Dark_Magus
CAGiversary!
sorry for sounding like a newbie, but what is Backward Compatability? Is it like the fact that PS2 can play PS games or something like that?
Xbox 360 Backwards Compatibility - By the Numbers
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
[quote name='Alpha2']
Also while Nintendo hasn't officially offered real BC on anything but the GBA up to this point there are still the converters that have been made for each of their cart based systems that have instantly doubled the size of each systems library, whether it be GB, GBA or NES games it's still been possible to play games from other platforms over the years (infact I think before the Gamecube and it's disk format the only cart adapter that didnt get made by nintendo or some other unofficial third party was NES/SNES to N64).[/QUOTE]
Other than the Super GameBoy for the SNES those products have been third party items and not approved by Nintendo. In fact, Nintendo has usually sought to have their producers put out of business and even prosecuted. If you stuck with Nintendo and licensed products the only way you played NES games without an NES was when Nintendo released versions of those games for the newer machines and expected you to buy those rather than $2 carts from a thrift shop.
And again, those converters were only viable due to the great age of those earlier systems. The NES was a dated design when it launched and an utter antique by the time of the SNES. The last official version from Nintendo was $50 and discounted pretty deeply before it disappeared from US retail. Likewise for machines like the Genesis. It is now so cheap to reproduce it come embedded with multiple games in a controller for $20. It is only in that form that offering compatibility to old games without promoting a new platform is worthwhile. As I said, the nature of ROM cartridge economics makes it a loser for the platform company. Those third parties essentially pirating Nintendo's earlier platforms were not doing this for Nintendo's benefit. SNES owners who really wanted to play NES games could get a tiny official NES from Nintendo.
Doing the same thing with the Xbox, supposing you had a source for the Nvidia chips, would be far too expensive to be worth the trouble. The hardware just isn't sufficiently obsolete. You either sell them an actual Xbox or make it work in software. Which is what MS is doing.
It can be noted that the Sega Power Base Converter for the Sega Genesis that allowed the use of Master system games was fairly cheap but the secret behind that was Genesis owners already had a Master System. The Genesis was fully backward compatible. It included a Z80 CPU as found in the Master System but used it as an audio controlelr in Genesis mode. (Sega was way ahead of Sony on that tactic.) Full details can be seen in the appropriate section of this Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis
The Power Base Converter was really just a pinout adapter for connecting Master System cards, carts, and special devices to the Genesis' bus. Rather than being a cheap Master System it was actually an enabler at extra cost for functionality already in the Genesis. Sega could have included full Master System support in the Genesis for less than the separate cost of the console and adapter but the PBC existed primarily to assure retailers they wouldn't continue to be stuck with piles of Master System games if they took on the Genesis. Sega only needed to sell enough PBCs to deal with that backlog. It didn't expect to make any money from continuing sales of Master Sytem games in the US market. The Master Gear Converter for the GameGear also helped on that front, although Sega only realized the value of doing so after many third party versions had been sold.
In the UK/Europe market there was a lot more consumer uptake of the Master System, so the PBC played a different role there and was still promoted after it had largely disappeared for US stores once they were rid of their Master System games.
Also while Nintendo hasn't officially offered real BC on anything but the GBA up to this point there are still the converters that have been made for each of their cart based systems that have instantly doubled the size of each systems library, whether it be GB, GBA or NES games it's still been possible to play games from other platforms over the years (infact I think before the Gamecube and it's disk format the only cart adapter that didnt get made by nintendo or some other unofficial third party was NES/SNES to N64).[/QUOTE]
Other than the Super GameBoy for the SNES those products have been third party items and not approved by Nintendo. In fact, Nintendo has usually sought to have their producers put out of business and even prosecuted. If you stuck with Nintendo and licensed products the only way you played NES games without an NES was when Nintendo released versions of those games for the newer machines and expected you to buy those rather than $2 carts from a thrift shop.
And again, those converters were only viable due to the great age of those earlier systems. The NES was a dated design when it launched and an utter antique by the time of the SNES. The last official version from Nintendo was $50 and discounted pretty deeply before it disappeared from US retail. Likewise for machines like the Genesis. It is now so cheap to reproduce it come embedded with multiple games in a controller for $20. It is only in that form that offering compatibility to old games without promoting a new platform is worthwhile. As I said, the nature of ROM cartridge economics makes it a loser for the platform company. Those third parties essentially pirating Nintendo's earlier platforms were not doing this for Nintendo's benefit. SNES owners who really wanted to play NES games could get a tiny official NES from Nintendo.
Doing the same thing with the Xbox, supposing you had a source for the Nvidia chips, would be far too expensive to be worth the trouble. The hardware just isn't sufficiently obsolete. You either sell them an actual Xbox or make it work in software. Which is what MS is doing.
It can be noted that the Sega Power Base Converter for the Sega Genesis that allowed the use of Master system games was fairly cheap but the secret behind that was Genesis owners already had a Master System. The Genesis was fully backward compatible. It included a Z80 CPU as found in the Master System but used it as an audio controlelr in Genesis mode. (Sega was way ahead of Sony on that tactic.) Full details can be seen in the appropriate section of this Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Genesis
The Power Base Converter was really just a pinout adapter for connecting Master System cards, carts, and special devices to the Genesis' bus. Rather than being a cheap Master System it was actually an enabler at extra cost for functionality already in the Genesis. Sega could have included full Master System support in the Genesis for less than the separate cost of the console and adapter but the PBC existed primarily to assure retailers they wouldn't continue to be stuck with piles of Master System games if they took on the Genesis. Sega only needed to sell enough PBCs to deal with that backlog. It didn't expect to make any money from continuing sales of Master Sytem games in the US market. The Master Gear Converter for the GameGear also helped on that front, although Sega only realized the value of doing so after many third party versions had been sold.
In the UK/Europe market there was a lot more consumer uptake of the Master System, so the PBC played a different role there and was still promoted after it had largely disappeared for US stores once they were rid of their Master System games.
I also care about BC. I just got my 360 and have at least 30 xbox games I have yet to play. I have a big fear that my regular xbox will crap out on me so I want as many games as possible to be BC. Plus the 360 wireless controller is way better then the S.
I just wish there was a way to move my saves from my xbox to my 360.
I just wish there was a way to move my saves from my xbox to my 360.
[quote name='CheapyD']Got a link for such a device?
I am interested...[/QUOTE]http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97468
Although I like MS optimizing backcompat games on the 360, I worry not so much that they'll never add "X" game, but that they'll add it and the emulation will be off so we get a lower framerate(fable?) or graphical glitches(silent hill 4) and they might never go back and fix that.
I am interested...[/QUOTE]http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97468
Although I like MS optimizing backcompat games on the 360, I worry not so much that they'll never add "X" game, but that they'll add it and the emulation will be off so we get a lower framerate(fable?) or graphical glitches(silent hill 4) and they might never go back and fix that.
