Will Xbox 360 be backwards compatible? MS doesn't know.
by Ben Zackheim 
{ May 14th 2005 at 6:32PM }
One of the factoids missing from the 360 specs is backwards-compatibility. The bottom line seems to be, no one
knows. Not even Microsoft. The details of exactly why this is so tough aren't clear yet, and we don't expect them to be
clear until we're closer to launch.
Would it be so awful if they didn't pull it off? As
Engadget says, it would be a marketing disaster. But
would fans care? Personally, I do. My den is filled with enough plastic boxes already. I don't like the idea of another
one. If my PS2 can be replaced by my PS3, and my GC can be replaced by my Revolution I may wait awhile for the
360.
The (probable) worst case scenario is MS releases an add-on (after launch) that allows you to play Xbox games on Xbox
360.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Russell @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Microsoft is smart. If someone can make a NES emulator on the PC, surely the can emulate XBOX games. I'm hoping they'll do the right thing, and make it backwards compatible.
Kuyu @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
This is very difficult. The xbox used a cisc processor (like a PC), the 360 uses a risc processor (like a mac). If MS does pull it off, they are practically giving Apple a way to run Windows software on a mac at full speed.
Codejoy @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I may be wrong, but I think also they would have to relicense technology from nvidia (whats in the xbox) and I am sure nvidia might not make that an easy (or cheap) task, since xbox decided to go with ATI in their new system, if I recall correctly this is most likely the hurdle and the reason why MS doesnt know, cause the ball is most likely in nvidia's court.
G @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I think backwards compatibity is a legitimate concern. Especially in light of the fact that the PS3 and Revolution will be. People will look for any hole to poke in Microsoft's argument. The 360 needs to be backwards compatible. They can't afford to give consumers a single reason not to buy it. Not if they intend to topple Sony.
PEZinvaders @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The N64 wasn't compatible with the SNES and nobody cried. Do people look at the disk and think, my god, that should run on any damn thing in disk form? If the end result is an infinitely more powerful machine, I say eff back-comp.
Of course I'd rather it have backwards compatibility, but I'm just saying maybe we should let it go. Are all future systems supposed to be chained to the last one (or three)? I'd rather move forward.
Why doesn't my iPod play 8-tracks?!?!? <-- hyperbole
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I don't care if it is backward compatible.
Most people won't care either 3 months after launch.
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
People who ask for backward compatibility as a right don't have a clue about what it would take to make it happen.
What? I can't play my VHS tapes in this DVD player? You are kidding, right? I liked this movie a lot!
Brian Kirchhoff @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
1.) The overwhelming majority of those reading this blog probably will by Xbox360 regardless of backwards comparability.
2.) Backwards compatability will be a major factor in the purchasing decision for the public at large - most notably those that have purchased an Xbox in the last 12 months.
3.) If it is announced that the Xbox360 is NOT backwards compatabable - current and future Xbox hardware and software sales will be severely and negatively impacted.
Utils @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Backwards compatability would make it more expensive and hold it back. It's like still riding your bike with the training wheels. Why bother? You can't even go as fast or control as well.
How can other systems be backwards compatable? Proprietary hardware.
David K @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Interesting. One of the main points for the next-gen consoles seems to be "backwards compartibility." Nintendo has already said that "Revolution" would be backwards compartible with Gamecube games. Microsoft... well, this article says Microsoft doesn't know. What I'm really curious about though is if PS3 is going to be backwards compartible with not only PS2 but also with PS. If history has taught us anything, backwards compartibility only catered to a small amount of users in the market. But we'll see.
WarriorPoets @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#3 is on the money. There was an article on 1up.com over a year ago about the difficulty of backwards compatability for the next Xbox. It seems like the technical issues are difficult but not insurmountable - the biggest hurdles are probably surrounding the implementation/reverse engineering of non-standard Nvidia shader calls (eg their Cg shader language). But I think that there are intellectual property issues that will prevent reverse engineering or inclusion of Nvidia code without express consent. I really can't see why Nvidia would expose their IP to their main competitor in this way. I'm also thinking that they might leverage the DMCA to block this from happening without their involvement.
