Dear Microsoft, thanks for nothing.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:34 pm

kevinpars wrote:I don't know why Microsoft didn't just stick the nVidia chip in the 360 and to hell with paying the royalties. Chances are, nVidia wouldn't even be able to find a 360 on a store shelf to check for the chip anyway. And if they did and popped that sucker open - guess what? They just pissed away their warranty!

Because both MS and nVidia had had enough of each other and I can promise you that MS did not want to give nVidia another dime, not to mention what putting an nV chip into the ATI-driven 360 would have done for their new relationship with ATI, which is a very different business model than the MS/nV one....

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:48 pm

Hey what exactly is Swann's platform?

Is he getting any support outside of Western PA?

He'd probably have a better shot taking Santorum's seat no? Won't they throw the "no executive or administrative experience" on him?

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:02 pm

I'm not sure, Wco. I haven't really been keeping up with it. I am very anti-Rendell. Swann could run on a platform that promised EA exclusivity for all sports and I'd still vote for him.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:51 pm

Sport73 wrote:
matthewk wrote:
Sport73 wrote:Other than not playing MVP, I don't really understand the fuss over BC.
1. NCAA Baseball
2. Arena Football
3. Moto GP
4. MX Superfly, or any MX title for that matter
5. Any wrestling title
6. Links
7. A football title where you can edit rosters & challenge calls
8. A game a kid under the age of 7 would play (No, COD2 is not for 5 year olds)
9. Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2
10. Splashdown

I'm sure I'll come up with more, but you get the idea. The above reasons are also why I am not getting a 360 yet.
Exactly, if you want to play the games listed above, I highly recommend a system called the "XBox", it can be found for $100 or less and thus represents a terrific value.

Right. So who needs to spend $400 on a 360 other than the hardcore gamers or those who just have to have the latest console? Maybe BC isn't a big deal for the first 1-2 million people who will buy 360 regardless of BC, but with each million after that, BC becomes a bigger factor.

Between myself and my son we've got about 30 Xbox games. I can either A) keep the Xbox , buy a 360, and then reserve about the size of a fridge in the entertainment for them and their power supplies, B) Sell the Xbox games for $2 a piece and wait months for these types of games to be on the 360, or c) Stick with the Xbox and wait until suitible replacements are on the 360.

Just as you do not understand the need for BC, I do not understand the need to spend $400 for less gaming options than I have right now.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:59 pm

Microsoft has said that BC has not been halted until March.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/682/682896p1.html

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:53 pm

Not to defend MS, but the last BC was right before Christmas - basically a month ago. It would not shock me if they originally planned to wait until March for another update, but the negative response led the suits to tell the team to get off their arses and get something out by mid February. And my guess is that the problem is not the team but the solution.

As for their only being a few more updates this year, that also makes sense. If a top game is not BC by the time the 360 has been out 9 months, chances are that the game either can't or won't be BC ever.

I wonder what it is about sports games that make it hard for them to be made BC?? NHL 2004 and FIFA 2004 are about it on the current list. I hope that was a point of emphasis for 1.3.

I have no problem using my Xbox except for the controller. After getting used to the 360 wireless, going back to the Controller S is like going back to the Duke. It is big, clunky, heavy and the white and black buttons still suck.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:08 pm

http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:39 pm

reeche wrote:http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.

Interesting, saw an article the other day talking about the next release of BC games from one of the XBox blog sites...confusing to say the least. I'll see if if I can recover the article.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:44 pm

reeche wrote:http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.

I'm sure the people for whom backwards compatibitlity was a selling point (not a factor for me) will be upset. Frankly, M$'s explanation as well as what they actually delivered is acceptable for me. They wanted to try to get all Xbox games working on the 360, but they weren't able to do it. They did deliver some. Life goes on.

Edit: Also, the story has been somewhat refuted.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152207.html

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:52 pm

reeche wrote:http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.

Yeah. I'm not that upset there aren't more bc games, especially since we did luck out with WE9. I'm more annoyed with the Peter Moore comment, "We under promised and over delivered on that", especially considering those past quotes from just a year ago about the goal being 100% bc. If it's harder than you expected to get games bc and you underestimated your ability to do it or if you are doubting the cost/benefit of bc then just sack up and admit it.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:05 pm

What's interesting is that Peter Moore was supposedly put out to be the spokesperson for Xbox because Allard had apparently said things which were impolitic or maybe not tending towards the best PR.

