Support NeoGAF

[MightyHedgehog]

Again, I don't see BC being a big factor. I don't see the difference in capability being all that great...and I certainly don't buy into the new Sony being the all-powerful system it is speculated to be. I think reality will eventually prove that all of the consoles are within striking distance of each other, technologically. The exclusive games and experiences available to each are going to do more to decide who will be dominant in the next-gen. It won't be this gen, where very distinct visual elements are what can easily separate the system's perceived visual capability and power. For example, XBOX has made ample use of bump-mapping effects and stencil effects, while the others either weren't capable of doing them, or they simply had a more difficult time in doing them in the same example. They should all be able to do the same things, with much less difference in their ability to do them.

 

[DDayton]

At the risk of being bashed over the head an accused of trolling...

Other than Halo and Halo 2, are there really enough Xbox games with the long term draw that would make anyone CARE about backwards compatibility?

The PS2 and the GC have many more games with "long term" playability and interest (RPGs, platformers, etc..) -- backwards compatibility is a really big plus for those systems. The Xbox really doesn't have anywhere near as many "first tier" games that would necessitate backwards compatibility to the same degree...

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Heh, ::looks up at P90's post and nods::

Quite, Xbot!

 

[aaaaa0]

It won't be this gen, where very distinct visual elements are what can easily separate the system's perceived visual capability and power. For example, XBOX has made ample use of bump-mapping effects and stencil effects, while the others either weren't capable of doing them, or they simply had a more difficult time in doing them in the same example. They should all be able to do the same things, with much less difference in their ability to do them.

Yup, IMHO that's exactly it. Everyone's going to have similar raw technical capabilities next generation. If you can get close enough to the other guys performance, it won't make any difference if you're slightly slower than him.

In that case, it's having the right games, the right online service, at the right price, first that's going to make all the difference.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Again, I don't see BC being a big factor. I don't see the difference in capability being all that great...and I certainly don't buy into the new Sony being the all-powerful system it is speculated to be. I think reality will eventually prove that all of the consoles are within striking distance of each other, technologically. The exclusive games and experiences available to each are going to do more to decide who will be dominant in the next-gen.

It's hard to judge just how important BC is, but both Sony and Nintendo are doing it so considering they're veterans of the industry i'd say it's pretty important or else they wouldn't make sure to include it.

As for Sony's next system in terms of power. It might not be as strong as speculation has said (although I wouldn't completely doubt it as they've delivered with the PSP graphics). But they will be better. It will be an advantage that Sony can hang over MS' head among other things. MS is basically just giving Sony and Nintendo advantages while they really don't have any at the moment other than something that's really never been much of an advantage. It might be good in other industries to get your product out first, but it's proven to not be that way in gaming.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

There are lots and lots of games that I can see myself playing for system after it has moved on. Still, I don't see XBOX 1 losing major software support until a year or two after the new system has launched. I think there will be decent XBOX 1 software-support released well into 2007. I don't see MS and others dumping the existing system when the next is released...after all, that's cash on the table they're walking away from.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

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.

You would think that maybe I'm a Sony fan, but far from it...but I'm also very realistic. Cutting short the current X-BOX with a premature launch of the next is NOT going to make a difference versus PS3. I'm not saying there's nothing Microsoft can do, but if I were them I certainly wouldn't be launching a new system so early (especially without BC to help the transition) just for some headstart crutch against a market leader. It just pisses off your current fanbase (deep down, don't deny it...no one wants a system to lat only 3 to 4 years). If I were Microsoft I would wait and watch and make Sony nervous by matching them power for power, feature for feature and I'd launch as close to them as possible. But that's just me. Again, my arguments go beyond JUST the lack of BC, but continue to ignore them and instead pick on this 'cos it's oh so easy to spin it and make no big deal about a feature (as you, a current X-BOX owner) don't really even need.

My friend just bought an X-BOX and he's pissed that PD Zero may quite possibly be moved to the next X-BOX...not only that but other projects will be moved to it as well. And while I told him not to buy an X-BOX he (and I can see others) buying this current X-BOX not knowing that come next year Microsoft themselves will be phasing it out too soon. And he can't trade it in to help pay for the next without losing access to the current X-BOX library with it. And if they offer an add-on for BC he said: "why buy it when Sony & Nintendo will be supplying it basically for free in their next systems?"