[quote name='CheapyD']Got a link for such a device?
I am interested...[/QUOTE]
http://xbox360.qj.net/Tutorial-Using-Xbox-1-Gamesaves-On-A-360-Via-Datel-Xsata/pg/49/aid/55823
I am interested...[/QUOTE]
http://xbox360.qj.net/Tutorial-Using-Xbox-1-Gamesaves-On-A-360-Via-Datel-Xsata/pg/49/aid/55823
[quote name='KaneRobot']I know I wish they never said it...although I probably wouldn't have bought a 360 as soon as I did - which shows why they did say it in the first place.
I've only had a 50% success rate getting stuff I submitted credited...although I've only sent two things.
Anyway...
I know it's "difficult" to get certain games working with BC. You'll have to forgive me if I don't sympathize and come rushing to the defense of one of the largest companies in the world that has near limitless resources.[/QUOTE]
Remind to ask for the contents of your bank account if we should ever meet. After all, on a relative scale you have almost unlimited resources when it comes to giving me money. The question is whether it would be a complete loss or if I'd pay you back with interest.
There are two issues to consider. First, adding personnel and other resources to a project will deliver diminsihing returns after a while and grind to a halt if too many people are try to participate in a project that only had work for a far smaller number. See 'The Mythical Man Month.'
Second, throwing huge amounts of money at a project with limited potential for return on investment is just plain dumb.
Lets say the emulation project is burning through about $100K a month for salaries and other costs. They expect to achieve almost complete compatibility within a year, we'll say, so another $1.2 million to $2 million can be expected to get charged to this project.
Now, how does this make money for Microsoft? Two ways. First, it drives more sales of new (as in not previously sold, not necessarily new releases) games. Second, it helps make the Xbox 360 a more attractive platform, especially in these early days of a slim library.
So, it's beneficial but how beneficial in relation to the resources expended? A lot of the Xbox games run are going to be 1) games the 360 buyers already owned from their Xbox, 2) used games, or 3) games that have been sitting around stores for a good while and that aren't going to see another production run unless suddenly become extraoridinary this late in their lives.
Plus, how many people will really hinge their decision to buy the new machine on backward compatibility once more of the highly anticpated new titles ship? What remaining Xbox game that doesn't run is going to have more influence on a purchase decision than the release of Gears of War, Halo 3, Blue Dragon, and on and on?
This means there are limits to BC's benefits and thus limits to what resources are reasonable to expend. If the rate of progress for the emulation project could be doubled by increasing the budget by four times, would it be worth it for Microsoft? The Product Manager has to look long and hard at the projected numbers and decide if he should ask for more money or not. He not only has to argue a case for his request but also how that expenditure proves out could make or break his career. It's the difference between being the emulation hero or the guy who went millions overbudget for nothing.
I've only had a 50% success rate getting stuff I submitted credited...although I've only sent two things.
Anyway...
I know it's "difficult" to get certain games working with BC. You'll have to forgive me if I don't sympathize and come rushing to the defense of one of the largest companies in the world that has near limitless resources.[/QUOTE]
Remind to ask for the contents of your bank account if we should ever meet. After all, on a relative scale you have almost unlimited resources when it comes to giving me money. The question is whether it would be a complete loss or if I'd pay you back with interest.
There are two issues to consider. First, adding personnel and other resources to a project will deliver diminsihing returns after a while and grind to a halt if too many people are try to participate in a project that only had work for a far smaller number. See 'The Mythical Man Month.'
Second, throwing huge amounts of money at a project with limited potential for return on investment is just plain dumb.
Lets say the emulation project is burning through about $100K a month for salaries and other costs. They expect to achieve almost complete compatibility within a year, we'll say, so another $1.2 million to $2 million can be expected to get charged to this project.
Now, how does this make money for Microsoft? Two ways. First, it drives more sales of new (as in not previously sold, not necessarily new releases) games. Second, it helps make the Xbox 360 a more attractive platform, especially in these early days of a slim library.
So, it's beneficial but how beneficial in relation to the resources expended? A lot of the Xbox games run are going to be 1) games the 360 buyers already owned from their Xbox, 2) used games, or 3) games that have been sitting around stores for a good while and that aren't going to see another production run unless suddenly become extraoridinary this late in their lives.
Plus, how many people will really hinge their decision to buy the new machine on backward compatibility once more of the highly anticpated new titles ship? What remaining Xbox game that doesn't run is going to have more influence on a purchase decision than the release of Gears of War, Halo 3, Blue Dragon, and on and on?
This means there are limits to BC's benefits and thus limits to what resources are reasonable to expend. If the rate of progress for the emulation project could be doubled by increasing the budget by four times, would it be worth it for Microsoft? The Product Manager has to look long and hard at the projected numbers and decide if he should ask for more money or not. He not only has to argue a case for his request but also how that expenditure proves out could make or break his career. It's the difference between being the emulation hero or the guy who went millions overbudget for nothing.
Backwards compatibility is a nice feature, but the idea that it significantly impacts sales is wrong.
At least they keep improving the BC, however slowly. Here's my post from GameFAQs on the subject:
...getting rid of your Xbox when playing original Xbox games is important to you IS a dumb thing to do. Microsoft never said all games would be compatible, and downplayed the level of compatibility that would even be available at launch. ...the PS2 is the only console (excluding portables) to offer backwards compatibility before the 360, so there was no precedent established for people to reasonably think all Xbox games would work on 360.
Don't play the "I'm too poor" card, either. If you're really that poor, I'm amazed you managed to get a 360 and its higher priced games and peripherals at all. You may have gotten $50 or $70 for your old console, but you were also trading in your ability to play every single Xbox game in the process...
At least they keep improving the BC, however slowly. Here's my post from GameFAQs on the subject:
...getting rid of your Xbox when playing original Xbox games is important to you IS a dumb thing to do. Microsoft never said all games would be compatible, and downplayed the level of compatibility that would even be available at launch. ...the PS2 is the only console (excluding portables) to offer backwards compatibility before the 360, so there was no precedent established for people to reasonably think all Xbox games would work on 360.
Don't play the "I'm too poor" card, either. If you're really that poor, I'm amazed you managed to get a 360 and its higher priced games and peripherals at all. You may have gotten $50 or $70 for your old console, but you were also trading in your ability to play every single Xbox game in the process...
[quote name='epobirs']Remind to ask for the contents of your bank account if we should ever meet. After all, on a relative scale you have almost unlimited resources when it comes to giving me money. The question is whether it would be a complete loss or if I'd pay you back with interest.
There are two issues to consider. First, adding personnel and other resources to a project will deliver diminsihing returns after a while and grind to a halt if too many people are try to participate in a project that only had work for a far smaller number. See 'The Mythical Man Month.'
