Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Graphics Software Entertainment Games

Xbox 2 - The Price of Compatibility? 615

Posted by simoniker from the sever-ties-pay-price dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox 2 - The Price of Compatibility? More

Xbox 2 - The Price of Compatibility?

Comments Filter:

  • Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lake2112 ( 748837 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:40PM (#8181988)
    I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.

    • Re:Not such a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:43PM (#8182026)
      And I would rather not have another console taking up space. If one console can play the games of an older console, then great. That is why I have my Dreamcast with all my NES games on a cd, instead of my NES hooked up (and yes I do own a NES).

    • Re:Not such a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:50PM (#8182118)
      I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.

      This is a short-sighted view. You're forgetting a few things:

      1. The XBOX doesn't have very large market penetration. Most people who might don't already have one.
      2. Microsoft wants to increase their share of the market
      3. People will look at the XBOX2 and say "yeah, so, there are a few games right now, but I can go buy a completely different console (XBOX) for even more money to tide myself over, or, I can by a PS3, which will play all the old PS2 games, and the few PS3 games there are, for one price."

      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)

        by tgibbs ( 83782 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:12PM (#8182370)
        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).

        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)

          by oGMo ( 379 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:56PM (#8182818)
          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.

          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.

          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.

          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?

      • PS2 == inexpensive DVD player w/ games (Score:5, Insightful)

        by blackchiney ( 556583 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:41PM (#8182687)
        I think a lot of people forget the biggest thing going for the PS2 when it debuted wasn't the games but the builtin DVD player. At the time DVD players were going for ~$200-300 by themselves. A $300 PS2 that could play PS2 games, PSOne games, and DVDs must have been a real bargain for a lot of people. In fact, if I remember some gamezine article from a few years back Sony was afraid the PS2 would cannibalize sales of their standalone DVD players. It was a hit in Japan not because of the games, admit it the first batch of PS2 games were crap, but due to the small living quarters the PS2 fit 3 devices in one.

        • Re:PS2 == inexpensive DVD player w/ games (Score:4, Interesting)

          by oGMo ( 379 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:05PM (#8182886)
          I think a lot of people forget the biggest thing going for the PS2 when it debuted wasn't the games but the builtin DVD player.

          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)

      by Osrin ( 599427 )
      Correct, it's unlikely that you're going to have a bunch of xbox games you want to play unless you already have an xbox sitting around somewhere.

      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.
      • Correct, it's unlikely that you're going to have a bunch of xbox games you want to play unless you already have an xbox sitting around somewhere.

        Yeah, but Blockbuster will have a bunch of xbox games sitting around that I might want to play.
    • I really don't understand what the problem is, and I don't think cost is a problem to make backward compatibility.

      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)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:29PM (#8183193)
      I don't know I already have an Xbox to play Xbox games. If I didn't have one I'm sure you can pick one up when Xbox2 comes out for the about $50-$70. I'd rather my Xbox2 be alot cheaper with new functionality.

      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)

    by Cheeze ( 12756 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:40PM (#8181998) Homepage
    not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. Hopefully, the playstation 3 will still play playstation 1 games. sure, those games won't look as cool as the newest games, but being able to play them is the point in having a game system.
    • Umm, that's what people said with the Playstation 2. The X-Box would have no shot, cause the PS2's backward compatability.

      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.
      • The numbers on XBox Live fail to impress. I wouldn't say that online gaming is moving that many units. I haven't checked current numbers but XBox sales haven't shot up recently due to XBox Live getting better market penetration. If anything, I would say that XBox Live offers a nice service but Halo was what made XBox the console it is today.
    • Let's see ... you obviously own a playstation 1, or you would not have games for that system that you want to play. So why does the playstation 3 need to play those games? Play them on your playstation 1. Let the ps3 break some new ground and avoid the layer of old code necessary to keep old games running on it.

