-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
No backward compatibility in Xbox 2 (Article)
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
Duckhuntdog said:
The Xbot DamageControl sure is bad here. It is spelled d-e-n-i-a-l. BC rox, is a functional feature and Xbotx have to do something to ease the pain of not having it. Sony and Nintendo have it right for next gen. any lapses in rreleases are covered by last gen games not finished. Of course, when the only game worthwhile is Halo, the point is moot.
Duckhuntdog
Member
You know, had this been about the Revolution not having BC and the Nintendo fanboys trying to defend the dicision, they would be tarred, feathers, deep fried,hounded, owned, ridiculded, doomed, pantsed, hair pulled, hacked, slapped, laughed at, shit on, lead pipe to the head, punch to the nuts, zleda compilations disks snapped, by everyone here.
Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now.
Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now.
Neutron Night
Banned
STUPID IDIOTS. MS no longer has the best hardware, they no longer have the hard drive, and now they're throwing away backwards campatiblity. Isn't hardware supposed to improve with time? Fuck this.
I'm one of those 10% they're talking about, fully HALF of the games I played on PS2 were PS1 games. I do not have the space to add an extra system to my setup, it's annoying enough changing cables as it is. Now they're going to alienate existing Xbox users AND interested X2 buyers who don't have an Xbox but might want to play some of the games. Nice, dumbass.
They tried giving gamers a superior system and it didn't work, now they're going to succeed with an inferior system? Somebody explain this logic.
I'm one of those 10% they're talking about, fully HALF of the games I played on PS2 were PS1 games. I do not have the space to add an extra system to my setup, it's annoying enough changing cables as it is. Now they're going to alienate existing Xbox users AND interested X2 buyers who don't have an Xbox but might want to play some of the games. Nice, dumbass.
They tried giving gamers a superior system and it didn't work, now they're going to succeed with an inferior system? Somebody explain this logic.
CrimsonSkies
Member
Going from someone talking about all the Xbox failure bs talk early in the systems launch to this is a bit of a leap.
Duckhuntdog and P90, I find it funny that you claim "Xbot DamageControl" has taken over, as a result of well thought out and fair replies that pointed out that BC is not a smart decision.
And then you punks reply with your own garbage (Halo is the only worthwhile game). Why is it that MS and Sony fans aren't feeling this insecure about their next gen consoles? Oh I know why...let's take a look at the next gen of handheld gaming machines, the DS.
-edit- Crap...I ALWAYS burst out laughing when I think about the DS! WTF was Nintendo thinking!
And then you punks reply with your own garbage (Halo is the only worthwhile game). Why is it that MS and Sony fans aren't feeling this insecure about their next gen consoles? Oh I know why...let's take a look at the next gen of handheld gaming machines, the DS.
-edit- Crap...I ALWAYS burst out laughing when I think about the DS! WTF was Nintendo thinking!
Sorry, but I have to argue semantics for a second. I said, "act like its meaningless". I know you haven't outright said it was meaningless, but your constant efforts to downplay BC do a lot more than just make it sound like a "secondary" feature.element said:
Doesn't offend me, just pointing out that the frequency with which you use it isn't helping your argument, esp. when you keep trying to impress upon us how important it is for MS to make Xbox2 cost efficient...So we should all care about whether MS saves money but not give a damn about doing some saving of our own?
Look at it this way, would you rather they spend the $50 or whatever it costs to put BC into xbox 2, or would you rather they spend it on, say, an extra 256 MB of RAM?
(Pulling the numbers out of my ass.)
Given a launch budget they have to decide what makes it in, and what doesn't.
I know what I'd pick any day of the week.
(Pulling the numbers out of my ass.)
Given a launch budget they have to decide what makes it in, and what doesn't.
I know what I'd pick any day of the week.