Second, throwing huge amounts of money at a project with limited potential for return on investment is just plain dumb.
Lets say the emulation project is burning through about $100K a month for salaries and other costs. They expect to achieve almost complete compatibility within a year, we'll say, so another $1.2 million to $2 million can be expected to get charged to this project.
Now, how does this make money for Microsoft? Two ways. First, it drives more sales of new (as in not previously sold, not necessarily new releases) games. Second, it helps make the Xbox 360 a more attractive platform, especially in these early days of a slim library.
So, it's beneficial but how beneficial in relation to the resources expended? A lot of the Xbox games run are going to be 1) games the 360 buyers already owned from their Xbox, 2) used games, or 3) games that have been sitting around stores for a good while and that aren't going to see another production run unless suddenly become extraoridinary this late in their lives.
Plus, how many people will really hinge their decision to buy the new machine on backward compatibility once more of the highly anticpated new titles ship? What remaining Xbox game that doesn't run is going to have more influence on a purchase decision than the release of Gears of War, Halo 3, Blue Dragon, and on and on?
This means there are limits to BC's benefits and thus limits to what resources are reasonable to expend. If the rate of progress for the emulation project could be doubled by increasing the budget by four times, would it be worth it for Microsoft? The Product Manager has to look long and hard at the projected numbers and decide if he should ask for more money or not. He not only has to argue a case for his request but also how that expenditure proves out could make or break his career. It's the difference between being the emulation hero or the guy who went millions overbudget for nothing.[/QUOTE]
A lot of you whiners should read this.
There are two issues to consider. First, adding personnel and other resources to a project will deliver diminsihing returns after a while and grind to a halt if too many people are try to participate in a project that only had work for a far smaller number. See 'The Mythical Man Month.'
Second, throwing huge amounts of money at a project with limited potential for return on investment is just plain dumb.
Lets say the emulation project is burning through about $100K a month for salaries and other costs. They expect to achieve almost complete compatibility within a year, we'll say, so another $1.2 million to $2 million can be expected to get charged to this project.
Now, how does this make money for Microsoft? Two ways. First, it drives more sales of new (as in not previously sold, not necessarily new releases) games. Second, it helps make the Xbox 360 a more attractive platform, especially in these early days of a slim library.
So, it's beneficial but how beneficial in relation to the resources expended? A lot of the Xbox games run are going to be 1) games the 360 buyers already owned from their Xbox, 2) used games, or 3) games that have been sitting around stores for a good while and that aren't going to see another production run unless suddenly become extraoridinary this late in their lives.
Plus, how many people will really hinge their decision to buy the new machine on backward compatibility once more of the highly anticpated new titles ship? What remaining Xbox game that doesn't run is going to have more influence on a purchase decision than the release of Gears of War, Halo 3, Blue Dragon, and on and on?
This means there are limits to BC's benefits and thus limits to what resources are reasonable to expend. If the rate of progress for the emulation project could be doubled by increasing the budget by four times, would it be worth it for Microsoft? The Product Manager has to look long and hard at the projected numbers and decide if he should ask for more money or not. He not only has to argue a case for his request but also how that expenditure proves out could make or break his career. It's the difference between being the emulation hero or the guy who went millions overbudget for nothing.[/QUOTE]
A lot of you whiners should read this.
soulwish2003
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Backwards compatibility with the 360 is not that important to me... I own around 50 XBOX games and with the exception of maybe Psychonauts, the Dead Or Alive games, and maybe Ninja Gaiden... I really don't want to play them anymore.
But, if Microsoft promised backwards compatability - they need to get to work. I'm sure for some people that was a selling point - being able to play older Xbox games. I'm sure they knew it would be difficult to do... but if they lied in hopes of selling more systems... they need to put the resources into writing the emulators.
I hope PS3 and WII are 100% backwards compatible... I want to bring just about all of my PS2 and Gamecube games to the new systems.
But, if Microsoft promised backwards compatability - they need to get to work. I'm sure for some people that was a selling point - being able to play older Xbox games. I'm sure they knew it would be difficult to do... but if they lied in hopes of selling more systems... they need to put the resources into writing the emulators.
I hope PS3 and WII are 100% backwards compatible... I want to bring just about all of my PS2 and Gamecube games to the new systems.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='zewone'] A lot of you whiners should read this.[/QUOTE]
I prefer to read the select quotes where MS promised Backwards Compatibility. Since it comes from MS' mouth, after all. I understand the logistics of it (sufficient to know that emulating one generation back is immensely difficult, and that the Xbox hardware has a very complex architechture, and drastically different from the 360), and I understand 100 level economics. Epobirs' post, while enlightening to some degree, isn't news to me.
But it's something that I expect to be delivered regardless, as it was promised by MS. If we got a halfhearted "we'll try," or "maybe we will, maybe we won't," it would be a different story. The biggest hurdle is the lack of communication, combined with sporadic updates with questionable titles. There is no regularity to BC updates, and that's fine. Couple that with silence on the part of how it's progressing? Then you get worried consumers, conspiracy theories that it's being phased out already, that MS never intended to follow through, ad nauseum.
If they want to compete with Sony, who not only has full BC due to hardware implementation on the PS3, but also *immense* brand-based momentum headed into November, they need to step up their game, so to speak. Either give us periodic updates (once a month, one
ing blog post!) on how BC is progressing (or stumbling), or continue to suffer the wrath of the skeptics.
As far as being a 'whiner,' as I said earlier, permitting them to back out of BC provides them with an out to do whatever the they want to do. I'm not suggesting they will, but, for instance, in the hypothetical world that they eliminated Silver Live accounts, and all net connections must be prepaid Gold Accounts, then many 360 users would be up in arms. "Broken Promises!" they would shout (or, rather, post on forums). What separates promised BC from cutting another promised feature other than the fact that you individually don't seem to find it important? (BTW, don't give me shit about revenue streams lost from cutting Silver Accounts. It's a ing hypothetical).
A lot of you whiners should read this.[/QUOTE]I prefer to read the select quotes where MS promised Backwards Compatibility. Since it comes from MS' mouth, after all. I understand the logistics of it (sufficient to know that emulating one generation back is immensely difficult, and that the Xbox hardware has a very complex architechture, and drastically different from the 360), and I understand 100 level economics. Epobirs' post, while enlightening to some degree, isn't news to me.
But it's something that I expect to be delivered regardless, as it was promised by MS. If we got a halfhearted "we'll try," or "maybe we will, maybe we won't," it would be a different story. The biggest hurdle is the lack of communication, combined with sporadic updates with questionable titles. There is no regularity to BC updates, and that's fine. Couple that with silence on the part of how it's progressing? Then you get worried consumers, conspiracy theories that it's being phased out already, that MS never intended to follow through, ad nauseum.
