XBox 360 Information Thread - now 3 videos up! (MTV, 2 MS)

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Backwards compatibility was "accidently" verified by Microsoft in a Live subscription survey. It doesn't necessarily say it outright, but it's close:

Xbox Live is an online gaming service that works across both the current Xbox system and the future Xbox 2. You will be able to play online and compete against others across both consoles. If you are playing an Xbox game on Live you will be able to compete against people playing that same game on Xbox 2.

That says nothing about backwards compatibility. That only says that Xbox can play with Xbox2 across their network.

You can browse Mac drives with a PC and vice versa over a network, but the two systems definitely are not compatible with each other. All that means is that they both use the same networking technology and the information the application sends out is readable by both systems.

How many developers would cross develop the same game for a dying/dead platform? Especially one for XBox Live. Every major gaming site picked up on this as hinting/verifying at backwards compatibility. It doesn't guarantee it, but I'll put my money and my bets (like I said earlier) that it will have b.w. compatibility. With the specs listed, it's more than capable of running even software emulation. I'm not going to argue day and night over a topic neither of us can prove, so we'll wait a few days to see if it is in fact true or not.

91TTZ do you have a problem reading or something? read that bolded statement. chances are that xbox 2 games aren't going to work on xbox 1, so the only other choice to be playing the same game on an xbox 1 and an xbox 2 is that its an xbox 1 game, which seems a little more feasable than the other way around ...

and if you are saying one can play madden 06 on xbox 1 against madden 06 on xbox 2, then no, that won't happen since they really aren't the same game.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Wow - this thing sounds like a beast! It should be a killer HTPC when cracked open and modded.

Good luck with the IBM processors.

 

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: DonVito
Wow - this thing sounds like a beast! It should be a killer HTPC when cracked open and modded.

Good luck with the IBM processors.

It will get modded. No hardware is immune.

 

[Steg55]

Those specs don't make sense.

Either IBM and ATi have jumped a years woth of development or those specs are rubbish.

Look at the top end apples - 2.7ghz - with watercooling as standard I think. So where on earth are IBM going to pull 3.2ghz CPUs from? Are they going to be able to run without melting? And, if they can fab them, it is ecomonically viable to sell them on in sub $300 (total guess) consoles or $2000+ ultra-high end apple machines?

Same for ATi - PC graphics cards are just past the 16pipeline stage, with rumours of 24pipes coming soon. Maybe even 32. But 48? That is too big a jump to make. Unless, of course, we are looking at some kind of SLi - ATi's new AMR perhaps?

The RAM also seems fishy - GDDR as system RAM? 21.6gb/s frontside bus? This all seems too good to be true.

Maybe im being paranoid, but to me that doesn't sound right. Especially if they want to sell it for resonable money.

Steg

P.S. Another thought occurs - developers and software evolve together, right? As hardware advances and the software advances and visa-versa. So this big leap in hardware is going to leave a large hole in the developers evolution. It could take a year before software that fully exploits such hardware is avaliable. Microsoft licanced UE3? Built for next-gen PC hardware? Not quite the same as those specs.

N.B. All the above might be complete rubbish. It just makes sense to me.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: purbeast0


91TTZ do you have a problem reading or something? read that bolded statement. chances are that xbox 2 games aren't going to work on xbox 1, so the only other choice to be playing the same game on an xbox 1 and an xbox 2 is that its an xbox 1 game, which seems a little more feasable than the other way around ...

And if you are saying one can play madden 06 on xbox 1 against madden 06 on xbox 2, then no, that won't happen since they really aren't the same game.

No, I have no trouble reading. Your last sentence describes what I'm saying.

That bolded text doesn't necessarily tell you anything about backwards compatibility. It could mean what you tried to discount in your last sentence. If the same game is made for both Xbox1 and Xbox2, it is entirely possible for the game data output over the network to be compatible for both versions. Just as MS Word for Windows can read files made by MS Word on Mac, it's possible to make different versions of the same game use the same output. All you have to do is code it that way.

If you look at what information is transferred over the wire, you'd see that there's no reason why you couldn't make both versions read and write information in that same format, especially when your goal is to support two platforms over your Xbox Live network.

 

[rh71]

^ think purbeast meant the other bolded text, quoted from RagingBitch's post.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rh71
^ purbeast meant the other bolded text in RagingBitch's post.

I know exactly what he meant. The text was:

"If you are playing an Xbox game on Live you will be able to compete against people playing that same game on Xbox 2."

This doesn't necessarily say anything about backwards compatibility. I didn't take it that way at all. I think it means that Microsoft will require new games written for both Xbox1 and Xbox2 to share a common data format, meaning that the next Halo (Halo3?) for Xbox1 will communicate using the same format as Halo3 for the Xbox2. That way, people playing Halo3 on Xbox will be able to compete directly with people playing Halo3 on Xbox2. By sharing common boards and a common data format, it would be easy to implement. Having a different architecture doesn't do anything to negate this, since you're not sharing same executable on both, only the same data format.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: rh71
^ purbeast meant the other bolded text in RagingBitch's post.