I do want the next XBOX to be backwards compatible. Whether it is straight out of the box or in an add-on (kind of like how Sega did with the Mega Drive/Genesis they had an add-on that allowed you to play Master System games), it doesn't matter to me, but either way I really hope it's capable of doing so or otherwise it will turn me away from deciding to get the XBOX. I don't want to have to have my XBOX games just discarded and it's not like I can easily have all these systems plugged in. I also fear my first XBOX won't last forever, and what then?
So yes, I really want them to have backwards compatability.
So yes, I really want them to have backwards compatability.
Instead it's high end ati and high end ibm.
B/C is not being coined as bad, it's just being coined as "will it be used just as much if we installed a cigarette lighter on our front plate". ok well not that extreme... but Microsoft right now is playing back on their brainstorm tables whether it's an investment they should take or one they shouldn't. Oh and no they aren't stepping back, they're stepping up
B/C is not being coined as bad, it's just being coined as "will it be used just as much if we installed a cigarette lighter on our front plate". ok well not that extreme... but Microsoft right now is playing back on their brainstorm tables whether it's an investment they should take or one they shouldn't. Oh and no they aren't stepping back, they're stepping up
MightyHedgehog
Member
Wow...this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket. IMO, there are too many people in here that are just out to bitch about the potential lack of backward compatibility when they are the same people, IMO, that would never buy the XBOX 2 based on who manufactures it. The potential for an add-on is still there.
As others have already said, I'd like the most bang for my buck with the new systems, and if that means no BC, fine. It's purely a convenience and hardly what I'd say is necessary. No room by your setup for multiple consoles? Pack them away and only pull them out when you want to use them, as I do. Not going to buy the system because of a lack of BC built-in? Don't buy it then. If the new games on the new system are worthy, it should hardly matter if BC isn't included. BC is a nice option, but that's all it is.
As for a mass storage device...I think there'll be something available on-system, or as an extra, like a huge-ass memory card. Obviously, there needs to be something to hold downloadable content and to support MMORPGs and such. If this system's DX10-level, wouldn't there be some sort of HDD-like space for using virtual video memory? I don't see MS dropping the Custom Soundtrack feature.
In any case, there's been way too much stupid hate on a system that there's been virtually nothing made known as fact about.
As others have already said, I'd like the most bang for my buck with the new systems, and if that means no BC, fine. It's purely a convenience and hardly what I'd say is necessary. No room by your setup for multiple consoles? Pack them away and only pull them out when you want to use them, as I do. Not going to buy the system because of a lack of BC built-in? Don't buy it then. If the new games on the new system are worthy, it should hardly matter if BC isn't included. BC is a nice option, but that's all it is.
As for a mass storage device...I think there'll be something available on-system, or as an extra, like a huge-ass memory card. Obviously, there needs to be something to hold downloadable content and to support MMORPGs and such. If this system's DX10-level, wouldn't there be some sort of HDD-like space for using virtual video memory? I don't see MS dropping the Custom Soundtrack feature.
In any case, there's been way too much stupid hate on a system that there's been virtually nothing made known as fact about.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
How about they find some creative use for that hardware used for backwards comaptibility, something that makes it useful in general and not just for playing the old games, so it's not just 'extra expense' anymore? OK, I know they are not exactly in the position to do that now, but noone was beating them with the stick to go away from Intel and nVidia.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Too true, m0dus. Still, it's better than the other forums out there...and I cut my teeth on usenet...where stupidity is even higher than that of GameFAQs land...
See, that's the great thing about capitalism, aaaaa0 - I don't have to look at it that way. I'm a consumer in a free market, not a member of a socialist community. I get to be demanding and say I want both because its not my problem that MS burnt some bridges with their previous tech partners and didn't act with sufficient foresight when engineering their hardware entrance into this marketplace. I look around and see a number of the most succesful tech products have established a precedent for BC, among them MS products - Gameboy, Playstation, DVD and the Windows OS, etc. - and I as a consumer have benefitted in each case. So I'm not compelled to feel sympathy for MS' plight just because they're having difficulty living up to my expectations which they helped set with along with other tech products in the first place.
lets put it like this. would you rather MS charge you $249 for a console with ok graphics that will look "meh" when ps3 and revolution hit BUT have your hard drive and backward compatibility on your FAILED, STOP GAP console OR would you rather MS charge you $249 for hardware so powerful that when ps3 and n5 hit, not only will the graphics and tech STILL compete BUT it will outperform the other 2 because devs have been working on it longer? Even throw in a hard drive accessory for $50-$80 bux IF YOU CHOOSE to get it?
