No Black on 360 till MS makes it so... or a sequel comes out
EA's decidedly offline first-person
shooter Black won't be coming to the Xbox 360, if Criterion's Alex Ward has anything to say about it, at least
until Black 2 hits store shelves. Ward also lays the blame for the lack of Xbox backward compatibility for
Black and the Burnout series of games squarely on Microsoft's emulating shoulders.It's somewhat surprising that Ward would deny an enhanced version of Black on the 360, considering the updated Burnout Revenge scheduled to hit retail in just a few weeks. Alex did insist, however, that compatibility for Revenge was not up to the developer, stating: "We'd absolutely love it if our Burnout games worked on 360, but it's down to what Microsoft wants to do. It controls and decides what games its emulator works with. I've actually asked them four times myself for them to make it happen, but it's really not up to us."
Could a misunderstanding or breakdown in communication be responsible for this perceived slight? Xbox Corporate VP Todd Holmdahl did say last fall that Microsoft was "working with developers to certify that their games will run on Xbox 360 down the line" (see Q&A linked below) but a high-profile current-gen title like Black still managed to fall through the emulation cracks. Well, we suppose that this situation's more than plausible considering the fact that Far Cry and Doom 3 are still missing from the BC list (with no relief in sight), but what's with the hold up, MS?
[Via 1UP]
See also:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ian @ Feb 24th 2006 9:22PM
Why do they care so much about MS emulation. It seems like microsoft doesn't care at all while Ward is blaming MS for not letting it work on the 360. And it is MS's fault but why does he seem to care so much
nickel @ Feb 24th 2006 9:28PM
There are still a boatload of regular Xbox systems out in retail. If Black, Burnout, DOOM 3, and a bunch of desirable games were BC with the 360 there would be zero impetus for anybody to buy those reamining Xboxes -- at $150 a pop.
RAZerCUtter @ Feb 24th 2006 9:31PM
If it's like most things dealing with the 360 Microsoft will keep everyone in the dark.. I still can't believe that I have a "next-gen console" and I can't go to the store and play a brand new title. I think all the people at MS who are involved with making this console happen are just not paying attention or are all on vacation with the money they made from all the suckers who bought a 360 (me included). For a multi-billion dollar software giant like MS they should be able to make emulations for these games faster or if it just can't be done they should come out and say it's not gonna happen. Instead they contradict themselves and you get this blank look and no answer. We are sick of waiting for answers!
MosquitoControl @ Feb 24th 2006 9:40PM
" I still can't believe that I have a "next-gen console" and I can't go to the store and play a brand new title."
You've never been an early adopter before, have you?
Because this is par for the course. The PSP was the same way for nearly a year, wasn't it? DS took a long time to get ramped up. PS, GC and XBOX had little at first as well.
It's ugly, but no necessarily worse than other launches.
I've seen people claim that Black works fine on the 360, a little slower but playable. Can anyone confirm?
Peter Clark @ Feb 24th 2006 9:46PM
Sheesh, forget the 360! The PC market is where it's at... I really hate console-only devs for somehow forgetting about the biggest platform, but of course the fact that I will never buy a console (except maybe the Revolution since it'll be so different) as long as I have a PC comes into the equation too. I could have sworn PCs are easier to develop for, too. And come on, Black is a darn FPS, what more could you ask for?
RAZerCUtter @ Feb 24th 2006 9:51PM
MosquitoControl:
Yup, you got me right on that one. This is my first early adoption of a console. I didnt get an xbox1 or PSP until well after a year of being released. I've heard about other launches and the problems that come along with it so I guess thats what I get. I hope BLACK does run on the 360, I've not heard that until now, hopefully someone can confirm.
epobirs @ Feb 24th 2006 9:53PM
Mr. Ward is being remarkably shortsighted. Criterion's games are renowned for getting the most out of the hardware. The same qualites that help make their game so popular also make them far more difficult to run under emulation.
The idea that Microsoft doesn't want these games to run is completely counter to Microsoft's revenue model. The Xbox emulation on the 360 serves to extend the sales potential of Xbox games. For Xbox games the upper limit of their sales potential is determined by the installed base of the platform. Call this X. Games that run correctly on the 360 have that machine's installed base in addition. Call it Y.
