PDA

View Full Version : Xbox 360 fully backwards compatible (?) and leaked brochure!


Arreat
08-20-2005, 10:55 AM
Link (http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=360205)
Leaked Brochure (http://www.planetxbox360.com/?view=article&article=83&PHPSESSID=45b5234d1115d1dd7c24eebe33215d4e)

RoxStar
08-20-2005, 11:18 AM
*Saves Before it gets taken down*

Thanks for the information!

Hermie
08-20-2005, 12:04 PM
Anyone else notice how all this X360 info suddently has accidently leaked, causing us, the gaming community, to talk about it? Compare the amount of stuff you've seen/heard/read about the 360 the last month to f.ex. what you've seen/heard/read about the PS3...

Acrylic
08-20-2005, 12:53 PM
I don't think it's fully backwards compatible, because according to http://www.planetxbox360.com/images/brochure/general.jpg , it says, "top selling Xbox games can be played on the Xbox 260, including Halo 2"

I think this is a horrible mistake on MS's part. First, not including a lens (it is lens, right?) that can read HD-DVDs from the beginning, and not making the 360 fully backwards compatible. *sigh*

RoxStar
08-20-2005, 12:55 PM
Anyone else notice how all this X360 info suddently has accidently leaked, causing us, the gaming community, to talk about it? Compare the amount of stuff you've seen/heard/read about the 360 the last month to f.ex. what you've seen/heard/read about the PS3...

Hey, I was excited :p

Jeff
08-20-2005, 03:08 PM
Now I don't know what to believe...

I've heard rumors that it's not backwards compatible, and now it says that it is. And none of it is official, all "leaked." Hopefully this source is true though...

Astrotoy7
08-20-2005, 03:31 PM
yes, Ive read all over the place that the x360 is only backwards compatible with certain games, which will be recompiled... One of the selling points of either the N-rev or the PS3 are their backwards compatibility....which begs the question.... what are MS thinking ??? Im glad i'll be able to trade my ps2 in to get a ps3 and still be able to play those ps1/2 titles when the mood arises, same goes if I ever get an N-Rev too... backwards compatibility = good :)

mtfbwya

Black Knight of Keno
08-20-2005, 04:16 PM
Feh... Never trust Microsoft people! if the logo will actually be like that and if it's animated on the boot-up sequence of the 360, I would bet some hilarious guy came up with that suddenly shouting: "Let's make the logo rolling! Lets hypnotize people to buy more and more Microsoft products"
Never trust a Microsoft employee, and that shall my new motto.
CAD shall say what I cannot(just insert Microsoft every time they say Windows) :
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/images/comics/20040714.jpg

MTV2
08-21-2005, 07:11 PM
brochure looks cool :)

TiE23
08-22-2005, 03:10 AM
Anyone else notice how all this X360 info suddently has accidently leaked, causing us, the gaming community, to talk about it? Compare the amount of stuff you've seen/heard/read about the 360 the last month to f.ex. what you've seen/heard/read about the PS3...Yes, I belive that Microsoft has someone who is coming up will all of these rumors and stuff. Ourcolony.net and Ilovebees.com anyone? These could be "leaked" on porpose.

Lynk Former
08-22-2005, 03:27 AM
It's not just a Microsoft thing, these sorts of things happen with all three companies. It's just the power of the internet working its magic XD

toms
08-22-2005, 07:17 AM
From what i understand it is basically going to emulate the XBOX for compatability. And they are basically starting with the most popular games and working their way back to test compatibility... so probably 90% of games will be compatible, but a few obscure ones, or ones that use the XBOX hardware in weird ways, may not work right.

Also, as i understand it, you will need the full Xbox 360 with the hard drive for backwards compatibility to work, as most old xbox games will need it.

Xbox 360 Standard: $399.99 Gold Xbox Live Subscription: At least $49.99 (Likely more.) Wireless Networking Adapter: $99.99 Second Wireless Controller: $49.99 Two Play and Charge Kits: $19.99 times two. Total: $639.94
Not to mention a new HDTV and all sorts of jive. - Gizmodo

Lynk Former
08-22-2005, 08:48 AM
What toms has said is accurate.

toms
08-22-2005, 12:24 PM
:) naturellement...

For people's information: The consensus on every gaming web site i've seen is that the $299 "Core version" is a waste of money, and a bad idea on MS's part.
All of them seem to think it will be crippled and a waste of money, and a lot of people think MS is only launching it so it can say its price point is "from under $300" and then talk people into the $400 version once they get instore.
The problem is that all games will have to be designed to work for those few "idiots" [source - 1up] who do buy the core system, so they won't be quite as cool as if they had just released the HD version.

