Xbox 2 - The Price of Compatibility? 615
Randy Lastimosa writes "1UP.com has an interesting article about the next Xbox, and whether it will support current Xbox games. They talked to a number of sources and got conflicting reports. For example, the CEO of Nvidia, who provided graphics chips for the current Xbox, said: 'It's virtually impossible on many levels,' he adds. 'On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too.'"
Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not only do the kids play the PSX games as much as they do PS2 games (on the PS2) they have gone out an bought new PSX games nearly a year after we got the PS2.
For myself, if the PS2 didn't play PSX games, we probably wouldn't have bought a PS2. Since Sony is going to build the PS3 with the ability to play PSX and PS2 games, as well as new PS3 games, it'll be a safe purchase.
At least after the first price drop....
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a short-sighted view. You're forgetting a few things:
The choice is pretty obvious. This was a major selling point for the PS2, especially since it enhanced a few lacking aspects of PS1 games, and the PS3 is supposed to have comparable enhancements (load time was a big one, I recall).
Basically, it's the choice between a 2-in-1 console with a very large existing game library and hot new titles, a GameSphere (or whatever) with Nintendo-exclusive titles (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon), or an XBOX2, the successor to a rather unsuccessful XBOX that didn't have a lot of exclusive content in the first place. Plus, this round, Sony and Nintendo might not even let Microsoft have the technical advantage, either.
When it all comes down to it, it's about the games, and the PS3 and Cube successor will provide many, many good reasons to buy in this category.
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, people almost never want to play the previous generation games on their new console. But when they buy the new console, "I can use it play all the old games" is one of those lies people tell themselves to convince themselves to buy an expensive new system with a limited games library. However, it may be less of an advantage for Microsoft. The PS1 had a huge library of quality games. The XBox just has a handful.
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
For most people I know, this is anything but a lie. I still play PS1 games; I still buy PS1 games on occasion (when I can find something rare/interesting). Up until about 6 months ago I was buying PS1 games fairly regularly. Texture smoothing is nice (for instance, it makes DW7 actually look good), and reduced loads really help.
Many gamers I know still play SNES, NES, Genesis, and other older console games. They were good games and that's the number one reason to play (or replay)... not because of flashy graphics.
This is true. As you can see [ign.com], I have quite a few RPGs for the PS1, and a number of them I haven't even started. They'll provide many years of good gaming. If the current console makes them look 5x better and run 5x faster, who am I to complain?
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but presumably they have some proprietary technology involved. So if Microsoft substitutes another shader, games won't look quite the same. And since designers of XBox1 games presumably optimized their titles to get the best possible results from the existing shaders, any change in shader behavior is likely to be for the worse.
PS2 == inexpensive DVD player w/ games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PS2 == inexpensive DVD player w/ games (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true as well. Unfortunately most people find that the DVD player has one major flaw: compatibility. This is unfortunate, because (at least with the later drivers) the interface and remote were very high-quality.
(Oddly, compatibility isn't a PS2-specific problem. The XBOX has problems as well, and so do most dedicated DVD players! I found this out pretty quickly when shopping for one. I ended up with a $70 Samsung, which has no reported issues, and even played most of the way through a cracked DVD, but I like the PS2's UI much better.)
However I don't think any of these things were the "biggest". I think the biggest thing going for the PS2 was Sony hype, riding on the success of the PS1. :-) Fortunately for Sony they were able to back it up with a great library. And hopefully they will continue the trend with the PS3.
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
One of Microsoft's big issues on the desktop is the constant need to interop with their legacy products. Let's not have that mentality trip over into my living room where I want the biggest, the best and the brightest toys I can get my hands on.
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but Blockbuster will have a bunch of xbox games sitting around that I might want to play.
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft can port the APIs to the new chips.
Microsoft can emulate x86 with a PPC through Connectix's VirtualPC technology. I'd think a G5 should be able to emulate a 733 PIII well enough, particularly if the use of API code clears a lot of CPU headroom to cover the non-API code.
What graphics chip shouldn't matter either as that detail should have been covered by APIs.
If they don't care to
Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Second hand XBox1s will not be as cheap as second hand playstations precisely because you need the old consoles to play the old games! They're not obsolete as soon as you've upgraded..
shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2)
Note, GC and XB are still in the hunt. Would it be nice to have backward compatability? Sure. Is it a must have? Not really. Remember, XB made its popularity with a better online gaming scene. Something tells me MS has some more tricks under their sleeves to compete with backward compatability.
