Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

I have to be a cheap bastard. If Sony hadn't had backwards compatibility I'd have needed an extra shelf of PSOnes (or to put the Atari 2600 into cold storage, and you wouldn't want that now, would you?) Something as badly designed for my needs as the XBox (it's big and isn't stackable) needs to be replaced by a slimline, easily stackable device that has backwards compatibility. Get onto it now, Microsoft.

No, you're right. I don't care. Although I would like to see a smaller footprint for the next XBox, and I think that's eminently doable given the alleged lack of HD.

 

[ypo]

Only if you're Oxygen.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

If gamers don't have an Xbox, then they should buy it. By the time Xbox2 is out, the Xbox's price could sit around the $100 range, making it very affordable.

Also consider that it looks like Xbox Live accounts are "Backwards Compatible", in that when I purchase Live, I can use it for multiple consoles. I find this far more important than being able to play Xbox games on Xbox2.

Marconelly made some good points about the benefits of BC. But those benefits aren't worth the extra money spent on the console. With the $100 saved, you can buy very nice, stylish, and practical switchers that allow you to switch between consoles.

In my opinion, technology cannot allow itself to be shackled by the past. By moving forward, Sony, MS, and Nintendo will have technologies that will sell on their own merits, not on the products gained from past technologies.

What worries me most as an Xbox fan is the rumours that it will not have a HDD. It's one reason why I favour the Xbox over the PS2 and GC. It was an edge for them in this generation. It should be a standard for the next generation.

Exactly my thoughts. Don't get me wrong I see the benefits of BC, but overall it's not worth it just to give casual early system adopters a break. It'll have games you want or it doesn't. If you don't have an XBox now, well nothing's stopping you, it's priced just right where it is. By 2005 You'll be able to grab the console for $100, and I'd rather NOT have that $100 rolled into XBox2 when I could get two more games with that (and while I still have several functioning XBoxes). Also I see BC as holding the system back in terms of having to desgin a GPU to ensure that the current Nvidia APIs run on the next hardware (not to mention the cost and how outdated those APIs may be, we have no idea how the XBox2 GPU is going to generate graphics).


I hate to say this but, I think people are just being cheap and want M$ to front everything that'll make them happy. If XBox2 doesn't have BC, it won't make or break the system, just cut back on some of the cheap-ass early adopters. We know that we'll have XBL right out of the box and that's what's really exciting me. They spent time building the XBL infrastructure for a reason.

I too am more concerned about the lack of the HDD. I really love that feature on the XBox, and I can't imagine gaming without custom soundtracks again. I prey that if they do forgoe the HDD, then they get some other type of storage medium. I'm really not worried about it because the storage aspect ties overall into M$ console strategy, but things could change next round.

If anything it's hard to see the XBox life cycle cut a little short, because the system is now showing some outstanding stuff. But just like the DC all good things must come to an end. Now that a lot of developers have stopped proting PC and PS2 code to the console and are building them from the ground up you can see what the system can do. I think it could go a while longer (at least two years). But the longer they wait the more time the competition will start with the hype (and sometimes lies). And we all know gaming magazines need something to talk about in the slow months. And technology keeps on rolling forward.

I'm not trying to slam anybody, I just think that this whole BC conversation is gotten way too much dialogue. XBox2 probably won't have it, so some may not buy it at launch. Big whoop, they'll get the thing after a series of price drops anyway or they'll opt out because they weren't planning on buying it anyway. BC was just the hook to give them more bang for their buck. My $0.02........

 

[element]

Only if you're Oxygen.

I never said anything like that as far as my memory serves me, and for the remote possiblity that I did it was probably before development of games started, like pre-alpha kits. When the clock speed of the GPU was suppose to be 300MHz.

I never remember stating locked 60 FPS games on ALL xbox games

 

[FightyF]

You can only benefit from having backwards compatibilty...

xsarien: If cost wasn't a factor, I'd agree with you (somewhat*).

But the reality is, that BC will jack up the price of the console.

We all know that when it comes to new consoles being released, there are a few fundamentals that must sit well. Price is one of those fundamentals.

Again, going back to my N64 example, tell me, do you think that if the N64 was $50 more, but was also BC, it would have been worth it? Would the console performed as well as it did? Remember that it's Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 price would be $50 higher.

