ATI has already won the deal to create the graphics processor for Microsoft's next-gen Xbox.
That's according to this report, which claims that the platform holder is happy with the Xbox 360's ATI-built Xeons GPU and is keen to use the vendor again for its next console.
A return to ATI would make sense of course, because it'd mean backwards compatibility with Xbox 360 would be possible.
Forza 3 - Suzuka Couse
Gameplay footage
1:36Does Turn-10's latest racer look any different?
Forza 3 - Suzuka Couse
Gameplay footage
1:36Does Turn-10's latest racer look any different?
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
Forza 3 - Suzuka Couse
Gameplay footage
1:36Does Turn-10's latest racer look any different?
With the success of the Wii's small hardware upgrade, it's also possible that Microsoft will opt for an upgrade on the current Xbox 360 chip, rather than a full-blown redevelopment.
We'll request a comment from Microsoft, but it's bound to be a "no comment".
Personally I think backwards compatability ought to be a "must" for any console, though I can appreciate that this may not always be technically expedient. In those instances where BC is gimped simply because a company wants to try and squeeze customers even more (I'm looking at you Sony,) that's downright deplorable.
The problem with BC is that there's no profit in it for the company. Being able to buy old used games is great for the consumer, but that's less money being fed to the industry (Microsoft in this case). You have to appreciate that they are a business, and as such their #1 goal is to make money. Spending time and resources programming stuff that isn't going to pay for itself is not a great business move.
Look at the PS3 as well. They claimed it was a cost-cutting measure, but now they have a software Emotion engine to emulate PS2 hardware and we haven't had a sniff of it. Why? Because they can package up those PS2 games on PSN and sell them new, rather than you picking them up used down the local market.
I'd like to see what they're planning to use as their base. The 360's Xenos stats pale in comparison to the PS3's nVidia RSX.
The problem with BC is that there's no profit in it for the company. Being able to buy old used games is great for the consumer, but that's less money being fed to the industry (Microsoft in this case). You have to appreciate that they are a business, and as such their #1 goal is to make money. Spending time and resources programming stuff that isn't going to pay for itself is not a great business move.
Look at the PS3 as well. They claimed it was a cost-cutting measure, but now they have a software Emotion engine to emulate PS2 hardware and we haven't had a sniff of it. Why? Because they can package up those PS2 games on PSN and sell them new, rather than you picking them up used down the local market.
I'd like to see what they're planning to use as their base. The 360's Xenos stats pale in comparison to the PS3's nVidia RSX.
I am aware of the allure for companies not to include BC, but the potential for a PR disaster is tremendous. Sony took flak after one of the Sony chaps let it slip in an interview that BC was actually removed to get gamers to buy the games again, and not because it was technically costly for Sony. Corporate behaviour like that - be it Sony or another company - motivates me to give them as little of my business as possible.
Furthermore, BC can be marketed as a selling point for a console. For example, when/if MS eventually announce a new addition to the Xbox lineage, I'm going to be much more inclined to stick with MS and buy the new console (pending other factors as well,) if I know that the new console can play the old games I've already invested in. That means the company has a higher chance of getting my repeat business both in the form of a new console and all the potential games and peripherals I may buy along the way too.
Corporate behaviour like that - be it Sony or another company - motivates me to give them as little of my business as possible.
This is my standing exactly.
This is also precisley why I am trying not to give to much business to Sony, as they have come out with many comments and remarks over the past 3 years that have achieved nothing but increase my frustration and mild resentment towards them. Thankfully, the majority of games which hold my interest are on the xbox atm, though I must confess that Uncharted 2 looks brilliant. I am a patient man however, so I will be able to wait until there are more PS3s available 2nd hand, and in about 3-4 months, there will also be plenty of 2nd hand copies of U2 available. My goal is to own a PS3 and many of the games (legally) available in the future without giving Sony a penny.
Back on topic though, I think this is signalling that the 3rd Xbox is already in the R&D phases, and they probably already have a couple of external designs in place. I would imagine that a 500 HDD would be standard, as they are already dirt cheap to make. Also, I would guess that they are going to be much more careful this time after the very expensive RROD.
As long as they learn from their mistakes, I am quite happy.
why compromise brand new tech to get backwards compatible on old games?!
although playing 360 games on a console that actually works... i can see the draw there.
the next gen will be delayed, as the gap between the current and next machines wont be as big as the last leap. nothing to do with credit crunch.
its sad some people's main reason for investing in brand new technology is to cling to the old.