#9 - Kutaragi (Sony) has previously stated that PS3 will be back-compatible with both PSOne and PS2 titles. I think this is going to prove immensely advantageous for Sony's market penetration, especially if MSFT doesn't figure out a way to support current titles in the 360. I could see a "Dreamcast effect" happening - but then again MSFT can and will be dumping untold sums into marketing...
A lot of folks looking at this situation are describing back-compatability as a buzzword that is irrelevant in the real world. I couldn't disagree more. It's probably a fair assumption to make that most people who will buy the 360 at launch will expect to replace the current Xbox with it, not have both running in a setup. From a purely practical standpoint, if both systems need to be hooked up, that means more cabling, and possibly an input switcher. These necessities may raise the TCO of the 360 to a point where they start excluding a fair share of their potential customers. $300 is already a non-impulse buy for 99% of people, having to tack on another $50-150 for accessories could be a dealbreaker.
JDH @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Here are some scenarios about backwards compatability.
When someone buys a 360 and Halo 2 (for Xbox) and wants to play the game on the more advanced 360 system.
When someone owns an Xbox and all of their library of games need to be played on the 360. Why? Because their TV only supports one input at a time?!? Or, their room is only big enough for one console.
I hope the 360 is not BC. All of the old Xboxes will become mod-Boxes at the 360 launch anyways... unless you want to play Xbox Live with old Xbox games. Yeah, right...
NewXBoxGamer @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Backwards compatability? WHO CARES! As far as I'm concerned, it's that kind of backwards (pun not intended) thinking that's held back the PC all these years. Think of how insanely powerful PC's would be right now if the engineer's could be let loose without trying to reverse engineer the old 8088.
I just bought my 1st XBox a couple of months ago and I've been so impressed with the games I'll be getting a 360 within the first few days of it's release. Do I want or have a need to play my current XBox games on it? Will there be any residual value in my current XBox? Will I even want to play with my current box anymore? NO NO and NO! I'd rather Microsoft design in even more power than handicap the new system. Believe me, I've gotten my $229.- worth of fun out of it, bring on the new kid on the block.
Pex @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
One thing to consider with backward compatibility is all your saved data on your Xbox. Would you really want to keep playing your Xbox games if you didn't have access to your saves any more? There are several games that don't let you copy to memory cards, even if the memory cards between Xbox and Xbox 360 were compatible. Also, many games store information in an area that isn't even visible as a save game. If there's no way to copy this over, you'd want to keep your current Xbox anyway.
Eric Pobirs @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#2
Microsoft already owns an operation (nee Connectix)that produces an x86 emulator for Macs that allows the use of Windows software. It doesn't perform at full speed but it doesn't have to, nor does an Xbox emulator. It only has to recreate the performance of a 733 MHz P-III. The majority of XGPU functions can be mapped directly to the ATI chip in the 360.
On the legal issue, black box emulation/reverse engineering projects are completely legal if performed correctly. The entire IBM PC clone industry was founded on Compaq's creation of a compatible BIOS to run off the shelf PC software rather than requiring localized versions as so many early MS-DOS did. People will invoke the name of Bleem at this point but it should be remembered that Bleem never lost a court decision. They simply couldn't afford to continue the legal battle while Sony was willing to spend millions.
Virtual PC on the Mac has to deal with a number of performance obstacles that aren't a problem for the Xbox 360, plus there is another major asset that can be revived from the days of NT on the DEC Alpha. I wrote about it at length here: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=938200&postcount=41
#10
CG isn't an issue. The XGPU and the related tools are all DirectX 8. CG is targeted at DX9 class and newer devices. The real issue is the XGPU microcode. Games that bypass the Direct3D API layer and go direct to the chip are able to do this because the chip is identical in every existing Xbox. An Xbox emulator needs to be able to deal with responding correctly to games that operate that way. It's pretty standard fare for creating emulators without detailed documentation of the chipset. The personnel assinged to the task have to be certified to have no knowledge of Nvidia proprietary IP for legal reasons. First they make something that behaves correctly to games that stick within DirectX since there is no limit to their access to that. Then they attempt to run games that access the chip directly and try to figure out what the correct response should have been. You keep doing this until the game runs. This in turn will enable quite a few other games using the same direct access to run as well. You keep testing games until you find another that fails and start the process again. It's a very laborious and time consuming process but effective. Bleem was produced by that approach almost entirely by a single programmer assisted by playtesters. Microsoft can bring considerably more resources to bear on the task than the Bleem crew had available.
