Xbox One Not Backwards Compatible

[Slash2x]

Is it force feeding when nobody makes PC games that your machine can run and you have to upgrade it or buy a new one?

Snip because we are both wordy.

Only one point I want to dispute.
I can upgrade a PC in PARTS. This is a "console", that is really a mid-grade PC for current generations, is not upgradable and will be behind the curve .

On the other points it really boils down to the consumer. You and I can have differing opinions about what we want and what we will pay for. From my personal experience a company that will not try and work in a feature that would make the consumer base happy because it is more work is not worth investing in. I and all of the people I game with, have already said that the XBone has convinced us to look at PC or PS4 gaming in the future. And I am not that sure of the PS4 because it is not much better (in my opinion.)

 

[Olas]

snip... blah blah

But what you did there is just spin the problem around. You can play all the Halos you want on your PC, but there's a difference. You didn't change your hardware or architecture. Instead, in your case, it was the SOFTWARE that was rewritten to be compatible with the hardware. Not the other way around, if you see what I mean. Nintendo didn't have trouble with it because they're using the same tired architecture still. Beyond the WiiU, there wasn't much hardware innovation between their systems. The problem flows both ways. I get that backwards compatibility is important, but in this day and age with ever-changing hardware, it should never be a deal breaker.

It absolutely can and in some cases will be a deal breaker. The Xbox 360 has a 7 year back catalogue of games for it, we're talking hundreds and hundreds of games that you're denying Xbox One owners access to. How can you possibly say that being able to play an entire generation's-worth of games isn't a selling point? Maybe the XBone will someday develop a library as large as the 360, but I don't know that for sure. With backwards compatibility I have a guarantee that my new system will be able to play at least the 700+ games for the 360 in addition to whatever eventually comes out for the Xbone. If you made the it backwards compatible with both the 360 and original XBox I'd say it's more than worth the money for that alone. Imagine getting 3 consoles for the price of one.

If people already own the previous console and don't want to pay extra for backwards compatibility, make 2 versions and sell the non-compatible one for less money.

You have to understand that in a world where you can play PS2 and Wii titles on your computer through an open source emulator, it's a little hard to take seriously the notion that you can't make games for one console work for another. The Wii, for example, was able to play more than just Wii and Gamecube games, through the virtual console it could run games from older consoles from NES to N64 and I'm guessing the NES was designed a little differently than the Wii. I'd imagine the Xbone too will be more than powerful enough to emulate at least the Xbox.

But architecture, I get it. One really has to question why the architecture for the XB1 had to be so fundamentally different in the first place. Why do two machines that more or less perform the same job require wholly different architecture to operate? This isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and slightly bigger apples. Was backwards compatibility even a consideration when designing the XB1? Was future compatibility a consideration when designing the 360? Because it should have been.

I'm really not sure why we even need a new console at all to be honest, but if you're going to insist on moving us to one, at least make the transition as easy as possible.

Just because it's a microsoft console doesn't MEAN anything. It's still a completely different architecture. The CPU is built completely differently, uses different machine code, different microcode, it's like, comparing an electric motor, and a gasoline engine. They use two completely different methods to achieve a similar result.

Nice analogy, you know hybrids are a thing right? They can run on both.

 

[Midniqht]

snip... blah blah

But what you did there is just spin the problem around. You can play all the Halos you want on your PC, but there's a difference. You didn't change your hardware or architecture. Instead, in your case, it was the SOFTWARE that was rewritten to be compatible with the hardware. Not the other way around, if you see what I mean. Nintendo didn't have trouble with it because they're using the same tired architecture still. Beyond the WiiU, there wasn't much hardware innovation between their systems. The problem flows both ways. I get that backwards compatibility is important, but in this day and age with ever-changing hardware, it should never be a deal breaker.

It absolutely can and in some cases will be a deal breaker. The Xbox 360 has a 7 year back catalogue of games for it, we're talking hundreds and hundreds of games that you're denying Xbox One owners access to. How can you possibly say that being able to play an entire generation's-worth of games isn't a selling point? Maybe the XBone will someday develop a library as large as the 360, but I don't know that for sure. With backwards compatibility I have a guarantee that my new system will be able to play at least the 700+ games for the 360 in addition to whatever eventually comes out for the Xbone. If you made the it backwards compatible with both the 360 and original XBox I'd say it's more than worth the money for that alone. Imagine getting 3 consoles for the price of one.

If people already own the previous console and don't want to pay extra for backwards compatibility, make 2 versions and sell the non-compatible one for less money.