Just incase anyone was thinking of getting one... ;)

toms
08-24-2005, 09:33 AM
Gamers still reeling from last week's Xbox 360 sticker shock should sit down for this one: Electronics Boutique has announced their Xbox 360 bundle packs for both the premium and the "core" SKUs. Price tag? $700 and $600, respectively.

Now, before you go flying off the handle in a fit of consumer outrage, know that these expensive packages include premiums such as four launch games, a second wireless controller, the universal media remote, and more.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143091

Obi_Kwiet
08-24-2005, 12:08 PM
Well I know at least on thing on that list is wrong. CoD 2 is comming out for PC too.

shukrallah
08-24-2005, 07:55 PM
I found it interesting that a monitor can be used for the 360, but does that all monitors can just simply output HD signals?

Hmmm, the Revolution will support monitors too.


Lets see Nintendo or Sony charge that much. I know nintendo will at the most be $200. PS3 is expected to be at $300.

Lynk Former
08-24-2005, 08:00 PM
The PS3 is expected to be a lot more than 300 actually.

Jeff
08-24-2005, 08:05 PM
The PS3 is expected to be a lot more than 300 actually.
I had heard this also. Something about that since it was taking over $400 just to make the ps3, it would have to be $400 at least if they hope to make any profit at all. But I heard that quite a while ago, so maybe its not true anymore.

Lynk Former
08-25-2005, 04:29 AM
Microsoft is paying people to buy the 360 just as they were paying people to buy the original Xbox as well.

It's a strange way of doing things but I can understand it, it's a very long-term way of doing things and seeing as Microsoft makes a tonne of cash from its other dealings, it works for them. However, it's a lot more dangerous for Sony than it is for Microsoft seeing as Sony's competition on many levels are all starting to beat them (overall) in many different fields. For example, Sony is taking a beating in the digital video camera area by Canon and many people are buying other brands of TVs over Sony nowadays. The only thing that has kept Sony afloat lately is the fact that they can still make a good amount of revenue from their music and movies.

Microsoft still has to do more than just another "Halo 2" to earn back all the money they'll be losing. It's not apparent but this generation Microsoft and Sony should've made a lot more money than they did, and I don't care if you all think I'm some Nintendo fan boy but Microsoft and Sony didn't make any profit in this generation (PS2, Xbox). However, that doesn't mean that Sony doesn't have the majority of the market, they're just doing it a very high cost.

Still talking about consoles selling for less than they're actually worth, Nintendo lost profit because of the GameCube but it wasn't because they were expensive to make, rather that Nintendo didn't sell enough to balance it out. The funny thing is that they sold almost as much as Microsoft, but seeing as Nintendo is Nintendo they were aiming for a higher count.

In the end, it seems that Nintendo's profits came from the Game Boy, Nintendo DS and their first party games on various platforms rather than GameCube hardware. There is also news about Sega finally making profit, but it's exaggerated. And since Sega is a division of Sammy, it was Sammy's other dealings that were making the majority of the profit. Either way it's good to see that Sega is surviving in its own way.

Finishing off, all three companies will take a loss at first but I'm sure that all three will profit in the end, one way or the other. Profit doesn't necessarily mean money.

Eva
08-25-2005, 04:37 AM
I have a feeling some of the features they promise will be stripped for more affordability.= of the PS3.
Huh? 400$ is a lot of money, but majority of people will still be able to afford that price. For what it is, that price is fair for the PS3. Though, I won't be buying, because it's far too expensive for my taste. Still, they won't strip down features just to lower of the price of PS3. Lol, what a strange logic...

toms
08-25-2005, 07:06 AM
Its pretty clear that even after stripping out some features Sony are going to be making a loss on PS3 units. Thats not great when its their 3rd generation machine. You wuld think that with the huge install base of the PS2 and the number of games sold (and therefore license payments to Sony) they should have made a profit.

MS on the other hand never expected to make a profit on the first generation. They just wanted to break into the console industry and get a foothold (something which i remember a lot of people thinking they would never ,manage). Having gone from nothing to a respected name with 2nd place in terms of install base is pretty impressive in such a short time.
MS aren't daft, their whole business model has always been to get their user base huge, then lock them into regular payments and upgrades. I'm suspect MS is hoping that Live subscriptions will be their main point of profit, that and other services like music downloads, etc..

By ripping the Hard Drive out of the lower xbox they will probably limit their losses a bit... but i still think its an odd decisions.. as the casual gamers that are most likely to buy the cheap version are also the ones most likely to want to play their old xbox games.

