Xbox next- Backwards compatible?
- Thread starter legion_stxds
- Start date
This isn't as much of a rumor as it is a technological fact. The Xbox is built on an Intel CPU, x86 technology. The Xbox Next specs call for a RISC based CPU. They'd essentially have to a) run emulation software on the new system or b) find a way to put all of the Xbox into a single chip the way Sony did with the PlayStation. Something tells me a) is more likely than b) since Xbox is a much more sophisticated system than the PS1. Here's a rundown of the Tech Specs I learned about a while back.
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
This has been discussed before...with the amount of power that will be availabe with Xbox Next...they could emulate gen1 Xbox titles...if they will has yet to be revealed.
I, for one, hope they include backwards compatabilitiy.
I, for one, hope they include backwards compatabilitiy.
Ericnmel99
CAGiversary!
Yeah..they've been saying for a while that the xbox next isn't going to be backwards compatible. That could be the downfall of the xbox next. Because the PS3 is supposed to be compatible with the PS1 and 2.
PS2 - PS1 so far has been the only (unless I'm forgetting some widely unused system) system that's been backwards compatible. I'm not sure why we've decided its a necessary and expected thing these days.
I don't plan on getting rid of my Xbox when I get Xbox-Next.. if I want to play an older, outdated game, I'll get the Xbox out and playing it.
I don't plan on getting rid of my Xbox when I get Xbox-Next.. if I want to play an older, outdated game, I'll get the Xbox out and playing it.
[quote name='Ericnmel99']Yeah..they've been saying for a while that the xbox next isn't going to be backwards compatible. That could be the downfall to the PS3 which is supposed to be compatible with the PS1 and 2.[/quote]
This statement makes no sense. How is PS3 being backwards compatible with PS2 and 1 going to be its downfall? You have an instant game base with backwards compatibility.
This statement makes no sense. How is PS3 being backwards compatible with PS2 and 1 going to be its downfall? You have an instant game base with backwards compatibility.
[quote name='daphatty'][quote name='Ericnmel99']Yeah..they've been saying for a while that the xbox next isn't going to be backwards compatible. That could be the downfall to the PS3 which is supposed to be compatible with the PS1 and 2.[/quote]
This statement makes no sense. How is PS3 being backwards compatible with PS2 and 1 going to be its downfall? You have an instant game base with backwards compatibility.[/quote]
He meant Xbox-next's downfall.
This statement makes no sense. How is PS3 being backwards compatible with PS2 and 1 going to be its downfall? You have an instant game base with backwards compatibility.[/quote]
He meant Xbox-next's downfall.
Ericnmel99
CAGiversary!
Thank you cornfed.... i reworded it so everyone can understand.
Ericnmel99
CAGiversary!
Man Phatty, you really are like Terry Tate. Once quick typo and you tackled my butt to the ground!
If Microsoft is going with ATI for the graphics card than, yes, the XBox2 will not be backwards compatiable period.
Even if they manage to emulate the XBox 1's other functions in real time on the XBox 2. Because of IP rights of nVidia, with respect to the graphics unit it won't happen. And if you don't think nVidia will scream bloody murder and drag MS to court and delay things, if they try such a thing, you're nuts. Afterall, ATI is nVidia's sworn enemy, and MS siding with them is going to piss them off. And no matter how much money MS has, I'm sure nVidia's lawyers could find a way to drag the release thing out for a year or two.
The other thing with the XBox 2 is the new APIs that MS is pushing on everybody -- XNA. A lot of developers still do cross-platform developement and if a developer decides to use XNA, the ability to be cross-platform isn't going to happen. And what with XNA being developed in house you can bet that when the XBox 2 comes out a developer will have three choices:
1) Roll his own code. Costly and timely.
2) Use XNA, and forget about releasing for another platform other than PC or code everything twice.
3) A bunch of costly third party solutions that won't be as finely tuned as MS's XNA for a few years.
All and all, if XBox 2 releases first with no backwards compatiability, no hdd, and pushing XNA, they are going to bleed billions like they have on this generation of XBoxes. We will see how long Bill and the stock holders will allow this to go on.
Even if they manage to emulate the XBox 1's other functions in real time on the XBox 2. Because of IP rights of nVidia, with respect to the graphics unit it won't happen. And if you don't think nVidia will scream bloody murder and drag MS to court and delay things, if they try such a thing, you're nuts. Afterall, ATI is nVidia's sworn enemy, and MS siding with them is going to piss them off. And no matter how much money MS has, I'm sure nVidia's lawyers could find a way to drag the release thing out for a year or two.