A console maker's primary source of net revenue is from the sales of new games. (New meaning units being sold for the first time, not newly released. Those Platinum Hits keep selling and requiring more production orders for more royalty fees.) While a fair chunk of Xbox 360 owners are also Xbox owners who've kept their old machine, a lot of them have sold their Xbox to create a new potential game buyer or the 360 is their first Microsoft console. So the 360 serves to to help make more sales of Xbox hits. Microsoft for that reason is very well motivated to get the entire Xbox library running. They are well aware that $Billion in PS1 game revenue came from PS2 owners.
Emulation is hard. The gulf in sheer horsepower between early 80s arcade hardware and the generation PCs that first ran MAME well is far wider than it is between the Xbox and Xbox 360. On top of that the Xbox is a far more complex platform to emulate than anything played on MAME. If it had been a viable choice MS would happily have continued with an X86 CPU and Nvidia GPU but it wasn't to be. Given time, it's pretty likely just about every Xbox game will be playable on the 360 but it is a time intensive and laborious process and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise.
The idea that MS plays favorites with the emulation is just dumb from the financial standpoint alone. Making Halo 2 an early target was a good choice ont he basis of complete access to the source code and developers as well as its flagship role for the Xbox. If Alex Ward thinks he can make improvements on Microsoft emulation process I'm sure they'd be willing to listen. Some MS folks likely have some serious bonus money dependent on how well their effrts deliver for the platform.
epobirs @ Feb 24th 2006 10:10PM
Peter, calling the PC the biggest platform begs for some definition. The number of X86 PCs in the world is far, far greater than any game console but the number of PCs that are able to run a game that take good advantage of the most recent hardware is a far smaller number.
Consider: at what point did writing a game that made heavy use of the DirectX 9 level of GPU sophistication become a market comparable to even the GameCube? A developer wishing to squeeze every last bit of power from a game console can depend on every single installed unit behaving identically. While some PC games can run on dated hardware and sell very well, 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire' for instance, the graphics showcases like Doom 3 have to set their sights considerably higher, on a combination of PC hardware features to define a minimum system where upon the game will supposedly run acceptably.
The number of PCs in existence equipped to run Doom 3 as it was intended was a good deal smaller than the then installed base of any game console of this generation. Those PCs still presented a range of variations that added substantial testing expense and developer effort while Doom 3 for the Xbox only had to be tested against a single system with minor additional items on the test matrix, like whether or not Live was enabled.
There is a reason why developers and publishers like the console model, royalty fees and all. Despite the lack of royaties on the PC it is far from a monolithic platform with the narrow definition of a console and the ease it brings. The PC offer access to the latest silicon toys for eager coders but those are also economically limited targets.
funkonaut @ Feb 24th 2006 10:19PM
epobirs, you're missing the point. Of course emulation is hard. It's next to impossible to get real-world performance through software emulation. The mistake Microsoft made was rushing to the market, requiring software emulation instead of putting Xbox 1 hardware emulation into the 360.
And let's face it: Microsoft does not employ the best programmers. At all. It's no wonder that we have yet to see better Xbox 1 emulation on the 360.
This is the inherit problem with Microsoft. Their primary focus is chasing after the dollar instead of hiring the best people to make the best product. And in time it will be their downfall, unfortunately.
Zenigata8o8 @ Feb 24th 2006 10:48PM
well...i work at a best buy and we got the game in last night (2/22) i purchased the game even though it's not out yet and i am about half way through the game and it's fawkin fun!! i know the ps2 is on the final act for it's shelf life but i gotta say the games i've been playin (MGS snake eater, shadow of the colossus and other recent break throughs) are pushing this system to the limits..i would like it a lot if microsoft got their game 2gether and emulated the black version for 360 so we could play it in 720P but yet again this is another reason why i am glad ps3 won't be having the problem of playing older games "with emulation problems"..don't get me wrong i like my 360 but the hassle i had with trying to get my chaos theory co-op to work and now this "newer" games not being emulated nonsense stinks :(
refinedsugar @ Feb 24th 2006 11:48PM
"Chasing a dollar"... yeah, okay... this whole 360 emulation argument is getting tied. Like epobirs said, the primary job of a new system is for you to buy new games - that's where the money is. Video games are a business. Spending copious amounts of time and resources trying to get old games to work on the new system borders is stupid when you're only doing it because your competition is doing it. After the ps2, it's as like people felt like they were being 'ripped off' if the new xbox didn't support the old games. It's become a selling point now. The Revolution will play old Nintendo catalog games... wow wee. I'd like to know what percentage of ps2 owners continued playing their ps1 games after the ps2 came out and had a solid title selection available.