When introducing a new console, price means a lot. It's not a trivial thing that can be overlooked.

*: BC is not a crucial factor for a console's success. It's a convenient feature. Just as the Xbox survived when missing a convenient feature (DVD playback out of the box), Xbox2 can do well without BC. Now, factoring in the price issue, and BC simply looks like a bad idea.

Here is a hypothetical new console cost breakdown:
CPU: $40
GPU: $75
Motherboard: $25
Sound: $20
Casing: $30
Networking and other (audio/video/controller) interfaces: $30
Disc Drive: $30

All of these are integral and crucial components. Let's add a "convenient" component, that doesn't improve the quality of software or hardware made for this console AT ALL.

Xbox 1 hardware for backwards compatibility: $90

Instead of doing that...why not jack the quality/power of the GPU, or CPU instead? Why not spend more on having wireless-B networking built in?

The fact of the matter is, you can make a super dream console worth $1000, but it's not going to sell well. Things like BC must be cut, before making cuts to the power/quality of your console.

 

[DarienA]

So if I'm reading this thread correctly backward compatibility is only good for other forms of entertainment, TV's, Radios, CD players, DVD players, etc.... heck even PC's... just not videoga game consoles.... ok glad I got that straight. Then again all of those other devices are generally "universal"...hmmmm

 

[rastex]

Lots of awesome stuff

Exactly!!!

People seem to think that MS has $50 lying around for each Xbox and it's either spend it on BC or burn it. I mean if instead of BC MS had a PPU (Physics Processing Unit) then that would be a million times better.

As others have said, the big issue is actually the HDD, the knowledge that you can save whenever, as many damn times as you want with no concern at all for memory is such an advantage. Custom soundtracks is a cool feature as well, but not having to buy a memory card is really the best thing about the HDD (upgrades to games, and DLC as well). I wouldn't mind purchasing a large memory card, as long as it's the same price as a normal memory card ($30) and I'll only ever have to purchase 1. I mean one of the big features of Live is DLC, so it must have some type of mass-storage device.

 

[FightyF]

DarienA you bring up another good example I can use.

By the way, I think there are benefits in BC, but the cost benefit must be wieghed in, and in the case of Xbox2, it's not worth it.

Sorry for driving the point home and beating a dead horse, but I think this is a great example.

When audio cassette tapes premiered, and replaced record players, do you think it would be a good idea for Sony to introduce this new tape player machine, but also include support for records? In the end, you'd end up with a huge (complicated) peice of machinery that can play tapes and vinyls, that costs quite a bit.

Before you say it, I agree, for devices like a DVD player to support CD playback, it makes sense, because cost-wise, there isn't much more added cost.

But trying to make Xbox2 BC with Xbox, is like making a tape deck compatible with a record player. Two entirely different beasts, and the only way to combine them is to incorporate the technology fully into the hardware.

 

[element]

Exactly!!!

People seem to think that MS has $50 lying around for each Xbox and it's either spend it on BC or burn it. I mean if instead of BC MS had a PPU (Physics Processing Unit) then that would be a million times better.

As others have said, the big issue is actually the HDD, the knowledge that you can save whenever, as many damn times as you want with no concern at all for memory is such an advantage. Custom soundtracks is a cool feature as well, but not having to buy a memory card is really the best thing about the HDD (upgrades to games, and DLC as well). I wouldn't mind purchasing a large memory card, as long as it's the same price as a normal memory card ($30) and I'll only ever have to purchase 1. I mean one of the big features of Live is DLC, so it must have some type of mass-storage device.

word. I think that is the largest misconception that people that that b/c is free. well sorry to break it to the masses, but it wouldn't be.
I'd much rather have MS spend the resources that would be needed to do b/c on Xbox Live Features, XNA Tools and support, possible other hardware features that would make Xbox 2 better for next generation software, instead of hardware/software to support this generations games.

 

[BeOnEdge]

a damn good idea would be 3-4 halo multiplayer levels packed in or on the hard drive if x2 does indeed have one ala master systems "snail trails" would>>>>>>>BC.

 

[TheGreenGiant]

DarienA you bring up another good example I can use.