I know exactly what he meant. The text was:

"If you are playing an Xbox game on Live you will be able to compete against people playing that same game on Xbox 2."

This doesn't necessarily say anything about backwards compatibility. I didn't take it that way at all. I think it means that Microsoft will require games written for both Xbox1 and Xbox2 to share a common data format, meaning that the next Halo (Halo3?) on Xbox1 will communicate using the same format as the same game on the Xbox2. That way, people playing Halo3 on Xbox will be able to compete directly with people playing Halo3 on Xbox2. By sharing common boards and a common data format, it would be easy to implement. Having a different architecture doesn't do anything to negate this, since you're not sharing same executable on both, only the same data format.

there won't be a halo 3 on xbox 1 ... that would be horribly stupid for MS to do that. putting any game out on both systems is going to be absolutely pointless if they plan on grabbing gamers attention to the new system. the only games I can see coming out on both systems are EA sports games, nothing else.

althogh what you are saying can potentially work, i really don't see MS doing that at all, and i believe the comment was directed towards playing xbox 1 games on xbox live (such as Tiger woods 2005 or burnout 3) on either system.

 

[rh71]

Has there ever been a case of that - developing 2 versions of the same game for a current-gen and previous-gen system from the same company ? That'd hardly be something I'd consider doing if I were them, strategically speaking.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: rh71
^ purbeast meant the other bolded text in RagingBitch's post.

I know exactly what he meant. The text was:

"If you are playing an Xbox game on Live you will be able to compete against people playing that same game on Xbox 2."

This doesn't necessarily say anything about backwards compatibility. I didn't take it that way at all. I think it means that Microsoft will require games written for both Xbox1 and Xbox2 to share a common data format, meaning that the next Halo (Halo3?) on Xbox1 will communicate using the same format as the same game on the Xbox2. That way, people playing Halo3 on Xbox will be able to compete directly with people playing Halo3 on Xbox2. By sharing common boards and a common data format, it would be easy to implement. Having a different architecture doesn't do anything to negate this, since you're not sharing same executable on both, only the same data format.

there won't be a halo 3 on xbox 1 ... that would be horribly stupid for MS to do that. putting any game out on both systems is going to be absolutely pointless if they plan on grabbing gamers attention to the new system. the only games I can see coming out on both systems are EA sports games, nothing else.

althogh what you are saying can potentially work, i really don't see MS doing that at all, and i believe the comment was directed towards playing xbox 1 games on xbox live (such as Tiger woods 2005 or burnout 3) on either system.

I love the talk of halo 3 already. it will probably come out in time for xmas 2008

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: purbeast0


there won't be a halo 3 on xbox 1 ... that would be horribly stupid for MS to do that. putting any game out on both systems is going to be absolutely pointless if they plan on grabbing gamers attention to the new system. the only games I can see coming out on both systems are EA sports games, nothing else.

I think they'll co-develop games for both systems for a while. Microsoft wouldn't want the owners of the current Xbox to feel abandoned, since that would make prospective buyers of the Xbox2 to think twice about buying it. Microsoft doesn't want people to think that they're just going to leave them hanging as soon as the next system comes out.

But like I said in my previous post to RagingBitch, it's entirely possible that the Xbox2 will be backwards-compatible, we just don't know yet. All I'm saying is that the info that was quoted doesn't necessarily indicate backwards compatibility, for it could mean something else entirely.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: purbeast0


there won't be a halo 3 on xbox 1 ... that would be horribly stupid for MS to do that. putting any game out on both systems is going to be absolutely pointless if they plan on grabbing gamers attention to the new system. the only games I can see coming out on both systems are EA sports games, nothing else.

I think they'll co-develop games for both systems for a while. Microsoft wouldn't want the owners of the current Xbox to feel abandoned, since that would make prospective buyers of the Xbox2 to think twice about buying it. Microsoft doesn't want people to think that they're just going to leave them hanging as soon as the next system comes out.

But like I said in my previous post to RagingBitch, it's entirely possible that the Xbox2 will be backwards-compatible, we just don't know yet. All I'm saying is that the info that was quoted doesn't necessarily indicate backwards compatibility, for it could mean something else entirely.

well tell me this, and no i do not know the answer to this.

were there any first party games developed on both psx and ps2 after the ps2 release? again, i don't know the answer to this, but my guess would be no.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: rh71
Has there ever been a case of that - developing 2 versions of the same game for a current-gen and previous-gen system from the same company ? That'd hardly be something I'd consider doing if I were them, strategically speaking.

I think I remember some of the Super Mario Bros games being out for both NES and SuperNES.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

well tell me this, and no i do not know the answer to this.

were there any first party games developed on both psx and ps2 after the ps2 release? again, i don't know the answer to this, but my guess would be no.

Playstation 2 had direct backwards-compatibility, so there was no need to do that. Since the PS2 could play all games made for PS1, they were better off just making the game for the PS1 (which the PS2 could play), and then making a completely different game for the PS2.

The SuperNES could not play NES games, so they had to make 2 versions of the game.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: purbeast0

well tell me this, and no i do not know the answer to this.

were there any first party games developed on both psx and ps2 after the ps2 release? again, i don't know the answer to this, but my guess would be no.