And no I didn't make this friend up 'cos I know that there's also people out there who'll give a rats ass about all this or are so carefree with thier money that they'll buy the next X-BOX anyways, but I'd say there's a good CHUNK of the current X-BOX fanbase and potential fanbase that Microsoft will have pissed away 'cos of this strategy they're going for now.

Why am I so adamently posting this "anti-X-BOX" sentiment?...'cos it sorta sickens me at how you guys are deffending Microsoft in this. What the hell is this, stand by your box? Do you want shorter system life-cycles? Do you want less features in newer investments? Do you want to support a company who is more concerned with getting some kind of monopolistic advantage over their competition and satisfying their shareholders than giving their fans what they want (and that they pretty much trained them to want only to take away)? Do you want a company who can't come clean and say: "we screwed up, we can't have BC in the next X-BOX 'cos it would cost way to much 'cos we didn't plan ahead for this" instead of: "only (insert random pulled from ass #) truly want BC so we don't think it's really important"?

Lemme guess, you're gonna ignore everything I just said and come back with: "well der, Sony & Nintendo said bla bla bla and do bad stuff too" doesn't make my arguments wrong.

 

[Pug]

In the end it will be all down to games. People on this board would be suprised how many developers in the UK are shifting their focus to the next gen machines now. And i don't mean in planning they are moving into development now or within weeks. Its not and never has been about console features as many casual gamers (95% of the market) have no idea what an GPU or many other technical buff is. Its all about games. This always gets lost when new hardware is approaching and although it would be nice for XB to have a BC function, if MS has done its market research as it no doubt has and its found the function to be under utilised by many it may as well focus that cash saving in other departments of the console. BC is neither here nor there, (and certaintly not a reason not to buy a machine) I have never used it on PS2, nor has any other person I know, still its nice to have. Look at it this way would you have left that nice gleaming PS2 on the shelve on launch day (or when ever) because it didn't have BC. And then miss all those great games? Nah cause not, its games that will determine Xbox Next future not a function such as BC.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It's hard to judge just how important BC is, but both Sony and Nintendo are doing it so considering they're veterans of the industry i'd say it's pretty important or else they wouldn't make sure to include it.

Again, an add-on can still be possible...making this mostly a moot subject.

As for Sony's next system in terms of power. It might not be as strong as speculation has said (although I wouldn't completely doubt it as they've delivered with the PSP graphics). But they will be better. It will be an advantage that Sony can hang over MS' head among other things. MS is basically just giving Sony and Nintendo advantages while they really don't have any at the moment other than something that's really never been much of an advantage. It might be good in other industries to get your product out first, but it's proven to not be that way in gaming.

Yes, but as has been proven by the XBOX itself, being perceived as the most technologically advanced in a generation, no matter the difference, isn't going to make a massive difference in its popularity...again, it's the games. The same holds true for the PS1, the NES, the GB, and the PS2. As long as you can pretty much hang with the rest visually, games are what you use to win the 'war.' I don't see any real advantage given to the competition when you are in the market building a software library and installed base before they are. You are controlling them at this point. No amount of technology will change the fact that games are the reason you buy a system.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Gakman, I don't feel the same as you and I don't see the problem as you obviously do.

 

[Evolution VIII]

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.

Not really. If you were to poll a bunch of regular gamers who don't spend as much time as us on gamesites and playing games, they would probably say that BC is not that important to them. Launching first is not an advantage, and neither is BC. If all of the hardware manufacturers removed the feature, would the industry suffer as a result? Probably not.

 

[SolidSnakex]

In the end it will be all down to games.

See it doesn't make much sense for MS to claim this and then they don't have BC.

I really wonder if MS really even knows what they're doing. With the Xbox 2 they're basically turning their back on everything they hyped the Xbox on. The harddrive the amount of power the system had in comparison to the others. Now they're basically just saying "Oh that was all wrong, but we've got it right this time". Now they're going for a more barebones approach for some reason or another. It kinda seems like they're desperate just to get anything to be #1, and since they have so much money they think they can just retry and retry (while pulling their consoles early for new ones) till they get it right.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

See it doesn't make much sense for MS to claim this and then they don't have BC.

No, it actually makes a lot of sense. Why focus on old existing games, when you can focus on making a console that will be better capable of delivering new games?

