Post by: RickPowers on March 25, 2005, 09:20:41 AM
I've heard that Microsoft was trying to get the feature into the Xbox 2, and my guess is that some sort of internal deadline has now passed and that they couldn't get the functionality working. Is this going to be a negative for Microsoft, or can Xbox 2 get by on the Holy Grail of Xbox Live?
Post by: Ian Sane on March 25, 2005, 09:30:31 AM
Xbox Live though is the bigger issue. People aren't going to want to have a new account for Xbox 2. People aren't going to want to see some of their favourite Xbox games lose online play too soon (after all Xbox Live is only 3 years old so it's not like these are really old games or anything). I've seen discussions about the Xbox in game stores where the clerk shills Live support for a game and the customer says it doesn't matter because his Live account ran out and he doesn't want to renew it when the Xbox 2 is being released this year and thus he might get screwed. Due to their infamous reputation in the PC industry I think a fair bit of people EXPECT MS to screw people over regarding switching consoles and Live accounts.
I think Live is one of the first things MS should make clear at E3. People are expecting to get screwed because it fits with Microsoft's past actions. Releasing a new console after only 4 years and revealing plans to expand beyond games with the Xbox 2 suggests "evil plans" for the future.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 25, 2005, 11:15:54 AM
Did you know that they are trying to launch 8,000 low orbiting satelittes?! They want to connect everything digital to a Microsoft network, even refigerators and such. Microsoft.....ruling the world? O.o
Post by: Savior on March 25, 2005, 11:40:18 AM
Post by: nickmitch on March 25, 2005, 12:37:15 PM
Quote
Did you know that they are trying to launch 8,000 low orbiting satelittes?! They want to connect everything digital to a Microsoft network, even refigerators and such. Microsoft.....ruling the world? O.o
Megaman Battle Network universe ahoy!
Post by: nemo_83 on March 25, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
Post by: Shecky on March 25, 2005, 03:15:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I figure it was because of the lack of a hard drive.
Not a chance... it's because of the complete change to IBM/ATI from Intel/Nvidia
Post by: Shecky on March 25, 2005, 03:20:00 PM
example, want that upgraded weapon, it'll cost $1 (real cash). I thought that was going to be incorporated into the next system generation for them.
Post by: allcaps on March 26, 2005, 06:47:16 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on March 26, 2005, 12:03:06 PM
I actually heard(& posted) a rumor a while back that stated that MS would release the harddrive attachment that will come with Halo 2.5 and Xbox backwards compatability. Its just a rumor, but I wouldn't put it past MS to milk thier #1 franchise in order to have a successful peripheral to console attachment rate (Nintendo attempts it all the time)
Post by: Djunknown on March 26, 2005, 05:29:10 PM
Quote
Xbox Live though is the bigger issue. People aren't going to want to have a new account for Xbox 2.
In a live interview with Jay Allard with Gamespot (He delivered Microsoft's keynote address at this year's GDC), Xbox Live is a completely different thing. He said that if you're a suscriber now, you current account will work with Xenon. He went on to give an example where if your buddy's got a 'Box, and you don't, that won't stop you from a getting an account, just so you can play at his house. Got Xbox and Xenon in the same house? No problem.
From here, go the movies section, click on the J Allard interview
Its an interesting interview, he'll talks about Xbox live 4 minutes into the interview.
I'll guess we'll see if lack of backwards compatibility will come back to haunt them....
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on April 14, 2005, 05:47:09 PM
TeamXecuter.com
Quote
NewsWe've spent today doing a little more digging. It seems the Xbox 360 will use AES Encryption (XeCryptAesCbc), executable files are XEX and not XBE (xshell.xex) and after studying the kernel there is everything in place for backwards compatibility.
It can all change of course but interesting all the same.
I knew there should be some kind of software solution
Xbox 360 sounds more than powerful enough to emulate Xbox at least for most games (Kinda like PS2 and its ability to play some DVD's and not others)
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 14, 2005, 05:58:06 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on April 14, 2005, 08:25:23 PM
Post by: Shecky on April 14, 2005, 08:32:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
They could try remapping the NVidia commands to ATi but that would mean a decrease in visual quality and potential bugs.