The other thing with the XBox 2 is the new APIs that MS is pushing on everybody -- XNA. A lot of developers still do cross-platform developement and if a developer decides to use XNA, the ability to be cross-platform isn't going to happen. And what with XNA being developed in house you can bet that when the XBox 2 comes out a developer will have three choices:
1) Roll his own code. Costly and timely.
2) Use XNA, and forget about releasing for another platform other than PC or code everything twice.
3) A bunch of costly third party solutions that won't be as finely tuned as MS's XNA for a few years.
All and all, if XBox 2 releases first with no backwards compatiability, no hdd, and pushing XNA, they are going to bleed billions like they have on this generation of XBoxes. We will see how long Bill and the stock holders will allow this to go on.
[quote name='daphatty']This isn't as much of a rumor as it is a technological fact. The Xbox is built on an Intel CPU, x86 technology. The Xbox Next specs call for a RISC based CPU. They'd essentially have to a) run emulation software on the new system or b) find a way to put all of the Xbox into a single chip the way Sony did with the PlayStation. Something tells me a) is more likely than b) since Xbox is a much more sophisticated system than the PS1.[/quote]
As stated earlier, emulation will not work, because of nVidia's IP rights on the graphics unit of the XBox 1.
Also, putting the XBox 1 on one chip like Sony did with the PS1 is not possible considering it would have to have an Intel-compatiable chip AND a nVidia-compatiable chip AND not overheat AND not violate nVidia's IP.
As stated earlier, emulation will not work, because of nVidia's IP rights on the graphics unit of the XBox 1.
Also, putting the XBox 1 on one chip like Sony did with the PS1 is not possible considering it would have to have an Intel-compatiable chip AND a nVidia-compatiable chip AND not overheat AND not violate nVidia's IP.
Everyone knew that MS was not going to make money on their hardware this generation. You are right. I don't think this profuse loss of blood (a.k.a. funds) can continue much longer.
Ericnmel99 - "You can't bring that weak ass stuff up in here!" "I came to play baby!" "WOOOOOOO!!!!!"
Ericnmel99 - "You can't bring that weak ass stuff up in here!" "I came to play baby!" "WOOOOOOO!!!!!"
[quote name='Cornfedwb']PS2 - PS1 so far has been the only (unless I'm forgetting some widely unused system) system that's been backwards compatible. I'm not sure why we've decided its a necessary and expected thing these days.
I don't plan on getting rid of my Xbox when I get Xbox-Next.. if I want to play an older, outdated game, I'll get the Xbox out and playing it.[/quote]
Every iteration of the Game Boy has been backwards compatible. And there I believe it makes sense. I don't want to carry around my GBA for all my new games and my GB for Pokemon Blue. But I don't understand the appeal for consoles. Either
a) You have the previous console and can play games on it.
or
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.
I don't plan on getting rid of my Xbox when I get Xbox-Next.. if I want to play an older, outdated game, I'll get the Xbox out and playing it.[/quote]
Every iteration of the Game Boy has been backwards compatible. And there I believe it makes sense. I don't want to carry around my GBA for all my new games and my GB for Pokemon Blue. But I don't understand the appeal for consoles. Either
a) You have the previous console and can play games on it.
or
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.
[quote name='Tromack']
Every iteration of the Game Boy has been backwards compatible. And there I believe it makes sense. I don't want to carry around my GBA for all my new games and my GB for Pokemon Blue. But I don't understand the appeal for consoles. Either
a) You have the previous console and can play games on it.
or
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.[/quote]
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.
Every iteration of the Game Boy has been backwards compatible. And there I believe it makes sense. I don't want to carry around my GBA for all my new games and my GB for Pokemon Blue. But I don't understand the appeal for consoles. Either
a) You have the previous console and can play games on it.
or
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.[/quote]
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
Backwards compatability sounds great and I'd prefer it, but the only system I've ever used it on regularly is the Game Boy line. I liked the PS2 being backwards compatible, but like the guy in the article, I've only used it a few times, and I still had a PSOne new in the box nearby.
Don't sell your consoles.
Don't sell your consoles.
[quote name='daphatty']
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.[/quote]
That is true. But they could also save a lot of money by just buying the old system. My point was that no one buys a system just for the backwards compatability. Sure it is a nice thing to have, but it's definitely underutilized for how much hullaballoo there is about it.
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.[/quote]
That is true. But they could also save a lot of money by just buying the old system. My point was that no one buys a system just for the backwards compatability. Sure it is a nice thing to have, but it's definitely underutilized for how much hullaballoo there is about it.
Ericnmel99
CAGiversary!
I think microsoft would be wise to make the 'xbox next' backwards compatible. If people can buy a new system but allreay be able to play 100's of games their more likely to buy that system than to start out fresh. Especially the group that phatty mentioned - parents. I think thats why the PS2 has done so well, becasue before it even came out you allready had 100's of games to play.