Re:shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get this mentality (Score:2)
Re:I don't get this mentality (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't get this mentality (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a rather strange disadvantage, but a disadvantage none the less. (If it's true of course.)
Re:I don't get this mentality (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't own a PS1, just a PS2. The PS1 backward compatability is a huge plus because I can get any of the thousands of PS1 games for like $3 each at gamestop or Electronics Boutique. Beyond that, there are tons of fun games for the PS1 (not available on any other console) that didn't stop being fun when the PS2 came out.
Re:shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Being able to play PS1 games is the reason for having a PS3? Sorry, I don't buy it - I think being able to play PS3 games is the reason for having a PS3. Backwards compatibility is extremely overrated, and the only reason people think about it at all is because of the PS2 - which would have been successful with or without it. In fact, the only reason Sony included it is because they could - not because they had to. It just so happened that they could manage to use a PS1 CPU for the I/O functions of the PS2, which made backward compatibility very easy to include. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.
There has only been one other home console I can think of offhand with backward compatibility built in: the Atari 7800. And we all know what a great success that system was. Mind you, this is in an industry that now has nearly a 30 year history, and has seen upwards of 100 programmable home console systems (both major and minor) released in various territories.
If MS can lower costs and include better functionality in the Xbox 2 at the expense of backward compatibility, they should do it. People with short memories and/or attention spans always look at whatever's successful in the current generation and automatically think it's suicide if every other company doesn't follow the exact same template - this industry has never worked that way. There's no such thing as a "standard feature" in the game console industry and even if there was, with only two major systems to have it, backward compatibility wouldn't even come close to being one of those standards.
Re:shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but I'd reckon the PS2 still has enought power to emulate the Playstation in software, even if it didn't have the PS1 CPU. Like the Dreamcast could play Playstation games with an emulator and that was less powerful than the PS2.
Sure they shouldn't spend too much on backwards compatibility (it would have been dum
Absolutely wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely, 100% wrong. People had vast game libraries after owning their Playstations for so long. Buying a Playstation 2 meant they could continue playing their entire game library while still adding onto it. You're being moronic if you think that's not a benefit. It's the same advantage the Gameboy Advance had--you didn't have to abandon your old game library. You could keep playing it on the new system, and now with a backlit display and other advantages.
Don't be silly. Backwards-compatibility is a HUGE advantage to a console's success. People don't feel like they're replacing anything--they feel like they're merely upgrading to the next best thing, and can keep on playing their old games alongside the new ones.
Re:Absolutely wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an argument I've never understood. Did a Sony rep come into their house with a baseball bat and bash apart their old Playstations when they bought at PS2? My family owned the NES, SNES, N64, Playstation, and Gameboy. None of them were compatible with one another, yet we could still play all the games we owned for each system. If you already own a Playstation, what possible benefit is there (aside from a marginal space savings) to having the PS2 be backwards compatible?
Re:Absolutely wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a Sony Wega TV with 3 RCA ports (one can be used as either RCA or S-Video) and one Component Input. If I wanted to play all of my current systems on the same TV, despite the fact they'd take up a buttload of space, I'd have to buy MORE cables as well as an input swithcher. The fact that I can elliminate a console is a big factor on whether to buy one next-gen console or another when they debut.
P.S. Atari 7800 (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiight. The backwards-compability of the Atari 7800 had a factor in the downfall of Atari in the 80s. What crack are you smoking?
Re:shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm how do you figure?
The modern console gaming industry has been around for 15 years (dating from NES). Console gaming as a whole has been around for much longer than that.
In all that time, the only game console that was backwards compatible before the release of the PS2 was the Atari 2600/5200/7800, and AFAIK the 5200 and 7800 did pretty poorly. I'm not counting the Sega Master System here because both versions were a simultaneous release; it wasn't backwards compatibility so much as it was a pricing point.
Yet you speak like backwards compatibility is a staple of the console gaming industry?
Could I put my NES games into my SNES? Nope. SNES games into N64? Nope. Genesis Carts into my Dreamcast? Nope.
Did that deter me from buying any of the above systems?
Nope.
Why would I buy them? Because they offered a compelling gaming experience that I couldn't get elsewhere. Just because XBOX2 won't support the previous gen's games doesn't mean that it won't be able to offer an equally compelling and unique experience...