By the way, I think there are benefits in BC, but the cost benefit must be wieghed in, and in the case of Xbox2, it's not worth it.

Sorry for driving the point home and beating a dead horse, but I think this is a great example.

When audio cassette tapes premiered, and replaced record players, do you think it would be a good idea for Sony to introduce this new tape player machine, but also include support for records? In the end, you'd end up with a huge (complicated) peice of machinery that can play tapes and vinyls, that costs quite a bit.

Before you say it, I agree, for devices like a DVD player to support CD playback, it makes sense, because cost-wise, there isn't much more added cost.

But trying to make Xbox2 BC with Xbox, is like making a tape deck compatible with a record player. Two entirely different beasts, and the only way to combine them is to incorporate the technology fully into the hardware.

WTF. This argument is stupid. The XBOX 2 is more or less like a PC. The problem with running XBOX titles will be getting a chip in to read the games and make them work. Its not a real physical constraint and xbox game tech is not outdated.. not for another 3 years or so.

Not having backwards compatability will damage MS take. How many consoles do you want to have lying around and it is not going ot look good for the casuals.

A lot of people forget that the Xbox lead came through massive cost cutting and losses for microsoft. We're arguing loyalty. I don't think the MS xbox fanbase is that loyal. Rabid yes.. Loyal.. no. Not in that sense anyway. but they're also quite tech savvy. Between BC and the lowered stats between the future 3 nex gen consoles... This will cost them

 

[BeOnEdge]

a sub $300 launch price>>>>>>>>>>>BC
Real facts about x2>>>>>>>>>>>useless speculation

 

[FightyF]

The XBOX 2 is more or less like a PC.

This is incorrect. If there is anything we DO know about the next Xbox, is that MS has licensed the technology and hope to make everything themselves, rather than slap it together.

Plus, you claim that it just needs another chip to read the games, which is incorrect as well, they might even have to pay FEES for each Xbox sold because they are using nVidia technology.

 

[akascream]

So if I'm reading this thread correctly backward compatibility is only good for other forms of entertainment, TV's, Radios, CD players, DVD players, etc.... heck even PC's... just not videoga game consoles.... ok glad I got that straight. Then again all of those other devices are generally "universal"...hmmmm

I think its always a nice thing for the consumer. But its terribly complex to implement in game consoles.. especially as technology gets more and more advanced. Can you imagine the poor bastard at Sony that will have to figure out how to emulate PS3 in whatever whacky new design they come up with for PS4?

I think the reason most people here don't seem to care is this is a gaming forum, and lots people here tend to own all the consoles anyway.

 

[tenchir]

I have a question, is the 10 percent they are talking about are refered to what? Current PS2 user base or at the launch of PS2? I am pretty sure that backward compatability was a big factor for early adopters and should be much higher than 10 percent. If both systems(either Nintendo next console or PS3 were to launch at the same time as XBOX2), I think the system with BC would outsell the one without BC by a large margin.

 

[element]

I have a question, is the 10 percent they are talking about are refered to what? Current PS2 user base or at the launch of PS2? I am pretty sure that backward compatability was a big factor for early adopters and should be much higher than 10 percent. If both systems(either Nintendo next console or PS3 were to launch at the same time as XBOX2), I think the system with BC would outsell the one without BC by a large margin.

So the games actually built for the system have nothing to do with how well the system will do. it largely based on if users can play old games?

stupid.

#1 reason to buy any new system. PLAY NEW GAMES

 

[Keio]

The fact that MS can't easily make Xbox2 backwards compatible just goes to show that you really can't prepare contingencies for every event. Probably they though they could continue to use pc architecture instead of moving to PPC. If X2 would've beeni based on a x86 processor with a DX graphics chip as first speculated, it might've been easy to have bw compatibility with higher resolution, better filtering/AA etc.

I think that BC would've made X2 more interesting for PS2/GC gamers who never owned/will own an Xbox. Halo & Halo 2 are games that interest many gamers. It was the same when many of my N64 playing friends bought a PS2, because they could also play FF7, FF8 and FF9 on it.

And for me, space near the telly is hard to come by. I'll have to ditch one console to make room for one more...

Lack of BC won't DOOM Xbox 2, but it is a hurdle it could do without. If it launches first, it can't afford to be surpassed by PS3 or N5 - most Xbox gamers I know are much more "tech oriented" (a politically correct way to say it) than GC and PS2 gamers...