^ Understatement ^
Post by: clevelandst124 on April 15, 2005, 01:37:46 AM
Notwithstanding, but as others pointed out, microsoft will continue to whore out it's existing franchises. I believe that halo 3, fable 2, and morrowind have already been confirmed for the xbox 360. Who wants to play halo 1 + 2 when halo 3 is out and optimized for the new system?
Lastly an example. Look at the ds. It's backwards campatible with the gba. How many people that own a gba went out and bought the ds? The gba game library is great while the ds game library sucks. But the people that have the gba already have the gba games, they want a good reason to buy the ds. Which the ds has largely failed at in the game arena.
I actually think that the xbox 360 will be very successful. If it launches worldwide by the end of the year, it could have a 3M headstart on Sony and Nintendo. Even if the 360 is the least powerful, it will just become the standard. Do the game work on the 360 and port it over to Sony/Nintendo. As stated xbox 360 has successful franchises which is something that xbox 1 didn't have. And sony won't have thier head start. Honestly, if ps2 and xbox had launched at the same time, who thinks ps2 still would of owned? PS2 only had the games, and that took them a year to get thier games to the market. The xbox was a much better machine and microsoft did a great job of getting several titles on thier system fairly fast.
Side rant. I think the xbox 360 will do more damage to the psp than the ds did to the psp. Here's the thing. The psp is the new cool hip thing right now. But people are largely buying it to use as another home console saying psp is almost ps2. Well when xbox 360 comes, it will obviously own the psp. And a price I saw was $300. Seriously who would want to plop down $250 on a psp when they could enter the next generation of gaming for another $50. This will cool psp sales because the psp will be forced to compete with ds for the handheld market and $250 +$50 games+memory sticks is too expensive for the handheld market.
Post by: nemo_83 on April 15, 2005, 05:48:31 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on April 15, 2005, 06:35:40 AM
Post by: Deguello on April 15, 2005, 08:55:25 AM
Post by: clevelandst124 on April 15, 2005, 11:12:06 AM
Number one, those that already have an xbox and want to be able to stuff it in the attic forever. But they already have the ability to play xbox 1 games. Therefore there's not an added benefit from getting xbox 360 to play xbox 1 games.
Number two, those that held off buying an xbox because it would be backward compatible. If someone held off five years to get a to play a system how much did they want it? Because the xbox is pretty cheap now. My thought process is that these people would have picked up an xbox one and would therefore be in group one.
I agree that may be a little generalization, it may have add some sales and it would be nice. But if it adds $1 to the production cost then I don't want it. I buy a next generation console to play the games that are made for it. Not to play last generations games which I could be playing at a fraction of the price.
Post by: Deguello on April 15, 2005, 02:01:40 PM
Quote
So the ps2 dominated because it was backwards compatable?
Way to put words in my mouth. I just said it was a big plus, and it is.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 15, 2005, 02:13:32 PM
With the GBA my killer app was Link's Awakening DX. I didn't have any Gameboys before, suddenly I was at an age where I had money, and here was this portable that could play every Gameboy game ever made plus brand new games. I could get some of the new games and if there was a lag in the release schedule I could get over ten years worth of old games for cheap.
However backwards compatibility didn't sell me a DS so the appeal isn't as great for getting the "old" userbase to switch. But it doesn't make sense to attract existing fans with that feature. You attract the existing fans with must-own new games. But that extra incentive for the newcombers (who in theory increase your marketshare) is worth adding backwards compatibility.
If you don't own an Xbox and the Xbox 360 launches with something that really grabs your interest that backlog of Xbox games you missed out on is going to influence your purchase of what otherwise could be a whole console for one game.
Post by: Deguello on April 16, 2005, 02:34:31 AM
Backwards compatibility is also a way to avoid dimishing your late generation games and, in a way, increase the potential market for them.
Post by: clevelandst124 on April 16, 2005, 03:22:21 AM
Example number one is you. It made you think about buying a ps2 but you didn't. I think if you had really wanted the ps1 games you'd just buy a ps1 I mean what are the $20 now?
Example number two is me. I bought a ds. Not for the backwards compatability. In fact, I would have bought the ds if it wouldn't have been backwards compatable. Now I'm in the boat where I've supplemented the first round of games with gba games. And now I just won't buy gba games anymore. I want ds games or I'll buy games for my gamecube.
