Top
270°

Xbox One Now Has The Entire Assassin's Creed Series Playable And More

Remember when you had to ditch your old consoles and in this process lose the games that you owned for them just because it was not possible to play them on their successors. While Sony managed to keep the tradition alive until PS3, they have dropped all support for backward compatibility this generation. Nintendo seems to have followed in their footsteps leaving Microsoft the only one in the current market to offer true backward compatibility for their console.

Read Full Story >>
gearnuke.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Gman32133d ago

yup i have alot of backwards compatible games on my xbox one x

xRacer74x133d ago

They are great. They look and perform better its nuts.

Bronxs15133d ago

Yes fallout 3 and red dead redemption look great. Never played fall out 3 and only beat red dead once so itching to try fallout 3 and return to red dead.

Also never played forza horizon and I got 2 for free with gwg. And I think it’s been updated to 4k? Should be fun!

conanlifts133d ago

The main game I want is crysis. Would be good to play that on my X.

Concertoine133d ago

I want Lost Planet 2!

Also Suda51 games

Ashlen133d ago

So much of that is said here is wrong. I don't remember ever having to ditch my old consoles... I still have old consoles dating back to Atari.

And second Xbox doesn't have "true backwards compatibility" they have a approved list of games. True backwards compatibility like Sony had would mean you could stick any game in the drive and it would work. This is not the case with Xbox. Many games are compatible, but many more are not and probably never will be.

xRacer74x133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Key word is HAD. Your attempt at damage control on this one is pretty pathetic. Sony has the edge with Exclusive games the PS4 is just lacking on BC and 3rd party perfomance. Unless your a fanboy or cant afford more than one console you would never want to miss out on any good games that is a Gamers perspective.

Ashlen133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Well... what does that have to do with the topic at hand. I still own my PS1 PS2 PS3 and a PS4 so how am I missing out on games? I have more access to back library than Xbox with it's "approved list" of games.

Tobse133d ago

Why dont you show us a picture of your Gaming Collection than?

TheRealHeisenberg133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Yep, this is pure damage control. I did not own a PS2 but luckily I bought a PS3 prior to Sony gutting them to reduce prices. I just wish I did not have to pull it out whenever I want to go down memory lane and when I do there are no enhancements. But hey, I can just pay for the remastered version for my PS4. I think I'll pass on that.

Now with my X1 i can just pop the game in provided I still have the disk and it is on the list. Oh wait, you mean the game was enhanced...for free? Easy win for X1 here.

PS4 clearly wins the exclusive battle and X1 clearly wins the BC battle.

Bronxs15133d ago

Even if you don’t have your 360 disc anymore. Some of the best games like the original mass effect trilogy are on game pass

Kokyu133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Whats to damage control? The Ps4 play third party games just fine.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 133d ago
Kiwi66133d ago

"Many games are compatible, but many more are not and probably never will be" so when was it ever said that every Xbox 360 game would be BC compatible

IRetrouk132d ago

Thats his point, not every game from og xbox and 360 are playable, so its not true bc, atleast thats what i got from it.

VINNIEPAZ133d ago Show
MuddyWaters133d ago

If you kept your Xbox original and Xbox 360 you too would have the entire library. I guess it's just in your nature to crap over any good Xbox news.

Prince_TFK133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Most people don’t want to have to own multiple consoles at once just to play old games you know. Obviously space to put them would be a problem for some and you would have to change the cable to your tv whenever you want to play with other console. And people like me would sell their old consoles to put money toward the new ones.

Even you would have to agree that having one console that can do everything is better.

BizarroUltraman133d ago

Ok, so why be a party pooper about it? I like the approach MS takes. Most of the BC games they approve are hits and not littered with every game that no one wants to play.

PlayableGamez-133d ago

MS in theory can put any non-kinect Xbox 360 game on Xbox One. But they have to get publishers permission first.

meka2611133d ago

Lol you do realize sony has no idea how to do backwards compatability right? The ps2 had it because it had a damn ps1 in the system. Same with the big ps3; it was so large because it had a ps2 in it. They have no idea how to do backwards compatability, they just stick the old system in there.