Playstation 2 had direct backwards-compatibility, so there was no need to do that.

The SuperNES could not play NES games, so they had to make 2 versions of the game.

the games on SNES and NES were not the same game, not first party atleast. they made mario games on both, but they weren't the same, until the super mario allstars was a compilation of all the NES marios.

and im sure ps2 didn't make them because it was pointless to put out the same first party game on both systems, just as i'm sure M$ understands as well, which is even more evidence that the statement is leaning towards the hint of backwards compatibility.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: rh71
Has there ever been a case of that - developing 2 versions of the same game for a current-gen and previous-gen system from the same company ? That'd hardly be something I'd consider doing if I were them, strategically speaking.

I think I remember some of the Super Mario Bros games being out for both NES and SuperNES.

No Super Mario Bros game was ever made simultaneously for both the NES and SNES. The All Star Cartridge had the 1, 2, and 3 packed onto it, released years after the NES' death.

And that's why I said it was pointless to argue, I think the last 25 posts have been back and forth banter about it.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Steg55
Those specs don't make sense.

Either IBM and ATi have jumped a years woth of development or those specs are rubbish.

Look at the top end apples - 2.7ghz - with watercooling as standard I think. So where on earth are IBM going to pull 3.2ghz CPUs from? Are they going to be able to run without melting? And, if they can fab them, it is ecomonically viable to sell them on in sub $300 (total guess) consoles or $2000+ ultra-high end apple machines?

Same for ATi - PC graphics cards are just past the 16pipeline stage, with rumours of 24pipes coming soon. Maybe even 32. But 48? That is too big a jump to make. Unless, of course, we are looking at some kind of SLi - ATi's new AMR perhaps?

The RAM also seems fishy - GDDR as system RAM? 21.6gb/s frontside bus? This all seems too good to be true.

Maybe im being paranoid, but to me that doesn't sound right. Especially if they want to sell it for resonable money.

Steg

P.S. Another thought occurs - developers and software evolve together, right? As hardware advances and the software advances and visa-versa. So this big leap in hardware is going to leave a large hole in the developers evolution. It could take a year before software that fully exploits such hardware is avaliable. Microsoft licanced UE3? Built for next-gen PC hardware? Not quite the same as those specs.

N.B. All the above might be complete rubbish. It just makes sense to me.

I agree, specs seem too good to be true. Are they going to reveal specs on the MTV show?

 

Originally posted by: flashbacck
I agree, specs seem too good to be true. Are they going to reveal specs on the MTV show?

Doubt it.

 

[Queasy]

Interesting. Supposedly, the "Deluxe" version of the Xbox could sell for $360 while the regular version will sell for $299.

Link

The basic package is expected to retail for $299.99 and will include the console, one controller and all the requisite cables.

The deluxe package is expected include an extra controller, the remote, and a hard disk drive loaded with extra content. It may also include the eyetoy-like camera, though details are still sketchy.

Sweet if true.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Interesting. Supposedly, the "Deluxe" version of the Xbox could sell for $360 while the regular version will sell for $299.

Link

The basic package is expected to retail for $299.99 and will include the console, one controller and all the requisite cables.

The deluxe package is expected include an extra controller, the remote, and a hard disk drive loaded with extra content. It may also include the eyetoy-like camera, though details are still sketchy.

Sweet if true.

So was the rumor still that the basic won't have a hard drive? Or just a smaller hd?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
So was the rumor still that the basic won't have a hard drive? Or just a smaller hd?

I believe no hard drive but the post above does make it confusing. It says a "hard disk drive loaded with extra content" which makes you think the regular version might come with a HD without the content.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
So was the rumor still that the basic won't have a hard drive? Or just a smaller hd?

I believe no hard drive but the post above does make it confusing. It says a "hard disk drive loaded with extra content" which makes you think the regular version might come with a HD without the content.

the rumors are 2 versions ... 1 without a HD, and one with the HD. the one that has the HD is supposed to have some bonus stuff on it, specifically halo 2.5, which is basically halo 2 w/updated graphics. atleast thats what the rumor is.

it wasn't one with an HD, then another with an HD w/special content on it.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
So was the rumor still that the basic won't have a hard drive? Or just a smaller hd?

I believe no hard drive but the post above does make it confusing. It says a "hard disk drive loaded with extra content" which makes you think the regular version might come with a HD without the content.

Ehh. That's going to piss a lot of people off unless MS sells the hard drive seperately for rather cheap. I can't really see them selling off a detachable 2.5" HD for $50 though. (At what, rumored to be 40GB from the pic from Ourcolony)?

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
well tell me this, and no i do not know the answer to this.

were there any first party games developed on both psx and ps2 after the ps2 release? again, i don't know the answer to this, but my guess would be no.

Do you mean like EA putting out Madden for PS2 and PS1? That happened and has each year since the PS2 came out. You can buy Madden 2005 for your Playstation 1.

 

[maziwanka]

wow. if the difference between the two versions is only 60 bucks, i will most certainly go with the 360 version