 

[Agent X]

Backward compatibility isn't absolutely necessary, but it's definitely a good thing to have.

If the X-Box 2 isn't compatible with original X-Box games, then that in and of itself might not seem too bad. After all, many other video game systems have come out over the years that weren't able to play their predecessor's games.

But, the industry has changed, grown, and evolved. With the success of the PlayStation 2, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance, people are starting to grow fond of the inclusion of this feature, and might even come to expect it in future systems. If PlayStation 3 can play PlayStation 2 games, and Revolution can play GameCube games, then it will make Microsoft seem either "too cheap" or "too stupid" by comparison, for not enabling the X-Box 2 to play X-Box 1 games. They'll be the odd man out--the only major video game manufacturer refusing to conform to expectations.

Also keep in mind that most consumers are not hardcore video game fanatics who buy most or all of the major systems. Many people just buy one system per generation, and usually not immediately at the system launch. X-Box fans who see that Sony & Nintendo are offering backward compatibility might resent the fact that Microsoft is not offering them the same luxury. They might hold off on purchasing X-Box games, instead opting to save that money towards a new Sony or Nintendo system, because they'll feel more secure in doing so.

So, while lack of backward compatibility won't necessarily kill X-Box 2, it might prove to be a disincentive that ends up steering some of their loyal customer base into the arms of the competition.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Can you imagine the poor bastard at Sony that will have to figure out how to emulate PS3 in whatever whacky new design they come up with for PS4?

I can imagine that and it should be CELLulareasy .

Hehe.

I cannot believe the argument "well, if you are trying to shave off few dollars off the price of the brand new system then you should not buy it new".

What kind of fucked-up-elitist-I-don't-have-to-worry-about-it-I-make-more-than-$40-50K-a-year con cept is that ?

It's not like those people would fall in debt.

Why should anyone waste the opportunity to save even a few bucks ?

Others already presented the benefits for backward-compatibility, but they forgot one small one: systems do break, buying a backward-compatible next-generation platform would allow me to avoid hunting on ebay .

I think that PlayStation 3 will be able to add quite a few nice effects to PlayStation 2 games: AF, FSAA and maybe even forced tri-linear + AF when the game uses mip-mapping ( surely we will see FSAA as that should not break anything ).

It is IMHO an added-value to the platform and somethign that makes me feel better as a PlayStation 2 owner: all the software that I have got and will get in the future will transition ( most of it hopefully ) to PlayStation 3 giving me a huge library of games to start with in addition to the launch games they will have.

Also, there will be plenty of games that I have missed out and new releases from developers who are leveraging the massive user-base.

 

[ypo]

Yes you did. It doesn't really matter what speed it was at. It's incredibly....naive, to put it nicely, to believe that all games will be 60fps, especially when you are a game developer.

"People seem to think that MS has $50 lying around for each Xbox and it's either spend it on BC or burn it""

Holy shit, you mean they don't? What's this thing about Microsoft's bottomless wealth that some people love to throw around when certain situations arise?>

 

[element]

Yes you did. It doesn't really matter what speed it was at. It's incredibly....naive, to put it nicely, to believe that all games will be 60fps, especially when you are a game developer.

go find a quote. I never said ALL Xbox games would do anything.
The only thing I was wrong about was DVD out of the box, which I admitted being wrong about.

There are other people on this forum with better memories then you, and you dont see them bringing up anything that I said '60 FPS on all Xbox games' I wouldn't be able to live that one down.

 

[ypo]

Go find a quote? Don't be stupid. We are in a new forum in case you don't remember, and not to mention that was over 2 years ago. It was clearly you because I was laughing my ass off at the fact that it came out of your mouth, but deny it if you want. You say a lot of things Oxygen.

 

[element]

Go find a quote? Don't be stupid. We are in a new forum in case you don't remember, and not to mention that was over 2 years ago. It was clearly you because I was laughing my ass off at the fact that it came out of your mouth, but deny it if you want. You say a lot of things Oxygen.

I dont see anyone agreeing with you.

 

[ypo]

I don't see anyone disageeing with me.