It's funny u say it is "built on RISC processor technology..." funny because the RISC processor in question is the Mac G5.
So let's just all admit that the XBox Next is a Mac. Denial is futile.
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
(3 times because it makes me laugh)
The funniest thing about MS selling Macs disguised as game consoles, is the fact that MS will ensure the Mac ports are still delayed at least a year. That is the whole strategy behind MS's new development library for XBox next -- to port Windows dev tools to the Mac, and ease the XBox next to Windows gaming transition.
So let's just all admit that the XBox Next is a Mac. Denial is futile.
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
G5 = Macintosh = Unix
(3 times because it makes me laugh)
The funniest thing about MS selling Macs disguised as game consoles, is the fact that MS will ensure the Mac ports are still delayed at least a year. That is the whole strategy behind MS's new development library for XBox next -- to port Windows dev tools to the Mac, and ease the XBox next to Windows gaming transition.
BTW - Virtual PC for the Mac, now owned my MS, does not utilize 3D hardware acceleration.
So if MS has not been able to utilize 3D hardware acceration thru emulation on the Mac, can they do it via the XBox Next dev tools?
Should be interesting to see what happens.
So if MS has not been able to utilize 3D hardware acceration thru emulation on the Mac, can they do it via the XBox Next dev tools?
Should be interesting to see what happens.
The biggest problem with not having backwards compatiability is that it doesn't give me a reason to buy the console on the release date. There might be one or two titles I want to play, but I'd be better off waiting until they had a whole library and the original release titles were cheap. In the mean time the PS3 and next Cube are getting more developement time and I know that at least for the PS3 there will be plenty of great games to play.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
It would be nice to be able to trade in the old Xbox when the new one comes out but it looks like I'll have to hang on to it. I still hope they rethink getting rid of the hard drive. I don't want to have to buy a bunch of crappy memory cards.
Also, it is known that the Mac OS, old and new versions, has been ported to Windows in varying states of success over the past few years.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.
legion_stxds
CAGiversary!
I really don't know that backward compatibility will be it's downfall... though... it would be a great sales point! The trully interesting thing is that Xbox is basing it's decision on PS2/PS1 data. 10% reported to have bought the PS2 due to the backwards compatibility... 10% of PS2 users = 7 million users = "which is around half of Microsoft's entire installed base for Xbox" ! WOW big difference.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='donssword']Also, it is known that the Mac OS, old and new versions, has been ported to Windows in varying states of success over the past few years.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember hearing MS fired the guy who took a picture of a boatload of G5's being delivered to MS when they started work on the Xbox 2.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember hearing MS fired the guy who took a picture of a boatload of G5's being delivered to MS when they started work on the Xbox 2.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='donssword']Also, it is known that the Mac OS, old and new versions, has been ported to Windows in varying states of success over the past few years.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember hearing MS fired the guy who took a picture of a boatload of G5's being delivered to MS when they started work on the Xbox 2.[/quote]
Yeah, sorry about that. I learned my lesson.
For at least a decade, the press has been demanding Apple move to Intel processors, and Apple has refused, knowing full well the advantages of RISC technology. MS knows full well what RISC can do, thus the reason they are embracing it for XBNext.[/quote]
Yeah, I remember hearing MS fired the guy who took a picture of a boatload of G5's being delivered to MS when they started work on the Xbox 2.[/quote]
Yeah, sorry about that. I learned my lesson.
Theenternal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='daphatty']
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.[/quote]
That is true. But they could also save a lot of money by just buying the old system. My point was that no one buys a system just for the backwards compatability. Sure it is a nice thing to have, but it's definitely underutilized for how much hullaballoo there is about it.[/quote]
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.
You are forgetting about the clueless aunts, uncles, and parents that like to save money. Buying multiple $50 games is not a feasible option in most households. They could stretch that dollar much further with older titles. Case in point, when I was young, my parents bought me an Atari 2600 because it was 1/4 the cost of an NES at the time. (Remember the "Only 50 bucks!" campaign?) I got loads of play time with that and they saved money.[/quote]
That is true. But they could also save a lot of money by just buying the old system. My point was that no one buys a system just for the backwards compatability. Sure it is a nice thing to have, but it's definitely underutilized for how much hullaballoo there is about it.[/quote]
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.
[quote name='Theenternal']
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.[/quote]
You should have read my original post in which I said that GB line of backwards compatability is the only one that makes sense.
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.[/quote]
You should have read my original post in which I said that GB line of backwards compatability is the only one that makes sense.
crissy1616
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Tromack']
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.[/quote]
Personally, I want backwards compatibilty because I already have an NES, N64, DC, SNES, GC, XBOX, and PS2 hooked up and the last thing I need is to have MORE plugged in!
