...that's not backwards compatibility, it's re-releasing. That would be like saying the PS3 is backwards compatible with the NES because you can play Bionic Commando Rearmed on it. I can't play my NES cartridges on a PS3, and you can't play 360 discs on an Xbone.
Xbox One Backward Compatibility Is a Future Possibility
- Thread starter roseofbattle
- Start date
You mean the Cloud isn't all powerful magic that can do everything? Were you lying to us the customer about its abilities?roseofbattle said:
Congratulations on on making me laugh.subtlefuge said:
The difference is, the people that complained wanted Xbone to playu their 360 discs. not to use cloud stream service.Story said:
Thats because cloud is not a server. Cloud does not need server. Technically, cloud stores data on your machine. that is, your machine store data for hundreds other people, and you store yours in hindreds other people. its like all machines interconnected, without a need of a central server. So far such system has never been utilized properly. on paper - its awesome idea. when you need power you got power of 100 machines, and whne you sleep somone else uses yours. In reality that would mean all machines identical, always online and with ridiculous data transfer speeds between eachother. so the only real posibility to utilize it is via LAN principle. and we just call them cluster servers.Infernal Lawyer said:
When the world stops being stuck in the 90s and get its internet updated we coudl talk about local cloud, but for now it is just a arcane magical cloud that has been woven by warlocks.
The case has already been made that new consoles can't play old games because of technical issues so they have to tweak it properly to work blah de blah. Of course, I agree; re-releasing old games simply isn't equal to backwards compatibility. I think it's damn awesome that my 3DS can play NES games, hand picked from the online shop, but it would be stupid to claim that it was backwards compatible with the NES for the reason you stated. (Then again, people are more willing to accept the excuse of technical issues, as well as be more willing to pay more money for something they already own, for a game that's from several generations ago as opposed to the last one)loc978 said:
Personally, I don't see why they can't have a system where you have to download last-gen consoles like XBLA or w/e, but if you happen to have a disk handy, you can VALIDATE it for the service, so you still have to download it but otherwise you're not paying extra for something you already own, or at the very least get a massive discount (playing devils advocate here, but tweaking games so they work on new technology DOES cost money. It would be better than just saying "Fuck you, get with the future" anyway).
Wait wait wait... What? What exactly are you suggesting? Because it sounds like you're trying to say "while you're not using your Xbone, someone else is using the 'Power of the Cloud' to get some of it's processing power", and that's just wrong in so many ways. Either that or you're using that example to say why the idea of the 'cloud' is ridiculous or something, I don't know...Strazdas said:
Either I'm seriously misinterpreting what you're saying, or you're suggesting something that even MS' PR team would cringe at. I mean, you DO know what a server is, right? I'm know questioning someone's intelligence is the height of rudeness, but this whole 'Xbone hive mind' idea has seriously confused me (that and it's late and I'm tired).
I don't understand Microsoft's thinking on this one. It's less powerful than PS4, comes out a week later, and in less countries than the PS4, and costs $100 more.I am legitimately baffled as to how Microsoft sees all these points and says,"Yea, that'll help us out just fine." What am I missing?
If they were doing the technical version of the cloud yes, that is what it is. the cloud to put it simply is all your machines working together. while hive mind is not a good deifinition since it isnt really a mind to begin with, but yes they work together in the cloud. I did mention that noone has managed to do cloud properly EVER with exception of Local itnerconnectivity, and those we called cluster servers anyway.Infernal Lawyer said:
Yes i do know what a server is. i specifically stated at the begining that cloud is not a server nor it even needs a server to exist.
Now, mind you, im not saying microsoft has created a cloud. heck them putting 300 million server is already proof otherwise. im merely saying that both the poster and MS does not even know what the cloud is apperently. well PR often lie to impress so thats nothing new.
Now the whole "cloud is evil" is wrong. its not. If anything, its good. its sharing. you share your available processing power while your not using, and you use others when you need it. It runs on basic principle of sharing what you have. and it would work, if people would not turn the machines off as soon as their done using the power. well work as in in theory as so far internet wont allow it yet. Like many things, on papers its awesome concept. the main problem - humans.