Evolution VIII
Banned
Neutron Night said:
Exactly how does not having backward compatibility make Xbox2 a weak system?
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
Not pointing anyone out in particular, but why do some think that the Xbox is going to be as or more powerful that the next gen Nintendo/Sony machine? I just don't follow the logic that MS is eliminating the excessive features (Hard Disc and Backwards Compatibility) but will maintain a edge graphic wise.
SolidSnakex
Member
Evolution VIII said:
It doesn't make it technically weak, it makes it weak in terms of consumer interest when you consider both Sony and Nintendo next systems will allow you to play games from their previous systems on it. MS is trying to compete with them right? Why are they going to give them a leg up on them? You can argue how much of an advantage it is, but it's still an advantage.
MightyHedgehog
Member
olubode said:
Although their efforts this time around are about ensuring better deals and a better ability to drop in cost faster, as compared to the hardware deals made to create the XBOX 1, they're very likely going to pay more for their console up-front than the others to maintain competitive hardware. Launching as early as a year (or six months if PS3 does it Japan in Spring '06) before your competitors obviously might lead them to have less-capable hardware. MS knows it cannot afford to be perceived too far behind if it wants to be considered in the same league. It's really common sense to me, given the obvious possibilities.
MS can certainly afford to lose more upfront than the others and, IMO, will. However, it's not going to be a constant issue about the pricing of the components that will be used to create the new system, as they will be able to go to more people to look into negotiating lower prices for the supply of components, themselves. This was never really possible with the deals they made on the XBOX 1 -- they used other companies' proprietary tech and could only go to nVidia and Intel for them. With XBOX 2, MS owns the majority of the technology because they are designing the bulk of the system and funding ATI, IBM, and others for the initial manufacture of these new components. After that, they can shop around for better deals because they own the tech this time.
Evolution VIII
Banned
olubode said:
There really isn't a difference in graphical prowess now, and I don't think there will be much of a difference in graphical prowess on the future systems. And I'm pretty sure that MS, Sony, and Nintendo knows this (Iwata already said that most consumers are indifferent to graphics now) and the future consoles will have to do things that will set them apart from the crowd, whether it be some innovative feature or a low-cost platform.
SolidSnakex said:
It isn't that much of an advantage considering that Sony is offering it now, but never makes a point about advertising it as an advantage of PS2 over the other systems.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
Evolution VIII said:
do note that in the next gen machines, all of them will have advanced lighting, all of them will have high poly counts, all of them *should* have the same IQ.
IQ and pixel shaders is what pretty much seperated PS2 from Xbox and GC. Once you add those 3 in, well... possibly 1 year difference in creating a console... 7 months if you include manufacture time... even less when you work in other things like changing of plans, etc. Plus the Xbox 2 is supposed to be using the R600, which at that time will be part of the generational part and not an upgrade part. I think that they'll be extremely close in the end.
IQ and pixel shaders is what pretty much seperated PS2 from Xbox and GC. Once you add those 3 in, well... possibly 1 year difference in creating a console... 7 months if you include manufacture time... even less when you work in other things like changing of plans, etc. Plus the Xbox 2 is supposed to be using the R600, which at that time will be part of the generational part and not an upgrade part. I think that they'll be extremely close in the end.
olubode said:
what does backward compatibility and a hard drive have to do with power? if anything they take away from the power because its wasted money. look at the gamecube. you could kinda look at it as an xbox with no hard drive. its graphics arent that far off and it was $100 less at launch. if the GC woulda had DVD playback and a hard drive it woulda been $300 bucks too. you dont see people bitching about the gamecubes low price. people see it as a value.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
BeOnEdge said:
I think you missed my original point. MS is launching with HW that will be 1 year old by the time the other two hit. Plus, all signs point to MS trying to make money this time around. Before others posted, I didn't understand how MS was going to have more powerful HW when launching **BEFORE** PS3/N5 **AND** trying to make a profitable console. Evo pointed out what Iwata said about power being pretty much even next gen, and I am inclined to believe that over MS having the HW advantage this time.