Re:shooting themselves in the foot...? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:shooting themselves in the foot...? Really? (Score:3, Informative)
I know atlest 2 families where the children got PS2s for presents and the kids then went out and bought PS1 games. Two reasons:
There weren't a PS2 version available (yet?) of that must have game.
The games are cheaper and there are also lots of dirt cheap second hand stuff available which equals more games to play.
I'm sure the backward compatibility influenced their wishlists and that the kids are a lot happier with their PS2s than if they had been given xboxes.
/greger
...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:2)
What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:2)
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if you think about it, most of the games won't be just writing to DirectX/Direct3D only. Most or all of the pretty engines are going to be writing (for example) shader code directly for the Nvidia GPU that is built in to the XBOX.
Since we know that XBOX++ will not contain an Nvidia GPU (they're going with ATI instead), it is pretty safe to say that using binaries compiled for the current XBOX will not work. If they did, then that would mean that the graphics chips would have to be functionally identical (or at least close enough) to the Nvidia part. Nvidia probably holds a bunch of patents [uspto.gov] surrounding the chip which currently preclude this unless MS and/or ATI wants to get sued to oblivion.
Mechanik
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that almost every Xbox game is laden with hardware specific calls, done in assembler, to tweak the bejeezus out of it in parts.
That is something that you can't make backwards compatible without essentially cloning nVidia's chips, and that's the IP violation.
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:2)
Did it ever occur to you to read the article before posting? Your question would have been answered.
The problem is that the nVidia chipsets (especially the audio chipset) use patentented technology and algorithms. Emulating that technology would require licensing it. Sure you could port the game but the whole point is that the end user already has the game and does not want to buy it again.
-sirket
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:2)
Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:2)
As far as I am concerned this is good news to me, the machine is not going to be constrained by emulation etc. Maybe I can't run x86 linux on it, but maybe yellowdog will run. This also means I have a superfast machine with no HDD, no cooling requirements, no keyboard or mouse etc. and at a subsidised price. Perfect component for setting up a cluster I
Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fluff. M$ is just doing what it only knows how to do: adjust parameters in the big equations of profits, leverage, and market penetration in order to ensure a beefy bottom line. Articles that add a dramatic aspect to this process are a waste of time.
Great Courtroom Soundbyte (Score:5, Funny)
On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too.
Well, there you have it your honor. In the industry's own words: The rules of Intellectual Property are not practical!
Re:Great Courtroom Soundbyte (Score:2)
They are for the lawyers. Which brings up a rather sad point. MS lawyers probably spent more time on this project than the developers.
Xbox Next? (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:Xbox Next? (Score:5, Interesting)
What trademark issues? It's entirely legal for two companies to use similar marks, so long as there does not exist a significant potential for consumer confusion. Bob McDonald's Auto Repair, for instance, isn't in any danger from the restaurant chain. A relevant precedent is the case of Apple Computer and Apple Records, both of which got to keep using their marks.
Now, clearly the Xbox and NeXT exist in a similar market, unlike Apple Computer and Apple Records. But NeXT computers aren't being manufactured or sold anymore. How the hell can you get confused into thinking that an Xbox Next would have anything to do with NeXT computers? We're not talking about a recognizable, clear brand here (such as "Atari"), we're talking about a simple English word -- it's much more difficult to get confused into thinking that the two marks are related.
All of this is assuming, of course, that someone actually owns the trademark on NeXT and it is still valid. Considering that the computers are not being manufactured anymore, it is entirely possible that this is not the case.
I dont care about backwards compatible on even PS (Score:2)
Re:I dont care about backwards compatible on even (Score:2)
Not a big deal (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
The general console-buying populace has traditionally gone for new consoles that can play the games of older, popular ones. Since the Playstation 1 was popular, the Playstation 2's backwards compatibility gave it a huge starting library - and instant success. The GBA is a huge hit for similar reasons.
Losing backwards compatibility means starting a console's library all over again from scratch. That, among other things, is what cost Nintendo
Great old games have long lives! (Score:2)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Many people do not want stacks of consoles if they can get away with fewer. That's a reason emulation is popular, too.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
So, at these locations with millions upon millions of potential customers, the smaller total package will probably win out if the prices are the same.
It's the same reason people like multifunction devices despite them often costing as much as the individual units often would.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
Maybe it went up in smoke? Stuff happens...
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the scary part: My four year old son loves Loderunner, I'd say he plays it as much as Crash Team Racing.
The point: Good games are just that, no matter what their age.