I have a pretty big original xbox game collection and at first, I was concerned about the 360's backwards compatibility, but now I look it as just silliness - things have to move forward at one point or another. When I get a 360 it's going to be for 360 games and sooner or later this backwards compatibility thing has to die out. Because as much as I didn't want to hear it originally, it's holding the future of console gaming back. I don't want future consoles from MS (or anyone else for that matter) to be watered down because they had to incorporate support for old game technology into the hardware or whatever. People have to move on sooner or later.
Bashing MS current efforts on BC is just stupid. Sure not every game is there yet and performance is still spotty in cases, but what else could be expected? Most of the 'big' titles are there and to have a developer complain about how MS isn't giving his old games a time of the day isn't making me lose any sleep. You gotta cut support sooner or later... and getting Burnout 3 which was optimized for Nvidia hardware to run smooth as silk on a ATI chipset, yeah that wouldn't be my top priority for my company resources either.
FinalBoss @ Feb 25th 2006 12:47AM
So refinedsugar you're content that the premium gaming apparatus you've invested $400 into is good at one or two jobs and basically half-asses the rest? Because that, in my opinion is how X360 backwards compatibility looks. You've said yourself that any next generation of consoles shouldn't be bogged down in compatibility issues from the past, so why even bother now? If they couldn't have gone all out with at least 90% BC. Instead they're sidestepping the issue that the majority of Xbox 1 games don't work on Xbox 360 (there are more than 212, right?)
You know why BC is even an issue now? because if some late-to-the-party guy wants to play a non-compatible game, like Black for instance, he would either have to buy a PS3, PS2, or original Xbox. It's a lose-lose-lose situation for Microsoft.
dsub @ Feb 25th 2006 1:12AM
Black looks like a cool game and all, but it's an FPS that isn't on PC, and is only being made for current generation consoles. I'm a 360 owner, my PS2 doesn' work, and I traded in my XBOX towards my 360 so if a game isn't being made FOR the 360 I could care less about it. So unless a revamped version of Black arises for the 360 I have absolutely NO interest in playing the game. I'm not buying games for older consoles for my new system, in my eyes BC should serve one purpose...playing previous gen-games that you already own. If you intend on buying new-release current gen games AFTER you bought a 360, then keep your current gen console. You knew going into the deal that not all games worked, so I don't understand why people act so shocked when a game doesnt work, MS has a LIST of the games that do. Sooner or later, your game will make the list, but who knows when.
I know the crop of games on 360 isn't very large now, but there's still plenty to choose from. In a couple weeks when GRAW comes out I'll be enjoying that much more than I would be enjoying playing BLACK through BC on my 360 or on a PS2.
Sloopydrew @ Feb 25th 2006 1:23AM
Looks like publishers and developers are getting a little sick of MS putting the blame on them. When I called Microsoft about the BC issue, they told me that backwards compatibility had "nothing" to do with them and that I had to call "each individual publisher" to ask if they would be making their games BC for the 360. Whoever teaches those people at 1-800-4-MY-XBOX how to lie should win some sort of award for speeding the idea of human integrity toward extinction.
epobirs @ Feb 25th 2006 3:09AM
Funkonaut, your comment leave me inclined to think you haven't worked in software development. If you think Microsoft doesn't attract some of the world's top coding talent you're delusional. Most talent wants rewards in line with their abilities and MS has long been the leading place where achievement is met with more than just a good 401K package. A hell of a lot of people who started their own companies in the last decade were able to do so because of the major payoff that came from working at MS.