      • Re:I don't get this mentality (Score:5, Informative)

        by brandorf ( 586083 ) <brandorf@brandorf.com> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:04PM (#8182290) Homepage
        I just thought that I'd clear up the common misconception that there is a performance or innovation cost for including the PS2's backward compatibility. There wasn't. The PS2 contains the entirety of the PSOne hardware, PSOne games are played natively, not emulated, and the PSOne hardware controls I/O when a PS2 game is running. Because Sony already had chip fabs and such for the PSOne chips, repurposing those chips in the new system actyally saved them money. Being able to play the old games was just a benefit of this route.
        • There's one area you haven't hit. I've heard rumors and some pretty good arguments for this, but no firm proof. The story is that the reason the PS2 has only two controllers is because the I/O chip is the PSX emulator. It was designed to handle the two controllers the PSX had, and the Sony engineers decided it was too dificult to work in 4 controller compatibility while still using the same chip as a pseudo-PSX.

          It's a rather strange disadvantage, but a disadvantage none the less. (If it's true of course.)

      • Let's see ... you obviously own a playstation 1, or you would not have games for that system that you want to play.

        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)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:01PM (#8182258)
      not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. Hopefully, the playstation 3 will still play playstation 1 games. sure, those games won't look as cool as the newest games, but being able to play them is the point in having a game system.

      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.
      • 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.

        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)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:37PM (#8182642)
        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.

        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)

          by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:19PM (#8183032)
          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.


          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)

            by Queer Boy ( 451309 ) <<dragon.76> <at> <mac.com>> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @07:45PM (#8184823)
            If you already own a Playstation, what possible benefit is there (aside from a marginal space savings) to having the PS2 be backwards compatible?

            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)

        by bonch ( 38532 )
        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.

        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)

      by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <{James.McCracken} {at} {stratapult.com}> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:05PM (#8182297)
      not being backwards compatible will just push everyone to playstation. [...] being able to play them is the point in having a game system.

      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...
  • 'On an intellectual-property level'

    What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?

    • Once again "intellectual-property" serves to cripple technology. They probably can but won't in order to force you to upgrade.

    • Re:...On an intellectual-property level... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mechanik ( 104328 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:52PM (#8182154) Homepage
      'On an intellectual-property level' What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?

      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
    • What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?

      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
    • They're switching from an NVidia video chip to an ATI chip. The old games used an API that depended upon the NVidia chip. The ATI chip doesn't support that API. It would likely be technically possible to build an interface that translates from the old API to the new API, but doing so may infringe on NVidia's IP.
    • I suppose this means that they are not going to put the x86 emulator they beought off recently onto actual silicon, maybe some issues with IBM making them?

      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)

    by andy55 ( 743992 ) * on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:41PM (#8182006) Homepage
    For Microsoft, these hard choices are the price of not working with the same partners. Any sane observer knows that Microsoft will do what it must to please its current Xbox consumers.

    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)

    by jmulvey ( 233344 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:42PM (#8182011)

    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!

  • Xbox Next? (Score:3, Redundant)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:42PM (#8182015) Journal
    I see trademark issues here...

    • Re:Xbox Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by egomaniac ( 105476 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @06:16PM (#8183795) Homepage
      I see trademark issues here...

      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.
  • PS2 is backwards compatible with PS .. I didnt even use it. But I suppose it's good for the "new" buyers.

  • Not a big deal (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EatenByAGrue ( 210447 )
    Why would you want to have backwards compatability anyways? I've never played a PS1 game on my PS2, and never been chagrined I couldn't fire up my N64 games on the gamecube. By definition, old games are...old. And crappy. In any case, if I have a stack of old games, why wouldn't I still have the console?
    • Uh, "Dance Dance Revolution", one of the most popular games on the PS2, is actually a PS1 game.

    • Why would you want to have backwards compatability anyways?

      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

    • My gaming group and I still play CTR (Crash Team Racing) for the PS1. Yes, there's a new version (for which we waited expectantly) but it's a total dog (new developer, poor game). The original CTR is so tightly programmed, it's still a classic. Old arcade classics don't die either. So, the backwards compatibility can be a strong feature, and I use it for CTR still.

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Fly ( 18255 )
      By definition, old games are...old. And crappy.
      By your logic chess is a crappy game by definition, but I believe many people would disagree.