And I don't know about the average person, but I buy PS1 games for my PS2. Then again, I missed out on the PS1 era, and so I am playing new games for me on my PS2 that most people played when the PS1 first came out. *shrugs*
b) You don't have the previous console, but why the hell do you care? Not many people are going out and buying PS games just to play on their PS2. No, the average person buys the new console to play the new games for the new console.[/quote]
Personally, I want backwards compatibilty because I already have an NES, N64, DC, SNES, GC, XBOX, and PS2 hooked up and the last thing I need is to have MORE plugged in!
And I don't know about the average person, but I buy PS1 games for my PS2. Then again, I missed out on the PS1 era, and so I am playing new games for me on my PS2 that most people played when the PS1 first came out. *shrugs*
legion_stxds
CAGiversary!
Some of these PS1 games are expensive too... wonder if backward compatiblity has anything to do with it?
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
[quote name='legion_stxds']Some of these PS1 games are expensive too... wonder if backward compatiblity has anything to do with it?[/quote]
There's always some old games that are expensive. Look at some of the SNES, Genesis, and even NES games that are high dollar games.
Plus there's the fact that the PSOne is still sold in some stores.
There's always some old games that are expensive. Look at some of the SNES, Genesis, and even NES games that are high dollar games.
Plus there's the fact that the PSOne is still sold in some stores.
legion_stxds
CAGiversary!
Yeah... I wanted to pick up XenoGears... I loved that game man... though I would re-live the adventure... but at $26 (ebgames used) and $44 (gamestop used)... man that is steep!
[quote name='crissy1616']
Personally, I want backwards compatibilty because I already have an NES, N64, DC, SNES, GC, XBOX, and PS2 hooked up and the last thing I need is to have MORE plugged in!
And I don't know about the average person, but I buy PS1 games for my PS2. Then again, I missed out on the PS1 era, and so I am playing new games for me on my PS2 that most people played when the PS1 first came out. *shrugs*[/quote]
I agree with you on all fronts. I appreciate that the PS2 has backwards compatablity, because it saves me space. I also didn't have a PS1 back when it came out. And I also buy PS1 games for my PS2. But I also buy far more games than the average person does. My friends who have PS2's only buy new games for them, so that's what I was basing my statement off of.
Personally, I want backwards compatibilty because I already have an NES, N64, DC, SNES, GC, XBOX, and PS2 hooked up and the last thing I need is to have MORE plugged in!
And I don't know about the average person, but I buy PS1 games for my PS2. Then again, I missed out on the PS1 era, and so I am playing new games for me on my PS2 that most people played when the PS1 first came out. *shrugs*[/quote]
I agree with you on all fronts. I appreciate that the PS2 has backwards compatablity, because it saves me space. I also didn't have a PS1 back when it came out. And I also buy PS1 games for my PS2. But I also buy far more games than the average person does. My friends who have PS2's only buy new games for them, so that's what I was basing my statement off of.
Theenternal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='Theenternal']
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.[/quote]
You should have read my original post in which I said that GB line of backwards compatability is the only one that makes sense.[/quote]
I stand corrected on the GB part
, however I believe the PS games will become a similar strength in comparision to the GB lineup. As its easier to have one system hooked up than 3
Im sure if the new GB DS did not have backword compatability that there would be a lot of complaints.
And In Nintendo's history, the backword compatability has become one of their strengths.
The psone games may or may not be used as much as people believe for the ps2, but im sure it will be a deciding factor to some people, if the new xbox/ps3 are pretty equal, and the new xbox is limited to its current generation, and if the ps3 has 3 generation of libraries in its line up. I believe this very wanted feature to many rpg players.[/quote]
You should have read my original post in which I said that GB line of backwards compatability is the only one that makes sense.[/quote]
I stand corrected on the GB part
, however I believe the PS games will become a similar strength in comparision to the GB lineup. As its easier to have one system hooked up than 3
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
[quote name='legion_stxds']Yeah... I wanted to pick up XenoGears... I loved that game man... though I would re-live the adventure... but at $26 (ebgames used) and $44 (gamestop used)... man that is steep![/quote]
$13 at eCost or one of those online places, if you don't mind a GH label. Pretty sure Defender has some at VGD as well (link on front page).
$13 at eCost or one of those online places, if you don't mind a GH label. Pretty sure Defender has some at VGD as well (link on front page).
[quote name='eros']If Microsoft is going with ATI for the graphics card than, yes, the XBox2 will not be backwards compatiable period.