And what exactly does that have to do with anything? That somehow no one's replying to my post about something that was said 2+ years ago makes it untrue?

 

[GigaDrive]

I think PS3 being BC with PS2 and PS1 will be the first time in videogame history that a console is BC with TWO previous generations.

ok I suppose GBA can be also, as it plays GBC and GB games, but I said console

 

[element]

And what exactly does that have to do with anything? That somehow no one's replying to my post about something that was said 2+ years ago makes it untrue?

the fact that no one is agreeing that I said anything of the sort. Whenever. This would be the type of quote that would live forever. I'd never be able to let it down, and somehow you are the only person that remembers it? ok.

I think PS3 being BC with PS2 and PS1 will be the first time in videogame history that a console is BC with TWO previous generations.

there is speculation that PS3 won't support PSone games.

 

[Insertia]

You've made some pretty outlandish hype comments about Xbox in the old GA days, oxygen. Can't remember any of your 'inside info' actually being true, though.

 

[rastex]

I mean really this argument is pointless.

Because we all know the first thing anyone does when they buy a new console is to play their old games on it. There isn't a rolleyes big enough...

 

[neptunes]

there is speculation that PS3 won't support PSone games.

Sony was looking for prople who can make this happen. (they were hiring people)

It can all be done through emulation.

 

[ypo]

Oh look, there's someone agreeing with me. Sort of ; )

 

[Panajev2001a]

there is speculation that PS3 won't support PSone games.

There is speculation that Microsoft is actually a charity/non-profit organization .

Oxygen: to fully emualte the PlayStation 2 you need to emulate the PSOne's CPU and the SPU2.

The SPU2 is 2xSPU cores from the original PSOne and the upgraded PSOne CPU would need to be fully emulated: ok, maybe you could save the GTE part and the MDEC part, but you would need to emulate the MIPS core, the DMAC and other portions of the chip.

Why ?

The PSOne CPU is quite well used in PlayStation 2 games for I/O ( Network Processing too ) and to help the SPU2.

From there emulating, for Sony, the GTE and the MDEC is a child's play IMHO ( especially for Sony who not only owns Software technology to do it [Connectix IIRC] and all the Hardware documents related to a unit they are quite familiar with ).

I think they will go with a full-blown Software emulator running on the Broadband Engine with the GTE being emulated by one APU and the MDEC by another APU ( or they could find a nifty way to use the EE's RISC core and the IPU to emulate the MDEC ).

 

[Panajev2001a]

I mean really this argument is pointless.

Because we all know the first thing anyone does when they buy a new console is to play their old games on it. There isn't a rolleyes big enough...

It might not be the first thing sure, but it is done: I have played tons of PSOne games on my PlayStation 2.

This argument is not pointless: you and the other mr. are so strongly trying to argue how it is not needed that you are bordering on the "it is bad in itself".

Some of us are arguing how such a feature is good and needed and others are saying that it is good, but you can do it without.

We have our own opinions and you have yours.

 

[neptunes]

:bows:

" the greatness"

 

[element]

im just repeating what I have heard. im sure it can be done techincally.

so if the PS3 does PS2 b/c, it will automatically have b/c with PSone? Even if the b/c for PS2 is driven by software?

Insertia, most of that was about the games being good. which I was wrong about. doh!

 

[krypt0nian]

There is speculation that Microsoft is actually a charity/non-profit organization .

Oxygen: to fully emualte the PlayStation 2 you need to emulate the PSOne's CPU and the SPU2.

The SPU2 is 2xSPU cores from the original PSOne and the upgraded PSOne CPU would need to be fully emulated: ok, maybe you could save the GTE part and the MDEC part, but you would need to emulate the MIPS core, the DMAC and other portions of the chip.

Why ?

The PSOne CPU is quite well used in PlayStation 2 games for I/O ( Network Processing too ) and to help the SPU2.

From there emulating, for Sony, the GTE and the MDEC is a child's play IMHO.

I think they will go with a full-blown Software emulator running on the Broadband Engine with the GTE being emulated by one APU and the MDEC by another APU ( or they could find a nifty way to use the EE's RISC core and the IPU to emulate the MDEC ).

Pana - you scare me sometimes.....in a good way.