I really wonder if MS really even knows what they're doing. With the Xbox 2 they're basically turning their back on everything they hyped the Xbox on. The harddrive the amount of power the system had in comparison to the others. Now they're basically just saying "Oh that was all wrong, but we've got it right this time". Now they're going for a more barebones approach for some reason or another. It kinda seems like they're desperate just to get anything to be #1, and since they have so much money they think they can just retry and retry (while pulling their consoles early for new ones) till they get it right.

Who said it was barebones? Do we even know what the differences are between the systems? Maybe you feel 'ripped off' but I don't. I've gotten so much time into the XBOX and there's more to come.

 

[jarrod]

No, it actually makes a lot of sense. Why focus on old existing games, when you can focus on making a console that will be better capable of delivering new games?

Well why not both? Why give Nintendo/Sony another advantage?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well why not both? Why give Nintendo/Sony another advantage?

Exactly, why limit the amount of games they can play if it's all about games?

"Who said it was barebones? Do we even know what the differences are between the systems?"

Well most reports seem to say it's not going to have the harddrive, so in that way it will be barebones. It's especialyl going to be barebones in comparison to Sony and probably Nintendo's consoles too.

 

[Kintaro]

And in the end, if Xbox 2 has the games, people will buy it. BC or no.

All that really matters in the end in my eyes.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Who says it's a real advantage? We'll see if it actually matters in the end. It's a small advantage, but ultimately unimportant reason to own a system, IMO. I'm not against the inclusion of BC in a system, but again, it doesn't really matter to me. In my years of video game retail and my own personal experience, it isn't a big deal for a vast majority of people. They're more concerned with that new GTA, or new Mario, or new whatever, rather than playing old games that they can and probably still play on their old systems. I've not met anyone that bought a new system because it was capable of playing the old systems. That may have been one reason, but certainly not the reason they were purchasing it. It's always been that new game they just have to play...and the only way to play it is on the new system.

If you don't want to buy a new system because it doesn't offer backward compatibility like another, fine. I don't think like that. I don't think a vast majority of people do. In cases such as the GB and Windows, it makes sense, especially when they're really the only game in town, so to speak.

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

I think Microsoft did some things right with the original xbox. They made a system that was more powerful than the others and has a HD.
Now they seem to be putting out a system that could have NO HD, it'll be less powerful than the ps3(although, who knows how noticable that'll be), and it won't be backwards compatable perhaps.
Here's my theory: Xbox straight up lacked quality titles for long stretches. The people who bought it back then were just going for the best hardware. If ps3 is the best hardware those people might not stay with Microsoft unless Microsoft stops putzing around with games it publishes and maybe buys a few of these developers that will become available if eidos or universal unravel so they can sure fire unload consistant quality first party like Sony.
If xbox doesn't have momentum come xbox2 launch, it'll be ugly man. I mean what'll happen when ps3 has the best looking Splinter Cell AND MGS...
If the ps2 was a little more powerful, a little more analogous to x86 architecture and vaible for easy ports the xbox would be about as popular as the atari jaguar.
If Sony could rig a ps3 that is easy to port PC games onto then Microsoft could have problems unless they buy off the PC devs they really like to ensure loyalty.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Well alot of gamers are still kids, or teens without jobs so they don't have the luxury of just buying every system released and not having to worry about what extra features it might have. So they have to go for which ones are going to give them the most for their money, if you've got the PS3 and GC2 for example that both allow you to play previous systems games plus new ones that's a big plus. Especially if they have a PS2 or GC that they can use as trade in for a PS3 or GC2.

Here's a little quote from a Famitsu editor on BC:

"Dragon Quest VII was published after the launch of PlayStation 2, but you could still play it on PlayStation 2. That was a big thing at the time. [Dragon Quest VII was the all-time best-selling PlayStation game in Japan.]"

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/505/505904p2.html

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Solid...
I think they look desperate too. Like they're going for a clean slate and re-thinking everything they do. I made that comparrison before, like how Nintendo was trying to make a clean slate with GAMECUBE by finally using disc's, but while they thought that's all they needed to do there was SO much more they needed to do. Likewise, Microsoft is going for a (GAMECUBE-esque) cost effective, games only approach with the headstart being their "advantage" against Sony 'cos Sony had a headstart on them...but it's gonna take sooooooooo much more than that.