Even if they manage to emulate the XBox 1's other functions in real time on the XBox 2. Because of IP rights of nVidia, with respect to the graphics unit it won't happen. And if you don't think nVidia will scream bloody murder and drag MS to court and delay things, if they try such a thing, you're nuts. Afterall, ATI is nVidia's sworn enemy, and MS siding with them is going to piss them off. And no matter how much money MS has, I'm sure nVidia's lawyers could find a way to drag the release thing out for a year or two.
The other thing with the XBox 2 is the new APIs that MS is pushing on everybody -- XNA. A lot of developers still do cross-platform developement and if a developer decides to use XNA, the ability to be cross-platform isn't going to happen. And what with XNA being developed in house you can bet that when the XBox 2 comes out a developer will have three choices:
1) Roll his own code. Costly and timely.
2) Use XNA, and forget about releasing for another platform other than PC or code everything twice.
3) A bunch of costly third party solutions that won't be as finely tuned as MS's XNA for a few years.
All and all, if XBox 2 releases first with no backwards compatiability, no hdd, and pushing XNA, they are going to bleed billions like they have on this generation of XBoxes. We will see how long Bill and the stock holders will allow this to go on.[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that while I'm sure you had good intentions when you wrote this post, technically it is wrong.
Libraries such as DirectX and XNA (still unclear what XNA really is) are only beneficial to software developers. Instead of having to worry about how to fill in a triangle on the screen, developers can just say "draw triangle" and some code that has been debugged and tested massively by all the other developers before you will do the job for you with small to zero chance of failure. Of course this is a simple example but I would much prefer developers to spend their time working on GAMES rather than low level boiler-plate code.
The cross platform issue - if you are developing a cross platform product and have properly structured your code architecture it doesn't matter what APIs you are using at the base level. Say you create your "Enemy" class which works on both the Xbox and PS2 since it is standard C++. The drawing code though is hidden via abstraction - who cares if you use XNA on the Xbox and the DMAC on the PS2? That part is hidden from your game and that is the whole point of building something that will work cross platform. No need to worry about Microsoft providing additional APIs to get rid of cross platform games. This is how cross platform development works now and always will work. Microsoft paying developers to make things exclusive though, that is another story ;-)
As for the ATI / nVidia backwards compatability issue - it is really a non issue. You seem like you know that the Xbox and PC architecture are very similar - but did you know the Xbox uses DirectX? Changing the graphics card inside the box would be like changing it in your PC - all of the games are coded against DirectX - so if Microsoft plugged in a new driver for their new ATI card on the motherboard all games would run the same old code base and they would work automatically. This is the purpose of DirectX's existence. IP rights are not violated - ATI isn't stealing nVidia's architecture. The nVidia chip is simply being replaced.
Now, the CPU based proposition of Intel vs. RISC is really the best indication of no backwards compatability of course. I actually doubt current Xbox games could be viably emulated even given the prospective specs of the next system. Emulation is just slow - my current near top of the line PC can't emulate PS1 games smoothly in all cases. I think I read a postulation somewhere that to emulate a system completely the emulator must be approximately 10 times as powerful as the previous system. Who knows if that is true but it is clear Xbox 2 is not 10 times as powerful as Xbox 1.
Even if they manage to emulate the XBox 1's other functions in real time on the XBox 2. Because of IP rights of nVidia, with respect to the graphics unit it won't happen. And if you don't think nVidia will scream bloody murder and drag MS to court and delay things, if they try such a thing, you're nuts. Afterall, ATI is nVidia's sworn enemy, and MS siding with them is going to piss them off. And no matter how much money MS has, I'm sure nVidia's lawyers could find a way to drag the release thing out for a year or two.
The other thing with the XBox 2 is the new APIs that MS is pushing on everybody -- XNA. A lot of developers still do cross-platform developement and if a developer decides to use XNA, the ability to be cross-platform isn't going to happen. And what with XNA being developed in house you can bet that when the XBox 2 comes out a developer will have three choices:
1) Roll his own code. Costly and timely.
2) Use XNA, and forget about releasing for another platform other than PC or code everything twice.
3) A bunch of costly third party solutions that won't be as finely tuned as MS's XNA for a few years.
All and all, if XBox 2 releases first with no backwards compatiability, no hdd, and pushing XNA, they are going to bleed billions like they have on this generation of XBoxes. We will see how long Bill and the stock holders will allow this to go on.[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that while I'm sure you had good intentions when you wrote this post, technically it is wrong.
Libraries such as DirectX and XNA (still unclear what XNA really is) are only beneficial to software developers. Instead of having to worry about how to fill in a triangle on the screen, developers can just say "draw triangle" and some code that has been debugged and tested massively by all the other developers before you will do the job for you with small to zero chance of failure. Of course this is a simple example but I would much prefer developers to spend their time working on GAMES rather than low level boiler-plate code.
