Tell me specifically what gaming feature is missing.
More TV features != less gaming features.
- No compatibility with Xbox 360 games. - Can't share games between different consoles. (aka DRM) - No exciting game announcements, just the same old milked cows that 360 had. (CoD and Halo)
PS4 doesn't have backward compatibility either.
It's not clear yet whether PS4 will allow resaled games or if there will be some restrictions.
The graphics are great.
So basically your only real complaint is that Xbox One won't allow resaled games. Yet instead of complaining about that you create a diversion, by making meaningless fluff statements about a lack of focus on games.
If you're complaint is that there's no resaled games on Xbox One, then argue why that's bad. Or perhaps you're just too lazy to. Maybe you just can't, because this isn't simple, it's quite a complicated economics issue. Don't link to a video that repeats "TVTVTVTVTVTVTVTV" a hundred times, because that doesn't say anything specific and meaningful.
And you still don't seem to understand that more TV features != less game features. And less games revealed today != less games released. Is it specifically because of the TV features that there's no resaled games on Xbox One. Obviously not. So, the TV features aren't even relevant to the discussion here.
Therefore, it makes no sense to scapegoat everything you hate about Xbox on "TVTVTVTVTVTVTVTV".
Tell me specifically what gaming feature is missing.
More TV features != less gaming features.
- No compatibility with Xbox 360 games. - Can't share games between different consoles. (aka DRM) - No exciting game announcements, just the same old milked cows that 360 had. (CoD and Halo)
#1 - I can see this being an issue for a lot of folks (and it slightly annoys me), but you're in the same boat as with the PS3 and is unlikely to happen to XBox users ever again thanks to the changes that Microsoft have made to their software and hardware model. Additionally, if you've got XBox 360 games, then you can play them on your 360, which you obviously already have. Most games will get sequels on the new consoles, so I don't understand why anybody would be up in arms about it. There better be a new guitar hero game that lets me use all my old songs though. #2 - Yes you can (don't even need to take the disc with you to a friend's place to play your games, which is pretty awesome) #3 - Is this any different to PS4? Every game I've seen announced for PS4 has been "PS4 and 'Other Next Gen Consoles*'"
*This means the next XBox, but we can't talk about it yet (and now they can).
EDIT: There's no way at ALL to compare performance (but rumour has the PS4 ahead, though only slightly). Also, BOTH consoles allow you to resell games you've purchased.
On May 22 2013 19:00 paralleluniverse wrote: There are many complaints that Xbox One isn't focused on games like how PS4 is. But this is just lazy, completely vague and utterly substanceless fluff.
Tell me, specifically how Xbox One doesn't focus on games?
The fact that Xbox One has better multimedia features than PS4 doesn't take anything away from "focusing on games" (whatever that's suppose to mean, no one can specifically say). It's not a zero-sum game.
Some people say that Xbox One lacks features like backwards compatibility. Well, then argue that it lacks backwards compatibility, or whatever other feature it is that you don't like, and don't throw out meaningless babble like "Xbox One doesn't focus on games".
Be specific.
The problem is that the more multimedia functionality it has, the more expensive it is to manufacture, thus increasing the price. I only want a gaming console, why pay "extra" for all this stuff I don't want or need?
Rubbish. Other than the Kinect (something quite cheap to produce and might not add to the end cost at all), everything else extra you get in the XBox doesn't cost anything extra when compared to the PS4. It's software features from a software company.
That's not to say XBox will be cheaper than PS4, or that it'll be dearer. We in fact have no idea whatsoever, but I can guarantee the software features won't add (directly) to the cost of the device.
If you want to buy the cheaper of the two consoles, do so, but you have no idea which one that will be at this stage.
I was thinking definitely PS4 prior to this announcement, but the software features are a complete game changer. I was thinking PS4 because it's reportedly slightly more powerful graphics wise...but unless the gap is larger than rumoured, I'll be going XBox for certain.
P.S. Even though I'm now thinking I'll get one, the XBox One has a stupid name and looks ugly, thank god I keep my consoles inside a cabinet.
Of course the kinect will add to the end cost, it won't be created out of thin air...