Eric Pobirs @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
12
A migration service via XBL would be pretty easy to implement. Since a fairly brief time limit could be set on the storage, say a week, it wouldn't be a massive load for the servers to manage.
You can also use the optional keyboard adapter used by Phantasy Star Online to connect USB flash drives of much higher capacity than the 8 MB memory units. Microsoft has already said the Xbox 360 will support such drives.
da dude @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
http://videogames1.mtv.com/pages/news/story.php?id=6124365 thats a lil proof that it will be backwards compatible and im just thinking mMS is saying were worken on it to sound like they didnt do it but will surprize us all
KEP @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I agree with most comments that no one has cared much in the past if their SNES games worked on the N64 - this is correct, i think the main issue here with the Xbox is that most poeple, through playing XBL have a massive collection of games - and as quite a large % of games that were due to be released earlier this year have now been but back to late September, i think the main concern is if we are exepected to lash out £200+ on the games we have been waiting to play PLUS pay for the X360 in October/Novermber its going to have to be a choice if the X360 is not backwards compatible. If it were then there would be no choice to make as everything would work. The issue is down to Nvidia and i think they will be being very childish and selfish if they did not allow MS to include backward compatability in the X360 - afterall being tied to the Xbox has helped Nvidia grow as a business over the past few years.
Chris Norman @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Backwards compatability is rarely an issue for the hardcore gamer, who will buy every system that hits the market regardless.
But for the parent, who sees the backwards-compatable system as having 'more', or realizing that they can get games cheaper for the new system rather than having to buy the newest games (the line-up of which will be pretty anemic at launch), it will be a big deal.
For the stores selling games, who can continue pushing old stock, and possibly do so better due to the price drops on old software when the new console comes out - selling a higher-priced new console in return. Also, luring customers in with lower-priced stock and enticing them to purchase the newer titles.
For the completist, who may not have owned the previous console, but now wants to play games in "greatest hits" compilations (the alternative being that a compay release overpriced "modern" editiions).
For the developers who may still be developing games for the previous generation, only to see a complete halt on purchases of previous-gen hardware and software in anticipation of the new console (backards-compatability = consumer confidence = ongoing sales all the way until the launch of the new console). For the development houses who are not first or second-party, and will no doubt lack the expertise to develop games for the console immediately after launch (although a lot of the first-gen titles appear to be X-Box titles eworked with nicer graphics - didn't Perfect Dark 2 start out as a Gamecube title?)
There's lots to consider besides whether you would play old games on a new system - particularly because it may impact sales (and developer support) for your console.
Do I think that a lack of backwards-compatability will sink the X-Box? Of course not. But I do think that it will hurt their chances to develop a strong lead over the other two with an early launch versus if they do include it and pick up all of the "upgrade" sales.
Bill Shannon @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Okay kids, let's think this through, again:
1) XBOX 360 will be backwards compatible, but only with the hard drive present as Xbox games were coded being hard drive aware
2) More than likely the hard drive add-on will have a chipset that emulates the Nvidia chipset of old.
3) Also, some type of 'slowdown' system, probably hardware based, will be in the hard drive module. Remember, old Xbox games ran at 833MHz, there are now three 3.2GHz CPUs. Something's got to throttle it down.
4) It will be interesting to know what they will do on the Live service for old Xbox games playing on the 360.