If they want to compete with Sony, who not only has full BC due to hardware implementation on the PS3, but also *immense* brand-based momentum headed into November, they need to step up their game, so to speak. Either give us periodic updates (once a month, one
ing blog post!) on how BC is progressing (or stumbling), or continue to suffer the wrath of the skeptics.As far as being a 'whiner,' as I said earlier, permitting them to back out of BC provides them with an out to do whatever the
they want to do. I'm not suggesting they will, but, for instance, in the hypothetical world that they eliminated Silver Live accounts, and all net connections must be prepaid Gold Accounts, then many 360 users would be up in arms. "Broken Promises!" they would shout (or, rather, post on forums). What separates promised BC from cutting another promised feature other than the fact that you individually don't seem to find it important? (BTW, don't give me shit about revenue streams lost from cutting Silver Accounts. It's a ing hypothetical).[quote name='mykevermin']I prefer to read the select quotes where MS promised Backwards Compatibility. [/quote]It might be interesting (although a pain in the ass) to dig up some of those...especially since Peter Moore said they underpromised and overdelivered on BC.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='CheapyD']It might be interesting (although a pain in the ass) to dig up some of those...especially since Peter Moore said they underpromised and overdelivered on BC.[/QUOTE]
Seeing as how he backtracked so quickly due to the backlash of his interview where he claimed "nobody is concerned" about BC, no interviewer since has called his bullshit on that quote. I'd look forward to it inevitably happening, but journalists have a fine track record of letting people down.
Seeing as how he backtracked so quickly due to the backlash of his interview where he claimed "nobody is concerned" about BC, no interviewer since has called his bullshit on that quote. I'd look forward to it inevitably happening, but journalists have a fine track record of letting people down.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
I don't write for Forbes or anything, but I understand the business side well enough. For example, I understand their returns will not be as great as selling new 360 games, but I also understand business concepts such as building a loyal consumer base and watching your competitors closely. Building a loyal consumer base doesn't involve telling them one thing then doing something less while slapping them in the face with stupid comments (I have yet to see Moore explain his "underpromised/overdelivered" comment as well myke). Also the competition is preped to roll out systems that will have BC out of the box, hell nintendo only has two gimmicks for it's new system one of which is motion sensing control and the other is BC.
As for the argument for and against resources, while I don't think this should be a massive undertaking, I think adding say 10-15 to the BC staff,while possibly incurring a small loss, wouldn't kill them. By the way how many people are on that team currently anyhow? Nevertheless, in all of epobirs business talk he failed to mention that MS has totally cut off first party xbox 1 development and how their rate of first party 360 titles has been slow at best so far. Some third party publishers have just as many if not more titles on the 360 available and half the MS titles have come from Rare, not MS Game Studios. Bc not only means more games on the market for a 360 but also more MS games available in the 360 market. Also I know around 2004 they cut their xbox development staff by over 200 (most from the defunct XSN games IIRC), and promised to give most of them other work in the company. Asking those people to be on the BC staff now would help, or any small fraction of what tehy once used on xbox development would help at least increase the rate of games that they make BC. Perhaps they may lose some money espeically in the short run, but they'll help to build a more solid, loyal consumer base and look better when stacked up against the competion in 1-2 years.
As for the argument for and against resources, while I don't think this should be a massive undertaking, I think adding say 10-15 to the BC staff,while possibly incurring a small loss, wouldn't kill them. By the way how many people are on that team currently anyhow? Nevertheless, in all of epobirs business talk he failed to mention that MS has totally cut off first party xbox 1 development and how their rate of first party 360 titles has been slow at best so far. Some third party publishers have just as many if not more titles on the 360 available and half the MS titles have come from Rare, not MS Game Studios. Bc not only means more games on the market for a 360 but also more MS games available in the 360 market. Also I know around 2004 they cut their xbox development staff by over 200 (most from the defunct XSN games IIRC), and promised to give most of them other work in the company. Asking those people to be on the BC staff now would help, or any small fraction of what tehy once used on xbox development would help at least increase the rate of games that they make BC. Perhaps they may lose some money espeically in the short run, but they'll help to build a more solid, loyal consumer base and look better when stacked up against the competion in 1-2 years.
[quote name='mykevermin']
As far as being a 'whiner,' as I said earlier, permitting them to back out of BC provides them with an out to do whatever the they want to do. [/QUOTE]
They can do whatever they want. It's up to you as a consumer to decide if the product they provide and the way they do business, is something you want to be a part of. If you don't, then don't buy it.
They promised something they thought they could provide, they apparently haven't provided as much BC titles as you or others would have liked. They are humans and can mistakes or get in over their heads.
If it's such an important feature to you or anyone else who bought a 360 thinking they were gonna provide much more BC titles, then you should have waited until the time when the BC list was at point where you would be satisfied.
As far as being a 'whiner,' as I said earlier, permitting them to back out of BC provides them with an out to do whatever the
they want to do. [/QUOTE]They can do whatever they want. It's up to you as a consumer to decide if the product they provide and the way they do business, is something you want to be a part of. If you don't, then don't buy it.
They promised something they thought they could provide, they apparently haven't provided as much BC titles as you or others would have liked. They are humans and can mistakes or get in over their heads.
If it's such an important feature to you or anyone else who bought a 360 thinking they were gonna provide much more BC titles, then you should have waited until the time when the BC list was at point where you would be satisfied.
adamsappel
CAGiversary!
[quote name='zewone']I really don't think they care, which is fine, because I don't either.
I bought a 360 to play 360 games.[/QUOTE]
Liar.
I see you playing a lot of Halo 2 (from the 360).
I bought a 360 to play 360 games.[/QUOTE]
Liar.
I see you playing a lot of Halo 2 (from the 360).
[quote name='eastx']Backwards compatibility is a nice feature, but the idea that it significantly impacts sales is wrong.
At least they keep improving the BC, however slowly. Here's my post from GameFAQs on the subject:
...getting rid of your Xbox when playing original Xbox games is important to you IS a dumb thing to do. Microsoft never said all games would be compatible, and downplayed the level of compatibility that would even be available at launch. ...the PS2 is the only console (excluding portables) to offer backwards compatibility before the 360, so there was no precedent established for people to reasonably think all Xbox games would work on 360.
Don't play the "I'm too poor" card, either. If you're really that poor, I'm amazed you managed to get a 360 and its higher priced games and peripherals at all. You may have gotten $50 or $70 for your old console, but you were also trading in your ability to play every single Xbox game in the process...[/QUOTE]
Pretty much my feelings on it as well, as far as I know no time frame was actually established for how long a full or even close to full list would take to emulate, so I knew better then to get rid of my xbox. Seems a lot of people just didn't think things through.
