PDA

View Full Version : Xbox 360 Backward Comp updated



Woolen Horde
12-08-2005, 09:08 PM
Looks like MS put out another Xbox 360 update for backwards comp, because Halo 2 downloaded something new when I started it up. And Ghost Recon 2, which previously didn't work, now does.

One question, though. Halo 2 was originally running widescreen. Now, it and Ghost Recon 2 are running in 4:3, which means that there are huge black borders on both sides of the screen. Anyone know how to adjust this?

And edit to add
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

Yeah, they added a bunch of Tom Clancy-brand games, including the Splinter Cells.

Woolen Horde
12-08-2005, 10:27 PM
Okay, I'll repeat the question because it's annoying me.

Does anyone know how to force Xbox1 games to run in 720? They're supposed to upscale automatically, and Halo 2 was running in 720 fine until I downloaded the latest update. Now it's running 4:3, but on my widescreen, so everything looks squished together. I can't figure out how to revert it back to widescreen.

Sarkus
12-09-2005, 12:00 AM
I remain very disappointed at the lack of newer titles on that list. It makes all the sense in the world for them to support newer releases to flesh out the typically shallow launch line-up. But, instead we are not seeing that - unbelievable.

Wholly Schmidt
12-09-2005, 12:54 AM
I remain very disappointed at the lack of newer titles on that list. It makes all the sense in the world for them to support newer releases to flesh out the typically shallow launch line-up. But, instead we are not seeing that - unbelievable.
Oh crap, why didn't you tell them sooner so they could've worked on that instead?!

Tom Chick
12-09-2005, 03:36 AM
Fuck fuck fuck, I've been fucking with this for over an hour tonight thinking it was something I'd done wrong.

Halo 2 looks awesome with the higher resolution and antialiasing, but it's so incredibly annoying to be playing it in 4:3, particularly when it was running 16:9 before I downloaded the goddamn update. And I was really looking forward to trying the side-by-side splitscreen.

Bah, it's not really backwards compatible anyway when I have to replay everything from the beginning. Fucking Microsoft and their annoying lack of consideration for those of us with their first Xboxes.

-Tom

Wheelkick
12-09-2005, 03:55 AM
Fuck.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 09:26 AM
Fuck.
Fuck?

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 09:30 AM
I actually think that Microsoft is doing a pretty good job of this.


Edit: There was a problem w/ Halo 2 running in wide screen mode, so the update was pulled down. The team worked through the night to fix it, and will have the new update available later today (Friday.)

It's going to be interesting to see how Sony handles it since they're method last time (including the actual PS One hardware in the PS2) probably won't work this time.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 09:33 AM
I actually think that Microsoft is doing a pretty good job of this.
It's the first ever "backward-compatible" console that isn't actually backward-compatible, at least not in a meaningfully reliable way.

Some games don't work at all, others have weird gameplay bugs, save-games don't work, and now we're getting weird shit like Halo 2 (the single biggest game in the history of the XB1) not working in widescreen like it should.

How is that a pretty good job?

Kool Moe Dee
12-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Because there's no easy way to do it?

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 09:37 AM
They had to start from scratch. The only other approach has been to include the full system hardware. That's the only reason PS2's backward compability works so well.

Gary, I do think that you tend to blow up Xbox-related errors out of proportion. I'm not sure if this has always been the case but it's certainly more noticeable now.

Xaroc
12-09-2005, 09:39 AM
Well considering I thought there would be like no more than 10 titles on the list the fact they have nearly 200 is pretty impressive. Having to emulate instead of just slapping a chip on the new console like the ps2 did is a much bigger hill to climb. The effort to have even 99% backwards compatibility would probably cost far more than the number of sales they will lose by having partial compatibility. The Halo 2 thing is disapointing but perhaps it is just a bug in the emulation and they will throw out an update to fix it.

-- Xaroc

Moore
12-09-2005, 09:40 AM
yeah wtf? that is absolutely NOT doing well. GBA had trouble with a handful of GB/C games I think, and the ps2 doesnt like a few ps1 games, but the number of games that do not work on each is TINY. MS has what? less than half of the library working? is it even a 3rd?

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 09:44 AM
They had to start from scratch. The only other approach has been to include the full system hardware. That's the only reason PS2's backward compability works so well.
See, I don't care about the approach. I only care that it works. PS2 works, X360 does not work (properly). I think they should have either hard-wired a proper backward solution, or not bothered. I'm not really thrilled with this half-assed approach where you have to go online and look at a list to see if your favorite game will work or not.


Gary, I do think that you tend to blow up Xbox-related errors out of proportion. I'm not sure if this has always been the case but it's certainly more noticeable now.
* Not all games work
* Save games don't work
* Some games have crippling gameplay bugs (Freedom Force)
* Major AAA+ titles have weird issues (Halo 2)

Which of the above is in any way an exaggeration or misreprentation of the facts regarding X360 back-com*?

I think the biggest issue for me is that I just don't feel "safe" playing XB1 games on an X360. I'd hate to play halfway through, say, GTA: Vice City and then find a weird bug where an NPC doesn't trigger the way he's supposed to or something, effectively halting the game right there. And then having to wait for an update which may very well erase my save files and force me to start over. I'd rather just play it on my old XB1 and know that it's going to work on that, which rather defeats the object of having the "compatability" feature in the first place.


* PS I just made up "back-com", QT3ers may feel free to use it in your own posts, if accompanied by the standard Whitta TM boilerplate.

Kool Moe Dee
12-09-2005, 09:47 AM
Actually, I think you can just slap the disc in and try it. If there's an emulator available, it will download it. If not, it will tell you there isn't one available.

And all I'm going to say is that if you think this is bad, you should steel yourself for the bitchfest that will be "backcom" on PS3...because it's going to be the same type of situation. :roll:

Xaroc
12-09-2005, 09:49 AM
yeah wtf? that is absolutely NOT doing well. GBA had trouble with a handful of GB/C games I think, and the ps2 doesnt like a few ps1 games, but the number of games that do not work on each is TINY. MS has what? less than half of the library working? is it even a 3rd?

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because both of those are hardware solutions and the 360 is a software solution on top of totally different hardware. Look at emulation efforts like that one for the PS1 games on the Dreamcast. They were releasing single game emulator discs because the level of effort to emulate each one was so high.

-- Xaroc

Marcus
12-09-2005, 09:54 AM
They were releasing single game emulator discs because the level of effort to emulate each one was so high.

But holy shit did they look good.

I wish I could have gotten my hands on the MGS disc before they sold them all but GT2 looks afrigginmazing when hooked up to a monitor. They did a great job on that stuff.

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 09:59 AM
See, I don't care about the approach. I only care that it works. PS2 works, X360 does not work (properly). I think they should have either hard-wired a proper backward solution, or not bothered. I'm not really thrilled with this half-assed approach where you have to go online and look at a list to see if your favorite game will work or not.

Well, I simply disagree with you. I think that I'd much rather have some games work than none at all. I think that given the constraints that they have they're doing an amazing job at managing this issue for the same reasons that Xaroc does.

Quaro
12-09-2005, 10:07 AM
Fuck fuck fuck, I've been fucking with this for over an hour tonight thinking it was something I'd done wrong.

Halo 2 looks awesome with the higher resolution and antialiasing, but it's so incredibly annoying to be playing it in 4:3, particularly when it was running 16:9 before I downloaded the goddamn update. And I was really looking forward to trying the side-by-side splitscreen.

Bah, it's not really backwards compatible anyway when I have to replay everything from the beginning. Fucking Microsoft and their annoying lack of consideration for those of us with their first Xboxes.

-Tom

I think I rememer you mentioned you only had a standard resolution tv. Do you have a widescreen high def one now? Any change in opinion on the 360 graphics?

Moore
12-09-2005, 10:12 AM
yeah wtf? that is absolutely NOT doing well. GBA had trouble with a handful of GB/C games I think, and the ps2 doesnt like a few ps1 games, but the number of games that do not work on each is TINY. MS has what? less than half of the library working? is it even a 3rd?

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because both of those are hardware solutions and the 360 is a software solution on top of totally different hardware. Look at emulation efforts like that one for the PS1 games on the Dreamcast. They were releasing single game emulator discs because the level of effort to emulate each one was so high.

-- Xaroc

Like Gary, I don't care why. I don't care if they have to cram in an xbox 1 and all it's hardware and it makes the 360 cost $200 more and 1 foot thick- GREAT! Do it, whatever.

Charles
12-09-2005, 10:20 AM
Anyone who thinks MS didn't fuck up backwards compatibility is playing the apologist.

Fact is, the system is *not* backwards compatible. They are offering software to help play old games on the new system, but this isn't backwards compatibility. They should have never used those words. Instead, what they should have said, is: "We are working on ways to play certain xbox games on the xbox 360".

Then there wouldn't be as much of an issue.

That being said, I was talking with a friend who's doing some xbox 360 stuff lately, and he said that half the problem is most likely the fact that even if you did a straight compile to x360, (assuming fixing API incompatibilities, etc), xbox games run like twelve kinds of shit, simply because the 360 processors don't do branch prediction. Or at least, not on anywhere near the same level that PCs have had since the K6 and P3. This means that any kind of a cache miss is so ridiculously brutal that it grinds everything to a halt.

Radically different processor architecture means that backwards compatibility is absolutely impossible.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 10:27 AM
To be honest, I don't give a fuck about backwards compatability really. I hardly ever used it at all on PS2 and I don't imagine I'd use it a whole lot on Xbox, either. Most of the games I enjoyed on that system (PGR, Halo, GTA, Tiger, Burnout) either have or will have superior versions for X360, so my interest in the old versions has pretty much died.

I've spoken to gamer friends about this and they feel much the same way. Question: How much do you REALLY care about being able to play your old games on the new system?

It is a nice feature to have, but I'm just as happy to leave my old XB1 hooked up next to the new one. That seems to be a much more reliable solution anyway. And THEN maybe if Microsoft hadn't been tooling around with all this emulation bullshit, they could have diverted their efforts elsewhere, locked the hardware earlier and shipped more units for launch. :D

Fugitive
12-09-2005, 10:34 AM
I've spoken to gamer friends about this and they feel much the same way. Question: How much do you REALLY care about being able to play your old games on the new system?
My interest in backwards compatibility on the XBox 360 is as someone who never had an original XBox in the first place and am interested in how it would make the original library available as well as being able to play the 360 titles. Yeah, XBoxes will be dirt cheap soon enough, but I really don't want the additional hassle and clutter.

That also means that I'd be more interested in the somewhat more obscure titles that they're not aiming the compatibility at right away though, and not the titles that will inevitably have an (n+1) iteration.

It's not critically important though, just another factor that pushes that 'buy it already' impulse a little closer to overcoming the wallet's resistance...

dannimal
12-09-2005, 11:11 AM
If my choices are:

- No backwards compatability
- Full (PS2-lke) back-com, but a $500 price tag for the box
- Maybe, maybe not back-com that looks to get better over time

I'm choosing #3.

RickH
12-09-2005, 11:35 AM
If my choices are:

- No backwards compatability
- Full (PS2-lke) back-com, but a $500 price tag for the box
- Maybe, maybe not back-com that looks to get better over time

I'm choosing #3.

Screw #3, unreliable solutions aren't really solutions. This is a case of MS shooting off its mouth and promising what they couldn't deliver. What's amazing is that people are letting them slide on this while they crusade against Sony for dropping features from a feature set that isn't even finalized yet. MS didn't even do you the courtesy of admitting they couldn't really deliver.

Woolen Horde
12-09-2005, 11:37 AM
Fuck fuck fuck, I've been fucking with this for over an hour tonight thinking it was something I'd done wrong.

Halo 2 looks awesome with the higher resolution and antialiasing, but it's so incredibly annoying to be playing it in 4:3, particularly when it was running 16:9 before I downloaded the goddamn update. And I was really looking forward to trying the side-by-side splitscreen.

Bah, it's not really backwards compatible anyway when I have to replay everything from the beginning. Fucking Microsoft and their annoying lack of consideration for those of us with their first Xboxes.

-Tom

Major Nelson's blog says that MS has pulled the update because it broke Halo 2 widescreen. They've fixed the issue and will rerelease it later today.

Alan Au
12-09-2005, 11:49 AM
Major Nelson's blog says that MS has pulled the update because it broke Halo 2 widescreen. They've fixed the issue and will rerelease it later today.
Jose Liz predicted this over two hours ago.

- Alan

Ben
12-09-2005, 11:52 AM
RickH- So you'd rather have 1 or 2? And other people are the biased ones, right?

Woolen Horde
12-09-2005, 11:54 AM
Major Nelson's blog says that MS has pulled the update because it broke Halo 2 widescreen. They've fixed the issue and will rerelease it later today.
Jose Liz predicted this over two hours ago.