The idea that the 360 was rushed to market is simply wrong. The original Xbox was very much a rush job. That was a major reason why MS ended with a platform dependent on a chipset they didn't control. The 360 was planned out over a much longer time period and benefited from the lessons learned and the infrastructure built on the Xbox. There is no set schedule for when a console should launch other than when the company feels there is a ripe market. The idea of fixed cycles for console generations is a myth that doesn't stand up to detailed examination of all the reference cases. Feeling compelled to follow Sony and Nintendo's plans was one of the severe mistakes made in the original Xbox process. So long as a console has a viable business model (which the Xbox didn't due to the merchant arrangement with Nvidia) it doesn't matter when another has launched before or after. Pundits love to invoke the Dreamcast-PS2 story but that is a single incident and they rarely mention that Sega was coughing up blood well before the PS2 was announced and simply didn't have the resources to meet the challenge from Sony or Nintendo. It will always be possible for another well financed company to launch a more powerful console at a later date. The trick is fulfiiling the other requirements beyond the latest silicon.
Hardware emulation was never, ever a possibility once it was decided that Nvidia was not the ongoing GPU partner and that an X86 CPU was not the best choice due to the amount of costly functionality it carries that is extraneous for console apps. The P-III and other PC aspect were used in the first because, yes, the Xbox was a rush job and the only way to get to market in the time frame they falsely believed they had to follow. Unlike vendors such as IBM, neither Intel or AMD is go to offer the level of customization a console engineer would desire. The closest Intel came was reducing the L2 cache to cut costs while remaining adequate for typical game code. (No, it isn't a Celeron. The Xbox CPU has the more complex L2 cache of the P-III, an important difference.)
Unlike prototyping games on a early SDK that that only vaguely approximates the eventual platform, emulation is far more demanding of an exact host spec to exact the necessary performance, particularly when it comes to console games that are so closely intertwined with the original host platform. While MS had some inhouse experience in running X86 code on PPC thanks to their acquisition of Connectix, the emulation project couldn't really make any meaningful progress until the final hardware was available. This was scant months before launch, as with virtually every console that didn't use entirely existing components. (Colecovision, for example.) Even the biggest companies can only get so much done in that short time between the start of hardware production and launch. Delaying launch can get very expensive as the funds locked up in those completed units accumulates. That is on top of the massive capital investment tied up in the development cycle. Companies are justifiably anxious to get the revenue flow for the product started.
Nor was it a matter of just throwing more bodies at the project. This Pointy Haired Boss approach only leads to unmanageable armies accomplishing less. (See 'The Mythical Man Month' for a deeper examination.) Part of project management is knowing when you're getting into diminishing returns when adding personnel and what personnel (and the equipment they'll need) costs are reasonable for the project goals.
Sure, Microsoft would love for every Xbox game, especially the most recent releases, to run on the 360 because it not only makes the 360 more attractive but also means greater revenue. This is after all a business. But if the costs of achieving that compatibility exceeds a certain cost it's value to the company is lost.
These choices are found throughout product development. At what point does adding more RAM become a cost negative greater than the benefit it confers in making the platform more powerful. CPU speed vs. cooling issues, physical volume vs. features, etc. Xbox emulation has value but it isn't priceless.
Singe @ Feb 25th 2006 9:35AM
Does Black need to be on the 360 right now. I say no. Keep the original Xbox if you're worried it won't play on the newer system.
GTgamer @ Feb 25th 2006 2:35PM
I really have to salute epobirs for still having the patience to be the voice of reason in most posts.
livefromphiladelphia @ Feb 25th 2006 2:53PM
I'm glad I have a PS2 :)
refinedsugar @ Feb 25th 2006 7:28PM
@ 12, finalboss
I firmly think up to a certain point MS wasn't even considering BC support, but like I said - there was growing pressure from the gaming demographic who felt that if they didn't get it, they were somehow being ripped off because the competition (Sony/PS2) had it. So MS knew on some level they had to incorporate it. You can call it half-assed and I agree because it was probably an after thought and scramble on the part of MS. It's not like they've thrown tons of money and resources at it, not that they should have either.
