No backward compatibility in Xbox 2

[Circlebreaker]

A recent article in Gamesindustry.biz confirmed that the Xbox 2 won't be backward compatible, because the architecture is too different, and because according to MS there is little interest in backward compatibility anyway.

Here's the article: Gamesindustry.biz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3645)

What do you think: A stupid decision that wil alienate most of the current Xbox owners and will cost them a lot, or just a gimmick that wasn't necessary anyway that got scrapped. I don't have an Xbox anyway, so it doesn't make much difference to me.

[Eddie Ismail]

To be competitive, the X-box 2 wiill have to be backward copatible, otherwise it'll be killed by the PS3, unless sony and MS made a secret deal to make both systems not Backward compatible. in any case it's a stupid move IMHO

[Chylde Roland]

Yep, I think they are being VERY stupid by removing backward compatibility. I really liked my PS2 being backward compatible, as I had a huge library of PSX games. I still have about a dozen of them, and (believe it or not) I was even playing one of them last night.

All in all, I'm rather disappointed in the things I've been hearing about Xbox Next. No hard drive, and now this? They're making some pretty stupid decisions (IMO) for such a young console.

[MasterChief]

I don't really care. Most of my favorite xbox games (KOTOR, Halo, Splinter Cell...) will undoubtedly have sequels of some kind for Xbox 2, so once I get my hands on those I won't really need to play the previous versions.

[Chylde Roland]

So your're saying if you upgrade to XB NEXT, you'll never, ever want to play an existing XB game again? Or would you just keep your current XB hardware and play it on that? Just curious. That's likely what I would do, even though it's a PITA to keep an extra console floating about.

The mistake I think they're making is that they won't be able to sell as many systems without the "added feature" of having access to a huge existing library of games, even if they are 1st generation XB titles.

[Ojnod]

I like to keep a ton of consoles around, it makes me a bigger man!

Seriously though, I don't mind keeping my old xbox. I would never sell my consoles or games again, I did that one time and I am kicking myself to this day.

[MasterChief]

What I mean is, it's just a non-issue for me. Sure I might want to go back and play one of these games every 6 months or so, but I still have my regular xbox for that. I don't need xbox2 to be backwards compatible for me to be able to accomplish this goal. It's not really that much of an inconvenience for me to keep around an outdated console that I'll probably only use twice a year. I suspect it would be more of an issue for those who buy xbox2, never having owned the original. They would be understandably pissed because they would never get a chance to play certain games that were raved about back in the day.

Also, if I have Splinter Cell part 5 or whatever for xbox2, why would I ever need to go back and play the first two from xbox1? Maybe I'm just weird that way, but once I buy a sequel that is in every way to superior to its predecessor(s) I just don't feel the need to go back to it any more.

[Eddie Ismail]

Let me add this.

I remember hearing that MS lost a certain amount of money on each console it sold, and it would make profits with the sales of games. so cancelling backward compatilibility would only mean killing the potential sales of all the available titles for XBOX. which in turn means less profits. but hey I maybe wrong.

[Chylde Roland]

That's a very good point, Eddie.

I was at EB one day, and I asked about their sales. It turned out I was speaking with the franchise owner, and he told me they make next to nothing on hardware, but the games are what they make money on. If those sales are taken away, it could cause major problems for them. They would still make money on XB NEXT games, but I bet they would make a LOT more if there was backward compatibility.

[Cronus]

MS must be losing a fortune over the Xbox as it is. I doubt they are bothered about losing more on the Xbox 2. They just want to win the market so they can increase prices and have a comfortable monopoly like on operating systems.

[DanTheManPR]

Everyone who owns old Xbox games owns an old Xbox. You don't need a new one. I always thought that backwards-compatibility was a gimick. Just give me a hard-drive!!!

[Rob]

It seems that most who are complaining are XBox owners... why do you need a second system to do the same thing?

There is only one system that I can think of (besides handheld gameboys) that is backwards compatible and that is the PS2, yet, many, non-backwards compatible systems have flourished. Why all of a sudden does this spell doom for the XBox? Especially when the Sony has not confirmed that the PS3 will be backwards compatible. It adds costs, yet the PS3 is rumored to be quite expensive, maybe Sony will follow the same route. Why add cost when already 50+ million people own the system worldwide?

Onto the hard drive, besides a glorified memory card, Microsoft has repeated reported it hardly gets any use. Yet it is an expensive component in the machine and has allowed serious hacking which causes the ability to copy games or change the system to a PC, preventing XBox games from being used. Both cases MS loses money on game sales. Not only that, but they are looking into mass removable storage as their strategy focuses more on XBox Live and the need of storage increases.

Microsoft will make mistakes in the next system just as Sony blundered quite a bit with the PS2 (their sophomore outing), but removing backwards capability I do not think is one of them. The hard drive, despite my paragraph above still has me curious as I need to know more about the removable storage.

[Mr. Natural]

From what I heard this is more a rumor than truth at this point. I think Microsoft is "throwing out" a thought process and waiting to hear the feedback.

[Cougar]

MC told me that xbox2 may not have a harddrive...thats not happenin right? cause i dont see how that is possible.

[MasterChief]

If that is the case Rob, then maybe the thing with the hard drive isn't so bad after all. I had trouble imaging how something like XBL would be possible without a harddrive, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

[Rob]

Although Microsoft has not officially announced anything (all companies are keeping their cards close to their chest) a storage company specializing in massive flash storage has repeatedly made claims to having a contract with MS for the NextBox. Many reputable game sites and magazines have covered this story as well. Sony has talked about using their portable memory sticks in PS3 as a possible solution, so I can see the parallels. I think in Microsoft’s eyes, the hard drive has been a huge thorn in their side. From the cost to the ease it has made pirating, I can see a move in a different direction as a huge step forward for the company. Like Sony, Microsoft has the money to make what may seem like a bad idea into something amazing.

No matter if you are a Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft fan, I think the next generation is going to be something special.

[Chylde Roland]

My reason for wanting backward compatibility is simple: I now own all three consoles. I don't want to have a huge pile of older consoles sitting around when new ones come out. When PS2 came out, I sold my PSX and kept my games. That's what I want when the other new systems come out, too.

[Bruenor]

My reason for wanting backward compatibility is simple: I now own all three consoles. I don't want to have a huge pile of older consoles sitting around when new ones come out. When PS2 came out, I sold my PSX and kept my games. That's what I want when the other new systems come out, too.

What he said. The PS2 may have been the first console to have backwards compatibility, but it was also the first to demonstrate how convenient it is. To be able to play all of my older games (or pick up older generation games that I missed) without having to keep tons of consoles lying around (a nightmare when you have a toddler).

[Rob]

I agree 100% that it is convenient and would be happy if it were backwards compatible. However, the arguments I am hearing is that it could be a deal breaker, and in that regard I am left scratching my head. To each their own of course, but to me it seems almost silly to argue right now when Sony has not even stated that they would have backwards compatability. Hell, maybe Nintendo will surprise us and be the only one.

From someone who has owned and liked a major console from each of the three current big companies, I ended up enjoying my XBox more. To me, the deal breaker was XBox Live. Sony's version of online play does not appeal to me. I also feel that Microsoft has a gigantic chance in their sophomore outing, which in my opinion Sony took a small backslide in theirs. Not in sales, but in design.

I know what I want out the next generation of consoles and my money goes to who provides it.