- Alan

I kinda tune him out.

RickH
12-09-2005, 12:06 PM
RickH- So you'd rather have 1 or 2? And other people are the biased ones, right?

Options 1 and 2 have the benefit of being simple, honest, and straightforward. So, yes. Better to have no BC than half-assed BC, or better to have true BC at a reasonable price. As it sits right now, it's an ugly kludge that was oversold by MS and thus does little to enhance MS's credibility.

And now that I think about it, yes, I am biased against companies that lie/overpromise/puff their features right up to and after the release date. I think it's dishonest. Removing a feature before the release date lets the buyer decide whether it's a deal-breaker or not.

Certainly from my prespective, I became less enthusiastic about the X360 when I learned it would not be fully BC, because that made a system replacement for the Xbox I currently have impossible. Woe be to those who actually believed MS's hype and sold their original Xboxes to help pay for X360's that won't play their games.

Alan Au
12-09-2005, 12:35 PM
If my choices are:

- No backwards compatability
- Full (PS2-lke) back-com, but a $500 price tag for the box
- Maybe, maybe not back-com that looks to get better over time

I'm choosing #3.
What about #4: rumors of "unsupported" backwards compatibility that you can enable by subtly "hacking" your system to connect to the MSFT "in development" servers? Out of the box so-called compatibility might earn extra sales among the less informed, but why not try and build up some geek cachet instead? I guess it all depends on how quickly MS thinks it can move from "promised" to "functional."

- Alan

Ex-S Woo
12-09-2005, 12:38 PM
Why would they want to build a geek cachet?

Jason Cross
12-09-2005, 12:38 PM
And all I'm going to say is that if you think this is bad, you should steel yourself for the bitchfest that will be "backcom" on PS3...because it's going to be the same type of situation. :roll:

I'm thinking this is probably going to be true. But we'll see.

I also have noticed that the PS3 does not have a PS2 memory card slot on it. I hope that unlike MS, they have some sort of USB dongle thingy so you can get at your saved games.

Ben
12-09-2005, 01:06 PM
Better to have no BC than half-assed BC,

Yeah, you lost me here. That doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense. You're going to have to switch from 'fanboy' to 'human' for this discussion.

Charles
12-09-2005, 01:06 PM
I was always annoyed that you couldn't use PS2 memory cards with PS1 games when playing on the PS2. Which was probably the main reason why I didn't bother playing any PS1 games on my PS2.

Marcus
12-09-2005, 01:16 PM
I was always annoyed that you couldn't use PS2 memory cards with PS1 games when playing on the PS2. Which was probably the main reason why I didn't bother playing any PS1 games on my PS2.

It does have 2 slots.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 01:19 PM
I was always annoyed that you couldn't use PS2 memory cards with PS1 games when playing on the PS2. Which was probably the main reason why I didn't bother playing any PS1 games on my PS2.

It does have 2 slots.
Yeah, but you still have to sniff around for an old PS1 memory card. I learned this the hard way when I picked up Parappa the Rapper for cheap and then realized I couldn't save. Plus, the old gray card looks shitty sticking out of your slick black PS2.

Dave Long
12-09-2005, 01:20 PM
EB has piles of used memory cards for PSX. You can buy like ten of them for $20.

--Dave

Marcus
12-09-2005, 01:23 PM
It really is a weak arguement.

Charles
12-09-2005, 01:24 PM
That's not the issue. The issue is that here I have this 8mb memory card sitting in the thing, and am still limited to 15 save slots on my shitty 128k PS1 card that I'm forced to still use (and have since lost, go figure).

Hint: None of my arguments are ever about money or cost unless I explicitly state so. I have no problem spending money.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 01:43 PM
EB has piles of used memory cards for PSX. You can buy like ten of them for $20.

--Dave
I know, I'm just a whiny little bitch sometimes. It's certainly not a real backcom issue the way the 360's "Compatability Lite" is.

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 01:44 PM
EB has piles of used memory cards for PSX. You can buy like ten of them for $20.

--Dave
I know, I'm just a whiny little bitch sometimes.

Duly noted. ;)

ElGuapo
12-09-2005, 01:47 PM
Was this posted somewhere here yet?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42831

RickH
12-09-2005, 02:04 PM
Better to have no BC than half-assed BC,

Yeah, you lost me here. That doesn't make a goddamn bit of sense. You're going to have to switch from 'fanboy' to 'human' for this discussion.

If that makes no sense to you, I'd hate to depend on you for anything important. Half assed jobs don't benefit anyone, they just waste time.

And speaking of "fanboy," who's the one all too willing to forgive MS for failing to deliver?

RickH
12-09-2005, 02:05 PM
Was this posted somewhere here yet?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42831

Yeah, Whitta did back around Thanksgiving.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 02:31 PM
Half assed jobs don't benefit anyone, they just waste time.
Couldn't agree more. If I was given the choice of taking on a task where I knew I could only deliver a half-assed result at best, I'd rather not do the task.*


* This, however, may not be apparent to those who are familiar with every magazine I've ever edited

RobotPants
12-09-2005, 02:44 PM
Wait, it's not like they've given up on the backwards compatibility. They've already said the Halo 2 fix is being worked on. If the "half-assed" part you guys are talking about meant "200 games that only work a little bit with no intentions by MS to get them fixed", then I could see what you're saying. But that's not what's happening, right? So I'll have to agree that saying nothing is better than half-assed is stupid in this case because even if everything doesn't work right now, at least they're fixing them. If they never fix them, which seems extremely unlikely, then I'll agree with you.

Charles
12-09-2005, 02:47 PM
200 games, half of which no one cares about. Half of the remainder run so poorly they are barely playable (see ninja gaiden, prince of persia sands of time), and half of the remainder of the remainder are MS first party titles.

Yeh, that's so great.

liberty with numbers and if you can't see that yet went out of your way to read this then you are faaaaaaaar too anal for your own good.

Ben
12-09-2005, 03:17 PM
If that makes no sense to you, I'd hate to depend on you for anything important. Half assed jobs don't benefit anyone, they just waste time.


That's absurd. $1 is better than no dollars, no matter how many you expected to get. If you depended on me for something important and I realized I could either get the job half done at no cost to you or do nothing, you'd really rather I do nothing? Try to pretend it's not a rival of Nintendo. Move the discussion to whatever field or industry you can act like an adult regarding if necessary.



And speaking of "fanboy," who's the one all too willing to forgive MS for failing to deliver?

I'm sorry, I can't really parse this. "Forgive"? Someone has commited a wrong against me?

Can you put that in 'human' as I requested, because as is I can't make sense of it.

bago
12-09-2005, 03:25 PM
As a consumer, I would rather have something, rather than nothing.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 03:26 PM
As a consumer, I would rather have something, rather than nothing.
So you'd rather have a pile of shit in your hand than no pile of shit.

Ben
12-09-2005, 03:30 PM
Gary- How does halfassed BC remotely hurt you?

Here, you get two options, everything else being equal:

1. Xbox360 that plays no XBox games
2. Xbox360 that plays 1 Xbox game.

Why would anyone pick 1?

Tom Chick
12-09-2005, 03:37 PM
Quaro, I recently got an HDTV. And, yeah, this is clearly the hook for the 360. It looks great. I'm looking forward to one day when there are some great games to play on it.

As for the back-com issue, I have a shelf next to my TV where I keep my most frequently played games, which include the following Xbox titles: Halo 2, Timesplitters, Phantom Dust, SSX On Tour, Crimson Skies, America's Army, Ghost Recon 2, Top Spin, Mercenaries, Forza, Midnight Club, Colin McCrae, Eve of Destruction, Kingdom under Fire, and Hulk.

So now I have to determine not only which of them work on the 360 (not many), but also which of them I'm willing to play from the beginning, losing all my progress (even fewer). For everything else, I still have my Xbox1 hooked up.

So what it boils down to is that I can do multiplayer Halo 2 with higher-res graphics and AA (well, I will be able to when they fix it). And that's pretty much the extent of the 360's back-com for me. Thanks, MS!

-Tom

Charles
12-09-2005, 03:39 PM
Gary- How does halfassed BC remotely hurt you?

Here, you get two options, everything else being equal:

1. Xbox360 that plays no XBox games
2. Xbox360 that plays 1 Xbox game.

Why would anyone pick 1?

It's not that it actively hurts, it's that MS's lying position early on left consumers with a false impression, which has now made them angry. Had I run out to preorder an xbox360 in order to 'just have it' but also to keep playing the xbox games I'm currently playing, I would have essentially been robbed.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 03:48 PM
Gary- How does halfassed BC remotely hurt you?

Here, you get two options, everything else being equal:

1. Xbox360 that plays no XBox games
2. Xbox360 that plays 1 Xbox game.

Why would anyone pick 1?
My problem, as previously stated, is that X360 doesn't play these games reliably. I don't feel comfortable playing these games under the 360's emulation so long as stories persist of potentially game-stopping issues. They may be exaggerated, they may not be that widespread, but it's too early to know if all the games that are supposed to work properly (such as Freedom Force) really DO work, or if some game-killing problem is lying in wait on Level 27.

So long as the 360's back-com is not 100% iron-clad (and it is FAR from that), I am just not going to take the risk, because putting a lot of effort into a game only to have it crash right before I meet the final boss DOES hurt me.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Until about 1 month after Whitta gets a 360, it's a good idea to take anything he says with a grain of salt. His pursuit of a 360 of his very own has driven him to the brink of lovecraftian madness.

Plus, he's built it up so much and has dedicated so much energy to getting one (or sour grapes posting for not) that the 360 could ingest common household garbage and shit rated-10 games, and he'd still be disappointed.

Ben
12-09-2005, 03:52 PM
It's not that it actively hurts,

So you'd pick 2, correct? That was the discussion.



I would have essentially been robbed.

Not on board there. They never said BC would be 100%. Your expectations of what it would do are not their responsibility. Microsoft is not responsible for consumers who act like children.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 03:55 PM
Until about 1 month after Whitta gets a 360, it's a good idea to take anything he says with a grain of salt. His pursuit of a 360 of his very own has driven him to the brink of lovecraftian madness.

Plus, he's built it up so much and has dedicated so much energy to getting one (or sour grapes posting for not) that the 360 could ingest common household garbage and shit rated-10 games, and he'd still be disappointed.
Hehe. I actually think the X360 is a pretty good machine. If I didn't, I wouldn't want one. I love that it's all high-def (at least now I have an HDTV), the wireless controllers are fab and the 360 iteration of Xbox Live is little short of genius.

My criticisms are pretty simple:

* Annoying launch strategy that has led too many people frustrated for the holidays.

* Half-assed backward-compatability

* Don't particularly like the case design (Special Exclusive Whitta-cism not previously published on QT3!)

* Er, that's it.

Charles
12-09-2005, 03:57 PM
It's not that it actively hurts,

So you'd pick 2, correct? That was the discussion.


No. I would choose no compatibility over some; because the two are the same to me if I have to keep both systems hooked up. Save that dev time and put it towards something else, rather than wasting it on a feature I won't use because it's not good enough to use as a replacement.





I would have essentially been robbed.

Not on board there. They never said BC would be 100%. Your expectations of what it would do are not their responsibility. Microsoft is not responsible for consumers who act like children.

I'm not acting like a child. MS started by saying it would be backward compatible. Then they switched to "Some titles won't be backward compatible." Which was misleading; the PS2 is also not backward compatible with "some titles". What MS should've said is "The system won't be backwards compatible, but it will be able to play a select few titles."

jeffd
12-09-2005, 04:13 PM
Out of curiosity - what games do you want to play aren't supported by the 360's emulation?





It's not that it actively hurts,

So you'd pick 2, correct? That was the discussion.


No. I would choose no compatibility over some; because the two are the same to me if I have to keep both systems hooked up. Save that dev time and put it towards something else, rather than wasting it on a feature I won't use because it's not good enough to use as a replacement.





I would have essentially been robbed.

Not on board there. They never said BC would be 100%. Your expectations of what it would do are not their responsibility. Microsoft is not responsible for consumers who act like children.

I'm not acting like a child. MS started by saying it would be backward compatible. Then they switched to "Some titles won't be backward compatible." Which was misleading; the PS2 is also not backward compatible with "some titles". What MS should've said is "The system won't be backwards compatible, but it will be able to play a select few titles."

Ben
12-09-2005, 04:18 PM
No. I would choose no compatibility over some; because the two are the same to me if I have to keep both systems hooked up. Save that dev time and put it towards something else, rather than wasting it on a feature I won't use because it's not good enough to use as a replacement.

You're either being willfully dishonest or missing the point. The discussion was all else being equal. So you'd pick nothing over something because you think you were mislead.



I'm not acting like a child.