I would say the best thing Microsoft could do (if this is truly about games) is to work something out with Sega/Sammy, SNK/Playmore, Tecmo, etc. and tailor the next X-BOX for them and get them exclussive somehow...then the hardware wouldn't matter too much 'cos of all the great exclussive content they'd be getting. Hell I would be interested in something like that AND it would hold true to this new "it's all about the games" approach Microsoft is going for. No BC, no HD, launching too early...who gives a crap it's got MS, Sega, Sammy, SNK & Tecmo games all exclussive...but that'd never happen.

In the meantime this whole "let's get the jump on Sony, that'll show 'em ha-hilk" is just desperation on their part...all while not risking too much and keeping investors happy!

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Heliocentric, I don't think this is possible in the way that you mean with the PS3 and I don't see MS buying off anyone when they can have their support anyway as long as the system is popular and easy to develop for.

As for the reasons people bought the XBOX system, who knows. I'm thinking it's still the games. Certainly, evidence suggests that.

The focus of XBL certainly means that HDD-like fuctionality will be available, standard or not.

 

[aaaaa0]

As for the reasons people bought the XBOX system, who knows. I'm thinking it's still the games. Certainly, evidence suggests that.

Precisely.

NPD data shows that 30 months into the lifespan of the DC, GC, xbox, and PS2, the console with the highest attach rate is... xbox.

Here's my theory: Xbox straight up lacked quality titles for long stretches. The people who bought it back then were just going for the best hardware. If ps3 is the best hardware those people might not stay with Microsoft unless Microsoft stops putzing around with games it publishes and maybe buys a few of these developers that will become available if eidos or universal unravel so they can sure fire unload consistant quality first party like Sony.

Explain then, precisely why 30 months after each of their launches, the xbox has sold the most games per console?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Well alot of gamers are still kids, or teens without jobs so they don't have the luxury of just buying every system released and not having to worry about what extra features it might have. So they have to go for which ones are going to give them the most for their money, if you've got the PS3 and GC2 for example that both allow you to play previous systems games plus new ones that's a big plus. Especially if they have a PS2 or GC that they can use as trade in for a PS3 or GC2.

I agree, but, I believe, PS3 and XBOX 2 are not aimed at these people for system sales...at least, not initially. They're aimed at an older demographic (18-35) that has been shown to buy the consoles themselves more than any other. The kids can wait or they can have mommy and daddy buy them the system for XMAS.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Precisely.

NPD data shows that 30 months into the respective lifespan of the DC, GC, xbox, and PS2, the console with the highest tie ratio is... xbox.

Attach Rate Since launch of Console

PS2 - 8.4
Xbox - 6.8
DC - 6.7
GC - 6.4

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=2315&page=2&pp=50

 

[aaaaa0]

Attach Rate Since launch of Console

PS2 - 8.4
Xbox - 6.8
DC - 6.7
GC - 6.4

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=2315&page=2&pp=50

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. The PS2 has a higher total attach rate because it's been out longer.

30 months in for EACH of the consoles the tie ratios are:

xbox - 6.8 (30 months from launch)
PS2 - 6.5 (30 months from launch)
DC - 6.4 (30 months from launch)
GC 6.3 (30 months from launch)

 

[SolidSnakex]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. The PS2 has a higher total attach rate because it's been out longer.

30 months in for EACH of the consoles the tie ratios are:

xbox - 6.8 (30 months from launch)
PS2 - 6.5 (30 months from launch)
DC - 6.4 (30 months from launch)
GC 6.3 (30 months from launch)

Why does this number even matter? The one posted above is the more relevant one as it's the one that's till now. Why have a cutoff point when it's not needed?

 

[aaaaa0]

Why does this number even matter? The one posted above is the more relevant one as it's the one that's till now. Why have a cutoff point when it's not needed?

The reason it matters is because compares apples to apples.

The way you want to compare things, it's like having a 100m race where you let one guy run 20m before you let the other guy start. It's an invalid comparison.

You want to include all the software sales that the PS2 made in the first year (3.6 games per console actually) before it had any real competition in this generation?

Who says the first person out doesn't have an advantage then?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

aaaaa0

thumbs up

 

[SolidSnakex]

I agree, but, I believe, PS3 and XBOX 2 are not aimed at these people for system sales...at least, not initially. They're aimed at an older demographic (18-35) that has been shown to buy the consoles themselves more than any other. The kids can wait or they can have mommy and daddy buy them the system for XMAS.