You presume that compromising the new tech has to be a given. What if it is not? What if it's just another feature that enhances the customer's overall experience?
Furthermore, enjoying "old tech" needn't prevent a person from also enjoying newer tech. Why must it be so black or white with you?
If rumours are to be true I've heard that MS, Sony & Nintendo are all opting to use ATI graphic chips for their next consoles. This undoubtedly leaves Nvidia out in the cold and begs the question why it is even though their GPU's are often the best & choice of PC gamers, why it is they are unable to work with console manufactures (Sony's relationship with NVIDIA is rumoured to be rocky at best and MS fell out with them after they made the chip for Xbox 1 leading to its earlier withdrawal from market and the 360 being brought forward).
If rumours are to be true I've heard that MS, Sony & Nintendo are all opting to use ATI graphic chips for their next consoles. This undoubtedly leaves Nvidia out in the cold and begs the question why it is even though their GPU's are often the best & choice of PC gamers, why it is they are unable to work with console manufactures (Sony's relationship with NVIDIA is rumoured to be rocky at best and MS fell out with them after they made the chip for Xbox 1 leading to its earlier withdrawal from market and the 360 being brought forward).
I don't know. Historically ATI is often the first one to introduce new tech and is very competetive price wise, whereas Nvidia has been lumbering with overheavy prices the past two GPU generations. The verdict is still out on Fermi, but if history is anything to go by it may well still be more expensive than ATI's new HD 5XXX offerings. Of course, whether that's the level of GPU that will be used is questionable given past samples, but even lower to mid-end ATI GPUs often possess the same tech options but with decreased power. Apparently Nvidia is planning on being able to do the same via modular down-scaling with Fermi.
playing old ps2 games on ps3 is no bother, i dont think it even breaks a sweat. it can even be done with software emulation.
but i think playing 360/ps3 games on their new systems will take a lot more effort this time around, as the games are much more complex than ps2-era efforts.
you can enjoy older games. but making it the main decision behind buying a brand new console is beyond me. just seems like a peice of anti-sony fanboy ammo.
who really plays xbox 1 games on their 360?! a quick blast maybe, but its then you realise how shit they have become.
why compromise brand new tech to get backwards compatible on old games?!
its sad some people's main reason for investing in brand new technology is to cling to the old.
hardly compromising, look at bluray, dvd playback hasn't ruined the bluray format. and all those movies you don't fancy buying again, they can still sit in your collection.
although look at VHS and DVD... lol imagine the DVD format that was somehow BC with VHS...
also as consoles become more like pcs youll prob find the companys like sony nintendo etc.. will strike deals for a amd cpu/ati gpu combo for a good price
playing old ps2 games on ps3 is no bother, i dont think it even breaks a sweat. it can even be done with software emulation.
but i think playing 360/ps3 games on their new systems will take a lot more effort this time around, as the games are much more complex than ps2-era efforts.
you can enjoy older games. but making it the main desicion on buying a brand new console is beyond me. just seems like a peice of anti-sony fanboy ammo.
who really plays xbox 1 games on their 360?! a quick blast maybe, but its then you realise how shit they have become.
I wouldn't call it a main decision, but it's a welcome addition. Some games hold up better than others obviously, but being able to play Halo 1/2, San Andreas and Jade Empire amongst others has been great IMO.
why compromise brand new tech to get backwards compatible on old games?!
its sad some people's main reason for investing in brand new technology is to cling to the old.
hardly compromising, look at bluray, dvd playback hasn't ruined the bluray format. and all those movies you don't fancy buying again, they can still sit in your collection.
although look at VHS and DVD... lol imagine the DVD format that was somehow BC with VHS...
thats entirely different.
the laser reads DVDs as they were. its a set format.
a brand new console playing games specifically designed for another is a different scenario.
This brings an interesting point - with this generation bringing downloadable games will these also be compatible with next gen hardware? will you be allowed to redownload?
i love the concept of downloadable software but hate the 'lack of ownership; aspect of it...
This brings an interesting point - with this generation bringing downloadable games will these also be compatible with next gen hardware? will you be allowed to redownload?
i love the concept of downloadable software but hate the 'lack of ownership; aspect of it...