Understood.

bago
12-09-2005, 04:22 PM
The update that fixes halo was propped about ten minutes ago I think.

The emulation ninjas said so.

Shadarr
12-09-2005, 04:26 PM
What MS should've done is left backwards compatibility out completely, but include a 360 version of Halo 2 with the console.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 04:40 PM
What MS should've done is left backwards compatibility out completely, but include a 360 version of Halo 2 with the console.
Ka-ching.

I said a while ago that a cool launch app for X360 would have been a "Halo SE" that included both games tied together in some kind of extended remix, added a bit of new content and running on a new, high-def 360-powered engine. I think that would have been more compelling than any of the titles in the actual launch line-up.

Backov
12-09-2005, 04:42 PM
They had to start from scratch. The only other approach has been to include the full system hardware. That's the only reason PS2's backward compability works so well.

What a surprise, Jose is talking out of his ass.

The easy solution would be using an x86 chip. It would have worked as well as any other last generation Windows game can work on new hardware/new Windows OS. Which is to say, pretty fucking good.

Why don't you go back to talking about podia, Jose?

Now as for Microsofts current response, it seems like they're doing ok. I imagine they can do all sorts of compatibility layer tricks to get things to work, and so far it looks like they're doing that.

Andrew Mayer
12-09-2005, 04:43 PM
The update that fixes halo was propped about ten minutes ago I think.

The emulation ninjas said so.

Congratulations Microsoft. You've managed to make a console that's as much of a mess to use as an operating system.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 04:44 PM
The update that fixes halo was propped about ten minutes ago I think.

The emulation ninjas said so.

Congratulations Microsoft. You've managed to make a console that's as much of a mess to use as an operating system.
Not to mention finally bringing the beloved concept of "release now, patch later" to console gaming.

Woolen Horde
12-09-2005, 04:48 PM
They had to start from scratch. The only other approach has been to include the full system hardware. That's the only reason PS2's backward compability works so well.

What a surprise, Jose is talking out of his ass.

The easy solution would be using an x86 chip. It would have worked as well as any other last generation Windows game can work on new hardware/new Windows OS. Which is to say, pretty fucking good.

Why don't you go back to talking about podia, Jose?

Now as for Microsofts current response, it seems like they're doing ok. I imagine they can do all sorts of compatibility layer tricks to get things to work, and so far it looks like they're doing that.

So you throw an X86 chip in there. Price just went up on the system's price. And MS wants to make money this time, so that's the entire point of ditching the X86 chip. They don't own it. They have to buy them from Intel. And Intel doesn't want to make millions of low-end X86 chips when it can have a fab plant making millions of high-end X86 chips (which is why MS could never get a price break on them.)

So even if MS doesn't pass the added price onto the consumer, you've got other issues. You've got to cool the damn chip. Not only that, you've got to cool it on top of everything else in there. So you either stick more fans in and make it louder, redesign the case to make it bigger, or come up with some other solution that ends up adding a ton of bulk or cost the system.

Charles
12-09-2005, 04:48 PM
Out of curiosity - what games do you want to play aren't supported by the 360's emulation?


Currently, I'd say Two Thrones. But I'm not getting a 360 till there are 360 games available that I care about. That being said, I've heard from some friends with 360s that even trying to play 'supported' games are poor. Sands of Time and Ninja Gaiden Black apparently have poor framerates on the 360.

That tells me that 'compatible' doesn't necessarily mean 'good'.

Misguided
12-09-2005, 04:49 PM
What MS should've done is left backwards compatibility out completely, but include a 360 version of Halo 2 with the console.

Me, my son, and our copy of Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge disagree. I've also played Super Monkey ball and it worked great. Picked up Fable: The Lost Chapters today, but have not had a chance to load it up.

I think the backward compatibility is great, especially since it will take some time to build the lineup of available titles and many of the launch titles held little appeal for me.

Shadarr
12-09-2005, 04:50 PM
I said a while ago that a cool launch app for X360 would have been a "Halo SE" that included both games tied together in some kind of extended remix, added a bit of new content and running on a new, high-def 360-powered engine. I think that would have been more compelling than any of the titles in the actual launch line-up.
Even just Halo 2 running in full HD glory would be more compelling than any of the actual launch titles (not counting Oblivion). I mean, that's what all the bitching is about, right? People trying to play Halo 2 on their widescreen HDTVs. I haven't heard anyone bemoaning the lack of Fable support.

Edit: need to learn to post faster

Backov
12-09-2005, 04:52 PM
So you throw an X86 chip in there. Price just went up on the system's price. And MS wants to make money this time, so that's the entire point of ditching the X86 chip. They don't own it. They have to buy them from Intel. And Intel doesn't want to make millions of low-end X86 chips when it can have a fab plant making millions of high-end X86 chips (which is why MS could never get a price break on them.)

So even if MS doesn't pass the added price onto the consumer, you've got other issues. You've got to cool the damn chip. Not only that, you've got to cool it on top of everything else in there. So you either stick more fans in and make it louder, redesign the case to make it bigger, or come up with some other solution that ends up adding a ton of bulk or cost the system.

Oh I know, there's a reason for it, I was just pointing out that there WAS an easy solution, and they didn't take it. As for cooling and price and such, mobility processors like the Pentium-M are pretty good for both (and quite a bit better than the P4).

Seeing as they're still losing money on the console, it doesn't seem too clear why they went with the "cheaper" solution. I would've thought going to a more cost efficient architecture would have had them at least breaking even on launch.

Oh, and splitting the SKU was straight up retarded. There was a marketing weasel behind that, without any doubt.

DennyA
12-09-2005, 04:58 PM
You'd also need to include the nvidia graphics chip, as that's where a lot of the emulation pain has come from as well. So now you have half of an original xbox in there.

I'd originally planned to keep my original Xbox until I finished a few games I haven't had time to play through. But the only games I really, really care about that aren't on the back-compat list are Psychonauts and Lego Star Wars (which my son loves to watch). I can get Psychonauts for the PC, and I just picked up a cheap copy of the PS2 version of Lego Star Wars.

Many of the other games I haven't finished are fun, but I can live without finishing (MechCommander, etc.) or will have better counterparts on 360 (PGR, Links).

So now the original Xbox and the incompatible games are going to on sale to add to the Xmas fund...

Charles
12-09-2005, 04:58 PM
No. I would choose no compatibility over some; because the two are the same to me if I have to keep both systems hooked up. Save that dev time and put it towards something else, rather than wasting it on a feature I won't use because it's not good enough to use as a replacement.

You're either being willfully dishonest or missing the point. The discussion was all else being equal. So you'd pick nothing over something because you think you were mislead.

Someone's missing the point. I'll spell it out for you.

If I have to keep my xbox hooked up in order to play xbox games, then whatever kind of emulation the xbox 360 has is of no use to me, at all.

Therefore, since it has no use to me, it doesn't matter if it was included.

Since it doesn't matter if it was included, MS could've put their money to better use.

Better use can mean just about anything.

Kevin Grey
12-09-2005, 05:00 PM
Out of curiosity - what games do you want to play aren't supported by the 360's emulation?

Beyond Good and Evil
Psychonauts
Chronicles of Riddick
Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones
Phantom Dust

to name a few.

Misguided
12-09-2005, 05:10 PM
You'd also need to include the nvidia graphics chip, as that's where a lot of the emulation pain has come from as well. So now you have half of an original xbox in there.

Actually, that was my understanding for the current solution (the cost of the nvidia chips was prohibitive).

I don't understand the Fable reference used a moment ago, since Fable is on the BC list.

Ben
12-09-2005, 05:11 PM
Therefore, since it has no use to me, it doesn't matter if it was included.


So you'd prefer it to be not included? Not caring if you have it and not wanting it aren't equivalent. I'd rather anything have extra stuff for free even if right now I can't think of how I'll use it.

What if your Xbox breaks? What if you want to play a game in widescreen, 720p, with wireless controllers, etc.?



Since it doesn't matter if it was included, MS could've put their money to better use.


All else being equal. Is that a difficult concept?

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:16 PM
You'd also need to include the nvidia graphics chip, as that's where a lot of the emulation pain has come from as well. So now you have half of an original xbox in there.


Now, you're not Jose, so I'm going to assume you're not talking out your ass here. But, that said - since when does the graphics chipset used have anything to do with DX backwards compatibility? Are you saying that they directly accessed the hardware without a DX layer on the XBox?

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:18 PM
All else being equal. Is that a difficult concept?

All else being equal I don't give a shit if it's there, because I won't use it if it doesn't work perfectly or better.

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 05:29 PM
But, that said - since when does the graphics chipset used have anything to do with DX backwards compatibility?

When you're talking about a game console and not a PC. Hope that helps in the future.


Now, you're not Jose, so I'm going to assume you're not talking out your ass here.

I bet you feel like an idiot after several posters proved you to be wrong. Here's something else for you to dwell on. Many games accessed specific functions of the Nvidia chip that were unique to that chip. If that didn't exist, they'd be able to easily emulate the chip. They're doing it on a one on one basis because they have to. Actually, Backov, the chip is the primary problem. So you're brilliant soluting of tossing in a chip in there is essentially stupid. Why don't you try to reading a little before you go on a little baby rage and namecall.

I really hate when certain posters here have to make personal insults. If you had a fucking point to make, Backov, make it without being an idiot.

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:32 PM
Nobody's proved me wrong yet. If Denny has some inside info to share, I'm sure he will. You couldn't find your ass with both hands, Jose. There's very littlle in the DX9 or DX8 spec, in fact, I'd say - NOTHING - that's unique to a specific chip.

Now, if they were directly accessing the hardware instead of going through DX, that was probably for something like shaders or whatever, in which case it might be a little more complicated.

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 05:34 PM
I'm sure little comments like that make your life somewhat bearable.

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:34 PM
Everything Jose Liz has said with respect to compatibility is accurate. The PS2's backward compatibility functioned by having the PS1 chip in the box, as the processor labelled IOP.

The reason games don't port easy is because of differing pixel shader instructions, as well as features that were custom to nvidia (these problems still exist in the pc market place, it's just that devs don't use custom features much on the pc).

bago
12-09-2005, 05:36 PM
Backov: Do you know what branch prediction is?

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:36 PM
Now Charles knows his shit, and I'll take his word for it for sure. Consolitis I guess, although I would have thought that MS would have been strict about going through DX and all that, simply because they are MS.

And dude, it's not like I didn't know about the damn PS1 chip, I was challenging his moronic suggestion that they HAD TO start from scratch. They didn't. That was a decision they made.

Yes, I do know what branch prediction is. What does that have to do with anything? My point was if it had another x86 processor, etc, etc..

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:41 PM
The point of branch prediction is that it makes porting or emulating a pain in the ass because of the different processor architectures.

MS made their own stuff so they could own the box, it does make life easy for designing hardware.

Note that I feel that Jose Liz's statements stand on their own, and that backov is an idiot.

:)

Jose Liz
12-09-2005, 05:44 PM
Note that I feel that Jose Liz's statements stand on their own, and that backov is an idiot.

:)

Noted. A rude one, also.

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:47 PM
As for branch prediction - again, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Do you really think many devs were programming their games in Assembly? I sure don't.

The architecture wouldn't have changed, so at most there would be a minor performance hit. Since it would have been a P3 -> P4/Athlon/P-M situation, I would assume performance would have actually improved. Even IF they had written specific bits in ASM, and used P3 specific features - Only THEN would there have been porting issues as far as the CPU. Did any features in the P3 go away in the P4 or the P-M?

The only real issue would be direct access of the GPU hardware, which was news to me - I assumed that they were using DX, my bad.

Tom Chick
12-09-2005, 05:49 PM
If I have to keep my xbox hooked up in order to play xbox games, then whatever kind of emulation the xbox 360 has is of no use to me, at all.

Therefore, since it has no use to me, it doesn't matter if it was included.

Since it doesn't matter if it was included, MS could've put their money to better use.


Charles, I don't want to get in the way of your little party with Liz, but either I'm missing the point of what you wrote above or you're assuming you're the only audience for MS's backwards compatibility. As MS has implemented it, the back-com isn't for guys like you and me. We get fucked.

Instead, it's a way to effectively increase the size of the software library for new Xbox 360 customers and maybe squeeze a bit more money out of licensing fees from the previous generation. That's why it's unlikely titles like Phantom Dust and Psychonauts will ever work in our 360s.

-Tom

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:51 PM
Not a programmer huh?

With branch prediction, if statements aren't a big deal; the cpu just executes down both paths and when the if statement is resolved, throws out one half. No loss of speed. Without branch prediction (or with poor branch prediction, as with P2 and earlier processors), an if statement stalls the processor until it's resolved.

Stalling a high speed processor is a huge huge huge performance problem.

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:55 PM
Not a programmer huh?