At least they keep improving the BC, however slowly. Here's my post from GameFAQs on the subject:
...getting rid of your Xbox when playing original Xbox games is important to you IS a dumb thing to do. Microsoft never said all games would be compatible, and downplayed the level of compatibility that would even be available at launch. ...the PS2 is the only console (excluding portables) to offer backwards compatibility before the 360, so there was no precedent established for people to reasonably think all Xbox games would work on 360.
Don't play the "I'm too poor" card, either. If you're really that poor, I'm amazed you managed to get a 360 and its higher priced games and peripherals at all. You may have gotten $50 or $70 for your old console, but you were also trading in your ability to play every single Xbox game in the process...[/QUOTE]
Pretty much my feelings on it as well, as far as I know no time frame was actually established for how long a full or even close to full list would take to emulate, so I knew better then to get rid of my xbox. Seems a lot of people just didn't think things through.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='zewone']They can do whatever they want. It's up to you as a consumer to decide if the product they provide and the way they do business, is something you want to be a part of. If you don't, then don't buy it.
They promised something they thought they could provide, they apparently haven't provided as much BC titles as you or others would have liked. They are humans and can mistakes or get in over their heads.
If it's such an important feature to you or anyone else who bought a 360 thinking they were gonna provide much more BC titles, then you should have waited until the time when the BC list was at point where you would be satisfied.[/QUOTE]
I would like to first give you my heartfelt and concise response:
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Now to elaborate: What the are you talking about? They promised BC, like they promise new 360 games. It's not like people buy a console on sheer speculation. They buy it because of new games coming out for it that they read previews of in new magazines; they buy it because they're accustomed to seeing Madden, NBA, or Generic Annual Iteration Title 200X on it. Your argument is equivalent to saying "tough titties for you, since they didn't deliver what they promised, it's your fault."
Is it my fault, likewise, if I bought a Xbox to play True Fantasy Live Online (I didn't, but I'm sayin'...)? That Microsoft, or Sony, or whomever the says "HEY YOU! LOOKIT THIS AWESOME SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING IT DOES! YOU'LL HAVE SEX IF YOU BUY THIS! AND IT PLAYS GAMES, TOO! HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE GAMES!" And then, all of a sudden, those games aren't there. How often does that happen, and how often would you blame a consumer for something the corporate side does?
In your world of logic, nobody should ever buy a system until it's dated technology with nothing else coming out for it, else there is room for disappointment, since game production could halt at any time? Would YOU be happy if they ceased development for every 360 game tomorrow? If you would be pissed, according to your logic, it's your fault, since you didn't wait to buy a 360 until all the games you wanted to work on it did. Right?
You're still ignoring my point that MS ignoring a PROMISED aspect of their system somehow isn't a big deal because it's not a big deal to you personally. In so doing, you're willfully ignoring that full BC is something MS promised.
They promised something they thought they could provide, they apparently haven't provided as much BC titles as you or others would have liked. They are humans and can mistakes or get in over their heads.
If it's such an important feature to you or anyone else who bought a 360 thinking they were gonna provide much more BC titles, then you should have waited until the time when the BC list was at point where you would be satisfied.[/QUOTE]
I would like to first give you my heartfelt and concise response:
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Now to elaborate: What the
are you talking about? They promised BC, like they promise new 360 games. It's not like people buy a console on sheer speculation. They buy it because of new games coming out for it that they read previews of in new magazines; they buy it because they're accustomed to seeing Madden, NBA, or Generic Annual Iteration Title 200X on it. Your argument is equivalent to saying "tough titties for you, since they didn't deliver what they promised, it's your fault."Is it my fault, likewise, if I bought a Xbox to play True Fantasy Live Online (I didn't, but I'm sayin'...)? That Microsoft, or Sony, or whomever the
says "HEY YOU! LOOKIT THIS AWESOME SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING IT DOES! YOU'LL HAVE SEX IF YOU BUY THIS! AND IT PLAYS GAMES, TOO! HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE GAMES!" And then, all of a sudden, those games aren't there. How often does that happen, and how often would you blame a consumer for something the corporate side does? In your world of logic, nobody should ever buy a system until it's dated technology with nothing else coming out for it, else there is room for disappointment, since game production could halt at any time? Would YOU be happy if they ceased development for every 360 game tomorrow? If you would be pissed, according to your logic, it's your fault, since you didn't wait to buy a 360 until all the games you wanted to work on it did. Right?
You're still ignoring my point that MS ignoring a PROMISED aspect of their system somehow isn't a big deal because it's not a big deal to you personally. In so doing, you're willfully ignoring that full BC is something MS promised.
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I don't write for Forbes or anything, but I understand the business side well enough. For example, I understand their returns will not be as great as selling new 360 games, but I also understand business concepts such as building a loyal consumer base and watching your competitors closely. Building a loyal consumer base doesn't involve telling them one thing then doing something less while slapping them in the face with stupid comments (I have yet to see Moore explain his "underpromised/overdelivered" comment as well myke). Also the competition is preped to roll out systems that will have BC out of the box, hell nintendo only has two gimmicks for it's new system one of which is motion sensing control and the other is BC.
As for the argument for and against resources, while I don't think this should be a massive undertaking, I think adding say 10-15 to the BC staff,while possibly incurring a small loss, wouldn't kill them. By the way how many people are on that team currently anyhow? Nevertheless, in all of epobirs business talk he failed to mention that MS has totally cut off first party xbox 1 development and how their rate of first party 360 titles has been slow at best so far. Some third party publishers have just as many if not more titles on the 360 available and half the MS titles have come from Rare, not MS Game Studios. Bc not only means more games on the market for a 360 but also more MS games available in the 360 market. Also I know around 2004 they cut their xbox development staff by over 200 (most from the defunct XSN games IIRC), and promised to give most of them other work in the company. Asking those people to be on the BC staff now would help, or any small fraction of what tehy once used on xbox development would help at least increase the rate of games that they make BC. Perhaps they may lose some money espeically in the short run, but they'll help to build a more solid, loyal consumer base and look better when stacked up against the competion in 1-2 years.[/QUOTE]
I didn't fail to mention the transition in first party support. It simply wasn't a factor.
I can only recall one platform that saw significant first party support after its replacement had beeen launched: the GameBoy and by extension the GameBoy Color. The first GBC supporting Pokemon titles were playable in B&W, and the first Pokemon releases post-GBA launch were GBC games. Native GBA Pokemon games didn't arrive until much later and the first of those were remakes. The extraordinary sales of Pokemon make it a special case. Few other first party franchises carry so much importance the company will forsake promoting it latest platform to continue serving the existing platform.
Other than Pokemon games I have a hard time recalling any platform maker not shifting its inhouse development to its latest platform almost immediately upon release.