And I expect my PSone system to die way before the game discs do, based on the number of dead CDROM drives I've seen over the years.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
argh!! it's this sort of response that typifies the driving force in game development today.
people care more about the amount of polygons or pixel shaders in a game engine than if it is actually fun to play.
likewise, game companies are spending more and more money on games that produce good screenshots and less and less on games that are actually fun.
i don't care what year it is, a good 2d fighter is still fun as hell. but you can find one? no, instead you get DOA or MK:DA, which look great but have about 1/10th the playability of SF2.
i mean ffs, by your logic hollywood squares must be more fun than baseball because it uses a computer and was invented later.
sorry for venting, but i really think this attitude has been destroying any innovation (besides 3d tech) in gaming for years now.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Impractical to be backward compatible (Score:2, Funny)
"Microsoft, having cut one hand off with the saw, found they no longer could wield the saw to cut off their other hand, and declared it a victory."
Market Backlash! (Score:5, Funny)
even if it was compatible.. (Score:2, Interesting)
hell, i dont even have a regular xbox yet. i might pick one up when they drop to 99. last console i bought was n64, and i think i paid 99 for that as well.
i just find that games on pc are far superior to console games. plus, playing halo on a console controller is hard as balls. give me a keyboard and mouse anyday.
DirectX (Score:2, Interesting)
Is backwards compatibility a sure thing? I don't think so at this point, but I wouldn't
Availability of Games (Score:4, Interesting)
It just strikes me as odd that they would have this sort of debate. Is Microsoft now in a significantly better position to entice video game offers from companies, or do they still need time to develop a presence in the console video game market?
One could even joke that since Microsoft doesn't expect any game developers to make games for them, they should make XBox Next backwards compatible
But on a general note, I don't see why video game consoles need to be backwards compatible. With new Operating systems/hardware and computer software the issue is that people like to preserve existing data, and you can never be sure if everyone who wants to use your product is sufficiently upgraded.
In this case, I agree that Microsoft shouldn't bother with an extroadinary effort for backwards compatibility. Emulators are the way to go for nostalgics.
BW compatibility on consoles is overrated.. (Score:4, Insightful)
PS2 got a years jump on the competition, lined up some good exclusives, and generally swamps the shelves with games. It just looks to consumers like the best, most supported console. This, IMO, is why it's at the top of the heap. Even so, it had a shaky start.
Backwards compatibility is nice and all, but I doubt a major selling point. I know I've never bothered once to play a PSX game in the PS2.
The GBA being backwards compatible with GB, however, seems more an intelligent idea. There's less space in my pocket to carry both around. Even so, I haven't played any GB games in the GBA so far either.
I'll buy an XBox2 because(if) it has games out that I want to play, not because of some spec or feature listed on the display.
I'm sure for plenty of folks, myself included, the single biggest factor in deciding whether to buy a piece of video game hardware is - "does it have games that I want to play?"
Not the first time. (Score:5, Funny)
I blew on that cartridge until I passed out. I got nowhere. I turned the SNES on and off a bunch of times too.
If they keep up this type of practice of backward incompatability, there will be a whole new generation of angry, confused kids out there.
Don your tin-foil hats once again (Score:2)
Big surprise? (Score:2)
But on a serious note, they can't just apply their usual "They'll upgrade if we force them to" standards to video game consoles. They'll lose their shirt. Look how well the PS2 sold, probably in part because of backwards compatability. Now that Nintendo is using disc-based games, maybe their next console will be backwards compatible. If the Xbox isn't backwards compatible, it's almost like putting out an entirely new co
Re:Big surprise? (Score:2)
WTF? Microsoft is all about the backwards compatibility. This is one of their things. This is why I can still run Word 2.0 on an XP machine, if I so choose.
XBOX Live (Score:2, Insightful)
If the games use their API:s it'll mostly need a recompile.
Virtually impossible != impossible (Score:3, Funny)
If something is 'virtually impossible', let's just say that it is 'possible'
Lost a sale (Score:2)
Now I don't think the Xbox has the same library of games that would I would replay (maybe KOTOR and a few others) but having that option is a strong selling point to me.
Doesn't seem like a big deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Backwards-compatible only matters for large-seller (Score:5, Interesting)
For Sony, it made sense to build in PS1 emulation to the PS2 because the original Playstation was so popular and sold so many games. Heck, they're *still* selling orginal Playstations, and people are still buying shrink-wrapped Playstation 1 games, to a lesser extent.