      Many people do not want stacks of consoles if they can get away with fewer. That's a reason emulation is popular, too.

    • You obviously aren't living in the core of a major city (NY, London, Tokyo, etc.). In many of these places space is at a premium. Having 2 or 3 consoles can take up quite a bit of space when only 1 will do.

      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.
    • ...why wouldn't I still have the console?

      Maybe it went up in smoke? Stuff happens...

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RedHat Rocky ( 94208 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:00PM (#8182247)
      I bought Loderunner for the PS1 at a bargain bin. I originally played that on Ye Olde Apple ][ many moons ago, love this game!

      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)

      by bilbobuggins ( 535860 ) <`moc.tnujtnuj' `ta' `snigguboblib'> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:02PM (#8182267)
      By definition, old games are...old. And crappy.

      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)

      by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:36PM (#8182634)
      Yeah, old music is crappy too! Same with old paintings! Oh, and don't forget old people... they are the crappiest of them all!
  • Games being often programmed for critical specifics probably aren't going to move well, if at all. Too many bases to cover at too much of a cost. Microsoft is obviously making a break for their own reasons, though so new to the game such a radical change I'd sum up thusly:

    "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)

    by CaptCanuk ( 245649 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:44PM (#8182042) Journal
    To preempt market backlash about the incompatibility of Xbox 1 games on Xbox 2, Microsoft has decided to set an unprecedented standard. Buy the Xbox2 and for a limited time, get a mail in coupon for a free Xbox 1! Now you have backwards compatability and Microsoft claims more Xbox1's were shipped increasing the market share against the Playstation 2... in 10 years, it won't like like a failure at all!

  • i still wont buy one. i think its ridiculous to spend 300+ on a console system. ill stick with counterstrike and doom3, thanks.

    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)

    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 )
    Thats all you had to say, negro. DirectX hides the hardware from the developer and with the XBOX being realtively overpowered for the current console generation its unlikely many low level optimizations were necessary for any of the current games (Doom III will be interesting though). I'd take any comments from nvidia on the future of the next Microsoft console as so many grains of salt on top of alot of sour grapes.

    Is backwards compatibility a sure thing? I don't think so at this point, but I wouldn't

  • Availability of Games (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ParadoxicalPostulate ( 729766 ) <saapad.gmail@com> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:45PM (#8182048) Journal
    You know, the most common argument people have made against X-Box in the past is "Microsoft is new to the video console world, and as such there are no good game developers making games for Microsoft."

    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)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:46PM (#8182064) Journal
    I don't know who bought a PS2 to play PS1 games. Most people I know with a library of PS1 titles have a PS1, and even if they didnt, they can be found for 19.99 used at EB these days.

    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)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:46PM (#8182066)
    I'm still pissed from the time I tried to put my Mario/Duck Hunt cartridge into my friends new SuperNES and it didn't work!

    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.
  • Remember on Slashdot, everything MS does is to screw the whole world over. Thats all they're made to do, right? So feel free to continue to whine about how this will 'kill' XBox 2 and other similarly wild conjectures that the Internet is home to.
  • I mean, come on... who woulda thought Microsoft would have kept backwards compatibility?

    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

  • XBOX Live (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that they will offer new binaries for old games for download via their Live-service ?

    If the games use their API:s it'll mostly need a recompile.

  • Virtually impossible != impossible (Score:3, Funny)

    by SkankhodBeeblebrox ( 581971 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:48PM (#8182099)
    'It's virtually impossible on many levels,'

    If something is 'virtually impossible', let's just say that it is 'possible'
  • Backward compatiblity for me is a big sales point imo. My playstation one died hard when I was playing Suikoden II never got it replaced or repaired instead I just played my PSone games on the PS2. Now I am person who keeps all his old games and I get nostaligic alot so I'll fire up some old games and finish them again.

    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)

    by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:50PM (#8182115) Homepage
    Isn't it true that before the PS2 all consoles basically started over each generation? SuperNES didn't natively play NES games as far as I remember and that didn't hurt sales or adoption at all. I think the history of breaking compatibility is one of the strengths of the console market.