Also, regarding the software features, you are right, it won't add to the manufacturing cost of the x1 hardware. But of course the costs are simply transferred onto the R&D, maintenance and extra support costs, so no, this stuff is not completely free as you make it. Anyway, even if ms did end up paying nothing for the software, nothing stops them from hyping it up as some next gen shit and giving the console a rip off price tag
On May 22 2013 19:00 paralleluniverse wrote: There are many complaints that Xbox One isn't focused on games like how PS4 is. But this is just lazy, completely vague and utterly substanceless fluff.
Tell me, specifically how Xbox One doesn't focus on games?
The fact that Xbox One has better multimedia features than PS4 doesn't take anything away from "focusing on games" (whatever that's suppose to mean, no one can specifically say). It's not a zero-sum game.
Some people say that Xbox One lacks features like backwards compatibility. Well, then argue that it lacks backwards compatibility, or whatever other feature it is that you don't like, and don't throw out meaningless babble like "Xbox One doesn't focus on games".
Be specific.
The problem is that the more multimedia functionality it has, the more expensive it is to manufacture, thus increasing the price. I only want a gaming console, why pay "extra" for all this stuff I don't want or need?
Rubbish. Other than the Kinect (something quite cheap to produce and might not add to the end cost at all), everything else extra you get in the XBox doesn't cost anything extra when compared to the PS4. It's software features from a software company.
That's not to say XBox will be cheaper than PS4, or that it'll be dearer. We in fact have no idea whatsoever, but I can guarantee the software features won't add (directly) to the cost of the device.
If you want to buy the cheaper of the two consoles, do so, but you have no idea which one that will be at this stage.
I was thinking definitely PS4 prior to this announcement, but the software features are a complete game changer. I was thinking PS4 because it's reportedly slightly more powerful graphics wise...but unless the gap is larger than rumoured, I'll be going XBox for certain.
P.S. Even though I'm now thinking I'll get one, the XBox One has a stupid name and looks ugly, thank god I keep my consoles inside a cabinet.
Of course the kinect will add to the end cost, it won't be created out of thin air...
Also, regarding the software features, you are right, it won't add to the manufacturing cost of the x1 hardware. But of course the costs are simply transferred onto the R&D, maintenance and extra support costs, so no, this stuff is not completely free as you make it. Anyway, even if ms did end up paying nothing for the software, nothing stops them from hyping it up as some next gen shit and giving the console a rip off price tag
Obviously not if they are idiots, but one assumes one of the largest tech companies in the world understands that you have to compete on price as well as features. Microsoft spends money on R&D like it's going out of style, but they STILL can't spend money fast enough and have billions in the bank. R&D is a SEPARATE cost for companies like MS and does NOT directly relate to their end products. They'll of course charge what they can get (because they'd be idiots not to), but they aren't going to charge MORE than they can get.
On May 22 2013 19:00 paralleluniverse wrote: There are many complaints that Xbox One isn't focused on games like how PS4 is. But this is just lazy, completely vague and utterly substanceless fluff.
Tell me, specifically how Xbox One doesn't focus on games?
The fact that Xbox One has better multimedia features than PS4 doesn't take anything away from "focusing on games" (whatever that's suppose to mean, no one can specifically say). It's not a zero-sum game.
Some people say that Xbox One lacks features like backwards compatibility. Well, then argue that it lacks backwards compatibility, or whatever other feature it is that you don't like, and don't throw out meaningless babble like "Xbox One doesn't focus on games".
Be specific.
The problem is that the more multimedia functionality it has, the more expensive it is to manufacture, thus increasing the price. I only want a gaming console, why pay "extra" for all this stuff I don't want or need?
Rubbish. Other than the Kinect (something quite cheap to produce and might not add to the end cost at all), everything else extra you get in the XBox doesn't cost anything extra when compared to the PS4. It's software features from a software company. .
It does cost extra though. Xbox live is additional monthly fee. It is not clear about PS4 and used games, but it is for Xbox One. Other that that I agree. The only thing that matters, will be exclusives and additional features, like Kinect, because the quality of games will be similar, as was on this generation. Sure there were games going better or worse, but that was totally in developers hands.