The cross platform issue - if you are developing a cross platform product and have properly structured your code architecture it doesn't matter what APIs you are using at the base level. Say you create your "Enemy" class which works on both the Xbox and PS2 since it is standard C++. The drawing code though is hidden via abstraction - who cares if you use XNA on the Xbox and the DMAC on the PS2? That part is hidden from your game and that is the whole point of building something that will work cross platform. No need to worry about Microsoft providing additional APIs to get rid of cross platform games. This is how cross platform development works now and always will work. Microsoft paying developers to make things exclusive though, that is another story ;-)
As for the ATI / nVidia backwards compatability issue - it is really a non issue. You seem like you know that the Xbox and PC architecture are very similar - but did you know the Xbox uses DirectX? Changing the graphics card inside the box would be like changing it in your PC - all of the games are coded against DirectX - so if Microsoft plugged in a new driver for their new ATI card on the motherboard all games would run the same old code base and they would work automatically. This is the purpose of DirectX's existence. IP rights are not violated - ATI isn't stealing nVidia's architecture. The nVidia chip is simply being replaced.
Now, the CPU based proposition of Intel vs. RISC is really the best indication of no backwards compatability of course. I actually doubt current Xbox games could be viably emulated even given the prospective specs of the next system. Emulation is just slow - my current near top of the line PC can't emulate PS1 games smoothly in all cases. I think I read a postulation somewhere that to emulate a system completely the emulator must be approximately 10 times as powerful as the previous system. Who knows if that is true but it is clear Xbox 2 is not 10 times as powerful as Xbox 1.
XboxMaster
CAGiversary!
I hope the next Xbox includes backwards compatibility. But if not, it's not the end of the world, a fanboy never gets rid of his first loved console. 
[quote name='technic']
Libraries such as DirectX and XNA (still unclear what XNA really is) are only beneficial to software developers. Instead of having to worry about how to fill in a triangle on the screen, developers can just say "draw triangle" and some code that has been debugged and tested massively by all the other developers before you will do the job for you with small to zero chance of failure. Of course this is a simple example but I would much prefer developers to spend their time working on GAMES rather than low level boiler-plate code.
The cross platform issue - if you are developing a cross platform product and have properly structured your code architecture it doesn't matter what APIs you are using at the base level. Say you create your "Enemy" class which works on both the Xbox and PS2 since it is standard C++. The drawing code though is hidden via abstraction - who cares if you use XNA on the Xbox and the DMAC on the PS2? That part is hidden from your game and that is the whole point of building something that will work cross platform. No need to worry about Microsoft providing additional APIs to get rid of cross platform games. This is how cross platform development works now and always will work. Microsoft paying developers to make things exclusive though, that is another story ;-)
As for the ATI / nVidia backwards compatability issue - it is really a non issue. You seem like you know that the Xbox and PC architecture are very similar - but did you know the Xbox uses DirectX? Changing the graphics card inside the box would be like changing it in your PC - all of the games are coded against DirectX - so if Microsoft plugged in a new driver for their new ATI card on the motherboard all games would run the same old code base and they would work automatically. This is the purpose of DirectX's existence. IP rights are not violated - ATI isn't stealing nVidia's architecture. The nVidia chip is simply being replaced.
Now, the CPU based proposition of Intel vs. RISC is really the best indication of no backwards compatability of course. I actually doubt current Xbox games could be viably emulated even given the prospective specs of the next system. Emulation is just slow - my current near top of the line PC can't emulate PS1 games smoothly in all cases. I think I read a postulation somewhere that to emulate a system completely the emulator must be approximately 10 times as powerful as the previous system. Who knows if that is true but it is clear Xbox 2 is not 10 times as powerful as Xbox 1.[/quote]
I agree with the well structured code point, except this is going to still take more time and effort. It's cheaper to develope with cross-platform libraries from the start or to use the XNA and forget cross-platform. This XNA is just one more example of MS attempting lock-in, but we both know this already.
I don't however agree that MS could swap the video cards out and install a driver to switch over. If I recall correctly the XBox doesn't have a card with the new standard shader abilities. It has a nVidia specific shader. So the ATI driver would have to implement nVidia's API's as well. This is were IP rights might come into play. However, I could be wrong and MS could have had an upgrade to the driver and there are no games that take advantage of the old shader.
Without the shader abilities games like Riddick won't look even half as good.
These points about the shader are still moot because we aren't talking about running the software and letting the dynamic linker and driver take care of the problem. We are talking about emulating an XBox 1, by presenting a virtual machine and translating the binary on the fly.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.