 

[kaching]

most of my posts on things like this are just rants or opinions about how people are cheap bastards and how supporting an old technolgy doesn't help you advance with new technologies.

i can get frustrating seeing a lot of misconceptions and just flat out lies, but i deal.

It can also be equally frustrating listening to people like yourself who seemingly can't see anything but their own perspective. I hope MS isn't going to take the same approach as you and the others have to overcome this deficieny: act like BC is meaningless but, just for good measure, insult the people who want it by calling them cheap bastards. And that doesn't exactly sound like someone attempting to avoid perpetrating misconceptions...

I know that no BC means that post-Xbox2 PICS OF YOUR SETUP threads will be that much more impressive in their sheer compulsive obsession of keeping every scrap of gaming paraphernalia you've ever laid hands on, but some of us don't necessarily dedicate a room in our house or apt. to erect a shrine of this sort. We like to streamline and consolidate as time passes. I have no intention of keeping half a dozen or more consoles orbiting my HT setup and thankfully some of the hardware manufacturers are accomodating in this respect. For those that don't they may actually end up losing more money from me than they gain - If I buy Xbox2 then I'll be getting rid of Xb1 and if Xbox2 doesn't have BC, then that's the last of Xbox1 software sales they will have gotten from me, which very well could have been on top of anything I buy for the Xb2. Or maybe I won't upgrade to the Xbox2. Depends on how the situation evolves and BC is certainly a factor.

As for your stance on old technologies not helping to advance new technologies, 2 things: 1) The baggage of old tech is not a constant - it can either be very light or very heavy and depends on a variety of things such as engineering foresight, ensuing technological advancements and relations between the responsible parties. 2) Whatever baggage that old tech may bring could quite possibly be balanced out by the peace of mind it brings to those who aren't sure about the new tech on its own.

 

[Panajev2001a]

im just repeating what I have heard. im sure it can be done techincally.

so if the PS3 does PS2 b/c, it will automatically have b/c with PSone? Even if the b/c for PS2 is driven by software?

Let's talk about black-boxes ok ?

They can have a black-box that emulates the EE and the GS ( either in Hardware or in Software even though they have been sampling a chip with 32 Mb of e-DRAM in 65 nm ), but they also need a blackbox that emulates the IOP.

I do not think either the GTE or the MDEC ( the MJPEG decoder ) are used in PlayStation 2 games, but the RISC core is and so is the DMAC in the PSOne CPU.

The SPU2 needs to be emulated as it is the PlayStation 2 sound-chip: again it might be done with Hardware or Software, but either way that chip is 2xSPU ( SPU = PSOne's Sound DSP ).

Once you do a black-box that includes everything, but GTE and MDEC extending the black-box to include GTE and MDEC is not impossible to do.

Especially since SCE designed the PSOne and they own the Connectix's PSOne emulation technology IIRC.

 

[Panajev2001a]

so if the PS3 does PS2 b/c, it will automatically have b/c with PSone?

It would not be very smart for SCE not to do something they can do without too much effort.

One of Deadmeat's last posts on Beyond3D had actually a good idea in it: Sony wants to avoid paying LSI royalties for the PSOne chip ( which I think they do pay as LSI did a lot of work on the PSOne CPU ).

A full-blown Software emulation of the PSOne's CPU would help them that way as well.

They already own a good emulator technology and for SCE to extend/perfect that emulator to run on CELL should not be too hard to do.

 

[element]

It would not be very smart for SCE not to do something they can do without too much effort.

One of Deadmeat's last posts on Beyond3D had actually a good idea in it: Sony wants to avoid paying LSI royalties for the PSOne chip ( which I think they do pay as LSI did a lot of work on the PSOne CPU ).

A full-blown Software emulation of the PSOne's CPU would help them that way as well.

They already own a good emulator technology and for SCE to extend/perfect that emulator to run on CELL should not be too hard to do.

doh, a smile yes could have worked

act like BC is meaningless

Something I have never said. I've said it is a secondary feature or a convience feature, but never meaningless.

insult the people who want it by calling them cheap bastards

I dont call everyone who wants the feature 'cheap bastads'. I call a small group of people cheap bastards, because these people say things like 'I'd buy one if it has <insert feature>', when most often then not they wouldn't have bought it in the first place. If I offended anyone with the cheap bastard comment, sorry. I'll stop using it.