What is the likelihood that a bunch of folks who were working on sports titles have the highly specialized skills required to make any meaningful improvement to the BC project? Anyone who could make that claim shouldn't have been wasting their time on coding for video games when they could be making a hell of a lot more money. The one person I know outside of Microsoft who I would recommend if they were actively looking for more emulation engineers already makes over $200K annually consulting to aerospace and medical companies. In his work, if the emulation fails, people die.
Those XSN people were long gone to other companies (like the Amped crew going to 2K Games) or in other positions at Microsoft before any such openings were available on Xbox 360 games or in the BC project. Nearly all of the first party Xbox 360 launch releases were already spoken for and almost none of them were happening in Redmond. Two titles, Kameo and PDZ, from Rare in the UK. PGR3 from Bizarre which would really be second party. Some XSN personnel may have gone to other Xbox projects in progress. Those should have long since shipped and those devs progressed on to other projects as normal.
The BC project would not have existied at that time or have been proceeding very slowly. All indications are that Microosft was undecided on whether or not to pursue BC until fairly late. Obviously they made an early decision to forsake the easier path by continuing with x86 CPUs. Taking their time making that decision didn't affect much. Until the final Xbox 360 hardware was available for testing there was very little work beyond the theoretical to be done. That wasn't until well into the second half of 2005. If XSN people were still looking for work by that point, who would want them? Somebody who gone over two years without scoring a new gig probably isn't very desirable.
Outside of coding, what contributuion would they make? Should programmers accustomed to making $80K annually become $30K test monkeys? That'll make for a happy crew, you betcha.
I'm trying to line up an interview with some of the BC staff for an article on the subject of BC. I hope to clarify a lot if I can get straight answers to certain questions.
As for the argument for and against resources, while I don't think this should be a massive undertaking, I think adding say 10-15 to the BC staff,while possibly incurring a small loss, wouldn't kill them. By the way how many people are on that team currently anyhow? Nevertheless, in all of epobirs business talk he failed to mention that MS has totally cut off first party xbox 1 development and how their rate of first party 360 titles has been slow at best so far. Some third party publishers have just as many if not more titles on the 360 available and half the MS titles have come from Rare, not MS Game Studios. Bc not only means more games on the market for a 360 but also more MS games available in the 360 market. Also I know around 2004 they cut their xbox development staff by over 200 (most from the defunct XSN games IIRC), and promised to give most of them other work in the company. Asking those people to be on the BC staff now would help, or any small fraction of what tehy once used on xbox development would help at least increase the rate of games that they make BC. Perhaps they may lose some money espeically in the short run, but they'll help to build a more solid, loyal consumer base and look better when stacked up against the competion in 1-2 years.[/QUOTE]
I didn't fail to mention the transition in first party support. It simply wasn't a factor.
I can only recall one platform that saw significant first party support after its replacement had beeen launched: the GameBoy and by extension the GameBoy Color. The first GBC supporting Pokemon titles were playable in B&W, and the first Pokemon releases post-GBA launch were GBC games. Native GBA Pokemon games didn't arrive until much later and the first of those were remakes. The extraordinary sales of Pokemon make it a special case. Few other first party franchises carry so much importance the company will forsake promoting it latest platform to continue serving the existing platform.
Other than Pokemon games I have a hard time recalling any platform maker not shifting its inhouse development to its latest platform almost immediately upon release.
What is the likelihood that a bunch of folks who were working on sports titles have the highly specialized skills required to make any meaningful improvement to the BC project? Anyone who could make that claim shouldn't have been wasting their time on coding for video games when they could be making a hell of a lot more money. The one person I know outside of Microsoft who I would recommend if they were actively looking for more emulation engineers already makes over $200K annually consulting to aerospace and medical companies. In his work, if the emulation fails, people die.
Those XSN people were long gone to other companies (like the Amped crew going to 2K Games) or in other positions at Microsoft before any such openings were available on Xbox 360 games or in the BC project. Nearly all of the first party Xbox 360 launch releases were already spoken for and almost none of them were happening in Redmond. Two titles, Kameo and PDZ, from Rare in the UK. PGR3 from Bizarre which would really be second party. Some XSN personnel may have gone to other Xbox projects in progress. Those should have long since shipped and those devs progressed on to other projects as normal.
The BC project would not have existied at that time or have been proceeding very slowly. All indications are that Microosft was undecided on whether or not to pursue BC until fairly late. Obviously they made an early decision to forsake the easier path by continuing with x86 CPUs. Taking their time making that decision didn't affect much. Until the final Xbox 360 hardware was available for testing there was very little work beyond the theoretical to be done. That wasn't until well into the second half of 2005. If XSN people were still looking for work by that point, who would want them? Somebody who gone over two years without scoring a new gig probably isn't very desirable.
Outside of coding, what contributuion would they make? Should programmers accustomed to making $80K annually become $30K test monkeys? That'll make for a happy crew, you betcha.
I'm trying to line up an interview with some of the BC staff for an article on the subject of BC. I hope to clarify a lot if I can get straight answers to certain questions.
[quote name='mykevermin']I would like to first give you my heartfelt and concise response:
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Now to elaborate: What the are you talking about? They promised BC, like they promise new 360 games. It's not like people buy a console on sheer speculation. They buy it because of new games coming out for it that they read previews of in new magazines; they buy it because they're accustomed to seeing Madden, NBA, or Generic Annual Iteration Title 200X on it. Your argument is equivalent to saying "tough titties for you, since they didn't deliver what they promised, it's your fault."
Is it my fault, likewise, if I bought a Xbox to play True Fantasy Live Online (I didn't, but I'm sayin'...)? That Microsoft, or Sony, or whomever the says "HEY YOU! LOOKIT THIS AWESOME SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING IT DOES! YOU'LL HAVE SEX IF YOU BUY THIS! AND IT PLAYS GAMES, TOO! HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE GAMES!" And then, all of a sudden, those games aren't there. How often does that happen, and how often would you blame a consumer for something the corporate side does?
In your world of logic, nobody should ever buy a system until it's dated technology with nothing else coming out for it, else there is room for disappointment, since game production could halt at any time? Would YOU be happy if they ceased development for every 360 game tomorrow? If you would be pissed, according to your logic, it's your fault, since you didn't wait to buy a 360 until all the games you wanted to work on it did. Right?
You're still ignoring my point that MS ignoring a PROMISED aspect of their system somehow isn't a big deal because it's not a big deal to you personally. In so doing, you're willfully ignoring that full BC is something MS promised.[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes, if you buy a console on the basis of yet undelivered items for that console, you are engaging in specualtive purchasing. This is why early adopters as distinguished as a group. They are either affluent and willing to take a risk to be among the first to enjoy the new status symbol, or they're true believers taking a risk they cannot really afford if it goes bad.