They might not be directly aimed at them, but they're a fanbase the every console needs. There needs to be a mix of older and younger gamers. But even for the older gamers, people are now looking for products in general where you can get more for you money. That's why you're starting to see more and more "all in one" devices popping up because people would rather go to 1 thing to get a certain thing done than to have to go to several different things. It's one reason the DVD playback was a smart move this gen. Speaking of that, I wonder if they'r egoing to drop that too?

 

[Pug]

Its good to speculate, but it just gets a bit boring arguing about speculation as it tends to turn to fact. We have no idea as yet as to what, when, how powerful or not the Xbox next will be. Yep we can speculate on rumblings from MS but in the end we will have to wait. Now can we get back to playing and being intersted in games, rather than vapourware?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

They might not be directly aimed at them, but they're a fanbase the every console needs. There needs to be a mix of older and younger gamers. But even for the older gamers, people are now looking for products in general where you can get more for you money. That's why you're starting to see more and more "all in one" devices popping up because people would rather go to 1 thing to get a certain thing done than to have to go to several different things. It's one reason the DVD playback was a smart move this gen. Speaking of that, I wonder if they'r egoing to drop that too?

When the second year of a console is at hand, you tend to see a shift in the marketing and price of a console. That's when they traditionally lower the price and market the system with a lot more focus on a broad range of software that appeals to the younger demographic. It's been the way a console's marketed since the Genesis and the PS1, except for Nintendo's earlier systems. As the price drops, and the software library opens up, a console's always been more focused on the broader spectrum of potential gamers. Generally, only the hardcore player and adults are going to be buying the new system in its first year. At the relatively high price they debut at, it only makes sense.

As for the DVD thing, it was definitely a unique opportunity for Sony to take advantage of. It worked. The next wave of formats, unfortunately, are only incremental to the new solution that DVD once uniquely presented. I can certainly see HD-DVD in X2...the cost to MS isn't going to be that great...but it won't have the same effect as the PS2's DVD playback.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Its good to speculate, but it just gets a bit boring arguing about speculation as it tends to turn to fact. We have no idea as yet as to what, when, how powerful or not the Xbox next will be. Yep we can speculate on rumblings from MS but in the end we will have to wait. Now can we get back to playing and being intersted in games, rather than vapourware?

True. And yes, it's fun to argue about bullshit.

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

Explain then, precisely why 30 months after each of their launches, the xbox has sold the most games per console?

Well I didn't say that the guy who buys a console because it's the most powerful doesn't buy games. I mean without games there is no console.
But looking back upon 2001, 2002, and 2003 the xbox game library had problems.
The exclusives from that period were generally inferior to multi console releases such as Splinter Cell or anything EA does. Some of the exclusives that were respectable like Panzer Dragoon, Oddworld, and JSRF just flat out flopped. Surely people didn't buy the xbox for Nightcaster, Blinx, and Azurik. Look at the xbox games topping the charts. Often it's just the xbox version of a game also on ps2, aside from the obvious Halo and one or two others from the past 6 months. The people buying these games are buying a lot of the same games which ps2 owners also buy. The real xbox advantage is its superior hardware. When I buy a multi console game I buy it for xbox because it usually looks better on the xbox system.

If the ps3 was suddenly easy to port PC games onto, look out Microsoft.
If the PS3 has the best looking multi platform games, look out.
Imo, if Sony was smart they'd make their next system ultra PC developer friendly. heh.
Then Microsoft would have huge problems. Less powerful system, inferior multi console games, inferior PC ports, less exclusive JP content.
Microsofts big asset then would have to be games they publish as a first party. They must improve in that respect. Otherwise xbox2 could be a catastrophe of atari jaguar proportions. I doubt MS will let that happen, though. But if non gaming people are getting ancy in high MS places and xbox/MGS management becomes musical chairs, who knows.

 

[SolidSnakex]

When the second year of a console is at hand, you tend to see a shift in the marketing and price of a console. That's when they traditionally lower the price and market the system with a lot more focus on a broad range of software that appeals to the younger demographic. It's been the way a console's marketed since the Genesis and the PS1, except for Nintendo's earlier systems. As the price drops, and the software library opens up, a console's always been more focused on the broader spectrum of potential gamers. Generally, only the hardcore player and adults are going to be buying the new system in its first year. At the relatively high price they debut at, it only makes sense.

