won't make dumb decisions. The ass hat who owns the WWE makes a lot of money but every business he tries outside wrasslin fails. witness the XFL. Why? because he steps out of his area of expertise into a arena he has no experience beign in. So he crawls out with his tail between his leg and moves one. MS went into the console industry and is losing money. Thats fine, their goal is not to be #1 game console. They want a safe propriatary media center to replace the PC. The Pc is a market they reached saturation in, they must expand into other industries to ensure that they will never become obsolete. Like the last buggy whip maker, fater the automobile. They will lose money and keep trying.
Now your point seems to be BAckwards compatability isn't important. That remains to be seen. If sony stays #1 and Xbox next is still #3 then maybe it's important. Only time will tell. My guess is that Backwards compatibility will lock in an audience like it does for the PC, they made too much of a IP investment on the last platform and thus will want to preserve the investment through BC.
Backwards compatability will become much less important than having the hot new game and hot new way to play it (currently wireless networking).
It does, however matter until those games come out for system X. The first wave of games always are sub par. So untilt he kilelr comes, it'll tide over the early adoptors who in turn spread good word about system X. so initially, the first 4-6 months after release, it's vey important. As the system gets older it becomes less and less important. as someone else said, only 10% of Ps2 owners care. But that 10% is greater then the Xbox install base.
First, if you want to play an XBOX game, use an XBOX. If you want to play an XBOX Next game, use an XBOX. I don't think I should be able to play Nintindo 16 bit games on a Game Cube without buying a compatible cartredge. This idea that everything is on a glorified DVD has people thinking they should just work in everything. Now excuse me while I go plug my Genesis up and throw in a Master's Cartredge.
why? Why not have BW compat all the way back? if it costs little why not have it as a feature? It mean your library will last as long as the media and not the machine (the machines break down before the games do 90% of the time). My nintendo is dead. My PS1 is on it's last legs. My genesis is also dead. My SNES is just barely hanging on. I'd liek to still play FF6 when it eventually dies.
Perhaps but it actually had some hard ware differences. And the sega Cd and 32 X were seperate platforms. Evidence: You can't play a 32x game on a genesis. Maybe it's a bit too much to say their seperate consoles but they were seperate platforms. Like the Atari 5200/800/600. How much different is sega CDX from a Sega and a PS2 from a PS1? Both of them allow you to play games you couldn't before and play games you have now. The CDX had extra chips to help out, and the 32X had a lot of extra hardware.
In the same line of reasoning. You want to play "Happy Scrappy Bounty Hunter Saga 4" -- it's more profitable for the company to sell the "new version" since the "old version" probably is no longer in stores and will be bought through eBay or a local used video game store.
For a lot of games this is not true. FF7 is still sold in stores as is FF8 FF9 FF tactics GTA Crash bash, Crash bandicoot, Legend of Dragoon. Theres a lto of classic games still for resale. And the issue with used games is still an issue with any generation. If you keep the games that still sell in print, you will simply net more money. The cd +case +docs are cheap less then 1$. You already payed off developement and you no longer promote so it's almost pure profit. Possibly greater then the initital take for most new games.
The idea is to get away from moving parts that keep costs up. Flash memory has just about all the desireable features of a disk - except rewrite lifespan. Flash is faster and follows semiconductor economies of scale (gets cheaper, like chips; not bigger like discs). It just can't be used for swap space and you can count the number of titles that use it for that on one hand.
(the frequent rewrites of swap usage would burn through flash memory so fast consumers would sue)
Thats fine for a memory card replacement but replacing a cache? The limited R/W lifespan makes it a useless device for caching.
The way to emulate a graphic game on a new architecture is to capture the API calls into your library (in this case directX). The captured calls are then run at fully optimized speed on the new CPU and GPU.
The porblem wiht this is that there calls will be implemented in different ways so you will have graphic glitches. Why? because the rest of the code assumes a certain behavior and if it does somethign subtly different.. for instance the new algroithm draws the flare 3 pixels smaller.. and the other elements don't over that 3 pixels you'll have a glitch. Of if the Z buffer is slightly different, then the water will look really fucked. So it's not as easy as you think. API is one thing, Full compatibility is another.
whats cheaper:
Take a old game, take a month to port it to the new system, sell it for 20$ or Take an old game sell it for 20$.
