Xbox head Phil Spencer on bringing Xbox 360 games to the Xbox One and the idea of bundling Xbox 360 Fable games with Fable Legends seasons.
So.... if i understand correctly, that means less remasters?
Spencer states that its a tradeoff that has to be made. Judging from his comment thought it would imply less remasters and more new games indeed.
Coming into xbox with the xbox one that makes me kind of sad because i dont get to experience all the gears or alan wake or all the other 360 exclusives.
I really don't get this whole "I will never play these old 360 games because I am on xbox one." these days. If you really want to experience Alen wake and the Gears series etc... why not just buy an old second hand 360? while I get that money could be an issue, if you look at it the cost of buying 2 brand new digital(+ season pass) games is almost enough to buy a pre-owned 360. I am just saying if playing those old games is really really so important to you, you can still play them even if they don't come onto the xbone as remasters. I mean sorry If I sound like a selfish prick at this point, but they have been out a whole 7 years... what where you waiting for then? Id rather have them focus on new games and new experiences that push the new technology, especially if this constant cycle of remasters is having an effect on new games which I am guessing it must be or Phil would not be making them the priority.
@DARK WITNESS, a lot of people like having all of their games on one system. less cables and going back and forth. this is why people like having bluray that also allowed dvd playback. hardware makers now aside from nintendo are failing to give consumers this type of convenience now. instead they would rather you buy the game again.
@ moldybread Exactly, and we are fueling the trend by supporting it with our $$$. where in the past the focus was on delivering a console with the features to meet those needs. Now it does not matter, the whole remaster thing just feels like a con to me. Sadly even I am guilty of buying into it. I get that people like the convenience of just everything on one console, but what I am saying is if playing those games is really, really that important to the point that it upsets you that you are not going to get to play them, then you should be looking at a very simple solution of buying the old console and in the long run it would prob workout cheaper as well.
@Rimeskeem Seems so.There will most likely be remasters but from his comment the main focus is going to be creating new games.still have my xbox 360 games library intact ,you could always lend a friend's xbox 360 to play those classics or even buy a used Xbox 360,they are quite cheap now @Ver1on Exactly. edit That would be so cool.I think he will announce a major Xbox One update/feature at e3 though
Imagine what would happen if SPencer announces backwards compatibility for the Xbox One with a future upgrade at the E3 ;)
@VER1ON: Given that they started then stopped BC from the first Xbox to the 360, and did that piecemeal, what makes you think they're going to do it now?
Godmars because the design of the Xbox One OS should make BC easier. The Xbox 360 CPU was simply a general purpose part with a basic GPU. The only difference being it used a RISC based CPU. PC games have worked fine with IBM chips so it should be pretty simple to add a 360 OS to the One hypervisor.
@godmars The system could easily support BC via a streaming function. Put the 360 disc in the XB1 and play from the cloud.
@DC Afraid it doesn't really work like that. A RISC chip and an X86 chip are different enough that it isn't a matter of simply converting the processes from one to the other. Emulation takes magnitudes of power over what it's trying to emulate to make work, and the chips in the new systems aren't powerful enough to make it happen. Despite the RISC name, the x86(CISC) processor actually has fewer instructions available to it than the PowerPC. RISC actually implies that each instruction does less work per instruction. What this means is that when converted to CISC, the same instruction not only has to be converted to CISC, but also loses out on the ammount of work that it could normally do per that instruction, leaving a lot of wasted time on the CPU as one instruction can not begin before the one before it is executed. Since you can't simply just reduce the number of instructions, the CISC processor ends up taking longer to perform the same task. CISC to RISC works the opposite way, where a CISC instruction will not only have to be converted, but may have to be split up into multiple instructions to execute the same code. The GPU isn't really the problem, as they are basically newer versions of last gen, much like you see in new models of PC video cards where they can do all the things the older cards did, and with MS they do use DX API's on both so the conversion should be simple enough. but displaying the graphics becomes handicapped when the processor has to catch up before a frame is drawn. However, since these systems do have API's written specifically for them the instructions to make the GPU work may not be directly convertible, although a software emulator(like we had with PS1 in the PS3) could handle that. MS could probably emulate the OG XBox fairly easily since it had an x86 chip in it. Sony could likely emulate PS1 and PS2(partially) without much issue. The OS really has no part in BC. The hyper-visor actually removes the OS from the equation when running games...which is the whole point of using a hyper-visor in the first place. @TheCommentator That would be the most feasible way to make it happen. I don't know if MS or Sony have any kind of incentive to provide such a function though other than consideration for their customers. It costs quite a bit to maintain servers, and then there is the issue of liscensing, and many publishers don't want you playing older games, they want you playing newer ones, or paying to play the ones you already own. That was the issue we saw with Remote Play on the PS3, because it wasn't mandated for compliance to support it on the PS3, most publishers didn't. Since last gen, publishers weren't mandated to support streaming they probably aren't going to go back and do it when they could just resell it on any streaming service available.
Just as gamers said enough remaster phil says focusing on new games.
* He wants new games that people like from this gen to carry over onto the next console. Just bringing old games isn't going to do it so I like that he has a focus on new games.
Both Xone and PS4 should have seriously had Backwards compatability. It would have been awesome.
Can't agree with you more. Thats what i like about the Wii U.