  • Backwards-compatible only matters for large-seller (Score:5, Interesting)

    by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:50PM (#8182131) Journal
    Short answer : The XBox ( and it's games ) didn't sell well enough to justify keeping any next-generation XBox compatible with previous games.

    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...


    • 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.

      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

  • Compatibility and the short life of X-box ver. 1 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Steve525 ( 236741 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:51PM (#8182140)
    I think backwards compatibility will be even more of an issue for the X-Box 2, since they are coming out with it so soon. In some sense the short time between X-Box versions 1 and 2 is Microsoft saying, "Hey, we screwed up, let us try again." However true, that is not exactly the message you want to give. Having backwards compatibility gives the impression that you are building on previous success rather than trying to start over again.

    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).
  • From what I've heard this thing won't even be compabable with hard drives. EVERYTHING is going to be in flash ram or you're going to have to pay M$ to get it back from their network.

    Backwards compatability with games is not my concern -- forward compatability with value and utility.

    ls

  • Maybe no the target audience, but (Score:5, Funny)

    by wizarddc ( 105860 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @03:56PM (#8182206) Homepage Journal
    I see a lot of people here saying they'd sacrifice backwards compatibility for a better/cheaper system, and that "no on they know" plays ps1 games on ps2. Well, I know someone who does. Me, specifically. I bought my PS2 so I could play GTA when it came out, but I also never got around to playing all the FInal Fantasy's that were on PS1, so I thought it was neat that I could. But I'm not even the big target.

    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.
  • Of course it can be done. The XBox used an OS designed by Microsoft. All MS needs to do is write an emulator driver that reads the standard API that the games used and have functions that do the same or similar effect on the new ATI GPU. All they have to do is basically write all the function calls that were issued to the GPU. This is not hard to do especially since EVERYTHING here is a "standard" for coding games on XBox and thus all graphic functions are fully documented on their API's and overview of th

  • Speaking as a Xbox developer (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ryu2 ( 89645 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:07PM (#8182318) Homepage Journal
    It'd say it's actually easier on the Xbox to achieve compatibility via software emu than other consoles, because Microsoft stipulates, as a condition to get a game certified by them, all Xbox games must access the hardware the DirectX APIs and XTL libs, rather than writing direct to hardware registers/ports.

    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)

    by Jarlsberg ( 643324 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:07PM (#8182323) Journal
    According to the article, the next Xbox will play current Xbox games. It's just that right now it's one of those obsctacles MS has to clear before finishing up the Xbox 2 design.

    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)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:15PM (#8182983) Homepage
      No where is it written that the next XBox will play current XBox games.

      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)

    by Frennzy ( 730093 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:14PM (#8182395) Homepage
    I'm buying the first console that is backwards compatible with my old IntelliVision games.

    TRON!

  • Backwards Compatibility is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WebGangsta ( 717475 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:19PM (#8182454)
    ...one of the main reasons that most people (and by "people", I really mean "parents") purchased the PS2 when it originally came out. It is certainly less of a factor today now that we're reaching market saturation, but it is still something to be considered.

    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)

    by RomSteady ( 533144 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @04:35PM (#8182615) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I think that backwards compatibility could still be done without trampling all over nVidia...as long as they keep the hard disk or a disk-like storage mechanism.

    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)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:00PM (#8182845)
    For starters, the specs are still rumor. Nothing is near being final, as far as official statements are concerned.

    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)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @05:14PM (#8182960)
    Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO of Nvidia, says his guess is that the next Xbox won't be compatible with the old one. "It's virtually impossible on many levels," he adds. "On an intellectual-property level. On practical levels, too."

    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)

    by H8X55 ( 650339 ) <jason...r...thomas@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday February 04, 2004 @06:11PM (#8183730) Homepage Journal
    Right before, we, Microsoft reduce the price on our current model X-Box from $179.99 to $99.99 we leak rumors that, maybe, the new console won't support the old X1 games.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close