Even when the pricedrop and the marketing toward broader audiences begins, does that make the more options competing systems allow any less interesting? You've got the Xbox 2 that only plays Xbox 2 games, you've got the PS3 that can playing PS3, PS2 and PSone games and the GC2 that can playing GC2 and GC games. It just seems like something MS could easily prevent from being something Sony or Nintendo could hang over there head and they aren't taking advantage of it. I just think with as many advantages as a company like Sony already had, why just give them more? While it's true that the Xbox does have a good amount of momentum going into next gen, it's not going to be anything like what Sony will have. They could atleast absorb some of the impact by cutting off some of Sony's advantages. If they can't cut off the graphics issue due to launch timeframes, they could atleast match them as far as extra features go.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Even when the pricedrop and the marketing toward broader audiences begins, does that make the more options competing systems allow any less interesting? You've got the Xbox 2 that only plays Xbox 2 games, you've got the PS3 that can playing PS3, PS2 and PSone games and the GC2 that can playing GC2 and GC games. It just seems like something MS could easily prevent from being something Sony or Nintendo could hang over there head and they aren't taking advantage of it. I just think with as many advantages as a company like Sony already had, why just give them more? While it's true that the Xbox does have a good amount of momentum going into next gen, it's not going to be anything like what Sony will have. They could atleast absorb some of the impact by cutting off some of Sony's advantages. If they can't cut off the graphics issue due to launch timeframes, they could atleast match them as far as features go.

Again, and again, and again...there is still the possibility of an add-on for BC. Let's say we're at year two of the PS3...MS can certainly decide to bundle the add-on with the system for the same price. They can negotiate lower licensing fees with Intel and nVidia by that time and lower the cost of the add-on. Things can change.

As for the advantages that Sony will have in the next gen, they only mean as much as they do because they're unique to the market-leader. BC on a third Sony system will mean more to more people bacause, obviously, it lets them play games from the most-popular console of last gen. The worth goes down as the popularity of the each platform is looked at going down the ranking list. For Revolution, its BC is not going to be half the worth of Sony's BC. Same with XBOX. BC's worth drops to reflect the popularity of the system that it enables you to play. And since I believe BC for consoles has been such a miniscule part of their success, I doubt that it means much at all.

I'm certain that MS is aware of what it faces. The largest, most successful (software) corporation on earth cannot be that blind. Whether their plan is going to work...who knows. It's certainly within reason and probability that it can succeed. There have been greater odds seen beaten than this. I don't think MS wants to be dictated to how they must play their cards in the console industry. They don't want to wait for Sony, who has already dealt them 'defeat,' but in 'losing' to them, its wise to take your experience and lessons learnt and put them into practice by not repeating the same thing. Waiting for Sony is suicide.

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

Well, as far as BC it's not a big deal if the console launches with a bunch of killer games that are obviously offering a new experience not possible on ps2 or xbox.
I mean if Bioware gets their hands on this hardware early on and maybe a Perfect Dark hits shelves upon xbox 2 release and maybe there's a Fable 2 sneak attack to catch us off gaurd, who knows.

I think a game along the lines of Kotor, Jade Empire,Fable, Deus Ex, Morrowind etc. have the most to gain from new hardware. If Microsoft launched with some massive sort of RPG/alternate reality simulator with fantasy/rpg/action undertones to beat all precedents that'd work for me in and of itself, especially if the new hardware allowed a lot of the inconsistancies of simulating a persistant world with current hardware to be ironed out.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Yeah. If the system delivers an amazing launch with an equally-impressive software library afterward, nothing else really matters.

 

[Panajev2001a]

assuming the extra resources freed up by dumping BC could make enough of a difference

This is not a small assumption.

Also, looking at the current specs they could have re-cycled a chip used in conjuction with a Software emulator ( they own VirtualPC IIRC ) to provide backward-compatibility for Sound and I/O processing while working in Xbox 2/Xenon mode. It would have freed up the main processors from having to stall doing I/O and Sound processing.

 

[human5892]

Everyone's going to have similar raw technical capabilities next generation. If you can get close enough to the other guys performance, it won't make any difference if you're slightly slower than him.