Okay...so now I'm an idiot who's spreading misconceptions?
I admit, I worded it goffily by saying that Microsoft was going for a low-cost model with the next system. What I *meant* was cost effective model as you've said element. BUT, in doing this they'll be losing the power edge (spec-wise) and they'll lose BC (no nVidea/Intell chips). My point still stands: the next X-BOX will be the least powerful of the three 'cos A) it'll be coming out WAY before the other systems and B) it won't be built in the same way the first X-BOX was. I really don't blame Microsoft for changing thier system architecture, they'll be bleeding money all the way and up until they stop making the first X-BOX, but it's thier own fault for doing it, and I think it's unfair to condition your audience to expect the BEST, then cut them short by launching the next system with less features and less power just so that they can make investors happy and get some kind of "headstart" on the competition. I can see their point of view, and I can see your point of view (since you already own an X-BOX and see the lack of BC as "no biggy"), but beyond the shareholders, beyond Microsoft and beyond the X-BOT's there's the rest of the market who will see the Next X-BOX as less than the current one.
My arguments aren't JUST about the lack of BC ('cos I agree, it's not a make or break feature), my arguments are as follows:
-this generation they've groomed thier fans into expecting the MOST power and the BEST graphics...they lose that next generation
-they've also used the Microsoft name to have them believe in this notion of a featureful more than just games set-top-box, but with going with a profit-minded model they can't do as such anymore
-and finally a big argument I have is coming out early is CUTTING SHORT the current X-BOX console and will leave a bad taste in some people's mouths while making on-lookers werry into following Microsoft 'cos a late 2005 will be seen as quite premature (especially without the lack of BC to help the transition)
They shoulda worked out thier differences with nVidea or they shoulda never worked them in the first place. They shoulda foreseen problems like this (certainly they couldn't predict it, but ya know). They shouldn't have been so arrogant as to come into console business gunz'a'blazin' carelessly bleeding money on "a generation ahead" of off-the-shelf, fixed-cost PC parts.
The arrogance I saw in Microsoft then reminds me of the arrogance of Nintendo in the pre-N64 days: "we don't need no stinkin' third parties, we got us the Dream Team". And it's odd how they've gone with the same kind of cost-effective system architecture method that Nintendo had gone with pre-GAMECUBE as well as thier "just games" attitude as of late. I just wonder how, ultimatly, this will effect how people look at them in gaming and how thier fans will react. This generation there was a boastful confident and arrogant MS coming in to "take over" and people followed that notion and the power of the X-BOX helped justify it, but now MS is saying an industry standerd feature like "BC is un-important, games games games, new system next year so we can get a headstart, XNA will fix everything, power isn't that important" all while cutting this generation short just to do it? To me this isn't very confident, to me it makes them look like they're desperate to get a headstart thinking it will solve everything even if it means killing an industry standerd feature, losing the power edge (that they used to garner thier support this generation) and cutting short thier current system. Again, like Nintendo (who probably thought pre-GAMECUBE) that all they would have to do is switch to disc's and everything would be hunky-dorey. No it's not that simple.
It seems the first time somone faces Sony they don't think they're much of a threat so they boastfully drudge forward anyways, the second time they look at ways to gain some kind of advantage all while cutting back on the confidence 'cos they know they just got thier asses handed to them the first time...it'll be interesting to see Nintendo (the first one) to go against Sony a third time. It'll also be interesting to see what Microsoft does once thier headstart back-up plan either blows up in thier face (if it's seen as too premature) or doesn't pan out in the wake of the PS3 hype. In order for a headstart to make a difference I think you have to have alot of momentum and alot of support from the industry and from consumers...and with the way it's looking now the next X-BOX (less features, premature and no power edge) won't have much of either.