TheCommentator132d ago

Funny about that too, because when Sony launched the PS3, Kutaragi slammed MS for not having it and boldly stated that as long as there was a PS it would have BC. A year or so later they removed the feature, without letting customers know (its' removal wasn't stated on the box), and when asked about why they removed it they cited the same reason MS gave for not including it in the first place.

I guess Ken just lied about BC in order to slam MS and make PS3 look better at launch because they didn't even offer it in the PS4.

rainslacker132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

That's the only way it can be done and make it so they don't have to deal with the licensing issues that require they get permission on a per game basis.

Having an emulator in software does not allow these companies to allow any and every game play on new hardware. The games themselves are specifically licensed to play on specific hardware. That's why MS has a BC solution, not actual BC. So in the end, MS isn't even doing BC, and Sony and Nintendo are the only companies that have done BC right at some point in time, because Nintendo does it the same way when they do it.

That being said, the PS1, and PS2 hardware in the PS3 was pretty small in the PS3. The chip itself was smaller than the memory chips. The reason the PS3 was so large was because the CELL produced a lot of heat, and it needed to be that large to manage the heat transfer out of the system. It was a better solution than what MS did and having a chip that got so hot that it melted the solder, and caused it to become brittle, leading to the largest failure rate of any piece of electronics in history.

@TheCommentator

Sony issued a press release that they removed the feature at both times they removed it. They let people know what would be included with the few SKU's that were coming after the initial launch. Both when they limited the PS2 BC, then when they removed it completely.

It wasn't on the box, so that means they didn't market it with those features. The box did state that PS1 games were BC. So no misleading marketing there.

Sony said they removed it because it wasn't a highly valued feature, and the press seemed to have no trouble realizing that since it wasn't important, that it was a logical way to cut costs on a system that Sony was losing hundreds of dollars on for each unit, and everyone seemed to have a problem with the price on.

Ken wanted BC. He wanted it in the PS2 also. He was very much about having a system that could play past software. But costs became more important to Sony, as they were hemorrhaging money. At the time of the PS3's release, he didn't lie. It's just that things changed where they couldn't include it anymore...unless you include that they kept PS1 BC.

Kokyu133d ago

Just like with the OG xbox and x360

xRacer74x133d ago

Not quite. the smaller iterations of xbox consoles kept all their abilities unlike the Sony machines who took away hardware BC replaced it with Emulation and then took away card readers.

TheCommentator132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

It's a pain to get old systems out and hook them up, a cluttered mess if you leave them all hooked up, and becoming difficult to find a TV that even supports analog sources any longer. Sure, MS doesn't have a full library of BC and they never will because of licensing, etc. (Too Human comes to mind), but MS is committed to making every game on the XB1 compatible with future consoles automatically so in the future they'll have full BC as a standard.

Right now though, MS will continue to make more 360 and OG Xbox games compatible. It's costing MS money to implement this on every title, yet they still offer every one to consumers for free (assuming you still own your collection of games, of course). Kudos to MS for stepping up when every other company is taking it away.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ132d ago

Most people don't though... I traded/sold/gave away all my older consoles. Sad to say but my last gen 360 red ringed and my PS3 yellow lighted (Blu-ray drive went out). Im glad neither side is having hardware issues this time around so far!

rainslacker132d ago

It's about the best solution you're going to get unless they release the console with the appropriate hardware and bios code to get around the licensing issues.

Nothing wrong with the way MS does it. it was a clever solution, because just offering an emulator didn't mean they had the right to allow those games to play on the system.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 132d ago
133d ago Replies(2)
_LarZen_133d ago

One of the reasons I'm buying 9 of 10 games on Xbox as far as consoles goes.

CBaoth133d ago

Why buy any multiplat on console at all? I understand the playing with friends angle on Sony and Nintendo consoles, but with Play Anywhere.....I mean I've been able to play all the AC games on one platform for years. Should I blog about how great PC is? Something's amiss. You actually own a PC right?