I defy anyone to point to a console that didn't include broken promises and bitter disappointment alongside its successes. Every console had launch promises that were either canceled or highly disappointing and only exscused because other, positive aspects of the product more than made up for it most consumers' eyes. Some consoles gave far more disappointment than fulfillment of their early adopter's gaming dreams.
Anybody still waiting for a US 64DD for the N64? Still holding out hope for the SNES-CD? Anyone still waiting to buy a Sega Neptune? Any Coleco fans still waiting for the flood of great Adam cassette games? Still holding out for MSX to become the home computer of choice in the US?
The list goes on and on. No longtime gamer expects every launch promise to be kept. Just the same, Microsoft is a good 25 of the way towards complete fulfillment. Even if there were no more updates it cannot be said they didn't deliver at all.
Somebody out there saw Kameo demoed on the N64 and bought one thinking there was a Rare action RPG coming and he really wanted it. Then Kameo was shown as a GameCube title and that same guy got over his disappointment and bought a GameCube, thinking "This time, for sure." The Rare was sold to Microsoft. So that Kameo fanatic told himself, "Ah well, business is business." So he bought himself an Xbox. Has he now finally been united with Kameo on the Xbox 360? Who knows? Perhaps he went insane and is now in a padded cell dreaming it's 1998 and he's just been to the store to buy N64 Kameo.
Disappointment is ever a risk when investing in a promise rather than a material reality. This is why the PS2 is still selling in huge numbers. Despite all of the things that went wrong along the way, the primary promise is fulfilled.
If you bought a PS2 at launch expecting great things to happen with the HDD Kit, you got screwed. If you bought a PS2 last week, you're overwhelmed with the choices for good games to play at low prices.
An interesting related phenomenon is that a turkey platform can be worth acquiring if you get in late for cheap with the full knowledge of what you're getting. An Atari Jaguar with all of the worthwhile games for under $50 would be a decent entertainment investment compared to a single new game for a more popular machine. Or similarly, you can have a self-contained Sega Genesis with six of its most beloved first party games for about $20 these days. The whole thing costs a fraction of what one of those games commanded at release, nevermind the hardware cost, and takes up only a little more room than one of those cartridges in its original packaging. Nobody buying one of those can say they didn't know exactly what they were getting or that they didn't get value for their purchase.
Finally, consider a major selling point of the Nintendo Wii: the Virtual Console. A console promoted in part on the basis of old, known offerings as opposed to solely the promise of the new. (The same can be said of the BC support in the PS2 but it is a much more discussed feature of the Wii.)
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Now to elaborate: What the
are you talking about? They promised BC, like they promise new 360 games. It's not like people buy a console on sheer speculation. They buy it because of new games coming out for it that they read previews of in new magazines; they buy it because they're accustomed to seeing Madden, NBA, or Generic Annual Iteration Title 200X on it. Your argument is equivalent to saying "tough titties for you, since they didn't deliver what they promised, it's your fault."Is it my fault, likewise, if I bought a Xbox to play True Fantasy Live Online (I didn't, but I'm sayin'...)? That Microsoft, or Sony, or whomever the
says "HEY YOU! LOOKIT THIS AWESOME SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING IT DOES! YOU'LL HAVE SEX IF YOU BUY THIS! AND IT PLAYS GAMES, TOO! HERE ARE SOME OF THOSE GAMES!" And then, all of a sudden, those games aren't there. How often does that happen, and how often would you blame a consumer for something the corporate side does? In your world of logic, nobody should ever buy a system until it's dated technology with nothing else coming out for it, else there is room for disappointment, since game production could halt at any time? Would YOU be happy if they ceased development for every 360 game tomorrow? If you would be pissed, according to your logic, it's your fault, since you didn't wait to buy a 360 until all the games you wanted to work on it did. Right?
You're still ignoring my point that MS ignoring a PROMISED aspect of their system somehow isn't a big deal because it's not a big deal to you personally. In so doing, you're willfully ignoring that full BC is something MS promised.[/QUOTE]
Actually, yes, if you buy a console on the basis of yet undelivered items for that console, you are engaging in specualtive purchasing. This is why early adopters as distinguished as a group. They are either affluent and willing to take a risk to be among the first to enjoy the new status symbol, or they're true believers taking a risk they cannot really afford if it goes bad.
I defy anyone to point to a console that didn't include broken promises and bitter disappointment alongside its successes. Every console had launch promises that were either canceled or highly disappointing and only exscused because other, positive aspects of the product more than made up for it most consumers' eyes. Some consoles gave far more disappointment than fulfillment of their early adopter's gaming dreams.
Anybody still waiting for a US 64DD for the N64? Still holding out hope for the SNES-CD? Anyone still waiting to buy a Sega Neptune? Any Coleco fans still waiting for the flood of great Adam cassette games? Still holding out for MSX to become the home computer of choice in the US?
The list goes on and on. No longtime gamer expects every launch promise to be kept. Just the same, Microsoft is a good 25 of the way towards complete fulfillment. Even if there were no more updates it cannot be said they didn't deliver at all.
Somebody out there saw Kameo demoed on the N64 and bought one thinking there was a Rare action RPG coming and he really wanted it. Then Kameo was shown as a GameCube title and that same guy got over his disappointment and bought a GameCube, thinking "This time, for sure." The Rare was sold to Microsoft. So that Kameo fanatic told himself, "Ah well, business is business." So he bought himself an Xbox. Has he now finally been united with Kameo on the Xbox 360? Who knows? Perhaps he went insane and is now in a padded cell dreaming it's 1998 and he's just been to the store to buy N64 Kameo.
Disappointment is ever a risk when investing in a promise rather than a material reality. This is why the PS2 is still selling in huge numbers. Despite all of the things that went wrong along the way, the primary promise is fulfilled.
If you bought a PS2 at launch expecting great things to happen with the HDD Kit, you got screwed. If you bought a PS2 last week, you're overwhelmed with the choices for good games to play at low prices.
An interesting related phenomenon is that a turkey platform can be worth acquiring if you get in late for cheap with the full knowledge of what you're getting. An Atari Jaguar with all of the worthwhile games for under $50 would be a decent entertainment investment compared to a single new game for a more popular machine. Or similarly, you can have a self-contained Sega Genesis with six of its most beloved first party games for about $20 these days. The whole thing costs a fraction of what one of those games commanded at release, nevermind the hardware cost, and takes up only a little more room than one of those cartridges in its original packaging. Nobody buying one of those can say they didn't know exactly what they were getting or that they didn't get value for their purchase.
Finally, consider a major selling point of the Nintendo Wii: the Virtual Console. A console promoted in part on the basis of old, known offerings as opposed to solely the promise of the new. (The same can be said of the BC support in the PS2 but it is a much more discussed feature of the Wii.)
oh yeah one thing I forgot to mention what's so cool about BC. System link is supposed to work with the 360 & the xbox. So if a game is BC I can now system link my two consoles and not have to buy another original xbox.