Please X-BOX enthusiests, list all the possitives TO THE CONSUMER (not just to Microsoft) for not including BC...seriously, list them 'cos I can only think of the negatives. Even if you get creative and spin, spin, spin with the possitives I still see the market as a whole seeing the lack of this feature as a nagative when they weigh in the good vs. the bad. Image means alot...look at Nintendo, they didn't have DVD play-back (a pretty much useless feature to most people...even then) in GAMECUBE and 'cos of it (as well as other factors of course) no one really took them seriously.
I admit, I worded it goffily by saying that Microsoft was going for a low-cost model with the next system. What I *meant* was cost effective model as you've said element. BUT, in doing this they'll be losing the power edge (spec-wise) and they'll lose BC (no nVidea/Intell chips). My point still stands: the next X-BOX will be the least powerful of the three 'cos A) it'll be coming out WAY before the other systems and B) it won't be built in the same way the first X-BOX was. I really don't blame Microsoft for changing thier system architecture, they'll be bleeding money all the way and up until they stop making the first X-BOX, but it's thier own fault for doing it, and I think it's unfair to condition your audience to expect the BEST, then cut them short by launching the next system with less features and less power just so that they can make investors happy and get some kind of "headstart" on the competition. I can see their point of view, and I can see your point of view (since you already own an X-BOX and see the lack of BC as "no biggy"), but beyond the shareholders, beyond Microsoft and beyond the X-BOT's there's the rest of the market who will see the Next X-BOX as less than the current one.
My arguments aren't JUST about the lack of BC ('cos I agree, it's not a make or break feature), my arguments are as follows:
-this generation they've groomed thier fans into expecting the MOST power and the BEST graphics...they lose that next generation
-they've also used the Microsoft name to have them believe in this notion of a featureful more than just games set-top-box, but with going with a profit-minded model they can't do as such anymore
-and finally a big argument I have is coming out early is CUTTING SHORT the current X-BOX console and will leave a bad taste in some people's mouths while making on-lookers werry into following Microsoft 'cos a late 2005 will be seen as quite premature (especially without the lack of BC to help the transition)
They shoulda worked out thier differences with nVidea or they shoulda never worked them in the first place. They shoulda foreseen problems like this (certainly they couldn't predict it, but ya know). They shouldn't have been so arrogant as to come into console business gunz'a'blazin' carelessly bleeding money on "a generation ahead" of off-the-shelf, fixed-cost PC parts.
The arrogance I saw in Microsoft then reminds me of the arrogance of Nintendo in the pre-N64 days: "we don't need no stinkin' third parties, we got us the Dream Team". And it's odd how they've gone with the same kind of cost-effective system architecture method that Nintendo had gone with pre-GAMECUBE as well as thier "just games" attitude as of late. I just wonder how, ultimatly, this will effect how people look at them in gaming and how thier fans will react. This generation there was a boastful confident and arrogant MS coming in to "take over" and people followed that notion and the power of the X-BOX helped justify it, but now MS is saying an industry standerd feature like "BC is un-important, games games games, new system next year so we can get a headstart, XNA will fix everything, power isn't that important" all while cutting this generation short just to do it? To me this isn't very confident, to me it makes them look like they're desperate to get a headstart thinking it will solve everything even if it means killing an industry standerd feature, losing the power edge (that they used to garner thier support this generation) and cutting short thier current system. Again, like Nintendo (who probably thought pre-GAMECUBE) that all they would have to do is switch to disc's and everything would be hunky-dorey. No it's not that simple.