The real answer might have been to just not have done BC and stuck to their guns as the only substantial benefits that come from BC is at launch anyway when new game releases games are particularly thin and you have to fall back upon the tried and true games from the past generation system. If gamers love old classic games so much they keep their old systems and do what's possible to play them later on down the road. That we are quasi-demanding or matter-of-factly expecting future consoles to be endlessly BC is selfish. It's not a company's responsibility to continually support old technology when they aren't receiving any revenue from it.
As for Black, there is no validity in complaining. Everyone knew months ahead of time Black was going to be a late calendar release for the original xbox (and ps2). If you only have a 360, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is. If you sold off your ex-generation consoles and now you want to play Black, frankly it's your own damn fault. Stop complaining.
I don't think it's lose-lose for MS because of examples like Black. In another six months when the 360 games selection is going strong very few people are going to care about old games that much. Sure, if they had 100% BC support then it would just up the ante and sexiness of the 360, but knowing what we do about the change in hardware architecture could we really have expected this? Especially with such a late title like Black that was optimized for xbox/Nvidia hardware from the get-go. I mean from day one of 360 public exposure word was BC was going to be iffy. So it's not like MS was a snake in the grass and said 'yeah it's going to be all there' and then it wasn't.
slow news day @ Feb 25th 2006 7:29PM
I can understand Microsoft being responsible for backwards compatibility on older releases, but you would think that newer releases might be designed to work on both the Xbox and 360, to achieve the widest possible audience. If Microsoft hasn't made available the tools to do so, then they're clearly at fault.
360 BC is a sham... @ Feb 25th 2006 8:33PM
The 360 backwards compatibility is a joke. It's a phantom. Very few games are listed to work and of those, even fewer actually work right. Try driving Road Atlanta in Forza, it slows to 4 fps down the esses.
Backwards compatbibility would be nice, because it helps MS get people to upgrade. MS still loses money on each Xbox 1 sold (well, maybe not with the recent price increase to $175). So MS does not want yo to buy an Xbox 1, take money out of their coffers and then not be able to buy the games they make the most money off (360 titles).
No, backward compatibility isn't just for the customer, it's for Microsoft too. So, in review, BC doesn't work right yes MS advertises it as working. They hurt the customer with non-working features so that the customer doesn't hurt them by buying the machine that actually works for these games and making MS take a loss on it.
MS should change their advertising. They should say the 360 runs Halo 1 and 2 and not advertise the rest as working.
I also want to say, I have written emulators myself (Williams 6809 arcade games and NAMCO Galaga/Bosconian-style arcade boards). I know that if your hardware is even close in speed to the target (emulated) hardware (and it was for me, I was emulating on a 20MHz 68030) you have to take shortcuts to make things work at reasonable speed. So you likely cannot fault EA for this. It is likely that enough is wrong with MS' emulation that it would take far too much effort for EA to change their game to work, if it's possible at all.
A friend at Sony says the PS3 emulation of the PS2 is going swimmingly. Honestly, I don't think I actually believe him. We'll see as the PS3 comes closer to fruition.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 26th 2006 11:52AM
It sounds to me that Ward is being incredibly childish here.
1. He is asking Microsoft to emulate the game FOR them. Basically, he thinks it is all up to Microsoft to do all the emulation work while EA does nothing.
2. If #1 were the case, he is assuming that Black takes precidence over all other emulation projects Microsoft currently has. In essence, he is telling the market that his game is much more important than the others that have not been emulated yet.
Ward should just stop complaining, approach it like a successful mature adult should, build the emulation software himself, and give it to MS to put onto Live. Microsoft isn't the one losing revenue over Black not getting onto the 360, EA is.
kizza's mother shazza @ Feb 26th 2006 9:51PM
This game deserves to be on all future platforms. This is what fps's are about, mass carnage & destruction at all times. I'm sick of all the fps's these days thats action packed segmemts are few & far between.. It seems they are trying to weed out the age old blastathons of the doom days for the over used stealth element in my beloved fps genre.
Thank god criterion know what the hell a good, fun game is, & more importantly.... how to make one.
Burnout series
Black
whats next for these awesome developers, it's just a shame they were gobbled up by ea, as they may have taken a bit more time to implement an online mode.
Get it to 360, as its gonna look awesome on it like burnout is supposed to.