Will Microsoft piss off the majority of the console-game users if they release a new game console which doesn't play Xbox games? No, because most of us don't _have_ Xbox games...
MS may ( correctly ) figure that the current crop of Xbox owners will buy the latest and greatest game machine no matter what, "because it plays Halo5" or whatever...
Re:Backwards-compatible only matters for large-sel (Score:3, Interesting)
The PS2's backwards compatibility has practically nothing to do with the success of the PS1, and almost everything to do with Sony trying to save money. The PS2 actually includes most of the PS1's hardware. The PS1 processor actually handles
Re:X-Box a failure? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't own a PS2 or a GC but I can't imagine being without my Xbox. And my reasons?
1) Xbox Live (truly amazing)
2) Best graphics/sound
3) HDTV/5.1 with 16x9 (Halo2 will support 16x9 1080i)
4) Ripping CD's for jukebox & music during games
5) High quality exculsive games
If your a gamer but your staying away from Xbox because of your anti-MS po
Compatibility and the short life of X-box ver. 1 (Score:3, Insightful)
In the practical sense backwards compatibility gives you two things: 1- for people who don't own the older system it means access to an instant library of old games for a new system. 2- For those who do own the older system, you don't need to keep that old system around anymore to play your older games. I think both these issues are worse when the two generations are so close together. 1- because the games aren't out of date yet, so they are still worth buying. 2- because "I just bought this console a couple years ago and now you want me to replace it. What and I can't even use it to play the games I just bought, so I have to keep the old box around, too!"
(On the other hand, if your first system truly is a flop, then backwards compatibility may not be as much of a big deal. If there's not much a library of games, and no one bought the console, then neither of the 2 points above matter. I don't think the X-box was enough of a flop for this to be true, though).
Compatablity? Microsoft? _HARD DRIVE_ (Score:2)
Backwards compatability with games is not my concern -- forward compatability with value and utility.
ls
Maybe no the target audience, but (Score:5, Funny)
I remember for years mom griping about how all these games she had already bought for us were useless on our new system. And guess who was paying for the new systems? You guess right, Mom and her purse. You might say, she did keep buying them, right? Didn't your mom love you? Yeah, mom loved me, but not enough to line nintendo's pockets with cash for the SUPER! Nintendo. The nintendo was the last system she bought for me and my bro. Afterwards, we saved up dearly to get the Super Grafx, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, and Sega Dreamcast. Obviously, me and my brother were bad gamblers as systems go. We he left for the Navy, I bought him a Neo Get Pocket color to bring with him on the ship. That sealed my title as worst video game purchaser ever. If you want to know which system is going to last, don't ask me. The only caveat is that I bought a PS2, but that wasn't until 3 years after it came out.
Off course it is possible, but is it probable? (Score:2)
Speaking as a Xbox developer (Score:5, Informative)
The only area where I can see problems is that Xbox vertex and pixel shaders can be (and often are) compiled to nVidia's proprietary binary format (which represents a much more hardware-specific mapping than the standard DirectX hardware-agnostic binary token format). If this issue is solved, or nVidia turns a blind eye, there should be no major technical obstacles to software emulation. Legally, I think it may be OK, as the specifics of the nVidia shader format is not disclosed even in the Xbox SDK itself, so Microsoft could very well write a layer that just translates the nVidia format to whatever internal scheme ATI's silicon will use.
Other consoles, like PS2 allow much more low-level access, so compatibility via software emulation only is more of a pain.
Did anyone actually read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
Nvidia is playing for the press right now. They're peeved at MS for the original Xbox deal, and now that they've been shafted for Xbox 2, they're going to try to make it as difficult as possible for MS to build backward compatability into Xbox 2. It'll happen, Nvidia will make a buck on it, and they'll tone down the criticism. Standard fare.
Did you read the article? (Score:4, Informative)
According to the title the Xbox2 will play current XBox games. No where does the article provide any supporting evidence to this claim, and in fact largely runs counter to it. Nvidia says all but no, an unknown independent analyst agrees, ATI says that it is statistically possible, and some other unknown agrees with them. Microsoft says... Nothing. According to other sources [designtechnica.com] Microsoft is "not guaranteeing" backwards compatibility, and if they decide not to include a hard drive such compatibility may not be possible at all.
nVidia may very well be playing to the press, but that doesn't mean such a thing wouldn't be difficult or expensive. Most systems achieve backwards compatibility by finding uses for the extra hardware. Software emulation for compatibility has never been attempted professionally in the console arena, but amature software emulation tends to lag two systems behind. You can push an XBox to do a meaningful SNES, but Dreamcast emulation is right out. With the right software the SNES could emulate the 2600, but not the NES.