Agree with this too. Hopefully you can just take it off the 360 drive and paste it across to xbox 3 one. They may make a case of "well, you do own it. Just play it on your 360", which will suck balls.
playing old ps2 games on ps3 is no bother, i dont think it even breaks a sweat. it can even be done with software emulation.
but i think playing 360/ps3 games on their new systems will take a lot more effort this time around, as the games are much more complex than ps2-era efforts.
you can enjoy older games. but making it the main decision behind buying a brand new console is beyond me. just seems like a peice of anti-sony fanboy ammo.
who really plays xbox 1 games on their 360?! a quick blast maybe, but its then you realise how shit they have become.
You have completely missed the point. Whether deliberately or by mishap I do not know. At no point did I state that the sole reason for purchasing a new console would be based only upon BC! What I did state was that I think it should be a mandatory ability of new consoles and that it can be used as an incentive to get customers onboard with new consoles which then offers the companies in question the chance to entice said customers to buy new games to sit next to their old games. Both the companies and the consumers get a piece of the pie in that equation. If however one enjoys being duplicitously shafted by seedy corporate practices, then by all means enjoy the way Sony has treated its PS fanbase.
It's not about whether you play a lot of old games on a new console or not. It's about having the choice to do so. The more choice, the more freedom a customer has the better in my opinion. If you truly disagree with that then I'm afraid you are a lost cause where it concerns customer rights.
I think maintaining compatibility with this generation of consoles is a must for the next gen. Main reason for this is the extensive use of DLC these days, which is tied to your XBL/PSN account.
If Sony and MS are smart, they will realise that XBL and PSN are the areas they should be focusing, if they become 'the platform', then it will allow for a much smoother transition into new hardware.
If MS or Sony release their next console and it is 100% compatible (disc games, DLC, downloaded games) with the current gen, then it will be a no-braining purchase for me. However, if they are not compatible, then it will probably take me some time to upgrade. My RB2 song collection is on my 360, and I'll want to keep playing that... there just wouldn't be room under my TV for a 360 and 720. Same applies to my PS3.
I think this would make it not BC with the original Xbox. I seem to recall MS p**sed off the first Xbox chip maker and changed for the 360. Not that I would feel the need to play original Xbox games on Xbox 3.
why compromise brand new tech to get backwards compatible on old games?!
its sad some people's main reason for investing in brand new technology is to cling to the old.
hardly compromising, look at bluray, dvd playback hasn't ruined the bluray format. and all those movies you don't fancy buying again, they can still sit in your collection.
although look at VHS and DVD... lol imagine the DVD format that was somehow BC with VHS...
thats entirely different.
the laser reads DVDs as they were. its a set format.
a brand new console playing games specifically designed for another is a different scenario.
i still don't think that it needs to be compromising to include BC, especially since the likely formats of next gen aren't going to be radically different. The next consoles, like you said before will take a smaller leap and so have similar architecture, therefore easy to include BC without compromise.
The only real issue would be the primary control input, but since controllers this gen are wireless it won't be hard to incorporate; and plus i don't see sony or microsoft making any design changes.
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
Personally I think backwards compatability ought to be a "must" for any console, though I can appreciate that this may not always be technically expedient. In those instances where BC is gimped simply because a company wants to try and squeeze customers even more (I'm looking at you Sony,) that's downright deplorable.
I wonder if these crazy posts will ever end?
*Sony make a all singing all dancing PS3 and it costs a lot of money. *Sony take features out of the PS3 to save money and bring the cost of the machine down to meet customers price point. *People compain that the cheaper PS3 doesnt have all the features of the expensive PS3.
I mean what do you want! I have a 60gig PS3 and it plays pretty much all my PS2/PS1 games. I also have a xbox360 and that doesnt even play half my xbox 1 games. At least Sony are looking to build PS2 support back into PS3 with a Cell-firmware update. MS just want to sell the same games back to you via a games on demand service!
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
IMO not worth it!
What's the point of making PS2/PS1 games available on PSN then, if "nobody plays them"? Is it like watching a film once, then never wanting to watch it again as it is 'old, and nobody watches them anymore'?
"With the success of the Wii's small hardware upgrade, it's also possible that Microsoft will opt for an upgrade on the current Xbox 360 chip, rather than a full-blown redevelopment."