It seems the first time somone faces Sony they don't think they're much of a threat so they boastfully drudge forward anyways, the second time they look at ways to gain some kind of advantage all while cutting back on the confidence 'cos they know they just got thier asses handed to them the first time...it'll be interesting to see Nintendo (the first one) to go against Sony a third time. It'll also be interesting to see what Microsoft does once thier headstart back-up plan either blows up in thier face (if it's seen as too premature) or doesn't pan out in the wake of the PS3 hype. In order for a headstart to make a difference I think you have to have alot of momentum and alot of support from the industry and from consumers...and with the way it's looking now the next X-BOX (less features, premature and no power edge) won't have much of either.
Please X-BOX enthusiests, list all the possitives TO THE CONSUMER (not just to Microsoft) for not including BC...seriously, list them 'cos I can only think of the negatives. Even if you get creative and spin, spin, spin with the possitives I still see the market as a whole seeing the lack of this feature as a nagative when they weigh in the good vs. the bad. Image means alot...look at Nintendo, they didn't have DVD play-back (a pretty much useless feature to most people...even then) in GAMECUBE and 'cos of it (as well as other factors of course) no one really took them seriously.
SolidSnakex
Member
Evolution VIII said:
It's because people know it has the ability to play those games now. They did advertise and hype the backwards compatibility option when the system was first launching. Just like Nintendo will hype the backwards compatibility option for the DS when it's released as something it has over the PSP.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Dude, Gakman, all you spit out is negativity. The way you post makes baby Jesus cry.
Evolution VIII
Banned
SolidSnakex said:
But that wasn't something they advertised to the masses. It was mentioned at a couple of tradeshows, but Sony never made it a point to advertise the BC feature of the PS2 so not to take away marketshare from the PS2. The DS will have backwards compatibility, but its something that Nintendo doesn't advertise as well. The BC feature is actually a feature that will get consumers who generally sit on the fence with new technology to get an incentive to purchase the new technology earlier than what they need to.
MightyHedgehog said:
Hey...I can be quite possitive, but I was asking YOU (and other), the X-BOX fan what are the possitives of having no BC in the system to the end consumer?
One I could see is that it would keep the cost down on the next X-BOX and that by the time PS3 comes out the next X-BOX could be up to $100 cheaper...
..but, by the time PS3 comes will the premature headstart have worked without BC? And when Revolution & PS3 can do it and the next X-BOX cannot...does the $100 cheaper bit make much of a difference?
Only time will tell, but I STILL believe that the negative outweigh any sort of possitive.
i can almost without a doubt say that the HD and BC are dropped so MS wont become the weakest system. they arent that stupid. they know that they had the edge this gen because of the power and the package. dropping components that dont help tech wise saves money and keeps investors happy as well has keeping the gfx gap as mininal as possible. XNA minimized that gap even more. all you have to do is peice the puzzle together to see what MS is doing. its really isnt that hard.
XNA-squeezes the absolute most out of the hardware and gets devs a headstart on tools that will/can be used from XB to PC
Advanced ATI graphics-Chipset 1/2 to 1 step above what will be availible for PC at the time(possibly). Devs will use XNA to use the system to the fullest. did you ever think you'd see riddick on a 733mhz celeron with a geforce 3? NO. Dont even lie.
No HD/BC-helps put that extra $60-$80 in hardware costs towards RAM and more powerful graphics.
Xbox LIVE factor-X1 is just a big test. XBL ver. 3 and so on and so fourth will all help in design of XBL for X2. Those with XBL have PCs. PCs have Hard Drives. Hard Drives that can be networked to your X2. If you dont wanna do all that or dont have a PC, mp3/hard drive lifestyle accessory will become availible seperately.
You can also look at it like this. How far apart are XB and GCs graphics chipsets? I'd almost think the GCs is newer or superior (ati vs nvidia) but in the end, it doesnt matter. they are both pretty much on par with eachother.
XNA-squeezes the absolute most out of the hardware and gets devs a headstart on tools that will/can be used from XB to PC
Advanced ATI graphics-Chipset 1/2 to 1 step above what will be availible for PC at the time(possibly). Devs will use XNA to use the system to the fullest. did you ever think you'd see riddick on a 733mhz celeron with a geforce 3? NO. Dont even lie.