 

[rastex]

The problem with using software emulation is that it takes up valuable ROM space. Though from the consumer's perspective it's a far better alternative than having to pop in a CD and swapping.

 

[Evolution VIII]

MS made the right decision. Obviously the only people who would benefit from backwards compatibility are hardcore gamers, and it is not really viable to waste resources on satisfying them when the masses can really care less about BC. I have over 50 PS games and out of the entire time I've owned my PS2 I've only played two PS1 games. It is really not that big of a deal and MS was wise to put their resources into making XBox2 as affordable and powerful as possible.

 

[FightyF]

It is really not that big of a deal and MS was wise to put their resources into making XBox2 as affordable and powerful as possible.

This one sentence sums up the issue perfectly.

If my Xbox can already emulate the PSOne entirely in software, then I expect the PS3 to do so as well.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

One thing I like to mention is the visual difference between this generation and last generation games compared to the possible differences we'll see in the next gen games.

Last gen games are very hard on the eyes,IMO. This generation of games I can see myself playing well into the next generation of consoles. Halo2, RE4, MP2, GT4, MGS3 are gonna be games I can see myself playing again, what about the online aspect, unless PD0 can still the limelight from Halo2 when it comes to multiplayer.


I don't want to hold on to four or six consoles. 3 is better.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The problem with using software emulation is that it takes up valuable ROM space. Though from the consumer's perspective it's a far better alternative than having to pop in a CD and swapping.

Let's see:

1.) pay LSI royaltes and add the PSOne CPU core to the EE+GS@65 nm

or

2.) use some SCEI developeed and fabbed ROM to store the PSOne emulator and not paying LSI royaltes ?

I'd go with choiche 2.) .

 

[Panajev2001a]

The problem with using software emulation is that it takes up valuable ROM space. Though from the consumer's perspective it's a far better alternative than having to pop in a CD and swapping.

If they wanted to save money they would ship a CD-ROM with the emulator and you would save it to a Memory Stick and run it from there ( it would be stored alongside the PlayStation 3 profile/Sony Connect info, etc... ).

 

[Panajev2001a]

doh, a smile yes could have worked

Oxygen, it could, but then there are lots of people reading the forums who might enjoy learning this bit of information: I know I did back when I first started to learn about PlayStation 2 and PSOne in terms of hardware designs.

Uhm... I guess I could have answered this one in a much shorter manner... .

What can I say ? I like technology and chatting with guys like you on the GAF and Beyond3D.

As long as the discussion remains somewhat polite ( I know I can get a bit too "involved" myself hehe, so it is ok for some small vennting here and there ) I am happy.

 

[element]

Oxygen, it could, but then there are lots of people reading the forums who might enjoy learning this bit of information: I know I did back when I first started to learn about PlayStation 2 and PSOne in terms of hardware designs.

Uhm... I guess I could have answered this one in a much shorter manner... .

What can I say ? I like technology and chatting with guys like you on the GAF and Beyond3D.

As long as the discussion remains somewhat polite ( I know I can get a bit too "involved" myself hehe, so it is ok for some small vennting here and there .

I only tease Panajev I enjoy your drawn out programmer heavy posts Shows that there are some intelligent people on this board

 

[Panajev2001a]

If they wanted to save money they would ship a CD-ROM with the emulator and you would save it to a Memory Stick and run it from there ( it would be stored alongside the PlayStation 3 profile/Sony Connect info, etc... ).

Third way: you could download the PSOne full-blown emulator securely through SonyConnect on the PlayStation 3 and store it securely into your Memory Stick: the only thing you wouyld store in a ROM would be the basic Software module that emulates the PlayStation 2's I/O CPU ( PSOne's CPU ).

 

[Duckhuntdog]

*whack* *slash* *cut* *chop* *hack*

Man, I had to slice through a rainforest of Xbot damage control just to get here...

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Hmm, support a feature that lets you play OLD games or support a feature that changes games for the FUTURE?
hmmmmmmm. let's think about that one.

Just buy the Nintendo Revolution, plays the old games while changing the way you play modern games. Had your cake and ate it too....


OMG???!!! Nintendo is going to let us have cake and EAT IT!!!!!!!