If it turns out that way and if Natal proves its worth as well, all those Xbox fangirls will be crying that they're next machine isn't some super duper next gen machine but just a new Wii
I must remember the rule that states that the second a new console comes out everything before it is obsolete and unplayable, despite the fact you'll have been quite happily using it for a number of years.
That mentality is akin to a baby being distracted from it's usual toy by something shiny. Oooohhh.... shiny...
I must remember the rule that states that the second a new console comes out everything before it is obsolete and unplayable, despite the fact you'll have been quite happily using it for a number of years.
That mentality is akin to a baby being distracted from it's usual toy by something shiny. Oooohhh.... shiny...
I wonder if everybody had a pop at Thomas Edison?
'What in tarnations am I supposed to do with all these candles?', they asked.
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
IMO not worth it!
Sometimes I wonder if you actually take the time to re-examine the comments you post, Svg. This latest "beauty" is so full of logical fallacies that you could charge an entire cavalry unit through the gaping holes in your argument. Seriously, try to re-read what you typed and then genuinely think about whether it would benefit a customer to have BC or not, and try - hard as it may be - to consider that there are other people in the world than you whom may still like to have the choice.
Personally I think backwards compatability ought to be a "must" for any console, though I can appreciate that this may not always be technically expedient. In those instances where BC is gimped simply because a company wants to try and squeeze customers even more (I'm looking at you Sony,) that's downright deplorable.
I wonder if these crazy posts will ever end?
*Sony make a all singing all dancing PS3 and it costs a lot of money. *Sony take features out of the PS3 to save money and bring the cost of the machine down to meet customers price point. *People compain that the cheaper PS3 doesnt have all the features of the expensive PS3.
I mean what do you want! I have a 60gig PS3 and it plays pretty much all my PS2/PS1 games. I also have a xbox360 and that doesnt even play half my xbox 1 games. At least Sony are looking to build PS2 support back into PS3 with a Cell-firmware update. MS just want to sell the same games back to you via a games on demand service!
Answer me this: How many of the other PS3 models possess BC? While you are at it, perhaps you would care to explain how a Sony rep was clearly less informed than the SDF fanboy squad when he let slip that the removal of BC wasn't so much about saving money, as it was about increasing sales of existing games? Yes, when indeed will the madness stop? All the fanboys and girls for the different platforms have issues, yet the PS3 crowd seems to have descended to a far more deranged place than the others.
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
IMO not worth it!
What's the point of making PS2/PS1 games available on PSN then, if "nobody plays them"? Is it like watching a film once, then never wanting to watch it again as it is 'old, and nobody watches them anymore'?
Don't hold your breath, Monty. You are using logic - the kryptonite and antithesis of the marauding SDF fanboys. Notice how once again the usual suspects descend on an Xbox 360 news thread and derail the topic? It's both grotesque and pathetic.
I must remember the rule that states that the second a new console comes out everything before it is obsolete and unplayable, despite the fact you'll have been quite happily using it for a number of years.
That mentality is akin to a baby being distracted from it's usual toy by something shiny. Oooohhh.... shiny...
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
IMO not worth it!
Sometimes I wonder if you actually take the time to re-examine the comments you post, Svg. This latest "beauty" is so full of logical fallacies that you could charge an entire cavalry unit through the gaping holes in your argument. Seriously, try to re-read what you typed and then genuinely think about whether it would benefit a customer to have BC or not, and try - hard as it may be - to consider that there are other people in the world than you whom may still like to have the choice.
Where it concerns choice, less is not more.
choice is definately more.
its cost me MORE, and the rest of the punters - 99% of whom do not play old games of their new console, MORE money to buy the f**ker. all because they implemented a feature that noone essentially uses.
it seems a 'much requested' feature, but thoses "requests" are from sneering xbox owners, sniping at the rival console.
more than 99% of games played on ps3, are... ps3 games.
everybody would have to pay more for the console because 1% want to play their old games - until the rose tint fades and they realise they are shit compared to new titles, and they just go back to playing the games it was intended for.
sony only has a duty to make ps3 games work with that console. nothing else. if you want to play old games. keep your old console!
why is fifa 10 a massive success, when 9 was basically the same?
it would be nice if they gave their loyal customers the minor tweaks and updated player names in a downloadable update. but they are a business. like sony.