Yet Moore has said a couple of things which MS had to backtrack from. He said a few months ago that MS would support Blu-Ray but then later MS said their strategy is HD-DVD.

Then this BC comment, which they've backed off of somewhat, with some marketing guy saying in a blog that they're continuing to work to deliver more BC.

Of course KK has said some things which have made people blanche too.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:12 pm

Kazuya wrote:
reeche wrote:http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.
I'm sure the people for whom backwards compatibitlity was a selling point (not a factor for me) will be upset. Frankly, M$'s explanation as well as what they actually delivered is acceptable for me. They wanted to try to get all Xbox games working on the 360, but they weren't able to do it. They did deliver some. Life goes on.

Edit: Also, the story has been somewhat refuted.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152207.html

I disagree. I think it will be refuted when they actually do a good job with BC rather than what they've achieved so far. They're great at promising diamonds and delivering coal so far.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:08 pm

Personally, I am officially pissed. I expected MVP NCAA, one of the NCAA football games (Top sellers all) and NFL 2K5. Considering that we have a mediocre first gen football and baseball game on the 350 there is no excuse.

This generation is different. There was a huge jump between psx and PS2. but the jump between xbox and 360 is not that big. Sure it is a lot of work, but we were promised more than we have received. Top games were promised. Madden, NCAA Football were top games.

I have a 360 but Sony could win me back. Not in November at $600.00, but down the road.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:11 pm

reeche wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
reeche wrote:http://xbox360.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151161

Nice bait and switch job.
I'm sure the people for whom backwards compatibitlity was a selling point (not a factor for me) will be upset. Frankly, M$'s explanation as well as what they actually delivered is acceptable for me. They wanted to try to get all Xbox games working on the 360, but they weren't able to do it. They did deliver some. Life goes on.

Edit: Also, the story has been somewhat refuted.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152207.html
I disagree. I think it will be refuted when they actually do a good job with BC rather than what they've achieved so far. They're great at promising diamonds and delivering coal so far.

At the end of the day, BC is much more complicated that ever in the past simply due to the complexity of current hardware and trying to re-write code for X number of games due to said hardware complexities.

I have been preaching this for some time as both MS and Sony have changed GPU suppliers and their new hardware is vastly superior/more complex than previous hardware. I think MS has discovered how difficult this process is BEFORE they really understood what was involved. This is their first attempt at it and they have under-delievered IMHO. This same process is also why I feel that we will be having this same discussion regarding the PS3 about a year from now because of the very same issues. Sony has a better chance of succeeding because this will be their 3rd effort. However, if they manage to pull off 100% BC as they claim, it will be a HUGE feather in their cap and MS will simply have to deal with the fact that they failed if they do no better than what they have delievered today....

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:38 pm

DivotMaker wrote:At the end of the day, BC is much more complicated that ever in the past simply due to the complexity of current hardware and trying to re-write code for X number of games due to said hardware complexities.

So why is it so much easier to make Pro Race Driver and not TOCA 2 or 3? Forza but not Project Gotham Racing? What makes all the Tom Clancy games so easy to make bc? What made WE9 so easy that it is one of the only "new" games (thank God)? Why waste time with all those sh*t titles? WTF? Overdeliver my ass.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:17 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:At the end of the day, BC is much more complicated that ever in the past simply due to the complexity of current hardware and trying to re-write code for X number of games due to said hardware complexities.
So why is it so much easier to make Pro Race Driver and not TOCA 2 or 3? Forza but not Project Gotham Racing? What makes all the Tom Clancy games so easy to make bc? What made WE9 so easy that it is one of the only "new" games (thank God)? Why waste time with all those sh*t titles? WTF? Overdeliver my ass.

I am an ingnoramous about programming, but I know marketing, and they certainly undelivered in making "top games" BC. I was especially shocked like Kevin was that NFL 2k5 and MVP 06 were not made compatible. They especially did a piss poor job on sports games, and with all the licensing nonsense drying up our choices, that's an area where BC was important to me. Sure, I can drag out my XBox and play MVP on the small TV upstairs, but it would have been nice to play it on my plasma with wireless controllers.

vader29 · Post by **vader29** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:35 pm

It's not that they were working to make titles like Super Bubble Pop and Barbie Horse Adventures backward compatible, those games were added to the backward compatible list because they just happened to work when code was programmed for other titles. Maybe they should look into hiring better programmers such as the ones that created all of the emulators for all of the previous systems that have been out over the years.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:47 pm

vader29 wrote:It's not that they were working to make titles like Super Bubble Pop and Barbie Horse Adventures backward compatible, those games were added to the backward compatible list because they just happened to work when code was programmed for other titles.