Libraries such as DirectX and XNA (still unclear what XNA really is) are only beneficial to software developers. Instead of having to worry about how to fill in a triangle on the screen, developers can just say "draw triangle" and some code that has been debugged and tested massively by all the other developers before you will do the job for you with small to zero chance of failure. Of course this is a simple example but I would much prefer developers to spend their time working on GAMES rather than low level boiler-plate code.
The cross platform issue - if you are developing a cross platform product and have properly structured your code architecture it doesn't matter what APIs you are using at the base level. Say you create your "Enemy" class which works on both the Xbox and PS2 since it is standard C++. The drawing code though is hidden via abstraction - who cares if you use XNA on the Xbox and the DMAC on the PS2? That part is hidden from your game and that is the whole point of building something that will work cross platform. No need to worry about Microsoft providing additional APIs to get rid of cross platform games. This is how cross platform development works now and always will work. Microsoft paying developers to make things exclusive though, that is another story ;-)
As for the ATI / nVidia backwards compatability issue - it is really a non issue. You seem like you know that the Xbox and PC architecture are very similar - but did you know the Xbox uses DirectX? Changing the graphics card inside the box would be like changing it in your PC - all of the games are coded against DirectX - so if Microsoft plugged in a new driver for their new ATI card on the motherboard all games would run the same old code base and they would work automatically. This is the purpose of DirectX's existence. IP rights are not violated - ATI isn't stealing nVidia's architecture. The nVidia chip is simply being replaced.
Now, the CPU based proposition of Intel vs. RISC is really the best indication of no backwards compatability of course. I actually doubt current Xbox games could be viably emulated even given the prospective specs of the next system. Emulation is just slow - my current near top of the line PC can't emulate PS1 games smoothly in all cases. I think I read a postulation somewhere that to emulate a system completely the emulator must be approximately 10 times as powerful as the previous system. Who knows if that is true but it is clear Xbox 2 is not 10 times as powerful as Xbox 1.[/quote]
I agree with the well structured code point, except this is going to still take more time and effort. It's cheaper to develope with cross-platform libraries from the start or to use the XNA and forget cross-platform. This XNA is just one more example of MS attempting lock-in, but we both know this already.
I don't however agree that MS could swap the video cards out and install a driver to switch over. If I recall correctly the XBox doesn't have a card with the new standard shader abilities. It has a nVidia specific shader. So the ATI driver would have to implement nVidia's API's as well. This is were IP rights might come into play. However, I could be wrong and MS could have had an upgrade to the driver and there are no games that take advantage of the old shader.
Without the shader abilities games like Riddick won't look even half as good.
These points about the shader are still moot because we aren't talking about running the software and letting the dynamic linker and driver take care of the problem. We are talking about emulating an XBox 1, by presenting a virtual machine and translating the binary on the fly.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.
[quote name='eros']
I agree with the well structured code point, except this is going to still take more time and effort. It's cheaper to develope with cross-platform libraries from the start or to use the XNA and forget cross-platform. This XNA is just one more example of MS attempting lock-in, but we both know this already.
I don't however agree that MS could swap the video cards out and install a driver to switch over. If I recall correctly the XBox doesn't have a card with the new standard shader abilities. It has a nVidia specific shader. So the ATI driver would have to implement nVidia's API's as well. This is were IP rights might come into play. However, I could be wrong and MS could have had an upgrade to the driver and there are no games that take advantage of the old shader.
Without the shader abilities games like Riddick won't look even half as good.
These points about the shader are still moot because we aren't talking about running the software and letting the dynamic linker and driver take care of the problem. We are talking about emulating an XBox 1, by presenting a virtual machine and translating the binary on the fly.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
Touche - I didn't realize there were nVidia specific shader functionality. I would have thought they would be using HLSL which is supposed to be Microsoft's vendor independant shader language but if not that only compounds the backwards compatability issue even more (including potential legal issues with reverse engineering that as you have said).
Also I agree with the cheaper-to-not-write-crossplatform point, but the existence of XNA isn't going to stop the big boys (EA, etc) from wanting to reach all parts of the market anyways and designing their code architecture to make it happen. But it may help smaller developers to make better games faster since they have to worry about less low level code, so overall I don't see it as a negative development in any way.
I agree with the well structured code point, except this is going to still take more time and effort. It's cheaper to develope with cross-platform libraries from the start or to use the XNA and forget cross-platform. This XNA is just one more example of MS attempting lock-in, but we both know this already.
I don't however agree that MS could swap the video cards out and install a driver to switch over. If I recall correctly the XBox doesn't have a card with the new standard shader abilities. It has a nVidia specific shader. So the ATI driver would have to implement nVidia's API's as well. This is were IP rights might come into play. However, I could be wrong and MS could have had an upgrade to the driver and there are no games that take advantage of the old shader.