Personally, I don't see why they don't just include a detachable Xbox chipset as a free add-on with an overpriced "premium" system with two controllers, and sell a regular setup with one controller for 100 dollars less.
But, as I mentioned before, no such thing has been announced yet.
MS, Sony, Nintendo...it doesn't matter... (Score:3, Funny)
TRON!
Backwards Compatibility is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents who have already sunk a few hundred dollars into the PS2 should be pleased to know that the money they spent on games won't go to waste if those games could still be played on the PS3. Granted, the kids may continue to keep the PS2 hooked up to the TV, but maybe they won't. It's a selling point.
How many people were able to convince their wives/girlfriends/significant others/parents that buying a PS2 was a good thing because it ALSO was a DVD player? It may not have been the best DVD player available, but it does the job. And at the time, DVD players were going for $150 or so [numbers out of a hat], which made the "real" cost of a PS2 that much cheaper in the minds of the purchasing decision makers.
Sony's already announced that the PS3 will be able to play PS2 games. When the PS3 is released, even if the initial set of games aren't wonderful kids could still tell their parents that they can still play GTAx on it. Not that they will or won't, but they could if they wanted to.
And you know what? There were some PS1 games that were never released for the PS2, and for people who never had a PS1 in the first place, this was a good thing. (You Don't Know Jack, various pinball games, Caesars Palace Casino - to name a few).
I see backwards compatibility as being really important as we move forward with the next series of game consoles. Imagine the uproar if Win95/98 couldn't run DOS programs. Or WinME couldn't run Win98 programs. Or needing a completely new version of Office just because you went to WinXP. Microsoft's been down this road before -- they MUST know what they're talking about, right?
XAPI (Score:4, Informative)
Xbox developers are specifically prohibited from writing to the metal. For any graphics calls, sound calls, I/O calls, or any hardware call, they have to go through the API. In that way, developing on the Xbox is rather like developing against a system abstraction layer. Change the kernel but keep the entry points the same, and you should work fine. After all, most games use the vertex shaders (which are well-documented and implemented on ATI's cards), so I don't see a problem.
As for the IP issues, the only issue I can see is implementing some nVidia-specific texture formats, but since most of them were not supported or recommended by Xbox Developer Services, few (if any) games use them.
The possible flipside is that VirtualPC technology may not work on the IBM processors. VirtualPC will not work on the G5 due to the elimination of a certain addressing mode. If that addressing mode is still gone in the processors made for MS, then backwards compatibility just got 100's of times harder to implement.
Ok, nothing to see here. Move on. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can speculate until you are blue in the face, but that will not change the end product. I would suggest waiting until a bit closer to the XB2 launch date. Actually, let's even wait until there is a launch date.
I'm just not going to get excited about this product until it is actually a product. We'll know for sure what is coming later on. Until then, just chill and mod your original XB. It's got a couple of years of being useful left in it.
BTW, microsoft does not care what you think regarding backwards compatibility. They do not seem to mind losing money on things like this. From everything I have read, MS has yet to even turn a profit on the original XB. I see this as more of a 'betting on the future' thing, much like it's slow domination of the browser market. They just want their product in your entertainment console for now, and will do whatever it takes. Profit comes later.
Peace out
heh, look who quotes it.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't listen to him at all. I recall him promising the 'next generation' nVidia chipset and it arriving over a year late. I, along with many of my friends, waited for this new FX, cinematic experience, then proceeded to buy year old 9700Pro's due to nVidia's terrible performance.
This guy isn't honest to his loyal consumers, thus can not be trusted with comments regarding a company that (he feels) burned him.
I'm a reformed nVidia fanboy. I had 5 of their cards over the years, and will not buy another one until they actually produce a 'next generation' card that is actually 'next generation', as in being the fastest thing to come to market. They can forget me waiting on them while they 'finialize' or 'optimize' it before release.
I'm no fanboy, but ATI has done me well. The old 9700Pro overclocks very well. Enough that it scores the same as my former roomie's 9800Pro in 3Dmark.
Plan (Score:4, Interesting)
We know that if we said otherwise, some folks may be willing hold off on buying an X1. Waiting for an X2, and forgetting about the current X1 saves the purchase price of one X1 unit, but one must wait until X2 is released.