"One of the reasons I'm buying 9 of 10 games on Xbox." There fixed 4 you

BC on Xbox is good, not great. It's not true BC as the author implies. It's publisher approved. So MS needs to focus on content exclusive to its ecosystem first. Worry about lame 3rd party IPs later unless they have no PC port, a la RDR.

_LarZen_133d ago (Edited 133d ago )

Hey CBaoth!

Well the reason this is news is because it's not an option console gamers have had before Microsoft started with the backwards compatible program. On PC we are "spoiled" with having access to all our games for years. That's not been the case with consoles. And Xbox is the only one doing it like this so far. Hopefully something that will change in the time ahead with PlayStation and Nintendo.

I write at the end "as far as consoles goes". So yeah I play on PC also. But when buying games for consoles then 9 of 10 games I buy are for Xbox because I feel more safe that I can take those games with me when the next generation consoles comes then on let's say PlayStation.

That said I do belive and hope Sony will come to their senses and open up for backwards compatibility with PS4 games on the PS5 when it launches.

Goldby133d ago

Oh please larzen
You make it sound like as if it weren't for MS we wouldn't have had the older titles.

Some people keep their old console, some people don't.

And as for being able to play games for years, the ps3 og still has a better bc than xbox one. No need for an approved list and updates to make them work on the ps3.

MS didn't invent the system., why are they being credited now?

TheUndertaker85133d ago

@Goldby: https://support.us.playstat...

“All PlayStation 3 systems can play most PSone games.”

“PS3 models CECHA01, CECHB01, and CECHE01, will be able to play some PlayStation and PlayStation 2 titles, but full compatibility is not guaranteed.”

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoyp...

So yes, there’s an “approved list” and titles that required updates. PS3 model updates also ultimately led to the removal of backwards compatibility on PS3 as not all models allowed it. Actually very few did.

Goldby132d ago

@the undertaker

i was more going after what larzen said: "Well the reason this is news is because it's not an option console gamers have had before Microsoft started with the backwards compatible program."

so it was an option. thats my point.

TheUndertaker85131d ago (Edited 131d ago )

@Goldby: And what I’m saying is you’re being factually incorrect.

1) No PS3 console 100% supports every previous title
2) The option was removed from a vast majority of PS3 consoles
3) There are “approved” lists for what is playable and what is not
4) PS2 Classics on PSN are a thing. Updated titles to work on your PS3. Always with a price tag and without support for the original content.

And the first link is from Sony itself from their own KD on the topic where they admit as much.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 131d ago
CBaoth133d ago

Sorry if I came off mean spirited, Wasn't my intention. I try to be concise as my mind tends to wander when I type. I do agree with you about Sony and PS5. If it isn't native BC with this gen, then it's greed pure and simple. I give credit where it's due; MS launched BC that I thought was a gen away on consoles early. Ya know, the whole jump to x86 back in 2013 for both companies is what got me more excited than anything about their respective reveals.

I'm also of the belief anything during the PS360 era on only needs a simple res boost and some post processing effects to look good enough. Everything PS2/Xbox or older remake. Gears 2,3, and RDR are proof of this. But I want MS, while they got a head start on Sony with this, to focus on games that help give Xbox an identity. It can even be 3rd party stuff like Left 4 Dead 2. A lot a controversy surrounding that title since it never made an appearance on PS3. Witcher 2 was another good example. Star Wars Force Unleashed - terrible call.

thisismyaccount133d ago

... Ubisoft time to shutdown and start something fresh. This series gonna last another decade rite?! Even bigger generic lookinger worlds in Ass.Creed 6 for the ps5.

One of the most dullest experience .. so repetitive and boring (story) ... how did this last for this long? Over 20 ass.crreds have been released in the past 11 years ...

Elda133d ago

AC:Origins was fabulous!

Show all comments (56)
The story is too old to be commented.