Q: Will Xbox One allow players to trade in, purchase and play pre-owned games? A: We are designing Xbox One to enable customers to trade in and resell games. We’ll have more details to share later.
On May 22 2013 19:00 paralleluniverse wrote: There are many complaints that Xbox One isn't focused on games like how PS4 is. But this is just lazy, completely vague and utterly substanceless fluff.
Tell me, specifically how Xbox One doesn't focus on games?
The fact that Xbox One has better multimedia features than PS4 doesn't take anything away from "focusing on games" (whatever that's suppose to mean, no one can specifically say). It's not a zero-sum game.
Some people say that Xbox One lacks features like backwards compatibility. Well, then argue that it lacks backwards compatibility, or whatever other feature it is that you don't like, and don't throw out meaningless babble like "Xbox One doesn't focus on games".
Be specific.
The problem is that the more multimedia functionality it has, the more expensive it is to manufacture, thus increasing the price. I only want a gaming console, why pay "extra" for all this stuff I don't want or need?
Rubbish. Other than the Kinect (something quite cheap to produce and might not add to the end cost at all), everything else extra you get in the XBox doesn't cost anything extra when compared to the PS4. It's software features from a software company. .
It does cost extra though. Xbox live is additional monthly fee. It is not clear about PS4 and used games, but it is for Xbox One. Other that that I agree. The only thing that matters, will be exclusives and additional features, like Kinect, because the quality of games will be similar, as was on this generation. Sure there were games going better or worse, but that was totally in developers hands.
XBox Live Gold is an extra cost - but that's got ZERO to do with the console being more expensive because of extra features - that's offering optional features for an optional fee.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Q: Does Xbox One require an “always on” Internet connection? A: No, it does not have to be always connected, but Xbox One does require a connection to the Internet. We’re designing Xbox One to be your all-in-one entertainment system that is connected to the cloud and always ready. We are also designing it so you can play games and watch Blu-ray movies and live TV if you lose your connection.
I had said earlier that I would be fine if Xbox One was always online, because it would be better (for those who have internet connections).
But this is ridiculous. They could have gone full on always online (which again I'm OK with, because it's better), or said you don't need internet for features that don't use the internet. That would be OK too. But to be saying you don't need the internet, but we'll still force you to connect to the internet occasionally anyway is DRM. Pathetic move.
On May 22 2013 18:10 Purpose88 wrote: So: My last console was a N64 and I don't plan to buy a Console ever again. Is there even ONE reason to buy such a thing if you have a Gaming-PC???
Who buys these things? :O
The only reason i own consoles? Exclusive Games. There have been a lot of really good titles over the years, which are sadly not available for PCs
I still hope for a Red Dead Redemption for PC, maybe when Red Dead Redemption 2 comes out. But I cannot think of more than 2-3 Games over the last 2 years that I want to play so badly. Basically only RDR and UFC Undisputed 3. Console-Exclusive Games are mostly too much focused on Console-Casuals (Uncharted, God of War etc)...
RDD is a good example. Dark Souls/Demon Souls (even though a port of the second happened way later), generally JRPG stuff (Final Fantasy, Tales Series, Valkyria Chronicles, Ni No Kuni, ...), Bayonetta, Journey, ... i could ramble on and on about console only games i really like and enjoy.
But it heavily depends on the type of games you prefer, for me there have been far too many console exclusives so i could not rely on my PC is the only platform. So for me there are pretty good reasons to own consoles, even though i own a powerful gaming PC.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
How is it that they have this problem when no computer ever has?
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Don't kid yourself. If they wanted, for sure they would be able to make it backwards compatible. It is all for more marketing and money-grubbing.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Aren't both manufactured by AMD? PC games work just fine even on graphics cards by completely different companies *Gasp*
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Don't kid yourself. If they wanted, for sure they would be able to make it backwards compatible. It is all for more marketing and money-grubbing.
The PCs you use to play games on use x86 architecture to process things, the 360 used something else called PowerPC from IBM. They're completely different ways of processing data meaning you have to code differently to make things work.
You could put in extra hardware to make it compatible but that is expensive and takes up extra space. You could also simulate it through software like emulators do but that is also expensive and takes time. Even if you do go through the trouble of writing this emulator you often have to write code for individual games instead of just code that works for all.