You have to understand that in a world where you can play PS2 and Wii titles on your computer through an open source emulator, it's a little hard to take seriously the notion that you can't make games for one console work for another. The Wii, for example, was able to play more than just Wii and Gamecube games, through the virtual console it could run games from older consoles from NES to N64 and I'm guessing the NES was designed a little differently than the Wii. I'd imagine the Xbone too will be more than powerful enough to emulate at least the Xbox.

But architecture, I get it. One really has to question why the architecture for the XB1 had to be so fundamentally different in the first place. Why do two machines that more or less perform the same job require wholly different architecture to operate? This isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and slightly bigger apples. Was backwards compatibility even a consideration when designing the XB1? Was future compatibility a consideration when designing the 360? Because it should have been.

I'm really not sure why we even need a new console at all to be honest, but if you're going to insist on moving us to one, at least make the transition as easy as possible.

Just because it's a microsoft console doesn't MEAN anything. It's still a completely different architecture. The CPU is built completely differently, uses different machine code, different microcode, it's like, comparing an electric motor, and a gasoline engine. They use two completely different methods to achieve a similar result.

Nice analogy, you know hybrids are a thing right? They can run on both.

I see your point there, but I never said that backwards compatibility isn't a selling point. I agree - it's most definitely a selling point, and if either console was able to play the backlog of older generation games, that would be highly marketable. All I was saying is that it shouldn't be a deal-breaker in whether or not you decide to buy something new or not. Almost every piece of technology eventually has to decide whether it'll be compatible with older versions or software, and vice-versa. An example of this (although slightly less of a deal) is certain apps only being available on certain versions of android phones, and so on.

The two different models would be neat, and probably feasible, but the likelihood of it selling as well as anyone would like compared to a cheaper, non-backwards compatible model is predictable. From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft (or Sony, for that matter) to invest the extra money in a second console that will not only cost the end-users more, but also split the market between the two versions of the same console. Microsoft would most likely be taking a loss for each console made and sold in this case. I get why they're doing it for architecture and business reasons.

If rumors are true, they might be releasing a final version of the Xbox 360 around the same time-frame as the Xbox One. They've already announced their plans to support and supply a stream of games for the 360 beyond the One launch. At least they're not cutting the cord.

 

[darksakul]

XBone is appropriate for this failure. Putting aside the jump in Sony's stock from the awful, awful conference... used game shenanigans and no ability to play my 34 xbox discs, to? Fuck that. I was right all along, this next gen is going to be the most incompetent. The wiiU now actually stands a chance... and it really, really shouldn't.

Oh I so agree, luckily for me I an a Sony fan boy.

Whelp, that settles it. I will not be purchasing the Xboner upon its release, from what I'm hearing its going to be a horrid, money grubbing machine.

Amen

Super Metroid is actually paused on my wiiU game pad right now as I took this opportunity to charge it while I reply to comments online.

Although Nintendo Lost me a while back as a customer, you get respect playing one of my favorate SNES titles.
If it was not for the fact I still have a working NES and SNES I would use my Wii more.

And oh my god, my head hurts.

x64 IS IS IS IS IS IS x86.

IT IS. x64 isn't even a thing really. It's ACTUALLY x86-64, just x64 for short. It is the 64 bit extension of x86 which is orginally 32 bit.


A x86 program will work perfectly on an x86-64 computer. You do it all the time. 90% of windows applications are still 32 bit or x86 based. Generally the OS runs it in a shell, but is completely transparent, and you will never know the difference. It is still at it's basics, the same architecture.

You are talking a whole different thing, to emulate the XBOX 360 on the Xbone. PS2 emulators are pretty system intensive, 360 wouldn't really be possible on most systems. emulators require so much overhead and compute power, that it wouldn't work.

I know it hurts, the stupid there gave me a head ache.

Any word if the Xbone will require a subscription for to play online? That is literally the entire reason I supported the Playstation this generation.

MS did for the Xbox and Xbox 360, what makes you think Xbone would not charge you even more. But to be fair Sony is going to charge for online play with the PS4.

 

[raankh]

Well, I'm sorry to say, but you're simply suffering from intelligence. It might be difficult when all the other kids are camping at the mall for release night, but know that you're not alone and that others too suffer from encephalic activities.

Learning from mistakes, even if those are not your own, is indeed a burden, but if we stick together I'm sure we can make it. nantoka~

One of my favorite sayings goes something like this: The wise man learns from the mistakes of others while the fool has to learn from his own. Not that I'm saying early adopters are fools. Our development cycle practically lives or dies by them. It's just that they're taking a calculated risk and I'm not that much of a gambler. I did once go to a casino for a bachelor party and turned $1 into $215 on the first slot machine I went to. That was it for the evening. One button and out.

I bought Sim City on launch day. I can't say anything in my defense.... That was just plain dumb.