I now I need to find a cheap copy of Halo and a cross over cable....
I now I need to find a cheap copy of Halo and a cross over cable....
[quote name='MikeyRuin']I never understood the big deal of backwards compatability. I might have played one PS1 game on my PS2 within the first year that i got it, but thats about it. If you want to play an xbox game just hook up your xbox.[/QUOTE]
You might want to look into this human attribute called empathy. It does wonders for letting you comprehend the desires of others, even if their motives aren't ones that you share.
Right off the bat you make the assumption that anybody who has interest in some Xbox games saw fit to buy the console. Or that they could justify the cost of another console when there was more software of interest on a competing product. Or, in some cases, they did buy an Xbox but can only afford to buy a 360 if they sell off the Xbox and those games they're no longer interested in. By offering backward compatibility Microsoft makes it more feasible for those people to migrate to the Xbox 360 sooner than later. Also, if the Xbox gets sold on the used market there is a good chance the buyer will generate some sales of new games, further benefitting Microsoft, if not in profits then in goodwill from retailers who want to keep moving Xbox games while the Xbox 360 offerings mature.
For myself, I have a very large collection of PS1 software and I'm nowhere near done with it. The RPGs alone could be a fulltime job for several months.
Consider this. For every game, movie, or book you've ever held in high regard, there is someone else who finds it incomprehensible why anyone would bother with such trash. You really don't want any one person's tastes to dictate what is available to all, because the odds are very strongly against their choices being a close match of your own. It's a far better world where different tastes can co-exist.
You would have to pay me a good salary to play a game like Madden. It just doesn't hold any interest for me. But do I resent its existence? No, not so long as there are other choices on the menu more to my liking. Many millions of PS2 owners have gotten considerable use from the machine's support for PS1 software. That support didn't cost the world any great PS2 games, just as supporting Xbox software on the 360 isn't interfering with the work of anything working on new Xbox 360 games. The feature comes at no cost or loss to Xbox 360 owners who lack any interest in Xbox games.
You might want to look into this human attribute called empathy. It does wonders for letting you comprehend the desires of others, even if their motives aren't ones that you share.
Right off the bat you make the assumption that anybody who has interest in some Xbox games saw fit to buy the console. Or that they could justify the cost of another console when there was more software of interest on a competing product. Or, in some cases, they did buy an Xbox but can only afford to buy a 360 if they sell off the Xbox and those games they're no longer interested in. By offering backward compatibility Microsoft makes it more feasible for those people to migrate to the Xbox 360 sooner than later. Also, if the Xbox gets sold on the used market there is a good chance the buyer will generate some sales of new games, further benefitting Microsoft, if not in profits then in goodwill from retailers who want to keep moving Xbox games while the Xbox 360 offerings mature.
For myself, I have a very large collection of PS1 software and I'm nowhere near done with it. The RPGs alone could be a fulltime job for several months.
Consider this. For every game, movie, or book you've ever held in high regard, there is someone else who finds it incomprehensible why anyone would bother with such trash. You really don't want any one person's tastes to dictate what is available to all, because the odds are very strongly against their choices being a close match of your own. It's a far better world where different tastes can co-exist.
You would have to pay me a good salary to play a game like Madden. It just doesn't hold any interest for me. But do I resent its existence? No, not so long as there are other choices on the menu more to my liking. Many millions of PS2 owners have gotten considerable use from the machine's support for PS1 software. That support didn't cost the world any great PS2 games, just as supporting Xbox software on the 360 isn't interfering with the work of anything working on new Xbox 360 games. The feature comes at no cost or loss to Xbox 360 owners who lack any interest in Xbox games.
[quote name='KingDox']oh yeah one thing I forgot to mention what's so cool about BC. System link is supposed to work with the 360 & the xbox. So if a game is BC I can now system link my two consoles and not have to buy another original xbox.
I now I need to find a cheap copy of Halo and a cross over cable....[/QUOTE]
I don't think you need a crossover cable for the 360, you can use just a regular ethernet cable, crossed or not. The 360 can tell what type of cable it is and adjust itself accordingly.
I now I need to find a cheap copy of Halo and a cross over cable....[/QUOTE]
I don't think you need a crossover cable for the 360, you can use just a regular ethernet cable, crossed or not. The 360 can tell what type of cable it is and adjust itself accordingly.
Metal Boss
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Wow, thats absolutely pathetic.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='valor19']I don't think you need a crossover cable for the 360, you can use just a regular ethernet cable, crossed or not. The 360 can tell what type of cable it is and adjust itself accordingly.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't it need to be crossover though for the sake of the original xbox?
Wouldn't it need to be crossover though for the sake of the original xbox?
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wouldn't it need to be crossover though for the sake of the original xbox?[/QUOTE]
So long as one of the two ports involved does auto-sensing it shouldn't matter if the other end is similarly equipped. If the 360 does it than the Xbox doesn't need to make any adjustment. Otherwise there wouldn't be any value to auto-sensing ports.
So long as one of the two ports involved does auto-sensing it shouldn't matter if the other end is similarly equipped. If the 360 does it than the Xbox doesn't need to make any adjustment. Otherwise there wouldn't be any value to auto-sensing ports.
lionheart4life
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 16 (100%)
[quote name='MikeyRuin']I never understood the big deal of backwards compatability. I might have played one PS1 game on my PS2 within the first year that i got it, but thats about it. If you want to play an xbox game just hook up your xbox.[/QUOTE]
I never had an original Xbox and there are a handful of good games that I want to play from it on the 360, but only some of them will actually work on it. Most of the 360 games are still to expensive for me right now for how much I will play them, so I'd rather go with a couple cheap older games.
I understand what you mean though, I don't really use the PS2 for BC, it doesn't really improve many games and its not any harder for me to just put them in the PS1.
I never had an original Xbox and there are a handful of good games that I want to play from it on the 360, but only some of them will actually work on it. Most of the 360 games are still to expensive for me right now for how much I will play them, so I'd rather go with a couple cheap older games.
I understand what you mean though, I don't really use the PS2 for BC, it doesn't really improve many games and its not any harder for me to just put them in the PS1.
cheapgamesplease
Banned
[quote name='CheapyD']Of the top 300 reviewed Xbox games, 27% are backwards compatible. [/quote]
That sucks.
Bought a PS2 so I could play older PSone games-- on just one system. Was hoping to do the same with X360 (playing two systems games on just one console) but now I cannot.
Sucks
That sucks.
Bought a PS2 so I could play older PSone games-- on just one system. Was hoping to do the same with X360 (playing two systems games on just one console) but now I cannot.
Sucks
bread's done