I'd be interested to know if nintendo will make any profit on the Revolution. I suspect that even though they aren't going for ULTRA POWER they will still be lucky to break even at their lower price point. But who knows.

It should be pointed out that although everyone now seems to think of Nintendo as less of a corporate monster than Sony or MS, in their time they were just as intent on world domination as either of those two. Infact their excessive licensing costs were part of what drove all their third party develpers into the arms of the competition. Luckily the PSP doesn't seem to have made TOO much of a dent in their portables profits yet, which is what is making up for their low sales in home consoles.

toms
08-25-2005, 07:29 AM
A lot of us have been wondering about the Xbox 360's backwards compatibility issue. Microsoft has announced that the Xbox 360 will be partially backwards compatible. What does that mean? Today we spoke with an industry source who shed some light on the subject.

One of the rumors floating around is that backwards compatibility will only work with a hard drive, which would have left Core systems out in the cold. As it turns out, that's only partially true. In many cases, the hard drive will indeed be necessary because you'll need an Xbox emulator file to sit on the hard drive (it's still unconfirmed whether this emulator comes pre-shipped on 360 hard drives but it is highly likely the case) and make your Xbox games 360-friendly. However, our understanding is that this isn't perfectly foolproof, and that it may not work in every single case.

What's especially interesting, though, is that select premium Xbox titles in the present and future are getting special treatment. We've learned that Microsoft is inviting some developers to make their current Xbox titles backwards compatible for both 360 SKUs -- that the games themselves will contain the Xbox 360 emulation code on them. In fact, certain Xbox titles already contain the code to boot up under emulation on the Xbox 360. Teams from Microsoft are helping developers with the project.

But resources are limited, so only triple A titles will get this kind of attention, and only products coming out in the window after the Xbox 360 announcement. Which ones? We have some hints, but nothing we can officially talk about yet. But don't worry, we're on the case.

So i'd guess halo 2 will work on both 360 systems, but most games (and all older games) only have a chance on the HD version.
Its all very confusing...

Lynk Former
08-25-2005, 10:04 AM
I'd be interested to know if nintendo will make any profit on the Revolution. I suspect that even though they aren't going for ULTRA POWER they will still be lucky to break even at their lower price point. But who knows.
Well the way I see it two things can happen, it will go just as it went with the GameCube, if that happens Nintendo will lose some profit however it will be no real loss seeing as their sales of handheld and first party games bring in the gold.

The second thing that could happen is that the Revolution could do better than the GameCube and Nintendo will make a nice profit, either way though, Nintendo will make a profit. But obviously, that doesn't mean that they will take back the market from Sony.

Another thing to consider is that the Revolution won't be as powerful as the other two systems. The western folks won't like the sound of that, obviously because most people think raw power = better games. What Nintendo is trying to do is go for efficiency, their goal is to bring powerful games using less power than people would think is needed. This is one of the reasons why the Revolution won't be jumping head first into the HD era, even though Nintendo have said this; it's still not a concrete thing.

Either way it is clear that Nintendo hope to release a cost effective console that will be affordable not only to them, but to consumers. Of course, we all know that consumers don't necessarily go for the cheaper brand lol.



It should be pointed out that although everyone now seems to think of Nintendo as less of a corporate monster than Sony or MS, in their time they were just as intent on world domination as either of those two. Infact their excessive licensing costs were part of what drove all their third party develpers into the arms of the competition. Luckily the PSP doesn't seem to have made TOO much of a dent in their portables profits yet, which is what is making up for their low sales in home consoles.
Oh yeah, Nintendo was out of control at the climax of the SNES era and it took Sony to slowly bring them into perspective to show them that they will have to do some things a little differently. Plus when I first heard of the PSP, I was glad that Nintendo would finally get some competition that would live long enough to make Nintendo fight for the handheld arena too.

It may sound strange, but it's better to have competition, if 2 companies compete then the consumer will end up benefiting from that competition. Nintendo was ruling like a tyrant all those years ago and that cost them, but lookie, lookie, Sony isn't so different from Nintendo even though they claim to be... Sony is doing exactly the same things Nintendo have done in their past and it could bite them very hard. The Xbox360 is trying to pull a PlayStation 1, and if they're successful, it will launch a good enough hit to Sony to dislodge them just enough from both Microsoft and Nintendo to pounce and take the advantage.