the ability to play old games on a new format is not a customer right. nor should it be expected.
if something has truly moved on, then it just may not be compatible with newer tech.
you have the ability to play the old games on the old console. if theres "no room" for both and you choose the new console as pride of place, then its obvious the old hat stuff wasnt really that important at all.
if the old school ps3's never had to cater for ps2 games, it would have been less complicated and less expensive from the start. all for a minority who have alaread bought a ps2.
its all a stupid mind set, and not worth the hassle.
a smaller leap in tech from ps3-ps4 wont make it easier to apply BC, quite the opposite. they are having to replicate an already powerful system, on a completely different system, that isnt the major leapfrog that last gen was.
it will compromise something, if only time, effort and money - both on the consumer's and the manufacturer's side.
IMO not worth it!
Sometimes I wonder if you actually take the time to re-examine the comments you post, Svg. This latest "beauty" is so full of logical fallacies that you could charge an entire cavalry unit through the gaping holes in your argument. Seriously, try to re-read what you typed and then genuinely think about whether it would benefit a customer to have BC or not, and try - hard as it may be - to consider that there are other people in the world than you whom may still like to have the choice.
Where it concerns choice, less is not more.
choice is definately more.
its cost me MORE, and the rest of the punters - 99% of whom do not play old games of their new console, MORE money to buy the f**ker. all because they implemented a feature that noone essentially uses.
it seems a 'much requested' feature, but thoses "requests" are from sneering xbox owners, sniping at the rival console.
more than 99% of games played on ps3, are... ps3 games.
everybody would have to pay more for the console because 1% want to play their old games - until the rose tint fades and they realise they are shit compared to new titles, and they just go back to playing the games it was intended for.
sony only has a duty to make ps3 games work with that console. nothing else. if you want to play old games. keep your old console!
why is fifa 10 a massive success, when 9 was basically the same?
I'll ask you the same question I asked 777: Please explain how you know better than a Sony representative regarding the reasons BC was dropped? He had a slip of the tongue and indicated it had more to do with getting people to pay for new games than cutting production costs for the PS3.
As for your FIFA 10 vs. FIFA 9 analogy, it is a preposterous comparson to BC on the PS3. Nice try at obfuscating the real issue here, but you are going to have to do better than that.
Personally I think backwards compatability ought to be a "must" for any console, though I can appreciate that this may not always be technically expedient. In those instances where BC is gimped simply because a company wants to try and squeeze customers even more (I'm looking at you Sony,) that's downright deplorable.
I wonder if these crazy posts will ever end?
*Sony make a all singing all dancing PS3 and it costs a lot of money. *Sony take features out of the PS3 to save money and bring the cost of the machine down to meet customers price point. *People compain that the cheaper PS3 doesnt have all the features of the expensive PS3.
I mean what do you want! I have a 60gig PS3 and it plays pretty much all my PS2/PS1 games. I also have a xbox360 and that doesnt even play half my xbox 1 games. At least Sony are looking to build PS2 support back into PS3 with a Cell-firmware update. MS just want to sell the same games back to you via a games on demand service!
Answer me this: How many of the other PS3 models possess BC?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
While you are at it, perhaps you would care to explain how a Sony rep was clearly less informed than the SDF fanboy squad when he let slip that the removal of BC wasn't so much about saving money, as it was about increasing sales of existing games?
I had a look around for this, yet I couldn’t find it. Linky from a good source please.
Yes, when indeed will the madness stop? All the fanboys and girls for the different platforms have issues, yet the PS3 crowd seems to have descended to a far more deranged place than the others.
I think that you are just part of the ever-so-fashionable Sony bashing squad. They do have they faults, and they love themselves to the point of stupidity – but at the end of the day don’t moan about the cheap PS3 having less features than the expensive PS3. It stands to reason. The same thing with the Sega Mega Drive 1 and the Sega Mega Drive 2. Don’t complain because you waited to upgrade from your Master System and now you don’t have a headphone port!
How the f**k did a thread about Xbox graphics chips fill up with bile spouting Sonyphiles? What did you click on this story for? Unless you also own an xbox (and you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be whining fanboy stylee) then there is no possible reason to follow that link except to troll and bitch.
I believe I got moaned at by SVD and one of his "enemy of my enemy" brigade last time I commented on the ridiculousness of one of his posts, so I won't expend the energy this time...