That makes it even worse then. 75% of their bc list happened by accident!...LOL.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:08 pm

Leebo33 wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:At the end of the day, BC is much more complicated that ever in the past simply due to the complexity of current hardware and trying to re-write code for X number of games due to said hardware complexities.
So why is it so much easier to make Pro Race Driver and not TOCA 2 or 3? Forza but not Project Gotham Racing? What makes all the Tom Clancy games so easy to make bc? What made WE9 so easy that it is one of the only "new" games (thank God)? Why waste time with all those sh*t titles? WTF? Overdeliver my ass.

I don't work for MS nor do I know the answer. And I damn sure only know what I have been reading and I do know about the vast differences in hardware. It all depends on what kind of hardware graphical effects each developer used for each title. I can assure you that no two games use the same rendering engines other than sequels from the same developer. Other than that, you need to ask MS....

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:28 am

I'm still on the next-gen sideline, but I know that this will make me wait even longer, possibly until the PS3 or the Wii comes out.

My son and I have about 25 XBox games, and out of those I counted about 4 that are BC. We still play Star Wars Legos, Battlefront I, bot X-Men Legends games, NFL 2K5, Links, Splashdown, MX SUperfly, Oddworld, and Dynasty Warriors 4 frequently. Most of these do not have a 360 counterpart that would make getting rid of the older game worth it. WHere are the 360 MX games? Or a jet ski game? Or a good NFL game? (Sorry, had to throw that in there

). Oddworld is almost 5 yeasrs old and we still play that like it just came out last month.

I don't want to have both an Xbox and a 360 in active use, especially when I'm almost already sold on a Wii.

This has been very dissapointing for me, and it is a big reason why I'm staying on the sidelines for now.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:11 pm

vader29 wrote: Maybe they should look into hiring better programmers such as the ones that created all of the emulators for all of the previous systems that have been out over the years.

I don't think its the programmers either. Monopolysoft has other reason I believe for not making more games BC. What are they, I don't know.

But the "its hard" argument does not hold water. Other small groups of developers have completed emulated things like the PS1 with NO hardware specs and no access to any sort of official source code. There is no way the most powerful monopoly in the world could not make every game backwards compatable if they wanted to. They have all the hardware specs and all the official drivers ect.

It reminds me of XSN, a complete joke. I knew that would not work when they released the first version of their football game(I forget the name of it) and the only stat tracking did NOT have individual stats.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:19 pm

There's some speculation that there are some graphics calls which nVidia owns, so they would have to pay a royalty, even in emulation.

MS supposedly did a lot of research showing BC wasn't that important to a lot of gamers.

But if it's trying to gain a lot of share from people who only owned PS2s, BC would help win them over. Imagine if someone who never owned the Xbox could play a lot of Xbox games, which you can now pick up very cheaply.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:14 pm

wco81 wrote:MS supposedly did a lot of research showing BC wasn't that important to a lot of gamers.

They also did a lot of research on that first gen Xbox controller which said everybody had giant hands and loved fat controllers so market research can be misleading apparently.

Of course backwards compatibilty is not the breaking point for whether most people buy a console or not. However their poor delivery and poor performance on their already limited selection combined with their mixed signals is annoying.

I'd place bets they never go above about 40% of emulated first gen titles. (Last time I counted they were around 30%). I hope they prove my guesses wrong. As a matter of comparison, I know I'm going to be buying some games I missed on that virtual console on the Wii, mainly just to test it out and play it on a proper controller (although I'm still a big emulation fan for the PC)

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:02 pm

I really don't see the point in BC if you can't get your old saved games over from the Xbox to the 360. And MS never gave us an official solution to that problem.

bdunn13 wrote:But the "its hard" argument does not hold water. Other small groups of developers have completed emulated things like the PS1 with NO hardware specs and no access to any sort of official source code. There is no way the most powerful monopoly in the world could not make every game backwards compatable if they wanted to. They have all the hardware specs and all the official drivers ect.

Nonsense. You have no idea how difficult it is to emulate Xbox games 100% properly on the 360. Just look at how many Xbox games are officially backwards compatible, but still have significant glitches. MS aren't a monoply in videogames, anyway.

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:10 pm

Ms has the specs to the hardware. They could do it if they wanted to.

"You have no idea how difficult it is to emulate Xbox games 100% properly on the 360."

But they are not even in the 2% ballpark.