With branch prediction, if statements aren't a big deal; the cpu just executes down both paths and when the if statement is resolved, throws out one half. No loss of speed. Without branch prediction (or with poor branch prediction, as with P2 and earlier processors), an if statement stalls the processor until it's resolved.

Stalling a high speed processor is a huge huge huge performance problem.

Yes, I actually am. I started on 6809 assembly. My first project was an assembler. Then I wrote game code for the game Overlord.

As for that, yes I know. I understand. I guess that's why when I upgraded from my P3 to my Athlon XP system, the performance on all the games took a huge hit.

Oh wait a minute, it didn't. And it wouldn't have on the XBox 360 either.

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:56 PM
If I have to keep my xbox hooked up in order to play xbox games, then whatever kind of emulation the xbox 360 has is of no use to me, at all.

Therefore, since it has no use to me, it doesn't matter if it was included.

Since it doesn't matter if it was included, MS could've put their money to better use.


Charles, I don't want to get in the way of your little party with Liz, but either I'm missing the point of what you wrote above or you're assuming you're the only audience for MS's backwards compatibility. As MS has implemented it, the back-com isn't for guys like you and me. We get fucked.

Instead, it's a way to effectively increase the size of the software library for new Xbox 360 customers and maybe squeeze a bit more money out of licensing fees from the previous generation. That's why it's unlikely titles like Phantom Dust and Psychonauts will ever work in our 360s.

-Tom

Oh, I know and understand that. I'm just giving my view on the issue. Realistically though, MS would've been better off to take a couple of high profile titles and do proper full-on ports to the 360, rather than this half assedness, especially with regards to the common consumer.

I mean, we're smart enough to check a list first, but if the box says backward compatible, you think Joe Compaq or Mom is going to have the slightest idea whether or not a game will work? I'd suggest that in this case, it's worse than not having it at all. Especially when you get people buying and trying software which will not run and then cannot be returned.

Charles
12-09-2005, 05:58 PM
Yes, I actually am. I started on 6809 assembly. My first project was an assembler. Then I wrote game code for the game Overlord.

As for that, yes I know. I understand. I guess that's why when I upgraded from my P3 to my Athlon XP system, the performance on all the games took a huge hit.

Oh wait a minute, it didn't. And it wouldn't have on the XBox 360 either.

Buh? What are you talking about? AMD's had better branch prediction than intel forever; that's the reason why their K6s performed so well despite having shit FPUs.

And I'm talking about Xbox 360 branch prediction problems based on the knowledge of friends of mine who are advanced 3d programmers and whose jobs are to make xbox 360 games. They are not idiots, and I trust their word. Whether you do or not, well, that's your issue.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 05:59 PM
Since Microsoft seems to think that a lot of these issues can be resolved post-launch with case-by-case patching, it raises the question of what happens to all the X360 owners who want to play these games but can't (or don't want to) hook up their machine to Xbox Live.

Well, it's not really a question. They're even more screwed than the rest of us.

Backov
12-09-2005, 05:59 PM
Ok, we're lost here.

I'm talking about what would have happenned if the X360 had used an x86 chip instead of what they ARE using. In that case, branch prediction would not have been an issue.

Charles
12-09-2005, 06:02 PM
Ok, we're lost here.

I'm talking about what would have happenned if the X360 had used an x86 chip instead of what they ARE using. In that case, branch prediction would not have been an issue.

Ah, I see what you are saying.

However, the benefit of throwing branch prediction to the wind is that you can make processors that are blazing fast, as long as you never stall it or blow the cache. And those kinds of processors are simpler, and therefore easier to make.

Charles
12-09-2005, 06:05 PM
Also, because I forgot to mention it, you are assuming the idea of MS using a preexisting chip (otherwise it would still have the same pitfalls, instruction set means nothing beside chip architecture).

That's what MS couldn't do; it would've resulted in having to buy chips from a manufacturer long after they stopped being produced, leading to higher costs.

Backov
12-09-2005, 06:07 PM
Well you'd think it could be made viable somehow, they did it with the XBox after all.. But ya, I totally dig it, why they did it. I just think that they gave up a lot to make economically smart decisions like that.

Charles
12-09-2005, 06:12 PM
You could very well be right; but the fact of the matter is that it's unknown how much of an impact backwards compatibility actually has on the market. The PS2 wasn't really a great measure because people would've bought it no matter what. This generation will make it a littler clearer, but even then, it's hard to know people's reasons for buying a system.

Woolen Horde
12-09-2005, 06:17 PM
Since Microsoft seems to think that a lot of these issues can be resolved post-launch with case-by-case patching, it raises the question of what happens to all the X360 owners who want to play these games but can't (or don't want to) hook up their machine to Xbox Live.

Well, it's not really a question. They're even more screwed than the rest of us.

Jeez Gary, did you not even bother reading the Xbox site? In case you don't have Xbox Live, all you do is download the update, burn it to a CD (MS walks you through the process), and then drop it into the 360.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 06:48 PM
All else being equal. Is that a difficult concept?

All else being equal I don't give a shit if it's there, because I won't use it if it doesn't work perfectly or better.

You must mean for small values of perfect, I guess.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 06:51 PM
Since Microsoft seems to think that a lot of these issues can be resolved post-launch with case-by-case patching, it raises the question of what happens to all the X360 owners who want to play these games but can't (or don't want to) hook up their machine to Xbox Live.

Well, it's not really a question. They're even more screwed than the rest of us.

You will be able to order a DVD of the latest version of the Backwards Compatibility stuff at this convenient web page (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardscompatibility.htm).

Charles
12-09-2005, 06:55 PM
All else being equal. Is that a difficult concept?

All else being equal I don't give a shit if it's there, because I won't use it if it doesn't work perfectly or better.

You must mean for small values of perfect, I guess.

You know what I hate about the internet? The fact that you have to be literal about everything.

Perfect, in this case, means exactly the same as it was on the xbox. Better, would mean at higher resolutions, or more interesting shaders, or better 3d sound, etc.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 06:57 PM
All else being equal. Is that a difficult concept?

All else being equal I don't give a shit if it's there, because I won't use it if it doesn't work perfectly or better.

You must mean for small values of perfect, I guess.

You know what I hate about the internet? The fact that you have to be literal about everything.

You don't need to be literal, you just need to make sense.

Charles
12-09-2005, 06:59 PM
You don't need to be literal, you just need to make sense.

Alternately, you could read for context and meaning instead of literal semantics. But hey, if wishes were fishes.

Gary Whitta
12-09-2005, 07:11 PM
Since Microsoft seems to think that a lot of these issues can be resolved post-launch with case-by-case patching, it raises the question of what happens to all the X360 owners who want to play these games but can't (or don't want to) hook up their machine to Xbox Live.

Well, it's not really a question. They're even more screwed than the rest of us.

Jeez Gary, did you not even bother reading the Xbox site? In case you don't have Xbox Live, all you do is download the update, burn it to a CD (MS walks you through the process), and then drop it into the 360.
Yes, I'm sure that will go down a storm with the casual gamers whom MS regard as crucial to its strategy of reaching a billion consumers. Many of these people (according to the MS spiel) will be entry-level gamers, and they're being asked straight off the bat to be downloading patches and burning CDs just to get their games to work.

And let's not forget the gamers (admittedly a declining demographic) who don't have Xbox Live because they're simply not online. What about them?

In any case, I suspect that few of the people who bought an X360 anticipated that the bold new future of console gaming involved downloading and burning patches onto CD-Rs. I'm sure they imagined that they could just, you know, put a game in and play it without any fucking around, as has been the case since the dawn of console gaming.

A brave new frontier, indeed.

Union Carbide
12-09-2005, 07:52 PM
Yes, I'm sure that will go down a storm with the casual gamers whom MS regard as crucial to its strategy of reaching a billion consumers. Many of these people (according to the MS spiel) will be entry-level gamers, and they're being asked straight off the bat to be downloading patches and burning CDs just to get their games to work.

"Entry Level" gamers don't give a shit about backwards compatibility, almost by definition.

"Casual" gamers might, but they generally only care about Madden, GTA, Halo, and whatever game happens to be big at the moment. Those games are either already out on the 360, or are already BC.

I think the only people that give a shit about BC and the whole catalog of X1 titles being playable on the 360 are people that HAVE all of those games. i.e. The Hardcore.

Ben
12-09-2005, 09:05 PM
Charles- So because you don't give a shit that it's there you'd prefer it didn't exist? That makes a lot of sense.

Again, I ask that we move to another industry. If you had your choice of two cars, one with no navigation system and one with a navigation system that right now only works for Oregon, Nova Scotia, and Florida but the makers say it will eventually support 40+ states and most of Canada and Mexico...
You're going with the car sans system?

mouselock
12-09-2005, 09:20 PM
Now, you're not Jose, so I'm going to assume you're not talking out your ass here. But, that said - since when does the graphics chipset used have anything to do with DX backwards compatibility? Are you saying that they directly accessed the hardware without a DX layer on the XBox?

Specifically, I believe the XBox released before the DX layer (on the XBox if it exists or on the PC) included HLSL. Meaning that most of those spiffy shaders in any games with them are done in lower level code and therefore have to be compatibilized.

Really, the hardware solution was a non-starter.

As for why people should care:

I went through this entire generation without an XBox. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not to get one to play the few XBox games I'd like to play, or just write a couple of them off and let the 360 provide back compatibility and HD resolutions to the ones it can play. A lot of it will depend on how long it's going to be until I see a 360. However, if they didn't have the availability issues I would certainly get the 360 and use it's backwards compatibility.

mouselock
12-09-2005, 09:24 PM
Not a programmer huh?

With branch prediction, if statements aren't a big deal; the cpu just executes down both paths and when the if statement is resolved, throws out one half. No loss of speed. Without branch prediction (or with poor branch prediction, as with P2 and earlier processors), an if statement stalls the processor until it's resolved.

Stalling a high speed processor is a huge huge huge performance problem.

On a completely tangential note, does this mean that large enough case...switch statements will stall a processor core? (Since I'm assuming they unroll into sequentil if...then statements.)

mouselock
12-09-2005, 09:29 PM
Oh, I know and understand that. I'm just giving my view on the issue. Realistically though, MS would've been better off to take a couple of high profile titles and do proper full-on ports to the 360, rather than this half assedness, especially with regards to the common consumer.

I don't think so. At least, not unless by "full on ports" you mean "redoing all art assets and re-optimizing the engine". I imagine the feature was basically "Let's make sure Halo 1 and especially Halo 2 are backwards compatible so people can still play them on XBox Live and make hype for Halo 3" and they found that doing so did a ton of the work toward the generic backwards compatibility for a lot of the titles on the list.

If I haven't bought an XBox for Halo 1&2 (and maybe Ninja Gaiden) by now, I'm not going to be swayed by shinier copies of the same game on the 360. However, I can sure as hell more easily justify a 360 since it opens up a decent sized swathe of the XBox library I've never played as well. I assume this puts me squarely in the "right" market Tom mentioned.

Of course, I can't find a 360.. but that's a completely unrelated issue in this case.



I mean, we're smart enough to check a list first, but if the box says backward compatible, you think Joe Compaq or Mom is going to have the slightest idea whether or not a game will work? I'd suggest that in this case, it's worse than not having it at all. Especially when you get people buying and trying software which will not run and then cannot be returned.

Does the box say backwards compatible? I'd guess it would say something like "Also plays select XBox games*" ("*XBox compatibility requires a hard drive and internet connection.")

Fugitive
12-09-2005, 10:20 PM
On a completely tangential note, does this mean that large enough case...switch statements will stall a processor core? (Since I'm assuming they unroll into sequentil if...then statements.)
The compiler will use a jump table if possible, using the switch value as an index into a table of branch destinations, so it only needs a single jump.

I wasn't sure what it would do in the case of a switch value that's large and sparsely populated though, so I ran a simple test through a couple compilers. In that case, both compilers (VS2003 and gcc) did indeed generate a large series of compares. The penalty still wouldn't be too large if the branch predictor defaulted to 'not taken' though, since only one of them would be.

(Edit: \/\/\/ You're just drunk :) )

Backov
12-10-2005, 01:48 AM
On a completely tangential note, does this mean that large enough case...switch statements will stall a processor core? (Since I'm assuming they unroll into sequentil if...then statements.)
The compiler will use a jump table if possible, using the switch value as an index into a table of branch destinations, so it only needs a single jump.

I wasn't sure what it would do in the case of a switch value that's large and sparsely populated though, so I ran a simple test through a couple compilers. In that case, both compilers (VS2003 and gcc) did indeed generate a large series of compares. The penalty still wouldn't be too large if the branch predictor defaulted to 'not taken' though, since only one of them would be.

I may be a little drunk, but holy shit man, you rock. Kudos.