I am not sure on all of these details but it's not so simple as they're JUST greedy fucks out to get the most of your wallets.
-Edit- It is not the GPU you should be looking at as being the problem, it is the CPU.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Don't kid yourself. If they wanted, for sure they would be able to make it backwards compatible. It is all for more marketing and money-grubbing.
The PCs you use to play games on use x86 architecture to process things, the 360 used something else called PowerPC from IBM. They're completely different ways of processing data meaning you have to code differently to make things work.
You could put in extra hardware to make it compatible but that is expensive and takes up extra space. You could also simulate it through software like emulators do but that is also expensive and takes time. Even if you do go through the trouble of writing this emulator you often have to write code for individual games instead of just code that works for all.
I am not sure on all of these details but it's not so simple as they're JUST greedy fucks out to get the most of your wallets.
I don't disagree, but the primary intent for this is just greedy money-grubbing scheme. There wont be many amazing games for consoles the first year or so. So if you want to play all those great games, you have to buy the older console.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Don't kid yourself. If they wanted, for sure they would be able to make it backwards compatible. It is all for more marketing and money-grubbing.
The PCs you use to play games on use x86 architecture to process things, the 360 used something else called PowerPC from IBM. They're completely different ways of processing data meaning you have to code differently to make things work.
You could put in extra hardware to make it compatible but that is expensive and takes up extra space. You could also simulate it through software like emulators do but that is also expensive and takes time. Even if you do go through the trouble of writing this emulator you often have to write code for individual games instead of just code that works for all.
I am not sure on all of these details but it's not so simple as they're JUST greedy fucks out to get the most of your wallets.
-Edit- It is not the GPU you should be looking at as being the problem, it is the CPU.
PowerPC, the architecture that was used on GameCube that you can emulate on the x86 PC? All right, got it. Glad that got cleared up.
Then again perhaps freeware emulator creators have more resources than a multibillion dollar company.
On May 22 2013 18:50 Nekovivie wrote: I really dont understand why you would design it to not have backwards compatibility. Theres a lot of great 360 games that will never get played now, because not many people are going to buy a 360 who doesn't already have one. They'll buy the latest console.
I also don't understand why it doesn't have backwards compatibility, but not in the usual sense. What I really don't understand is why the concept of "backwards compatibility" isn't extinct yet.
When's the last time someone announced that a digital games platform like Steam doesn't have backwards compatibility. Never, because such a concept makes no sense in the context of computer games.
Given that a Xbox One is basically a PC with an operating system, and given that Xbox Live is essentially Steam, why don't they just sell Xbox 360 games on Xbox Live which can be downloaded on Xbox One? Then the whole notion of backward compatibility would simply cease to be, like on Steam.
Seeing as Xbox One and the 360 have different hardware it would be very difficult to just allow 360 games to be played on the new one. The games wouldn't run very well, if at all, on the new one since the code for the 360 games were written for that exact hardware, not the one they're using now.
They could simulate it through software but that is a slow and painful process, often requiring to put in code for each game instead of code that works for all.
Strangely enough older PC games work just fine on new graphics cards.
Not the same thing. The 360 and the new one are using different ways of processing things. It's not just new hardware, it's a different architecture.
Don't kid yourself. If they wanted, for sure they would be able to make it backwards compatible. It is all for more marketing and money-grubbing.
The PCs you use to play games on use x86 architecture to process things, the 360 used something else called PowerPC from IBM. They're completely different ways of processing data meaning you have to code differently to make things work.
You could put in extra hardware to make it compatible but that is expensive and takes up extra space. You could also simulate it through software like emulators do but that is also expensive and takes time. Even if you do go through the trouble of writing this emulator you often have to write code for individual games instead of just code that works for all.
I am not sure on all of these details but it's not so simple as they're JUST greedy fucks out to get the most of your wallets.
I don't disagree, but the primary intent for this is just greedy money-grubbing scheme. There wont be many amazing games for consoles the first year or so. So if you want to play all those great games, you have to buy the older console.
I am not contesting the fact that they are greedy bastards but you guys are making it seem like they only have to push a button to let you play 360 games on the new one.
EPT