No HD/BC-helps put that extra $60-$80 in hardware costs towards RAM and more powerful graphics.
Xbox LIVE factor-X1 is just a big test. XBL ver. 3 and so on and so fourth will all help in design of XBL for X2. Those with XBL have PCs. PCs have Hard Drives. Hard Drives that can be networked to your X2. If you dont wanna do all that or dont have a PC, mp3/hard drive lifestyle accessory will become availible seperately.
You can also look at it like this. How far apart are XB and GCs graphics chipsets? I'd almost think the GCs is newer or superior (ati vs nvidia) but in the end, it doesnt matter. they are both pretty much on par with eachother.
Smiles and Cries
Member
next week we will find out
Revolution has no BC
I want to read that threadopcorn:
Revolution has no BC
I want to read that thread
opcorn:This whole thread is kinda pointless...
... but consumers will definetly notice if xb2 is missing the HD, they will also notice BC in Sony and Nintendo's systems, both will also have some form of conectivity, both have also been talking about changing the ways games are played, etc and so on. Microsoft just needs some eye catching features to be even with the competition in the consumers eye's, otherwise it going to be realy had to sell.
... but consumers will definetly notice if xb2 is missing the HD, they will also notice BC in Sony and Nintendo's systems, both will also have some form of conectivity, both have also been talking about changing the ways games are played, etc and so on. Microsoft just needs some eye catching features to be even with the competition in the consumers eye's, otherwise it going to be realy had to sell.
MightyHedgehog
Member
DrGAKMAN said:
Having not to worry about including BC as a standard feature of the system is both a financial and development decision. MS' X2 team can focus on the actual hardware that will run the new games, as it should be. Remember, there's always the possibility of an add-on. For the average gamer, IMO, it will allow them to choose to pay for that option, instead of being saddled with a feature that they might not want and might not want to pay for. It's choice. It's always nice to have more features in a system, but BC, IMO, is not a real major reason to want the system. I like to base console purchases on the new games that they will offer to me...now or in the near future. For myself, I already own the XBOX, so BC is a petty requirement of the new one.
OK, this is what I still don't agree with. When the hell did backward compatibility become so important as to decide for the majority of gamers that they will base a new-console purchase by its inclusion? Most gamers don't give two flying fucks about BC when buying a new system, because they are buying that new system for new and cool stuff made for that new system. They're called system-sellers. Those are far more important than buidling in the ability to play old games and system-sellers are more directly responsible for system sales and system enjoyment.
Yes, as it is quite obvious that you will never own the new XBOX system...why the fuck do you care to spend so much time bashing it? Just start threads about how you think the new Nintendo or Sony machine will kick ass. At least, that's positive and seems to have some sort of personal importance.
BeOnEdge...
Okay, so you're possitive is that the money saved on no BC & no HD means they can put that towards specs that matter more so that the hardware "gap" won't be seen as much.
While that's yet to be proven (I think the specs would be locked down by now if they're launching so early), I can see that as a possitive. But could they do it? Like save themself some "breathing room" in the profits of the system so that if PS3 ends up having alot more RAM than they thought they can compensate by lowering profit margins or going into the red on each console sold? To me, this could be kinda hard to pull off due to manufacturing time if they plan to have such a headstart. Also, what if Sony just plays the waiting game and doesn't reveal the specs until like it's too late for Microsoft to make changes? You can't keep jerking dev kits around and going back to the drawing board, it's just bad business.
I'm not a hype-monger nor a Sony fan, but what if the Cell really IS that powerful and nothing Microsoft does a year a head of time could make a difference to be shown and the hardware "gap" is as noticable as PS2 vs. X-BOX or moreso? I think Sony could be waiting 'til 2007 for several strategic reasons and one specifically to make sure it's hardware is undoubtably the best...then no amount of adjusting will make a difference for the X-BOX Next.
To me, Microsoft should wait to see what they're up against, fully finnish their first hardware cycle and keep that userbase happy and abandon this premature headstart plan...really, it'll just make them look desperate in the eyes of consumers.