Without the shader abilities games like Riddick won't look even half as good.
These points about the shader are still moot because we aren't talking about running the software and letting the dynamic linker and driver take care of the problem. We are talking about emulating an XBox 1, by presenting a virtual machine and translating the binary on the fly.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
Touche - I didn't realize there were nVidia specific shader functionality. I would have thought they would be using HLSL which is supposed to be Microsoft's vendor independant shader language but if not that only compounds the backwards compatability issue even more (including potential legal issues with reverse engineering that as you have said).
Also I agree with the cheaper-to-not-write-crossplatform point, but the existence of XNA isn't going to stop the big boys (EA, etc) from wanting to reach all parts of the market anyways and designing their code architecture to make it happen. But it may help smaller developers to make better games faster since they have to worry about less low level code, so overall I don't see it as a negative development in any way.
Theenternal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 9 (100%)
[quote name='eros']
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
It all depends on how well the program is written, and if it truly emulates/Processes another way(bleem)/or a combination of the two. Or a combination of those two with that added decoder you suggested.
Remember the N64 was released in Sept of 96 I believe, and in 1998 it was already being emulated via UltraHle "apparently to prove the doubters wrong" that it could be done. I had a pretty crappy system at the time, but I was still able to get 30+ FPS on it.
My setup at the time.
CYRIX PR-200 (remember this garbage chip)
Pure3d Voodoo card 6 megs, linked to a 4 meg Virge chipset.
48 Megs of EDO Ram.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
It all depends on how well the program is written, and if it truly emulates/Processes another way(bleem)/or a combination of the two. Or a combination of those two with that added decoder you suggested.
Remember the N64 was released in Sept of 96 I believe, and in 1998 it was already being emulated via UltraHle "apparently to prove the doubters wrong" that it could be done. I had a pretty crappy system at the time, but I was still able to get 30+ FPS on it.
My setup at the time.
CYRIX PR-200 (remember this garbage chip)
Pure3d Voodoo card 6 megs, linked to a 4 meg Virge chipset.
48 Megs of EDO Ram.
[quote name='Theenternal'][quote name='eros']
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
It all depends on how well the program is written, and if it truly emulates/Processes another way(bleem)/or a combination of the two. Or a combination of those two with that added decoder you suggested.
Remember the N64 was released in Sept of 96 I believe, and in 1998 it was already being emulated via UltraHle "apparently to prove the doubters wrong" that it could be done. I had a pretty crappy system at the time, but I was still able to get 30+ FPS on it.
My setup at the time.
CYRIX PR-200 (remember this garbage chip)
Pure3d Voodoo card 6 megs, linked to a 4 meg Virge chipset.
48 Megs of EDO Ram.[/quote]
Yes, but UltraHLE was coded specifically for the very few games that it ran -- mostly just Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and the demos that could be made from that. It was not a general purpose N64 emulator and that is why those few games could achieve 30fps. I believe that Voodoo cards where the only cards supported back then too for UltraHLE. Which made a world of difference.
Now if you look at most GBA emulators, they will spike the CPU in my friends 700mhz Althon. However, there isn't a game he can't play on them.
I'm just saying that I don't think a general emulator that could handle all games would be possible given the hardware.
But, I could be wrong. I'm actually hoping I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
And I agree with the emulation stuff. Everyone keeps saying they could do it, but I doubt the power of the next gen boxes. Maybe with a dedicated decoder in hardware, but we'll see.[/quote]
It all depends on how well the program is written, and if it truly emulates/Processes another way(bleem)/or a combination of the two. Or a combination of those two with that added decoder you suggested.
Remember the N64 was released in Sept of 96 I believe, and in 1998 it was already being emulated via UltraHle "apparently to prove the doubters wrong" that it could be done. I had a pretty crappy system at the time, but I was still able to get 30+ FPS on it.
My setup at the time.
CYRIX PR-200 (remember this garbage chip)
Pure3d Voodoo card 6 megs, linked to a 4 meg Virge chipset.
48 Megs of EDO Ram.[/quote]
Yes, but UltraHLE was coded specifically for the very few games that it ran -- mostly just Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, and the demos that could be made from that. It was not a general purpose N64 emulator and that is why those few games could achieve 30fps. I believe that Voodoo cards where the only cards supported back then too for UltraHLE. Which made a world of difference.
Now if you look at most GBA emulators, they will spike the CPU in my friends 700mhz Althon. However, there isn't a game he can't play on them.
I'm just saying that I don't think a general emulator that could handle all games would be possible given the hardware.
But, I could be wrong. I'm actually hoping I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
bread's done