Which really is a good thing, for consumers to benefit from all of this, all three companies must be in balance. Right now, it isn't so because Sony is ahead by so much in terms of sales and Nintendo is ahead so much in terms of profits.

shukrallah
08-25-2005, 04:43 PM
Yeah, thats right, Nintendo used to have a huge library of 3rd party exclusives back then. I remember stupid liscence deals as well... something about limiting the number of crappy games by limiting the ammount of games a company could release per year (on the SNES). It ended up that some companys would just submit games under "new names." It was complicated.

Crow_Nest
08-28-2005, 01:25 AM
*Saves Before it gets taken down*

Thanks for the information!

What he said ^_^

BCanr2d2
08-29-2005, 05:33 PM
Backwards compatibility is only a recent addition. After swapping from Nvidia graphics cards to ATI, they had to come to an agreement(ie $) with Nvidia about the code developed to display the games on the Nvidia cards, and then develop a way for the ATI card to show it......

Remember guys, this is a console, highly specialised tricks and shortcuts suited to the hardware, not just a DirectX layer like in Windows.

Kurgan
09-02-2005, 01:19 AM
I don't see the big deal about price. All game consoles are sold "below cost" pretty much. They make up for it by gouging people with the games (compare the price of a console game vs. it's PC counterpart that's usually better, and required more testing to be compatible on more configurations!).

As for stripping out features, the Xbox required a special kit in order to play DVD's, despite the Xbox itself using DVD format when it was released. The only console that had DVD support out of the box was the PS2. Since HD-DVD hasn't even taken off yet, I wouldn't expect a console released in the next 6-9 months to have support built in. It just wouldn't make much sense to have a console to do something that you can't even buy affordable stand-alone players yet. HD broadcast isn't even used by that many people yet. Plenty of people who own HD or digital sets don't even use them for HD.

access_flux
09-02-2005, 02:42 AM
I don't see the big deal about price. All game consoles are sold "below cost" pretty much. They make up for it by gouging people with the games (compare the price of a console game vs. it's PC counterpart that's usually better, and required more testing to be compatible on more configurations!).




yeah but thats where M$ lost all their money on the XBOX first time around. the consoles were sold cheap in hope that games would let them rake it in, where as with a simple mod and HDD upgrade, you can put as many "procured" games on as you wish. that way, microdollars lost out. i wonder how they will improve on that now.

Kurgan
09-02-2005, 06:48 AM
Well the thing is, all consoles are sold below cost, and all of them that I know of (except perhaps the Gamecube) got pirated. Copying games to a hard drive is neat, but just about any system has had people crack, rip, copy and distribute games for it illegally. And who cares if the system itself has internet access, people still got the games off the internet primarily (or traded with friends, or rented and then copied). Mod chips are well known for allowing these kinds of things too.

The Gamecube I don't know if it was ever actually cracked, a few games were leaked and passed around but they tended to be very small or only playable via (primitive) emulators. Nintendo went all out on their copy protection schemes...

So anyway I don't see why the same mistakes won't be repeated, they're just standard for gaming consoles in the last decade. A gaming company can't expect to stop all piracy, they can only do a reasonable amount of work on it. Likewise the public expects to pay a certain price for a gaming console, so rather than make it too high seeming (most gamers are console gamers after all.. and new gaming-level PC's are considered out of reach of many of these folks), they cut the price to increase sales. They can't very well raise the price again later, because they want to stay competative.

All the major companies cited losses due to piracy, etc, but they all also made profits. It's not as if the Xbox was a failure due to game copying. If it was, I never heard that or saw the evidence for it.

toms
09-02-2005, 01:02 PM
Frankly i can't see that the number of xbox owners who are hardcore enough to know about or add in a mod chip and a hard drive is going to be very high at all.. 1% of the total market?? And they are likely to be the sort of gamers who would buy games cheap, 2nd hand or on ebay anyway... not the "hardcore casual" fans who spend a fortune on new release games in highstreet stores. Can't see that they would have much effect on MS losses at all. MS fully expected to make a loss on their first round in the consoel war... but considering the ground they've made up (remember - lots of people thought they would crash and burn) they'll be happy. Now they will start trying to use games sales and subscription services to make money this round.

I still think the initial price for a (decent) 360 is too high, but they probably reckon that as first to market they can fleece the "early adopters" who will pay that price, then drop the price to something more reasonable once the PS3 is about to launch.

I still think that the "with and without HD" options are going to be confusing, and most of the casual gamers who WANT backwards compatibility are going to be the ones who buy the cheap version and then get confused when some of their games won't play, but Halo 2 will.