I can understand why they dont but It would have been a nice addition. PSnow could definitely become a viable option if they get their prices right and add a lot more games to the library. Honestly 45$ for 3 months may sound like a lot but if you think about it, you could have over 1000 titles to choose from at any given moment. So basically, for 45$ have a library of 1000+ games with of course the downside being it only lasts 3 months. But in hindsight you could beat a solid 15-20 single player only games in that time if you really tried. @Dark Yah, I wonder if there could be a way of straight out buying games off of PSnow. Also, I don't think you own 1000 games on your ps3.
But why pay for games i already own and want to enjoy again? And i like the feeling of having to own a game, not just being there for a limited time even if i am not gonna touch it again. @Rimeskeem I dont own 1000 games yes, but i played a majority of the games, excluding the many sports titles that are basically the same game every damn year.
I agree that PS NOw can be viable but although the library can be huge, 45$ is to steep for most of the players. 1000 titles is a lot but how many of those will you eventually play?
@rimekseem..There's a reason why one doesn't own 1000 games for a console...you don't like that many games. I don't want to pay 45 beans and justify it by playing games I never wanted to buy in the first place. I hear what you are saying, but I think the price model needs to change. As it stands, each console has the tech behind it to allow BC via streaming with a disc you already own...they just need to be willing to implement it and perfect it. I'm sure it wouldn't be cheap but it would go a long way for gamers.
But then how could these big name companies bank on obvious cash grabs, sell digital copies and bolster a very thin line up of games for their new systems?
Would it? Consider the price and consider them both now using x86. I'd rather they move on from last gen and have reasonable prices, use a up to date architecture to create games better vs...BC. If you have a game library, then clearly you own last gen systems, I just don't think its a good trade off, not even slightly. "But why pay for games i already own and want to enjoy again? " ??? Why don't you own a PS3 to play those games you already own? No one is forcing you to use PS Now, no one is forcing you to sell your PS3 for a PS4 or buy ports etc. Btw...I own 2 PS3's currently and a PS4. I could care less about BC, what I care about is next gen games. If I want last gen games, I have a place or that. Mind you, many games I didn't play last gen, I can just buy the PS4 version of its its enhanced, ported etc if I feel just. Its a non-issue and to be honest, those that seem to care the most about crying about it, seem to always have very little justification of why any company should pay more to give you 2 systems in 1. Those that can, great! If they can't...don't care. Its not worth them upping the cost, using dated architecture etc just to turn 1 system into 2. I own many PS3 games too...its why I own a PS3 still. PS2 had some great gems, but some titles didn't get ported over. I don't grow sorry for those that don't have PS3's that don't have full BC, I'm more sorry for gamers that didn't get certain games on PS2 that NEVER got ported. ie Yakuza 1 and 2. http://www.amazon.com/Yakuz... http://www.amazon.com/Yakuz... Owning the system doesn't mean you own all the games released for it. I get why PS Now exist, though I don't use it and don't really plan too, I know some PS3 games will fall threw the cracks and I may not get them in time and might be seeing them on Amazon for like 300 lol. But the reality is, BC doesn't really solve all issues with older titles. Doesn't mean you own all games ie owning the last system or having BC doesn't mean you played every last gen or can even find some of those titles for a good price. PS Now has its place. BC wasn't really going to make PS Now obsolete. Hell me owning a PS2, PS3 WITH PS2 BC didn't have me playing Yakuza 1 or 2, I still want those games on PS Now, ported etc. They are just so expensive online and I don't want to chance getting a used version that doesn't work lol. That being said, I'm ok with PS Now, I'm ok with BC ONLY if its not at a HUGE cost and hurts future development. I'm fine with no BC too.... @Gangster red-....look at PSN, its full of PS1 games. PS3 can play PS1 games native....I"m sorry but not all ports are because of no BC, Wii got ports of titles from GC and it plays GC natively. Ports are to make money, period. Having BC doesn't make those games in HD at 60fps bud. My only advice to gamers....keep your past systems and bank on used last gen games NOW vs later on titles you might want to play. Because I wish I did that with Yakuza 1 and 2, now I'm praying for a HD version on PSN lol Again...just having the system or BC really isn't enough, you need the games too and we can't just buy 3000 games a gen lol.
I tend to agree. Its a new console generation which means I want new games. Why would buy a xb1 or a ps4 to play ps3 and 360 games? Let last gen games stay as last gen games
PS Now is interesting but it will never replace true backwards compatibility
having backward comp is good when there is the inevitable drought of games that comes around so you can go out and purchase good games at very low prices.. or just play good games for, yesteryear.. it should just be there and they could do it..since these console are pretty much pc's.. just make a disc-base emulator for them shouldnt be that hard for the people that made the consoles..
I bought a 360 for $100 two weeks ago so I could get the free games on Xbox live . That is the price of one game on the Xbox one . That same week I downloaded two full games for the thing . Great value there IMO
Please no more remasters. Make backwards compatible and allow your digital catalog to work in Xbox one.
I don't mind re-masters as long as they aren't the highlight of the catalogue. The Halo MCC bundle was great (even though it shipped broken). And I look forward to Gears, Fable, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, and other re-masters. But, I want the catalogue focused on new games. The new Crackdown, Scalebound, Phantom Dust, a new Gears, another Project Spark, the next Halo, Quantum Break, more Forza, the next season of Killer Instinct, the next season of D4, etc. And even more new IPs.
I think that was the point Phil was making there was a balance. But instead of balancing just focus on new ips not old. It's fine they did mcc because that was their staple franchise but focus on new stuff for Xbox new titles.
They need to focus on new games because they're just getting crap on their systems at the moment.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.