Bradley M. @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
If you watch the video "Xbox 360 unveiled" it aleady shows the team playing halo 2 on the new console, and it shows a picture of fable in the "guide." So doesnt that already show that its possible for the old games to be compatible? http://videogames1.mtv.com/pages/news/story.php?id=6124365
Bradley M. @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
If you watch the video "Xbox 360 unveiled" it aleady shows the team playing halo 2 on the new console, and it shows a picture of fable in the "guide." So doesnt that already show that its possible for the old games to be compatible? http://videogames1.mtv.com/pages/news/story.php?id=6124365
Banaroo @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Hey there,
Can I pre-order this thing anywhere yet?
gcoia @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
In response to the 2nd post by Kuyu - the whole RISC vs CISC argument doesn't really exist anymore today, and is not the reason the code cannot run on the new IBM chip. The latest IBM chips such as the G5 in the Apple Macs and the new tricore chip in xbox 2 are effectively CISC chips like intel's. The IBM chips have far too complicated instruction sets to be called a RISC processor. Pretty much all modern desktop chips are now CISC, and any mention of RISC is usually an emotive rather than technical reference, due to previous generations of the processor.
Xbox code cannot run natively on the new xbox 2's processor because it is not an x86 architecture processor like the pentium 3 in the xbox, not because of any instruction set size differences.
Im surprised no-one has mentioned the idea of a co-processor. Realistically the only way i can see to provide satisfactory levels of compatibility would be to stick a pentium 3 in the box along side the new chip, only used when an xbox game is inserted. PIIIs must be pretty cheap by now, and sony did this with the original PS2, which contained a separate PS1 processor to enable backwards compatibility as the PS1's CPU was by that time incredibly cheap to manufacture, making the trouble of developing emulation software pointless.
ARM @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The success of the Xbox 360 might not depend on backwards compatibility, but if Microsoft really wants sales to take off during the holiday season and close the gap on Sony's leading share of the market, it could prove to be a real help.
Fanatical gamers, with money to burn, are sure to go out and buy the 360 immediately, regardless of whether we can use it to play the "classic" Xbox games.
However, if the new console is not BC, I (and I'm sure plenty of other people) will wait until the 360 has been in the shops for a few months, when the price comes down and there are more games available, before I put my hand in my pocket.
If the Xbox 360 is backwards compatible, then expense be hanged and I'll make sure there is one waiting for me under the tree on Christmas Day.
Why? Because I'm not quite ready yet to say goodbye forever to the original Halo, the two Knights of the Old Republic games, the three Splinter Cells and Jade Empire (How many of us can really afford to give up valuable space under the television by having both an Xbox 360 AND and Xbox sitting there?)
If that (perhaps overly emotional) argument doesn't pursuade Microsoft to hammer out a deal with Nvidia, what about this:
Microsoft is currently making a loss on every original Xbox console it sells at the current price of about £100 ($180) in the UK, but is still piling up huge wads of cash from the sale of new titles at about £35 ($64) a pop.
Some of the Xbox games which have just been released (as well as those that haven't even come out yet) will only keep selling in numbers after the Xbox 360 launch later this year if you can use the new console to play them.
I believe it would also play a part in attracting people who've never owned a console to take the plunge and buy from Microsoft.
There are bound to be only a few good "designed-specifically-for-the-new-technology" games available when Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo start selling their new next generation consoles.
If you had never owned a console before, and had hundreds of games to choose from for the PS3 and only half a dozen on the 360, which would you buy?
Anyone who says backwards compatibility isn't an issue on the success of the new Xbox is sorely mistaken.
Sony wouldn't have bothered to make the PS2 backwards compatible if there wasn't the cash in it.
Microsoft reportedly has some of the best minds in the world among it's staff, and if the question of backwards compatibility is a no-brainer for someone like me, surely you would think they could get their heads around it.
Unless, of course, there is something I hadn't thought of...
DarthVela @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I dont know if this posted already but somewhere I read that it might be compatible with only it's most popular titles because to port them from Nvidia Code to the ATI drivers inside the 360 will cost them royalties, it may be possible but just 2 cents.