I think backwards compatability was a good way to attract newcomers. But I don't think it works well anymore. It's mainstream to own a video game system now. I really don't know many males my age that don't have a ps2 or xbox or even a gamecube. A good portion own at least two and there's some out there that own all 3. I don't think there was this environment back in the dreamcast, n64, or playstation era. I knew some people that owned one and a couple of people that owned a n64 and a ps. So it was a good way to get the games to this missed generation.
I don't think your gameboy example is a great one. The gameboy, until ds, has been so cheap that it wasn't a big deal to pick one up for any reason. The gameboy advance launched at $90 dollars, I think. And I think that gameboy colors were $50. So for a mere $40 dollars you were upgrading. That's not the case with the xbox. If the xbox 360 launches at $300( I think it will at least) and the xbox doesn't have a price cut(which I think it will as it hasn't in 2 years). It's too much of a additional cost to if your killer app for owning xbox 360 is an xbox 1 game.
Post by: skyfire on April 16, 2005, 08:56:04 AM
So really BC is a win/win situation for both consumer and manufacturer. Sure it's tough to get it 100% but it's worth when you weigh against not having it.
I think the DS is a different case though. Since it's suppose to be bringing a new way of gaming it's understandable why your buying it for that reason and not to play your GB/GBC/GBA games on it (thats what a GBP is for
).
Post by: KDR_11k on April 16, 2005, 10:29:40 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 16, 2005, 11:58:36 AM
Quote
I really don't know many males my age that don't have a ps2 or xbox or even a gamecube. A good portion own at least two and there's some out there that own all 3.
Then wouldn't they be interested in having a machine that plays their old games so they don't need to have six consoles hooked into their TV? Especially with disc based systems that wear down more easily, it's nice. I know I'm holding out for the Revolution instead of replacing my aging GameCube, which is getting to be problematic at times.
Post by: clevelandst124 on April 16, 2005, 12:05:59 PM
I agree backwards compatability is a selling point. I just think it's somewhere way down on the list. If backwards compatability can make up for a poor launch, why do we always hear about poor launches? I mean if the ps1 games were such a great selling point for ps2 we shouldn't here any complaints about the launch because the backwards compatability filled the gap. Just like ds. Why should we care that we only got 6 games at launch because we can play 200+ gba games? I think the reason we care is because the launches sucked and we buy next generation systems to play next generation games which these systems sorely lacked.
I really don't think that the ds would have sold much less. It was the thing to get for the holidays. Regardless of Nintendo's marketing the ds was hyped up during the Christmas season. I think it would have sold everything it had for Christmas, maybe not as much early this year if it wasn't backwards compatable.
Reasons I think the ps2 was so successful.
No direct challenger. Ps and n64 were at the end of thier life cycle and people were ready for the next generation. The dreamcast was pretty much an immediate failure as I believe it launched in 1998 and had almost all support dropped by 2000 when ps2 came out. Nobody really knew that Microsoft could be a serious contender yet and Nintendo had a ton to overcome after the weak sales of the n64.
Getting to the market early. I think that ps2 pretty much had a 10M lead by the time that Gamecube and Xbox were released. Not only that but ps2 was available in the Christmas season of 2001, which gamecube and xbox weren't because they were sold out. That allowed ps2 to carry back to back Christmas season in sales.
3rd parties love playstation. Early to market, easy capitalization of optical media. Ps2 had a weak launch, but it's competitors didn't exactly have great launches. Ps2 easily had 4 times the games out at the time xbox and gamecube launched.
DVD playback. This is when DVD got hot. Including it was geniuos. Not only do I get a nextgen system but I don't have to pay $100 + for a dvd player(at the time).
Hype. Playstation is just the best marketer of the current gen. They have become generic for video games.
Other benefits. Whatever other reasons you can think of owning the ps2, this includes backwards compatability.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 16, 2005, 02:47:49 PM
Post by: Deguello on April 16, 2005, 02:57:22 PM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on April 19, 2005, 10:31:46 AM
Post by: ruby_onix on April 19, 2005, 01:02:31 PM
Quote
GCN~GBA Connectivity=BAD...PS2~PSP Connectivity=Genius?
I've seen two explanations for that one, neither of which I find acceptable.
1: Sony has never "hyped" connectivity, or told us that it was fun. So on Sony consoles, it's allowed to be judged on it's own merits.
2: Connectivity is the reason why Nintendo never gave us online.
Post by: vudu on April 20, 2005, 08:41:49 AM