History has shown us ESPECIALLY with the PS2 that backwards compatability does not bring in extra money for the company. Frequently those who plan to play the older games do so because they are cheep and still run on the older system
they still make money on the older Ps1 games. the PS2 is a smash hit. So I don't really know how thats an exampel of it not making them any money. If your into economy games (greatest hits ect..) it's unlikly you'd buy the expensive stuff anyway so yoru just wringing the optimal amoutn of profit formt he amrket.. it doesn't seem like their undercutting themselves. No more so then the celerons undercut the P4's.
XBOX has pretty good protection as far as copy protection is concerned...don't flame me saying anything different because I do know what's possible with the XBOX and its DVD games
Far be it for me (a chronic typoist) to critisize yrou grammar.. but what are you saying? You have some deep insight as to how copying games is harder for the xbox? Since I know most of my friends do it... it doesn't seem that hard. Get game. Press copy. Play game.
games that finally cross the barrier of consoles
another no-sequiter. How did it cross barriers? by being #3? by losing money? does it play Gc games ? does it play PS2 games?
Backwards compatibility sells older games. which you still profit from.
Who needs to emulate the GPU? As long as they had a 3D API (I would be surprised if they didn't encourage game publishers to use DirectX), that's all they need to emulate. And the emulated graphics libraries wouldn't even need to be x86 code.
The Xbox api isn't the direct x api and it has custom gpu instructions and there is also the matter of the programmable shaders. The shader language willl change between Nvidia and ATI.
They changed CPU's and GPU's and dropped the Hard drive. Backwards compatibility would be hard. They need a CPU emu, a GPu emu that doesn't infringe on Nvidia's patents (thus it'll be graphically glitchy) and soemthig to pretend to be the HD.
Did you take a hammer to your Playstation? They would still be quite playable on that box.
Electronics don't live forever. They die. My PS1 lost the baring in the cd tray so it needs to have tape to hold the cd down. And it's now not loading some games because the electric motor on the cd player is going. i'm glad I have a PS2 to play my libraary of PS1 games.
If Xbox has good launch games, it will sell because gamers want to play games and many want to be "first on the block."
For this, MS has to convince third party developers that the machien has enough install base to make said games. So it's a catch 22. To get a higher install base, you must sell more units, to sell more units you must get the good games, to get the good games you have to have a large install base.....
In short, I consider backward compatibility one of those things that everyone talks about being important despite the fact that, outside the GBA and unsuccessful Atari consoles, it's only happened once. I consider the logic that backward compatibility sells consoles to be faulty since if one wants to play the old games the old console can be had on the cheap (as others have pointed out, the Xbox will almost certainly be $100 when Xbox 2 streets).
It's been shown that in that awkward first few months when no games comes out for a console, that backward compatability helps sell your console. It's effect can't be measured. Because the whole set of examples is too small. PS2 has it, SNEs didn't. Atari had it (and was very successful until shortly before the crash int he 80's). GB has it. TG16 had it. Genesis had it (in a way). The arguement is that it provides a smoother transition between consoles and it provides a easy way to maintain your current investment in older games.
Xbox 2 is pretty far away. but basing ti on past performance is a good indicator. SMS was #2 and so was the Genesis. NES did well makign $$$ and so did the SNES did really well making mad $$$ and the N64 made $$ and Gc made money. PS1 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS2 was a wild success making mad $$$, PS3 will problably be successful. Xbox was a mild success that loese money, Xbox 2 will also be a mild success that loses money.
The xbox is as innovative as a dell box. It's just a bunch of cobbled togeter commodity parts. It's has some nice features but MS won't be repeating most of them for the Xbox 2 becaue it's a money sink and thye now realise it. HD will be gone. Caching will no longer be used. Live is problably the best thign about the xbox. Hopefully they continue that.