You're right, BC is not a consumer right, however, in the last 2 generations we've had..
GBA (allowing GB/C BC) PS2 (allowing PS1 BC) Wii (allowing GC BC) DS/Lite (allowing GBA BC) X360 (allowing Xbox BC via emulation) PS3 60GB (allowing PS2 BC via emulation for PAL regions... in fact doesn't the US/JAP models have the PS2 chip in it?!)
.... anyway my point is, it's a consumer expectation!! They offered the service before, we EXPECT (as consumers) the same level of service.
Now if MS/Sony/Nintendo fall out with their GPU partner, then i can understand the cause for concern around BC (although MS got around it with the X360 so you could argue it's a mute point), but if they don't, then as stated above (especially in the case of the Wii & PS3 having the previous gen's hardware inbuilt) then they should include that technology to provide the service that is expected.
They are a victim of their own success, but why should we lose out (and be expected to re-download a game we already own)?
You're right, BC is not a consumer right, however, in the last 2 generations we've had..
GBA (allowing GB/C BC) PS2 (allowing PS1 BC) Wii (allowing GC BC) DS/Lite (allowing GBA BC) X360 (allowing Xbox BC via emulation) PS3 60GB (allowing PS2 BC via emulation for PAL regions... in fact doesn't the US/JAP models have the PS2 chip in it?!)
.... anyway my point is, it's a consumer expectation!! They offered the service before, we EXPECT (as consumers) the same level of service.
Now if MS/Sony/Nintendo fall out with their GPU partner, then i can understand the cause for concern around BC (although MS got around it with the X360 so you could argue it's a mute point), but if they don't, then as stated above (especially in the case of the Wii & PS3 having the previous gen's hardware inbuilt) then they should include that technology to provide the service that is expected.
[b]They are a victim of their own success, but why should we lose out (and be expected to re-download a game we already own)[/b[?
I agree with most of your points but do remember that MSoft will not be updating the compatability list anymore so they too can sell xbox originals(although granted BC is still there). As for the last part just look at the PSPGo for a real rip on compatability and making you buy games you already own.
The consoles refresh was supposed to happen in 2010 but due to the recession both Microsoft and Sony have decided to push its plans for 2012 and keep the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 alive for more than it was originally planned.
That's a dubious claim - Sony have always said there'll be a long cycle before the next model - and they still need to recover the money they've lost on the PS3! And I don't believe that MS were planning a new console for next year.
In fact, as both Sony and MS have new motion-control systems for next year, it's highly unlikely either of them were planning totally new consoles too.
ATI may well be in the frame for the Xbox 720 or whatever, but I think the rest of the article is a load of misinformed speculation!
Personally I think backwards compatability ought to be a "must" for any console, though I can appreciate that this may not always be technically expedient. In those instances where BC is gimped simply because a company wants to try and squeeze customers even more (I'm looking at you Sony,) that's downright deplorable.
I wonder if these crazy posts will ever end?
*Sony make a all singing all dancing PS3 and it costs a lot of money. *Sony take features out of the PS3 to save money and bring the cost of the machine down to meet customers price point. *People compain that the cheaper PS3 doesnt have all the features of the expensive PS3.
I mean what do you want! I have a 60gig PS3 and it plays pretty much all my PS2/PS1 games. I also have a xbox360 and that doesnt even play half my xbox 1 games. At least Sony are looking to build PS2 support back into PS3 with a Cell-firmware update. MS just want to sell the same games back to you via a games on demand service!
Answer me this: How many of the other PS3 models possess BC?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
While you are at it, perhaps you would care to explain how a Sony rep was clearly less informed than the SDF fanboy squad when he let slip that the removal of BC wasn't so much about saving money, as it was about increasing sales of existing games?
I had a look around for this, yet I couldn’t find it. Linky from a good source please.
Yes, when indeed will the madness stop? All the fanboys and girls for the different platforms have issues, yet the PS3 crowd seems to have descended to a far more deranged place than the others.
I think that you are just part of the ever-so-fashionable Sony bashing squad. They do have they faults, and they love themselves to the point of stupidity – but at the end of the day don’t moan about the cheap PS3 having less features than the expensive PS3. It stands to reason. The same thing with the Sega Mega Drive 1 and the Sega Mega Drive 2. Don’t complain because you waited to upgrade from your Master System and now you don’t have a headphone port!