However, by indicating that the X2 will not support X1 games, we essentially tell the customers to go buy one now, b/c you may never get to play Halo otherwise. Oh, and by the way, we're offering a great deal on Mr. X1 right now. $80 off what your friends just paid a few months ago to buy one for X-mas.
This may just be all about moving more Generation One X-boxes between now and the actual realase of the Gen Two.
Re:Compatibility? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony has a good thing going by being compatible though, and Microsoft would do well to stay compatible as well-- people aren't interested in having 50 systems piled in front of their TV's, and if systems start being incompatible again, that's exactly what the consumer will be forced to deal with.
Re:Compatibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
The playstation 2 was the only "sequel" console of a optical media console so they're the only ones who have had a chance to play with it. I hope everyone follows in their foot steps.
It's a huge selling point, atleast it is in my books.
Re:Compatibility? (Score:2)
The Sony Playstation 2 is backwards-compatible with the Playstation 1. It's a selling point for consoles, since it means that there is already a huge library of games made for the older console that already play on the newer one.
Having said that, the solution is obvious: hack the XBox 2 to run Linux, then hack an emulator for the XBox 1 under XBox 2 Linux. How hard can it be, really.
Re:Compatibility? (Score:2)
"Huge library of games?" No. "You can unplug the PS1 you already own, and plug in a PS2?" Yes.
The selling point is that you're saving yourself a set of input jacks, nothing more.
Note, by the way, that PS1s are still being manufactured and sold.
Re:Unnecessary adverb -- language rot in progress (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Unnecessary adverb -- language rot in progress (Score:3, Funny)
My blood doesn't "just boil", it "explosively vaporizes". (After I attain a safe distance from the "dump" aforementioned.)
Don't start me on "taking showers", either. 'Course, where slashdotters are concerned, that's not a subject that comes up any too frequently.
Re:Unnecessary adverb -- language rot in progress (Score:2)
Like let's say you need to reverse gravity, make pi = 3, and have rush limbaugh shut his big mouth to make Xbox games work on Xbox2 games. That's very impossible. Three impossibilities.
Re:It better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It better (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It better (Score:3, Interesting)
Backward compatability is the key.
Why?
If I want to play my old games, I can play them on the old X-Box. If X-Box2 (Y-Box?) supports the old games, I probably would not be able to sell the old one for much money anyway.
The key to getting me to buying a new-generation X-Box is not backward compatibility. It's making sure that there are fun games which take advantage of the better technology.
Being backward compatible with existing USB controllers would be nice
Re:It better (Score:5, Insightful)
As it must be said a million times, if you have an Xbox, and the Xbox Next has backwards compatibility, then perhaps you might upgrade, keep both consoles...whatever. Now, If you have a PS2, and wanted to play some of the original Xbox games, then perhaps that might entice you to buy an Xbox Next with backwards compatibility for your next generation console, then you can check out all the old games and the new ones.
Traditionally, it takes a while for games to get good on any console, so if the Xbox Next has backwards compatibility, you instantly get access to all the finely-tuned later cycle games released for the Xbox.
It amazes me how many people have commented "I already have an Xbox, what would backwards compatibility do for me? Nothing", and then say that's why backwards compatibility isn't worthwhile. They should instead look at things from the point of view of the console maker trying to entice people over to their system, and maybe consider what the console maker would base their choice on.
Re:Overrated. (Score:2)
Tiger Woods for PS2 and Gran Turismo 1 for PS1.
I would not have even bothered with a PS2 if it wasn't for backwards compatibility.
Re:I don't understand what nVidia's CEO is saying. (Score:2, Interesting)
In short, the libraries for the XBox are intended to be familiar and somewhat source compat
Re:Yes, yes, graphics compatibility, but... (Score:3, Informative)
However, it's obvious why this is if you look at the two issues behind it:
VPC for PPC does not really use the Mac's video card. For versions up to VPC5 it emulates onboard shared video, and sends that to the Mac to deal with by drawing the Windows desktop inside an ordinary application window.
In fact, the video card must draw both the Mac desktop and the Windows desktop in real time. Any game that
Re:This is why I buy only PC games (Score:3, Insightful)
I have had PC games die becuase I upgraded the following:
- Video card
- Video card drivers
- Soundcard
- Motherboard
- Added RAM to system (I'm not kidding)
- Win 98