Tom Chick
12-10-2005, 01:58 AM
Oh, I know and understand that. I'm just giving my view on the issue. Realistically though, MS would've been better off to take a couple of high profile titles and do proper full-on ports to the 360, rather than this half assedness, especially with regards to the common consumer.


Did you not even read the post you were replying to, or do you really believe Microsoft should tailor their strategy around your own personal preferences?

In case it's the former, I'll reiterate: the point is that the backward compatibility is primarly so that new Xbox 360 owners might throw a little money into buying Xbox 1 games. Microsoft obviously counted the beans and decided that the cost of emulation would be offset by the additional revenue. Rejiggering a couple of high-profile titles, as you suggest, wouldn't have accomplished the same thing.

However, in case it's the latter, my advice to you is this: if you ever have the opportunity to launch a console system, just keep your day job.

-Tom

zabuni
12-10-2005, 02:37 AM
I didn't think branch prediction meant that it went down both paths, but that it made a best guess, went down that path, and then flushed the data path if it screwed up.

I don't know how branch prediction would screw with the ISA (Instruction Set Architecture). Most branch prediction schemes are under the hood so to speak, they can't be mucked with terribly by the programmer, even in assembly.

Ah, I see the problem. With no branch prediction, on the PPC cores, code that would normally run fast, like loops, will constantly stall because the older code assumes that branches will take the correct route with about 75% or higher frequency. Add to that the in order execution, and you will have massive slowdowns.

It wouldn't be terribly hard to emulate x86 code on any architecture, bochs does that already. Emulating the branch predictor may not be that bad. But emulating the reordering of instructions would suck. With all of that, you would basically be dynamically recompiling the assembly code, since a compiler for the PPC cores on the xbox 360 would reorder the instructions anyway to get the best use of processor resources. Branches would be eliminated as much as possible with stuff like loop unrolling.

Interesting, it's no wonder they went with a combination of high level emulation and complete rewrites of game code.

Qenan
12-10-2005, 06:25 AM
You'd also need to include the nvidia graphics chip, as that's where a lot of the emulation pain has come from as well. So now you have half of an original xbox in there.

I'd originally planned to keep my original Xbox until I finished a few games I haven't had time to play through. But the only games I really, really care about that aren't on the back-compat list are Psychonauts and Lego Star Wars (which my son loves to watch). I can get Psychonauts for the PC, and I just picked up a cheap copy of the PS2 version of Lego Star Wars.


Wow, that reduces my interest still further. Psychonauts was probably my favorite game of the last year, and I think it plays a lot better on the XBox than it does on the PC.

Charles
12-10-2005, 07:52 AM
Oh, I know and understand that. I'm just giving my view on the issue. Realistically though, MS would've been better off to take a couple of high profile titles and do proper full-on ports to the 360, rather than this half assedness, especially with regards to the common consumer.


Did you not even read the post you were replying to, or do you really believe Microsoft should tailor their strategy around your own personal preferences?

In case it's the former, I'll reiterate: the point is that the backward compatibility is primarly so that new Xbox 360 owners might throw a little money into buying Xbox 1 games. Microsoft obviously counted the beans and decided that the cost of emulation would be offset by the additional revenue. Rejiggering a couple of high-profile titles, as you suggest, wouldn't have accomplished the same thing.

However, in case it's the latter, my advice to you is this: if you ever have the opportunity to launch a console system, just keep your day job.

-Tom

Did you read the part where I explained that I didn't feel that my opinion was solely based on personal preference?

Feel free to disagree, but please, try and understand what I'm saying before jumping to your attacks.

Plus, your explanation doesn't negate my point about confusing the consumer. How is a consumer, who is supposed to 'throw a little money' in to playing a couple of xbox games supposed to do that with no problems when the game console may or may not play the game they pick up without doing some research first?

Put another way, do you feel that the ill will of people who buy a game they end up not being able to play will be completely insignificant? Or do you feel that that ill will can be safely ignored on MSs part? Or something else?

Charles
12-10-2005, 07:58 AM
Charles- So because you don't give a shit that it's there you'd prefer it didn't exist? That makes a lot of sense.

Again, I ask that we move to another industry. If you had your choice of two cars, one with no navigation system and one with a navigation system that right now only works for Oregon, Nova Scotia, and Florida but the makers say it will eventually support 40+ states and most of Canada and Mexico...
You're going with the car sans system?

Holy christ, you need to give yourself a shake, so you can break out of the rut your needle is stuck in.

To use your car analogy:

All things being equal, the navigation system means absolutely nothing if A) It doesn't work for the place I live, and B) doesn't give an exact and accurate timeline as to when it will, and C) doesn't promise to include all the roads of the areas.

How is it that you are directly equating "no preference" with "against"? That isn't how it works. Plus your analogies are flawed in that you believe there is no impact by including the system that has no guaranteed worth, which is unlikely at best, outright wrong at worst. So really, your 'all things being equal' crap isn't applicable. There is some cost somewhere; nothing is free.

Charles
12-10-2005, 07:59 AM
I didn't think branch prediction meant that it went down both paths, but that it made a best guess, went down that path, and then flushed the data path if it screwed up.

That's the old slow way of doing branch prediction. This is also why it's common good code practice to make sure that your conditionals are set up to be true in most cases. Not that anyone actually does that anymore. But they should, and it'll make a resurgence this time around.

Ben
12-10-2005, 11:12 AM
Charles- Have you been paying attention at all? Gary and RickH said that they'd rather have no BC than bad BC ceteris paribus. Apparently the very idea of a hypothetical situation is offensive to you, but that was the discussion. Not "Did Microsoft make the Xbox360 to perfectly suit my tastes?"



How is it that you are directly equating "no preference" with "against"?

Sigh.

RickH
12-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Charles- Have you been paying attention at all? Gary and RickH said that they'd rather have no BC than bad BC ceteris paribus.

And I still do. If I have to keep the old Xbox hooked up to the TV, I'm not going to bother with trying to play Xbox games on the 360.

And if you defenders of the half-assed think that average (or sub-average for that matter) consumers are going to check with websites, send away for DVD's, or download 'n' burn emu profiles before they buy a random Xbox game, you're living in dreamland. And not that fun one with Kirby in it, either (since I'm apparently a Nintendo fanboy now).

Anything short of put-it-in-and-it-works is INFERIOR and should be avoided in the console world. Whoever posted that the "patch it later" philosophy has been ported to the X360 has nailed it. Consoles are attractive because you put the game in and it works. Unless, of course, you have an X360 and want to take advantage of the advertised feature of BC. That is why a half-assed job is sometimes worse than no job at all.

zabuni
12-10-2005, 01:46 PM
Could you be talking about branch predication, not prediction? At least that combined with speculative loads. Stuff like that is on the Itanium, and high end RISC chips.

Or do you mean the Branch Target Buffer, which caches the memory location of the instruction. This, combined with an instruction cache, loads the instructions into short term memory before they are executed. I have heard that the AMD processors will cache both paths' instructions.

I just don't seem to remember both paths being taken on a P3.

Xaroc
12-10-2005, 04:19 PM
The sand in the vaginas in this thread could be used to hold back a storm surge.

-- Xaroc

bago
12-10-2005, 07:29 PM
Remember, the experience for anyone who has a network cable plugged in is load the disc and play. Downloads are automatic.

Ben
12-10-2005, 09:21 PM
bago- So I have to own Cat 5 cable? That costs like a $15!! What with the economy and all, I think that's cause to charge Bill Gates with manslaughter.
!!!!

Gary Whitta
12-10-2005, 11:48 PM
I'll say it one more time: For the first time in the history of console gaming, the "release now, patch later" concept is now an established reality. It's perhaps not surprising that Microsoft would be the company to bring it about.

I honestly thought that if and when this day came, console gamers would be up in arms about the obliteration of one of the primary advantages that videogames have always had over PC games - that they were truly plug and play, without any messing about whatsoever. Not any more.

If you don't think that's worth even some mild consternation and some worrying thoughts about the thin ends of wedges...

_Fury_
12-11-2005, 06:24 AM
No. Instead I'm glad that they can keep adding features. That sounds like a plus, not a minus. However, if you still hold up the SNES as the pinnacle of gaming technology, I'll see ya in 1994.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 07:43 AM
I'll say it one more time: For the first time in the history of console gaming, the "release now, patch later" concept is now an established reality. It's perhaps not surprising that Microsoft would be the company to bring it about.

It was established with XBox 1 to some extent.

And I think bitching about "patching" in backwards compatibility is stupid, when in context "release now, patch later" means that you release a new game that's not playable (or has glaring issues) now, and plan to make it more playable via patches after your customers have already helped you recoup some costs. Patching for backwards compatibility is a completely different beast.

It's like you've turned so bitter about not being able to get a 360 that you no longer have any objectivity left to talk about anything even tangentially related.

Dave Long
12-11-2005, 07:47 AM
That's bullshit mouselock. They've put a list of games out there that are barely tested and apparently many don't work properly. That's exactly the same as a PC publisher selling an incomplete and barely functional PC game and then patching it afterward, all in the name of making it available before it's ready.

There's also talk of fixing the same problem in Call of Duty 2 via patching. Yes, it's nice that they can fix something, but the point is that consoles used to be able stringent certification and testing where huge bugs like blowing away all your save games simply didn't happen. They would always be caught beforehand. Only the most minor of issues ever made it through.

So by facilitating patches, clearly QA has gotten worse.

--Dave

Charles
12-11-2005, 07:58 AM
They would always be caught beforehand. Only the most minor of issues ever made it through.

So by facilitating patches, clearly QA has gotten worse.

--Dave

Not necessarily true. There've been super buggy games released on console forever. Remember Final Fantasy 3? Absolutely broken at a certain point in the game.

Games *have* gotten more complex, and while I agree that things like this shouldn't happen, the mere fact of the matter is that there are so many permutations and combinations in today's games that it's impossible to test everything. So everyone does their best, and if shit happens, well, it's nice to have the option to fix it. Though I don't like the idea, I see it's use.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 08:54 AM
That's bullshit mouselock. They've put a list of games out there that are barely tested and apparently many don't work properly. That's exactly the same as a PC publisher selling an incomplete and barely functional PC game and then patching it afterward, all in the name of making it available before it's ready.

Which games are we talking about? Because I"ve heard of one bug in CoD2, and to proclaim that it's now SoP to publish then patch because a bug got through is utterly stupid. AFAIK X-Men Legends II had a bug that got through involving freezing if there were too many drops in the world, so I guess by that logic the last generation of consoles established the publish then patch paradigm too, only they didn't do so good on the patching.

If you're incensed because games that weren't designed for the console and run on a completely different architecture have been enabled as somewhat backwards compatible and now need to be patched to be fully backwards compatible, fine. I think they probably shouldn't have released crappy emulators, although my guess is it's a generic release type thing.

However, to claim that this is a publish then patch methodology, when in PC space that refers to brand new games being unplayable is just rampant sour grapes or fanboy-ism or whatever the hell you want to call it. At least the point about "Your average consumer won't know that they're not 100% in BC" is reasonable (albeit nobody has yet stepped up with what the box actually says about the backwards compatibility). To claim that MS is actively promoting a paradigm which it simply doesn't have enough current gen games out to even validate is simply you and Gary being bitchy because you have some sort of bizarre love/hate relationship with the 360.



There's also talk of fixing the same problem in Call of Duty 2 via patching. Yes, it's nice that they can fix something, but the point is that consoles used to be able stringent certification and testing where huge bugs like blowing away all your save games simply didn't happen. They would always be caught beforehand.


Yeah.. the bugs would always be caught beforehand. Right. :roll:

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 11:18 AM
double post

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 11:24 AM
It's like you've turned so bitter about not being able to get a 360 that you no longer have any objectivity left to talk about anything even tangentially related.
Please don't confuse "a lack of objectivity" with "an opinion different than your own."

Yeah, I'm plenty bitter about not being able to by an X360, which is why you see me bitching so much in these forums about Microsoft's launch strategy. I am, however, capable of compartmentalizing my criticisms, and my feelings about the 360's half-assed backward compatability have nothing to do with the machine's lack of availability. Hell, I imagine I'd be MORE pissed if I actually had a machine and was being exposed directly to these issues.

And the "release now, patch later" argument is totally relevant in this case. They released the machine now, knowing that they would have to patch many games later.

When did consumers become so apathetic about this stuff? Suddenly a half-assed job is good enough now?


However, to claim that this is a publish then patch methodology, when in PC space that refers to brand new games being unplayable is just rampant sour grapes or fanboy-ism or whatever the hell you want to call it... To claim that MS is actively promoting a paradigm which it simply doesn't have enough current gen games out to even validate is simply you and Gary being bitchy
I refer you back to my previous point about the thin ends of wedges. There is a longer-term picture here. If you don't think this the first step in a gradual shift toward a more PC-like publisher mentality in which new videogames, particularly those rushing to meet holiday deadlines, etc, will be shipped with known issues because "hey, we'll just patch it later, it's already established that consumers are fine with this because of what happened with the backward-compatability stuff", I'd have to argue that you are mistaken.