This gen's systems are all very close to each other technically (there are many people out there who believe the GC is the weakest system because they're going on image, since just looking at the games doesn't reveal a distinguishable enough difference for many casuals). Yet we still have Xbox fans continuing to crow about their system being the most powerful. Whatever system is technically the most powerful next gen, I have no doubt that you'll hear similar fanboy bragging, no matter how small the advantage. Unless all systems are exactly the same, you're always going to hear bragging like this. As someone else said earlier, I think the current Xbox fans, consciously or not, are mentally preparing for the possibility that the next-gen Xbox might not (or even probably won't) be the most powerful system, and are thus downplaying system power. Realistically, though, whenever a system has even the slightest technical advantage, it will be bragged about and constantly referenced over and over, you can count on that.

Also, regarding the money "saved" from no BC being applied to other areas of the console: Pana hit the nail on the head when he said that BC tech can be used to run next-gen games, as in the PS2. Simply put, with smart system architecture, money used on BC can simulatenously be used on other features as well.

I think the arguments against BC (never thought I'd be saying that) in this thread can be boiled down to a select few, incredibly generalized viewpoints:

"Only hardcore gamers use it!"
"You don't need to save money by selling your old console!"
"Everybody has enough space for tons of consoles, if you don't you're wrong!"
"If you want to play an old console, just dig it out of the closet and crawl behind your TV and hook it up and then unhook it when you're done and rehook up your new console and put the old one back in the closet! NO BIG DEAL!"

Etc.

 

[ypo]

People, people, no need to argue further it's pointless. Let me end this thread with this wisdom.

Xbox 2 = the new Gamecube, the *Gamers* machine.

 

[Vormund]

If MS released an Xbox/Xbox2/DVD/Media player hybrid, but alongside cheaper Xbox and Xbox2 consoles, would people here be complaining as much?

Just a thought.

 

[sonycowboy]

People, people, no need to argue further it's pointless. Let me end this thread with this wisdom.

Xbox 2 = the new Gamecube, the *3rd place* machine.

Fixed

 

[iapetus]

Why does this number even matter? The one posted above is the more relevant one as it's the one that's till now. Why have a cutoff point when it's not needed?

Because tie ratio tends to go up over time for a variety of reasons?

 

[human5892]

If MS released an Xbox/Xbox2/DVD/Media player hybrid, but alongside cheaper Xbox and Xbox2 consoles, would people here be complaining as much?

Just a thought.

I've always thought all console-makers should do this, actually. It would give the consumer more choice, and you could actually pick which features you wanted for a change, instead of being forced to buy more than you want, or long for more than what you got.

 

[User 406]

The real advantage of backwards compatibility is that it allows modern forums like GAF to fully emulate old usenet threads about backwards compatibility circa 1999-2000. All the old arguments and damage control are perfectly replicated down to the last detail. Ahh, memories.

Speaking of nostalgia, I too remember when element/oxygen was a rosy-cheeked new member of GAF, full of winking smilies and smug insinuations about amazing secret stuff for the Xbox that never actually panned out. He doesn't seem to smile as often anymore.

 

[Blimblim]

Here is MS official response about this :

“Recent stories in the press about future Xbox products are nothing more than pulp fiction. Microsoft hasn’t made any announcements regarding the next generation, so it’s far too early to speculate about specifics, including backward compatibility. In fact, this media conjecture is irresponsible. The credibility of any publication willing to compromise fact in favor of a catchy headline must be questioned. Xbox fans are smart enough to distinguish truth from sensational reporting.”

Source: Teamxbox news

 

[DarienA]

“Recent stories in the press about future Xbox products are nothing more than pulp fiction. Microsoft hasn’t made any announcements regarding the next generation, so it’s far too early to speculate about specifics, including backward compatibility. In fact, this media conjecture is irresponsible. The credibility of any publication willing to compromise fact in favor of a catchy headline must be questioned. Xbox fans are smart enough to distinguish truth from sensational reporting.”

That made me chuckle.

 

[human5892]

Here is MS official response about this :


Source: Teamxbox news

It's not "conjecture" when the quotes and sources come from anonymous MS employees, as well as interviews with people like Allard himself, where he really downplays BC and insinuates that it's not a route MS is interested in taking. Christ, they make it sound like the headlines are just being pulled from nowhere.

That response is actually a little touchy, especially for a standard "responding to rumors" PR statement. I wonder if someone hit a nerve.

 

[DopeyFish]

That made me chuckle.

*smack*

 

[rastex]

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 don't see why anybody continued to argue past this point. I mean really, this is the same point that element, I and a few others have been making and the pro-BC have been ignoring, but damnit, it's just so nicely worded here that it has to make some sort of an effect.