1) If you spend a few minutes thinking about the relevance of the question you may find the answer to your question.
2) I recall reading about it on CVG, yet I seem to have had little luck hunting it down on this site. However, feel free to peruse the following websites (one of them a pro-PS3 website to boot!) at your leisure:
3) My reasons for disliking Sony are my own. After their software trashed the firmware on two separate DVD drives I had coupled with their near legendary arrogance and customer rights' usurping methods, I decided I was going to do my individual part to show Sony the same kind and quality of interest that they have shown me and many other consumers. As the old adage goes, "Prideth goeth before the fall". If holding Sony's feet to the fire has become fashionable then that's all the better as it increases pressure on a pompous, out-of-touch multi-national corporation.
One of the points in the linked articles - a point which I also brought up earlier in this thread - is that BC actually helps ease existing customers in to the purchase of a new console. While BC has a certain cost, Sony could implement it again given the greatly decreased production costs...Or it could have chosen to cut back on some of the ports (I wonder how many people genuinely uses them with any frequency?), or even desist in forcing BR upon customers. Given BR's extremely lackluster adoption rates, that would seem to have been one of the biggest and most expensive missteps for the PS3. Sony could still have tried to sell BR through stand alone BR players which are now cheaper to buy than a PS3, and while there are many gamers there are far, far more non-gamers, some of whom may be interested in BR but whom wouldn't know the first thing about the PS3 thus negating the BR "bonus" factor of the PS3.
BC is a boon for gamers; whether they decide to utilize that function or not ought to be each individual gamer's choice. Having a company remove that option and then having the audacity to re-introduce many of those old games on their online store so customers can have the dubious "pleasure" of paying for them all over again is the epitome of unconscionable greed. Sure, business is about making money, but any half-intelligent salesman should also be aware that if you milk your "cows" too hard and too frequently, then you risk having no "cows" to milk at all. I very much doubt history will be kind to the way Sony has handled the launch and continued development of the PS3. For a company of that size, with the commanding status it had in the previous console generation, to have fallen so far, so quickly is quite frankly shocking and speaks of either gross incompetence or suffocating arrogance; possibly both.
f**k me... how hard is it to quote someone correctly!
Is that fear I sense in you, Voodoo? Seems you have a propensity for attempting to derail a topic with empty attempts at ridicule when you have nothing concrete to counter with. You are nothing, if not pathetic.
f**k me... how hard is it to quote someone correctly!
Is that fear I sense in you, Voodoo? Seems you have a propensity for attempting to derail a topic with empty attempts at ridicule when you have nothing concrete to counter with. You are nothing, if not pathetic.
No need to state the obvious KFD...everyone knows this already.
Is that fear I sense in you, Voodoo? Seems you have a propensity for attempting to derail a topic with empty attempts at ridicule when you have nothing concrete to counter with. You are nothing, if not pathetic.
The first one at the pro Sony website had nothing about what you claim a Sony rep has said. The whole artical posted is just a writter opinion on BC and contains no actual facts on the matter.
The second again doesnt show this claim you have made and most of the artical is bulked up by cricits opinions on BC on PS3. But it does have a quote from Sony saying they are concentrating on PS3 title development.
And your last link is again quoting Sony on saying they want to concentrate on PS3 games but again bulked up with opinion
So your spin on this Sony not cutting BC to save money looks kind of fanboy-ish really. Since you fail to quote stories like: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/sony-says-ps3-manufacturing-costs-now-70-lower-20090731/ Sony made a machine packed with stuff and sold it at a loss, even though it was still a high price. I think Nintendo also took a risk by releasing a machine that is half the power of the 360 and PS3, it paid off and well done to them. MS made a shoddy machine rushed it out, naff all BC regardless of model. I have no respect for them anymore.
Is that fear I sense in you, Voodoo? Seems you have a propensity for attempting to derail a topic with empty attempts at ridicule when you have nothing concrete to counter with. You are nothing, if not pathetic.
oh the irony!
Thanks for providing ever more proof. I rest my case.
f**k me... how hard is it to quote someone correctly!
Is that fear I sense in you, Voodoo? Seems you have a propensity for attempting to derail a topic with empty attempts at ridicule when you have nothing concrete to counter with. You are nothing, if not pathetic.
No need to state the obvious KFD...everyone knows this already.