Andrew Mayer
12-11-2005, 11:41 AM
I think this is a very valid point. Now that they know that Microsoft is actively allowing post-release patching do you think the Publishers are more or less likely to let projects slip out the door with known bugs, or cut off the bug review process a little earlier?

Jose Liz
12-11-2005, 11:44 AM
Hell, I imagine I'd be MORE pissed if I actually had a machine and was being exposed directly to these issues.

Doubtful.


I think this is a very valid point. Now that they know that Microsoft is actively allowing post-release patching do you think the Publishers are more or less likely to let projects slip out the door with known bugs, or cut off the bug review process a little earlier?

I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think that Microsoft is going to allow developers to exploit this. Patching has always been "effectively allowed" if the bug was nearly game ending. I don't think you're going to see it happen any more than it happened on Xbox. The reason for this is that the hard drive is no longed included in every single Xbox 360. Even when games were patched on Xbox, it was a very intuitive, in-the-background process. This is in stark contrast to the patching process for PC games.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 11:46 AM
Hell, I imagine I'd be MORE pissed if I actually had a machine and was being exposed directly to these issues.

Doubtful.
Why? Please feel free to submit a rebuttal consisting of more than one word.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 11:50 AM
When did consumers become so apathetic about this stuff? Suddenly a half-assed job is good enough now?


Among the technically literate, sure. I know roughly how hard/how much it would have cost to have 100% backwards compatibility. If I want to pay for an extra XBox I'd much rather have the discrete console than have the price jacked into my 360 by default.

As for being "half-assed" this is why I think your objectivity is questionable: Most people don't care. Backwards compatibility is either a bonus (my case, where it might give me enough of the XBox library to not need to buy an original) or a marketing gimmick (Look.. this will play little Timmy's XBox games too.. that's good, right?). In general 95+% of the people aren't going to give two squirts about backwards compatibility which lets you play last generation's games on this generation's console. Certainly not enough to justify the tremendous expense (read: More than $5) that would attach to actually having 100% working backwards compatibility.



I refer you back to my previous point about the thin ends of wedges. There is a longer-term picture here. If you don't think this the first step in a gradual shift toward a more PC-like publisher mentality in which new videogames, particularly those rushing to meet holiday deadlines, etc, will be shipped with known issues because "hey, we'll just patch it later, it's already established that consumers are fine with this because of what happened with the backward-compatability stuff", I'd have to argue that you are mistaken.

So you're going to argue that I am mistaken based on the possibility that you could be right. Umm.. yeah.. there are high school rhetoric teachers across the lands cringing right now.

C'mon, at least aim for a bit of intellectual honesty. If you say "Hey, this could be a bad thing, we don't know, but this is how it might start.." maybe. But "This backwards compatibility stuff heralds in the era of release now, patch later on the consoles. Woe is us, we R teh domed!" is just silly. And that seems to be the rhetoric you're attaching, even if that isn't the point you want to be making.

Andrew Mayer
12-11-2005, 11:51 AM
Yes. It will be better patching. But hitting release dates directly impact the bottom line. The pressure to release is enormous. There was this company called Microsoft, you may have heard of them, that cut a few corners to get this game box called the 360 out for the christmas season back in 2005.

I'm not sure what MS is going to do about the machines that don't have a hard drive. My guess is that they'll orphan the crippled boxes at some point, along with a cheaper hard drive upgrade and a press release full of fancy language trying to obscure what they're doing.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Even when games were patched on Xbox, it was a very intuitive, in-the-background process. This is in stark contrast to the patching process for PC games.
I play a lot of PC games and the patching process is pretty intuitive and increasingly within the game these days. The most recent example I can think of is Civilization 4, which checks for updates from the menu screen. Hardly in stark contrast to the way Xbox is doing it.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 12:02 PM
So you're going to argue that I am mistaken based on the possibility that you could be right. C'mon, at least aim for a bit of intellectual honesty. If you say "Hey, this could be a bad thing, we don't know, but this is how it might start.." maybe. But "This backwards compatibility stuff heralds in the era of release now, patch later on the consoles. Woe is us, we R teh domed!" is just silly. And that seems to be the rhetoric you're attaching, even if that isn't the point you want to be making.
What I'm saying is a combination of both. Yeah, we don't yet know for sure which way this is going to pan out, but it's not like we don't have very relevant precedent on which to base predictions here. We do.

There was a time when PCs were not online. Games had to work out of the box, or both the consumer and the publisher were fucked. Then PCs went online and publishers realized that they could fix little (and maybe not so little) things after the game had shipped.

The same thing is happening now. Console gaming is finally reaching a tipping point where mainstream online connectivity is, I predict, going to lead to a similar shift in the attitudes of console game publishers. And I think that would be A Bad Thing.

Charles
12-11-2005, 12:07 PM
There was a time when PCs were not online. Games had to work out of the box, or both the consumer and the publisher were fucked.

Didn't stop sierra. Christ, ordering patches on floppies that you read about in a magazine *sucked*.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 12:09 PM
There was a time when PCs were not online. Games had to work out of the box, or both the consumer and the publisher were fucked.

Didn't stop sierra. Christ, ordering patches on floppies that you read about in a magazine *sucked*.
Kinda like ordering a disc from Microsoft that will patch your old Xbox games to work on your X360?

Troy S Goodfellow
12-11-2005, 12:15 PM
I'm not sure that there was a time when PC developers spent more time getting their games right the first time. I think gamers were also more willing to accept graphical glitches, slow downs, imbalanced play and exploits.

The internet has not just increased the number of patches because developers know they can patch, but because gamers demand that they do.

Troy

mouselock
12-11-2005, 12:17 PM
There was a time when PCs were not online. Games had to work out of the box, or both the consumer and the publisher were fucked. Then PCs went online and publishers realized that they could fix little (and maybe not so little) things after the game had shipped.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I still think you're wrong. The PC model didn't change when PCs started to first get online. I recall patches being things that the few people with online access wrote off to disks so everyone else could use. As long as console internet access isn't something that can be innately taken for granted (as PC internet access has become), I don't expect to see retroactively coding games to run as a viable business model. Hell, I'm not sure it's a particularly viable business model for PC games.

I think you're looking at the current console world through rose colored glasses as well, if you don't think games already get pushed out the door "unfinished" as is. Pick 25 reviews of a number of titles at random and you're sure to find a few that say things like "The game feels like it could have been great if they'd spent another month or two tuning...". That's things being sent functionally "working" but unfinished in a lot of cases. I have trouble seeing how, as this is already done, the ability to touch these things up afterwards is necessarily a bad thing.

Hell, how many games could have been saved if there had been an opportunity after the fact to tweak the physics and/or camera model alone?

I think you're just being overreactive to any negativity and, yes, I still think it's because you're having trouble summoning up your objectivity. The XBox could do the exact thing you're worried about for most of it's product life, and we've yet to see that shift so far. The fact that you're seeing them download new software emulators for backwards compatibility is a boon, not a negative. Because the other alternative was zero backwards compatibility. And I have no problem stating definitively that "some backwards compatible games are better than zero backwards compatible games". Anyone who can argue that a null is greater than a small but finite number is deluding themselves, at least from a consumer standpoint.

Andrew Mayer
12-11-2005, 12:37 PM
Hell, how many games could have been saved if there had been an opportunity after the fact to tweak the physics and/or camera model alone?

Define "saved". It's very hard to go back and undo a botched launch. Even moreso in a market with such a small attention window as the console market.


The XBox could do the exact thing you're worried about for most of it's product life, and we've yet to see that shift so far.

A big part of that being there was no free version of the Live service. I'm also guessing that MS was demanding Sony/Nintendo levels of product performance before allowing them to go out the door.

What we're worrying about here is a degredation of performance on MS's end ultimately. What are they willing to release?


The fact that you're seeing them download new software emulators for backwards compatibility is a boon, not a negative. Because the other alternative was zero backwards compatibility. And I have no problem stating definitively that "some backwards compatible games are better than zero backwards compatible games".

That's not "the other alternative." There's also creating well tested emulators that work correctly before release.

Why this should be that hard with a stable platform is beyond me. But the decision to release untested software (as in the Halo case) does not speak well to MS right now.


Anyone who can argue that a null is greater than a small but finite number is deluding themselves, at least from a consumer standpoint.

No company has ever hurt their bottom line by releasing a bad product instead of cancelling it (or improving it) before release? Your argument is a little buggy... You might want to check that.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 01:17 PM
Hell, how many games could have been saved if there had been an opportunity after the fact to tweak the physics and/or camera model alone?

Define "saved". It's very hard to go back and undo a botched launch. Even moreso in a market with such a small attention window as the console market.

Well that argues all the more heartily toward it being in the best interest of the game companies to not release stuff buggy and expect to patch it later for success doesn't it? Market pressure is an inhibitor in this case.


A big part of that being there was no free version of the Live service. I'm also guessing that MS was demanding Sony/Nintendo levels of product performance before allowing them to go out the door.

What we're worrying about here is a degredation of performance on MS's end ultimately. What are they willing to release?


And you're worried about it based on a possibility that's only slightly larger than it was with the XBox. (You really expect folks to go through any particular effort to set up even XBox Live silver for the 360 if they're not interested in playing online anyway? I don't. Maybe the downloadable demos and such will push them to, I don't know, but remember that the cost for entry is still broadband and, in the NA market at least, broadband isn't so ubiquitously available as people seem to believe.)



That's not "the other alternative." There's also creating well tested emulators that work correctly before release.

Why this should be that hard with a stable platform is beyond me. But the decision to release untested software (as in the Halo case) does not speak well to MS right now.


See, when I say "the other alternative" I implicitly mean "the other alternative that makes any sense whatsoever for a business to pursue". You, appareantly, mean "the other alternative that delivers the utmost in fan service, business sense be damned". I can flat out guarantee you that MS will lose money on including any type of backwards compatibility. They'd lose far more if they had to meet your 100% criteria. Does it mean that the feature is essentially stillborn? Yep. It was from the moment they announced it was "limited" backwards compatibility through emulation.

You want to get bent out of shape because 2 weeks after they released the system they've patched Halo 2 to run better, be my guest. Me, I know the reality of the market well enough to know that it was that way or no way, rather than the hypothetical 100% perfect backwards compatibility that some folks here would have preferred they pull out of their nether regions.

Business is a hard cruel world. I'm betting that they'll continue to sell consoles despite disappointing you. I'm even betting their net profit margin will be significantly larger for not having included 100% backward compatibility.


No company has ever hurt their bottom line by releasing a bad product instead of cancelling it (or improving it) before release? Your argument is a little buggy... You might want to check that.

Now we're back to the same hypthetical tripe from the X-Box launch fuck-up thread. So, where do you propose they insert the time necessary to give you your mythical 100%? Before Christmas, pushing the system back to a march launch and missing Christmas? Or maybe they should just hire supercoders who work 50% more efficiently than regular coders, and never make mistakes?

Yeah, having issues with an ancillary feature for the 360 is a huge, huge detriment to the 360 sales. Why, just look at all the 360 systems rotting on the shelf in the primary market. Clearly they could have sold far more machines if they'd only taken the time to make sure Halo 2 ran at 100% on the emulator pre-release, rather than spending 2 weeks and establishing an expectation that they'd keep updating it until they got it right!

Jose Liz
12-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Hell, I imagine I'd be MORE pissed if I actually had a machine and was being exposed directly to these issues.

Doubtful.
Why? Please feel free to submit a rebuttal consisting of more than one word.

If you had an Xbox 360, you would go and play it and instead of being consumed by not having on. It'd spare us dozens of post per hour that make on the subject.

Dave Long
12-11-2005, 01:34 PM
Not necessarily true. There've been super buggy games released on console forever. Remember Final Fantasy 3? Absolutely broken at a certain point in the game.

You know, I'm in a pissy mood, so why don't you provide some backup for this? If Final Fantasy III was "absolutely broken at a certain point in the game", I want a link as proof because I sold hundreds of copies of that game at EB and not a one of them came back with people saying it was "absolutely broken". In fact, the game is considered one of the greatest of all time on SNES, unless you're referring to a Japanese release or something, because yes, in Japan, consumers sometimes got fucked by console games with game ending bugs. That didn't happen here in the US.

--Dave

Charles
12-11-2005, 01:37 PM
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FF6:_Bugs_and_Glitches

There are actually two versions of FF3 out in the US. One is fixed, the other not. The bug is triggered by using Relm's sketch in Pheonix Mountain (er, or whatever it's called, can't quite remember). Lots of wacky fun can happen based on the bug, most common of which is a pure lockup.