Okay, so you're possitive is that the money saved on no BC & no HD means they can put that towards specs that matter more so that the hardware "gap" won't be seen as much.
While that's yet to be proven (I think the specs would be locked down by now if they're launching so early), I can see that as a possitive. But could they do it? Like save themself some "breathing room" in the profits of the system so that if PS3 ends up having alot more RAM than they thought they can compensate by lowering profit margins or going into the red on each console sold? To me, this could be kinda hard to pull off due to manufacturing time if they plan to have such a headstart. Also, what if Sony just plays the waiting game and doesn't reveal the specs until like it's too late for Microsoft to make changes? You can't keep jerking dev kits around and going back to the drawing board, it's just bad business.
I'm not a hype-monger nor a Sony fan, but what if the Cell really IS that powerful and nothing Microsoft does a year a head of time could make a difference to be shown and the hardware "gap" is as noticable as PS2 vs. X-BOX or moreso? I think Sony could be waiting 'til 2007 for several strategic reasons and one specifically to make sure it's hardware is undoubtably the best...then no amount of adjusting will make a difference for the X-BOX Next.
To me, Microsoft should wait to see what they're up against, fully finnish their first hardware cycle and keep that userbase happy and abandon this premature headstart plan...really, it'll just make them look desperate in the eyes of consumers.
Your sympathy doesn't enter into the equation.
From MS's strategic standpoint, MS has a simple choice. Since they are launching first, and since the cost of backwards compatibility is not zero, they can either make xenon less powerful and have backwards compatibility, or more powerful and not have backwards compatibility.
Given the choice, I'd tell MS to go for the second -- assuming the extra resources freed up by dumping BC could make enough of a difference in perceived performance against the PS3 so that any advantage the PS3 had in speed would effectively be nullified.
That's one of the only reasons I think MS would dump BC BTW. MS is normally known for being a company obsessive about backwards compatibility. If they're dumping it, they're dumping it for a very good reason.
From a consumer standpoint, BC won't matter to me one whit if xenon games are a quantum leap from this generation, a year before I can get anything remotely similar from anyone else.
If xenon can go from xbox generation graphics and gameplay to Unreal Engine 3.0++ quality at HDTV resolutions, 12 months before anyone else can, I'd call that a compelling reason to buy one even without BC.
i dont see how the specs are locked down when the graphics stuff isnt even here yet on PC. isnt the stuff in x2 set to hit PC next summer? or was it this summer? r600 or whatever. gak, if the cell really IS that powerful, i can guarantee that power will come with a price. even at $50 more than x2, if its not a HUGE jump in graphics, it might not help.
SolidSnakex
Member
Evolution VIII said:
It's still an advantage though. The advantage MS is going for is that they're going to be launching first. I ask you, when has launching first ever been an "advantage"? Every system that's launched first and had competition soon after has lost. Sony's got the most momentum, they're going to have backwards compatibility with what will probably be the 2 highest selling console sever, their system will be stronger due to the later launch ect. MS is basically giving Sony advantages by not including stuff like BC.
Duckhuntdog
Member
BeOnEdge said:
And it didn't really win either.
MightyHedgehog
Member
But all that mattered with the Genesis was that it was competitive, despite being two years older in its technology. It was competitive because of the games.
SolidSnakex
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
It was also just those 2 competing, there are 3 competing now. One is pretty dominant and the other are fairly even in competition. You'll have 2 systems that are more pwoerful and 2 systems that are able to play the games from their previous systems.
DrGAKMAN said:
In that case why not wait until 2009 to release xbox next, to take advantage of the two year performance gap?
You can play this waiting game forever. I say just do it. The differences between the consoles of the next generation aren't going to be as evident compared with the difference between current generation and the next.
If you can get out there first, be the first with the generational leap, and not be significantly slower than the next guy, have the games, have the online service, have the price, I don't think people will wait two years until 2007 for some uber-Sony machine.
Similar threads
- Poll