On topic, it's hardly a surprise.....
Nvidia is rumoured to be having big problems.
Cheers, Paradaz.
Aye, I have come across various online articles relating the delays facing Nvidia's Fermi series. The mass market GPUs may not be ready until March. That gives ATI ca. half a year of uncontested sales! Nvidia's high end performance Fermi GPUs may be ready by late November, with availbility by December. However, even this is considered optimistic by some and real availability may not occur until January 2010. Nvidia's Fermi architecture may be a whole new leap in GPU development, but it's left them playing catch-up sales wise at present time.
The first one at the pro Sony website had nothing about what you claim a Sony rep has said. The whole artical posted is just a writter opinion on BC and contains no actual facts on the matter.
The second again doesnt show this claim you have made and most of the artical is bulked up by cricits opinions on BC on PS3. But it does have a quote from Sony saying they are concentrating on PS3 title development.
And your last link is again quoting Sony on saying they want to concentrate on PS3 games but again bulked up with opinion
So your spin on this Sony not cutting BC to save money looks kind of fanboy-ish really. Since you fail to quote stories like: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/sony-says-ps3-manufacturing-costs-now-70-lower-20090731/ Sony made a machine packed with stuff and sold it at a loss, even though it was still a high price. I think Nintendo also took a risk by releasing a machine that is half the power of the 360 and PS3, it paid off and well done to them. MS made a shoddy machine rushed it out, naff all BC regardless of model. I have no respect for them anymore.
So you are able to do your own research; good man. How about being a bit more proactive next time? Moving on:
1) The three articles I linked to provide info on the background setting of the BC debate.
2) The Sony rep quoted implies that they have decided to focus on developing new PS3 titles (hardly surprising,) yet will not support BC. While this is certainly in Sony's interest when one considers that some of those older games are now available on the PS store, it can hardly be construed as a service to customers when they are forced to pay twice for a game they may already own if they want to play it again (presuming they don't have an old PS2 lying around somewhere). This is further insulting when the PS3 initially did have BC.
3) You asked for links to the Sony rep's comments; not for links about cost cutting on the PS3. I do not deny this has taken place, but to call me a fanboy for not pandering to your personal desires is not only disingenuous, it also reeks of fanboyism on your part.
4) I like my Xbox 360. I adore my PC. Does this mean I am blind to their potential faults and can not bring myself to criticize them? Not at all. The main reason I waited to buy an Xbox 360 until June this year was due to the RROD horror stories; I wanted to make sure I was getting a Jasper chipset Xbox 360 and so I did. I've also openly criticized MS for ignoring internal reports that confirmed disc scratching when moving the Xbox 360 and dismissing alternative solutions. That was a disservice to customers, just as Sony downplaying bricked PS3s caused by firmware updates is a disservice to those customers. MS is no saint in my eyes, yet Sony's arrogance goes several steps further and so I choose the less repugnant of the two, IMO, while still gaining access to most of the same games. The Wii hasn't really captivated me and thus was not on the same level of consideration.
Suivaloom has likened certain individuals to being the Robespierres of xbox but I myself feel King Canute to be a much more pertinent comparison for the large majority.
All the hand-flapping in the world won't stop the rising tide of the PS3.
Suivaloom has likened certain individuals to being the Robespierres of xbox but I myself feel King Canute to be a much more pertinent comparison for the large majority.
All the hand-flapping in the world won't stop the rising tide of the PS3.
Better get yer wellies on...
Hahaha! Suivaloom has indeed referred to me as "Robspierre of the Xbox 360" - how poorly he knows me, but then that hardly comes as a surprise. King Canute? *shrugs* Why not? Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven, etc.
The PS3 slim has seen impressive initial sales figures and I expect it to continue to sell well, however I am not sure it will sell at quite the same fever pitch early adopters, and already existing PS3 owners trading in, helped spur on. As has been stated before, at current sale rates it will likely take the PS3 years just to break even with the Xbox 360 which still continues to sell well, albeit at a significantly slower pace.
Suivaloom has likened certain individuals to being the Robespierres of xbox but I myself feel King Canute to be a much more pertinent comparison for the large majority.
All the hand-flapping in the world won't stop the rising tide of the PS3.
Better get yer wellies on...
I will - I'd rather not have raw sewage floating around my ankles
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