[edit]PS - i heard the reason the xbox shipped wthout DVD playback by default was that sony gets a percentage of all dvd players (due to copyrights) and MS didn't want them getting a % of all XBOXs. I guess they wanted to give them a 5 of $20 rather than a % of $300... ;)

Kurgan
09-03-2005, 05:30 AM
Not everyone who gets a mod chip in their console is a pirate. Many people got one for the Xbox so they could use free homebrew programs like audio players, freeware games and emulators (that allow you to play other emulated games on the Xbox).

Now mod chips require you either have some hardware know-how yourself or you paid somebody to give you a modified chip (the latter technically isn't legal I don't think, at least not in the US). Modding the system yourself I think just voids the warranty. In any case, simply modding the system doesn't mean you were going to pirate games, anymore than buying the HDD meant you were going to pirate games. It would certainly make it easier.

Note: I'm just going by what I've been told and read. I don't actually own an Xbox console.

Sony has the copyright on DVD technology? That doesn't sound right. Unless it was a Sony-made drive I highly doubt that was the case.

What got me about the Xbox DVD thing was that I thought it was a case of simply the machine had it "turned off" and the "kit" just turned it back on (and gave you the remote). Then again the kit may have been the decoder card for movie playback. Just because you have DVD capability doesn't mean you can read movie discs. The Xbox uses the DVD format for its storage capabilities, just like the PS2 did. If it was a decoder card, I can see why they left it off. At the time it came out, far fewer people had a home DVD player than they do now, and the dvd player would just drive up the overall price.

Before the "next generation" (soon to be outdated term) of consoles (Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube), there was a move by console makers to produce "multimedia" stations, which meant that their game consoles included other abilities like the ability to play CDs, VCDs, CD+G, Karaoke, PhotoCD, etc. The idea was that you could not just play games but do all this other stuff. But as a selling point it was fairly poor. I think this is also true of the DVD playback... that with the console you could either buy a game machine with a crappy or overpriced version of the multimedia machine you wanted, OR you could buy the actual multimedia player and get a better playback for the same or less price (or just slightly more).

For an example, compare the price of the "Panasonic Q" which was a Gamecube system with a DVD movie player built in. It cost more than it would have cost to buy a decent stand alone DVD player AND a standard gamecube system. So what was the point other than the novelty of having two machines in one?

My point about the consoles being sold "below cost" was that this alone shouldn't have ensured M$'s failure, since all console companies (that I know of) were doing it as well.

Lynk Former
09-03-2005, 09:14 PM
Yes, all consoles are sold below cost, the software makes up for this. The only company who is able to do this is Nintendo since they release a lot of software to make up for the losses made by selling their hardware. Sony on the other hand releases very little software. 99% of PlayStation games are third party games which means those third party companies such as Square-Enix makes all the cash from selling their games. Microsoft's Xbox was sold way way below cost, there was no secret that it was an expensive console to make, but that wasn't the point. The point for Microsoft was to get into the market any way they could and they have. It is also very clear that if it wasn't for Halo 2, Microsoft would've suffered an extremely big loss compared to what they went through with the success of Halo 2. Microsoft were smart enough to realise that software is what rakes in the cash which is why they invested so much money into buying Rareware and Bungie.


And about the whole DVD thing with Sony... it's not the DVD format which Sony has invested in, it's the programming to be able to play DVD video. That's why Microsoft made people buy the remote, the remote is what had the programming to play DVD video, the Xbox itself does not. It will be the same thing with the Revolution, Nintendo will make people buy an "add on" instead of having DVD video playback built in.

shukrallah
09-03-2005, 10:56 PM
Cool, then I won't buy the Nintendo add on, because I don't need it. Its just a waste of money. If the Rev shipped with the DVD player, would I use it? Yeah, most likley. Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Not really. It would just up the cost for me, which is something else I don't want. I think the smartest thing to do, like they are doing, is to ship a DVD add on elsewhere, but not with the system itself.

toms
09-05-2005, 10:03 AM
As with most technology these days DVD tech was covered by hundreds of different copyrights (disc tech, reader tech, copy protection, video compression, audio compression, etc... ) so loads of different companies get parts of royalites for dvd players. Sony does hold a large number of the copyrights though. This is why MS is trying to push its tech onto HD DVD (so it gets royalties, and a say in licensing) and is so anti Blueray.
It usually becomes so complex to deal with all the copyrights involved that they set up a licensing body that controls all the copyrights involved and then license them as a big bundle. (like the MPEG licensing group, etc..)
Its just a rumour that MS used the dongle route to avoid paying as much to Sony etc.., but then MS would hardly admit it.

$700 for a console bundle does seem a bit excessive though. imho.
[edit]on the other hand the $1,200 Gamestop Ultimate bundle sounds peachy... ;)