It's a well documented fact, if you don't believe the link provided, google it yourself. Actually, I'll help: http://www.google.ca/search?q=relm's+sketch+bug

edit: And for the record, the first copy I owned was bugged. Nothing like getting 255 illuminas in your inventory!

Dave Long
12-11-2005, 01:41 PM
Ok, great. So there's one documented case of a bug that was fixed in later revs of a game. Now... back up this one.


There've been super buggy games released on console forever.

...because one does not equal "super buggy games released on console forever" and that isn't what I'd call "super buggy" either.

--Dave

Charles
12-11-2005, 01:44 PM
So... something that can potentially fuck up all your saves isn't super buggy? Wow. I'd hate to see your definition!

I'll also list KOTOR, with the game soft lock that prevented you from progressing if you hacked a certain console while in stealth mode.

Fact of the matter is, I don't have a huge list with me. But it happens. Just go download an A-Z rom set, and look at all the different versions.

People just never used to hear about it because console publishers would stealth out a new version (and offer exchanges if anyone complained). Plus you didn't have the internet to magnify the issue as much.

extarbags
12-11-2005, 01:56 PM
Astrosmash for Intellivision had a bug that caused it to sometimes load up an entirely different game. The Atari 7800 version of Impossible Mission is actually impossible thanks to some show-stopping bugs. Those are basically forever ago in gaming terms.

Andrew Mayer
12-11-2005, 02:00 PM
Well that argues all the more heartily toward it being in the best interest of the game companies to not release stuff buggy and expect to patch it later for success doesn't it? Market pressure is an inhibitor in this case.

Not really. The idea is to launch with a big as splash as possible. Bugs tend to show up well after the launch has faded, and often only for a smaller more "hardcore" audience.

I think that's a bad idea, but it doesn't stop the publishers from thinking that way. Is it hypocritical and possibly short sighted? Why yes, yes it is.


(You really expect folks to go through any particular effort to set up even XBox Live silver for the 360 if they're not interested in playing online anyway? I don't. Maybe the downloadable demos and such will push them to, I don't know, but remember that the cost for entry is still broadband and, in the NA market at least, broadband isn't so ubiquitously available as people seem to believe.)

It's getting up to 50% these days. But you're making my argument for me. Why is MS letting things slide if the games aren't going to ultimately be patched.




See, when I say "the other alternative" I implicitly mean "the other alternative that makes any sense whatsoever for a business to pursue".

That's a total a strawman argument. "Makes the most sense" to whom? To you?

There are other alternatives that don't make as much sense that are being actively pursued by business right now! It's a messy world...


You, appareantly, mean "the other alternative that delivers the utmost in fan service, business sense be damned". I can flat out guarantee you that MS will lose money on including any type of backwards compatibility.

No I didn't, and no you can't.

I think that the backwards compatability is clearly a marketing driven decision. MS recognizes that Sony is going to have a machine that is smoothly (or 95% anyway) backwards compatible.

Who are they doing it for? Not the mainstream, we agree on that. I think it was for exactly US. For the folks talking about it on bulleting boards and web sites. For the gaming press, and the early adopters.

And it's turning out to be marketing dollars poorly spent because that campaign is a failure.


They'd lose far more if they had to meet your 100% criteria.

I have no such criteria.

I think they should have picked a smaller set of titles, supported them fully and cleanly, and then promised "more to come". Then they'd be putting out press releases announcing successes:
"New title now compatible! Even more on the way!"
instead of failures:
"Fewer titles now compatible. And we screwed up what we've already put out there!"

It would have also given them a nice story to tell while we're waiting for the resupply.


Now we're back to the same hypthetical tripe from the X-Box launch fuck-up thread. So, where do you propose they insert the time necessary to give you your mythical 100%?

That's YOUR mythical 100% If your argument hinges on me demanding that you should figure out a new one.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 02:59 PM
Hell, I imagine I'd be MORE pissed if I actually had a machine and was being exposed directly to these issues.

Doubtful.
Why? Please feel free to submit a rebuttal consisting of more than one word.

If you had an Xbox 360, you would go and play it and instead of being consumed by not having on. It'd spare us dozens of post per hour that make on the subject.
Chick has an X360, and yet somehow he's managed to find time in between going "WOOOOOOOO!" to come here and post his dissatisfaction with the backcom issues. The argument that if I just had an X360 I'd suddenly become incapable of finding fault with it is absurd.

If my "dozens of posts per hour" are such a hardship for you, maybe you shouldn't encourage even more by constantly replying. I think if you did we could probably organize a petition by QT3ers to have you nominated for some kind of humanitarian award.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 05:16 PM
They'd lose far more if they had to meet your 100% criteria.

I have no such criteria.

I think they should have picked a smaller set of titles, supported them fully and cleanly, and then promised "more to come". Then they'd be putting out press releases announcing successes:
"New title now compatible! Even more on the way!"
instead of failures:
"Fewer titles now compatible. And we screwed up what we've already put out there!"

It would have also given them a nice story to tell while we're waiting for the resupply.


My apologies. I somehow completely messed up what I thought your viewpoints were.

I suspect that the list of "compatible" titles is pretty much incidental collateral damage from the efforts to make a few of the specific titles (Halo 1&2, the Tom Clancy series, Ninja Gaiden) compatible. I.e. "Let's compatibalize this series of calls that these games need.. oh.. look.. these other things run now too."

As for getting them working 100% beforehand, I suspect they just ran out of time. It seems pretty obvious that Halo 2 is their highest priority (the original list pre-release of games to be compatible at release was Halo 1&2, right?). I would be surprised if they're devoting much of any effort to anything other than the high profile games and just getting the other stuff as more or less bonuses.

Jose Liz
12-11-2005, 05:43 PM
Chick has an X360, and yet somehow he's managed to find time in between going "WOOOOOOOO!" to come here and post his dissatisfaction with the backcom issues. The argument that if I just had an X360 I'd suddenly become incapable of finding fault with it is absurd.

If you think that you and Chick make an equal number of posts on the subject, well, heh.

Also, while it may not make you "incapable" of finding a fault, it increases the likelihood of me not having to read about you finding a fault. :)

Andrew Mayer
12-11-2005, 07:07 PM
As for getting them working 100% beforehand, I suspect they just ran out of time. It seems pretty obvious that Halo 2 is their highest priority (the original list pre-release of games to be compatible at release was Halo 1&2, right?). I would be surprised if they're devoting much of any effort to anything other than the high profile games and just getting the other stuff as more or less bonuses.

In the end it got lost in the launch hype.

If they had announced the Halo compatability this week (for example) it would have been a nice triumph .

Tom Chick
12-11-2005, 08:51 PM
If you think that you and Chick make an equal number of posts on the subject, well, heh.

Dude, I can pretty much assure you that Gary and I share a similar perspective and fervor on the issue. Feel free to dismiss whatever complaints he has as sour grapes for not getting a 360, but you're missing the forest for the trees.

Personally, I think the back-com issue is just as much of a goatrope as the launch. Hell, a bigger goatrope for me, personally. But I can understand it from a business perspective. Unlike Charles ("I don't like it, so they shouldn't do it that way!"), I understand where the Tom Chicks and Gary Whittas and Dave Longs figure into Microsoft's strategy in general and backwards compatibility in specific.

-Tom

John Doyle
12-11-2005, 09:09 PM
I recall reading some research after that PS2 launch that found a signficant number of PS2 buyers listed backwards compatibility as a major selling point. The researchers followed up later and found that a very small percentage of PS2 owners ever actually used the feature.

It seems likely to me that MS heeded the above research and made sure they had a "backcomp story" for launch. The fact that it isn't great due to the myriad technical complications isn't as important as making sure Sony couldn't point out the lack of such a feature.

That doesn't make for a great initial customer experience, but if the above research holds true in this generation, most won't even notice.

I'll judge MS by their ongoing efforts to make the feature work. Let's see where it is in a couple of months. Launch issues don't worry me too much.

mouselock
12-11-2005, 09:18 PM
As for getting them working 100% beforehand, I suspect they just ran out of time. It seems pretty obvious that Halo 2 is their highest priority (the original list pre-release of games to be compatible at release was Halo 1&2, right?). I would be surprised if they're devoting much of any effort to anything other than the high profile games and just getting the other stuff as more or less bonuses.

In the end it got lost in the launch hype.

If they had announced the Halo compatability this week (for example) it would have been a nice triumph .

What possible reason do they have for needing a nice triumph now? I can only imagine the backwards compatibility being announced pre-release was to stave off the people who are worried about having to migrate their Live accounts over to the 360 and therefore not getting to play one of the games that remains perpetually viable (Halo 2) on the console.

Despite the prevalent opinion that MS screwed the pooch wholeheartedly on launch, they're still unable to keep product in stores for more than, oh, thirteen seconds. So I'm not seeing what having a nice, compatibility "coup" would help with now. (I could see a case being made for remaining completely silent and then after Christmas when sales die back saying "Look, we figured out a way to make your old games run too!". But then, saying "Look, all these games run better now." probably serves the same purpose and also allows them to throw in the backwards compatibility fluff up front.)

Hey Tom, since you're still reading and actually own a 360, what does the box actually say about backwards compatibility? Knowing the actual phrasing might help in deducing a bit better what the selling angle was for the feature.

Gary Whitta
12-11-2005, 09:21 PM
What possible reason do they have for needing a nice triumph now?

http://www.yukihime.com/board/360aki/private-show.jpg

Jose Liz
12-11-2005, 09:34 PM
Tom, I'm not saying that you don't share similar views, I'm saying that you don't express them as often as he does.

Also, it sold out of the main launch location. So that's something, right?

mouselock
12-11-2005, 10:06 PM
What possible reason do they have for needing a nice triumph now?

(Trimmed Whitta image.)


Yeah, because backwards compatibility is what's keeping sell-through low in the Japanese market. I'm sure those, what, 200k XBox 1 owners are furious over the lack of backwards compatibility. And the Japanese parents curse under their breath that little Timmy-san wouldn't be able to play his vast library of XBox games on a new 360 were they to buy it for him.

(This is the type of stuff that makes me question your objectivity, btw. Do you really see relevance of backwards compatibility in Japan? Do you really think that the average American or European gamer cares if the Japanese launch was/was not successful? Those are the only points I can possibly think you were trying to make, and neither of them seems particularly likely outside of the hallowed internet halls of uber-game-dorks such as those of us who frequent this website.)

Tom Chick
12-11-2005, 10:15 PM
Mouselock, good question! The box says nothing on the back about backwards compatibility.

However, on the side, where it lists the components included, under the section about the hard drive, it says, "Save games, download new content, and play an array of original Xbox games", followed by a footnote that appears to go nowhere unless you read under the licensing crap and the trademark listings on the other side of the box. There, you'll find the footnote has referred you to this tidbit:

"For a list of compatible original Xbox games, go to http://www.xbox.com/games/."

On that page, I have no idea where I'm supposed to go to find out if the 360 will run my beloved copy of Eve of Destruction, much less whether I can still use my party from KOTOR or my cars from Forza.

-Tom

Tom Chick
12-11-2005, 10:17 PM
Jeeze, mouselock, why do you wanna begrudge a guy a little schadenfreude? :)

-Tom

Unicorn McGriddle
12-11-2005, 10:49 PM
Whether people in general are conscious of these things or not, Microsoft certainly is. So is anybody paying attention to the 360 launch and trying to assess how well they're doing. Not selling as much as they'd like in Japan is a Black Eye for Microsoft. Expanding the backwards compatibility list would be a Feather in their Cap.

Jason McMaster
12-12-2005, 06:38 AM
they would then look like a pimp with a black eye

Charles
12-12-2005, 10:05 AM
Unlike Charles ("I don't like it, so they shouldn't do it that way!")

For a writer, you have a surprisingly low level of reading comprehension. Or, alternately, your intellect is so vast, that my mere functionality with the language fails to properly inform you as to my opinions.

Union Carbide
12-12-2005, 10:15 AM
Unlike Charles ("I don't like it, so they shouldn't do it that way!")

For a writer, you have a surprisingly low level of reading comprehension.

When other people consistently "misunderstand" you, you may wish to consider that perhaps you are not a misunderstood genius and that the other people are not the source of the difficulty.

Charles
12-12-2005, 10:26 AM
I personally would love to see where the confusion lies. I don't understand where this viewpoint that I don't want it included because I don't like it comes from.

All I've said is that I don't care if it's there, since I won't use it. I did state an opinion that for me, they might as well have not included it. However, I didn't state that as some kind of be all end all statement that should apply to THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE(TM).

The only reasons I've stated for not including it at all was potential customer confusion. Now, people can feel free to disagree with that, I realize that it's a potential non-issue (and have tried to drag the conversation in that direction, to the end result of abject failure). But that's a far cry from me stating "Microsoft should not include it because I, Charles Randall, King of the World, do not like it, and therefore, reality should bend to my will."

Tom Chick
12-12-2005, 01:54 PM
If I have to keep my xbox hooked up in order to play xbox games, then whatever kind of emulation the xbox 360 has is of no use to me, at all.

Therefore, since it has no use to me, it doesn't matter if it was included.

Since it doesn't matter if it was included, MS could've put their money to better use.

Gary Whitta
12-12-2005, 01:57 PM
Ergo, Charles is PWNED!

Tom Chick
12-12-2005, 02:00 PM
Stand by for Charles to explain what he really meant and that my reading comprehension is low in 3...2...1...

-Tom

Charles
12-12-2005, 02:03 PM
I suppose I can see how that was misinterpreted. But since you've already decided what it was I meant to say, I guess there's no point in attempting to explain myself or clarify is there?

Funny thing about the internet, no one ever admits they are wrong, and when they try to, no one actually accepts it.

edit: See, I thought my liberal use of "to me" set that up nicely as a personal opinion. Guess I need to be clearer.

Jackstar
12-12-2005, 02:20 PM
The common element in all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

Charles
12-12-2005, 02:21 PM
The common element in all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

You know, I just realized, I don't miss the lack of your presence in IRC.

Jackstar
12-12-2005, 02:24 PM
The common element in all your dysfunctional relationships is you.

You know, I just realized, I don't miss the lack of your presence in IRC.
I'm in IRC right now, smacktard!

Unicorn McGriddle
12-12-2005, 02:52 PM
Ergo, the lack of your presence is missing.

It's like magic... with words!

Charles
12-12-2005, 02:56 PM
I blame the fact that I'm dusting off my french and turning all the squeaky bilingual wheels.

DennyA
12-12-2005, 07:46 PM
I shall declare backward compatibility a success when Lego Star Wars and Psychonauts run.

DennyA
12-14-2005, 12:56 PM
Test Drive: Eve of Destruction works great under backward compatibility. One or two stutters during the opening movie, but the gameplay is flawless. And the game looks noticably better than it did on my Xbox.

Nice.

RickH
01-21-2006, 07:34 PM
Metal Arms works very nicely on the 360 as well, as smooth as the original Xbox, and even retains the noticable screen tearing.

Now the rumor mill is reporting that there will be no compatibility updates until March. I'd be surprised if there were any more at all.

Rob_Merritt
01-21-2006, 08:47 PM
Now the rumor mill is reporting that there will be no compatibility updates until March. I'd be surprised if there were any more at all.

Not exactly a rumor. That statement came from Microsoft employee/mouth piece Major Nelson. However he said that the March release should be significant.

Rorschach
01-21-2006, 10:38 PM
Probably because they're tired of explaining over and over about how some games are easier to work into emulation the similarities of those game sto other crappy games. So they're going to lay low for a while and hit it all at once so people will see the games they want and won't whine about Barbie Horse Adventures.

At least that's what I'd do.

Andrew Mayer
01-22-2006, 12:08 PM
So far MS (in terms of the 360) has managed to continually underperform relative to the expectations of their defenders on this board.

I'm guessing that come March we'll see yet another example of this.

Xaroc
01-22-2006, 12:53 PM
So far MS (in terms of the 360) has managed to continually underperform relative to the expectations of their defenders on this board.

I'm guessing that come March we'll see yet another example of this.

That is funny. I am a big defender of MS and was expecting about 10 titles to work on launch. They got 200+ so they overperformed by a large margin compared with my expectations. Anyone who thought they were going to be able to nail every title by launch with software emu must be high. I never thought that and I don't recall anyone here saying that. I think MS wants that eventually but never promised that.

-- Xaroc

Andrew Mayer
01-22-2006, 02:00 PM
See, it's still the Barbie thing. It's not how many titles they do, it's which titles.

Charles
01-22-2006, 02:08 PM
See, it's still the Barbie thing. It's not how many titles they do, it's which titles.

You know, while I agree with this sentiment, there are limits to the reasoning behind attacking on this point.

If MS goes out of their way to make one high profile title work, and in the process, three barbie games start working... why should they not add those barbie games to the list?

I'm not about to believe the MS sat down and said "Oh, hey, barbie horse adventures, LETS DO IT!" to the exclusion of other titles. I'd bet money that they have a list of high profile titles, and anything that starts working while they are implementing those high profile titles gets added as an afterthought because for a lot of consumers more is simply better.

Xaroc
01-22-2006, 02:09 PM
See, it's still the Barbie thing. It's not how many titles they do, it's which titles.

They made an emu that worked for Halo and Halo 2 and some other top games then threw the rest of the games at it and saw what ran. Barbie ran so they put it on the list. If you honestly think they went out of their way to make the emu work for Barbie before other games you are truly retarded.

-- Xaroc

DennyA
01-22-2006, 03:02 PM
Barbie was "free," I'm sure -- probably shares an engine with a game they actually cared about.

If they do Psychonauts and Lego Star Wars, they can stop after that.

Played some Test Drive: Eve of Destruction with my wife last night on the 360. Impressive -- as smooth as on the original Xbox, and looked better.

fuzzyslug
01-22-2006, 04:47 PM
See, it's still the Barbie thing. It's not how many titles they do, it's which titles.

Yep (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/09), the barbie thing. Sure.

Jason Cross
01-22-2006, 09:48 PM
See, it's still the Barbie thing. It's not how many titles they do, it's which titles.

Does anyone actually believe they actually tried to get Barbie Horse Adventures working?

They worked on a fairly small selection of top games. Then they tested the emulation they had worked out for those on paractically the whole library, because when you get emulation that can handle something like Halo, you automatically get a whole bunch of lesser games "for free." Barbie just happened to work with the emulation they developed for the far more important titles.

I'm a bit disappionted that it'll be March or later before the next update, but I honestly don't really care much about original xbox games anymore. At least, the ones I care about I wouldn't play on my 360 anyway, since I can't transfer my saves. Here's hoping that the March ("at the earliest" remember) update fixes some of those wonky problems in the games that are supposed to work right, and basically gives everyone 95% of the games they could ever possibly care about.

scharmers
01-22-2006, 10:02 PM
Does anyone actually believe they actually tried to get Barbie Horse Adventures working?


Still waiting to see if the Tiajuana mod for this makes the compatibility list

Tom Chick
01-23-2006, 01:31 AM
The Barbie thing is silly to hound on. But it makes for an easy joke.


I honestly don't really care much about original xbox games anymore. At least, the ones I care about I wouldn't play on my 360 anyway, since I can't transfer my saves.

Remember that backwards compatibility isn't for guys like you and me. It's so that the Xbox 360 has a library beyond its current sad selection. And I can't believe you don't care about any Xbox 1 games. Eve of Destruction? None of the SSXs? Midnight Club or maybe a Burnout or two? Ghost Recon, Mercenaries, Top Spin, Splinter Cell?

At this point, I'll unhook my 360 and put it in a closet before my original Xbox.

-Tom

Jason Cross
01-23-2006, 02:29 PM
Remember that backwards compatibility isn't for guys like you and me.

Yeah, but neither is a $300-400 game box. The people who are willing to shell out that much for a console are generally the ones who already have an Xbox on which to play Xbox games (or don't really care that much).


And I can't believe you don't care about any Xbox 1 games. Eve of Destruction? None of the SSXs? Midnight Club or maybe a Burnout or two? Ghost Recon, Mercenaries, Top Spin, Splinter Cell?


It's not that I don't care about those games, it's that I don't care about playing them on a 360 when my saves are on my Xbox. And you know, I'm in the "what's the big deal with EOD" camp. I know how much you and some other guys have been championing it, and I bought it and played it for a good 10-15 hours or so. It's good, but it's not THAT great.

MyNameIsWill
01-23-2006, 03:34 PM
I would never complain about a console's price because I think it's an incredible steal. If I wanted to buy a good productivity PC now, I'd spend maybe $1000. Let's toss in $500 for games. I honestly don't think that I'll get the same gaming experience from my $500 PC five years from now, or even two or three years from now, compared to what I'll get from my $400 Xbox 360.

Xaroc
01-23-2006, 03:44 PM
I would never complain about a console's price because I think it's an incredible steal. If I wanted to buy a good productivity PC now, I'd spend maybe $1000. Let's toss in $500 for games. I honestly don't think that I'll get the same gaming experience from my $500 PC five years from now, or even two or three years from now, compared to what I'll get from my $400 Xbox 360.

Will, for your sanity, I suggest you don't go there. Otherwise there are soon going to be people who have insanely expensive computers in this thread insisting you can buy a holodeck for $1.87 that will last you until the end of time. You are clearly right leave it at that.

-- Xaroc

Xaroc
01-23-2006, 03:49 PM
It's not that I don't care about those games, it's that I don't care about playing them on a 360 when my saves are on my Xbox. And you know, I'm in the "what's the big deal with EOD" camp. I know how much you and some other guys have been championing it, and I bought it and played it for a good 10-15 hours or so. It's good, but it's not THAT great.

The single player is pretty average but the multiplayer is very good with a just a couple of issues.

-- Xaroc

Wholly Schmidt
01-23-2006, 10:03 PM
Will, for your sanity, I suggest you don't go there. Otherwise there are soon going to be people who have insanely expensive computers in this thread insisting you can buy a holodeck for $1.87 that will last you until the end of time. You are clearly right leave it at that.

-- Xaroc
Amen.

tromik
04-21-2008, 06:17 PM
What's the deal with KotOR? I played through it in December and it worked fine aside from a few sound effect glitches. I'm playing through it again now, and there are tears and artifacts on the screen, sounds completely missing (ie. city sounds), music breaking up, and choppy cutscenes. What the hell? Did they make it worse?

Rock8man
04-21-2008, 08:29 PM
I don't own KOTOR anymore tromik, but I have been playing Ninja Gaiden Black, and I noticed the backwards compatibility update when I played it last week. The game seems to play fine.

When they do a backwards compatibility update, do all games go through the update screen every time, or does it only go through the update screen if they updated that particular game? If it's latter, I wonder what they changed about NGB? In the last stealth update, I noticed they changed it so that the menu for NGB's "coming attractions" option now works properly. I wonder if it was something trivial like that again?

rjcc
04-21-2008, 08:39 PM
I'm pretty sure when there's an update you don't have, it updates whenever you put in any original Xbox game.

tromik
04-21-2008, 09:12 PM
I'm pretty sure when there's an update you don't have, it updates whenever you put in any original Xbox game.
It updated right away, so I'm actually wondering if the update made something worse. It's playable atm, but barely.

Bahimiron
04-21-2008, 09:17 PM
It updated right away, so I'm actually wondering if the update made something worse. It's playable atm, but barely.

It's been known to happen.

Here's the current list of known errors with KOTOR.


SFX sometimes bug out and become very quiet until the Xbox is reset; often experiences heavy lag during combat and short lag bursts out of combat. May also experience random freezing during gameplay not associated with cut scenes.

I have no idea if that's changed from the list of errors prior to the most recent patch, though. The bit with the SFX seems pretty close to what you're describing.

tromik
04-21-2008, 09:23 PM
It's been known to happen.

Here's the current list of known errors with KOTOR.



I have no idea if that's changed from the list of errors prior to the most recent patch, though. The bit with the SFX seems pretty close to what you're describing.
Aside from the odd SFX glitch, none of this happened on my play through in December. Now every time I enter the city all I can hear are footsteps, but it's like someone turned up the footsteps dial to 11. Its sounds like SMT: Nocturne!

shift6
04-23-2008, 05:26 PM
Well the main BC page implies that they are still working on it for many games, but didn't someone say they had officially stopped?

Damn. I bought a copy of Mark Ecko's Getting Up for like $5 on sale somewhere, because the music is supposed to be good, and my old XBox died. HA HA THANK GOD I DON'T HAVE A MOD CHIP OR ANYTHING AMIRITE?. Dang it, I wanna play it. :(

tromik
04-23-2008, 05:44 PM
Well the main BC page implies that they are still working on it for many games, but didn't someone say they had officially stopped?

Damn. I bought a copy of Mark Ecko's Getting Up for like $5 on sale somewhere, because the music is supposed to be good, and my old XBox died. HA HA THANK GOD I DON'T HAVE A MOD CHIP OR ANYTHING AMIRITE?. Dang it, I wanna play it. :(
Getting Up wasn't bad, I actually enjoyed it. Know that I think about it, I wonder if the Assassin's Creed team played it - it had a lot of that real-world stealth and parkour stuff that AC had going on. Even the combat systems were sort of similar, if my memory serves me correct.