The Xbox One Won’t Play 360 Games – Even Digitally

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
If you are expecting the Xbox One to be backwards compatible, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Not only will the new Xbox not play disks from the 360 or the original, it will not even be compatible with downloaded games.

This means that the nearly 1,000 games currently available for the Xbox 360 will be unavailable to Xbox One users, and it instantly puts the Xbox One’s library at a significant disadvantage compared to what the PlayStation 4 is capable of.
Click to expand...
 
no used games, no backwards compatability, KINECT2 visual DRM...

way to go M$
 
My understanding is that the PS4 won't directly play any previous generation games either ... whether they support emulation is likely to depend on whether they continue to sell the PS3 ... it would be an enormous advantage to both companies to make their new platforms zero backwards compatible and continue to sell the previous generation platform at a discount price ... with good new next generation games they can sell two consoles for the price of two ;)
 
Glad the PC hobby has workarounds for many older games. I would hate to be in their boat.
 
Sony is the same, but they're using GaiKai as their "backwards compatibility" where the system doesn't actually play the game but rather via the streaming service. So we'll see how well that'll do, if Onlive was any sort of indication I have doubts.
 
I would like to blame MS entirely but ultimately its the people's fault too. Microsoft's board sees that people's need to have the latest and greatest phone has allowed phone companies to get away with ridiculous overcharging and contract terms. Why not give treating the customer like a crap a try based on what you see the phone guy's get away with?
 
Jaer44 said:
Sony is the same, but they're using GaiKai as their "backwards compatibility" where the system doesn't actually play the game but rather via the streaming service. So we'll see how well that'll do, if Onlive was any sort of indication I have doubts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's going to be great in Japan and Europe. The US? Not so much.

Broadband connection quality here varies wildly depending on ISP and your location. That and we have data caps. Canada may be in the same boat as well.

So, how well they can stream Playstation 3's library over broadband to PS4 players is something I have to wait and see.

Then again, it's just slightly better than emulation, and we know how well emulation turned out on the Xbox 360-- not a lot of Xbox titles were made backwards compatible while others didn't work well at all.
 
Frankly, I think they're missing the point with this. Backwards compatibility incites people who own your last-gen consoles to buy your new one. If you don't have backwards compatibility there really is nothing locking your current customers in to your new ecosystem.
 
I guess this means all of the Arcade games I own won't play either? LAME!!!
 
Quix said:
Frankly, I think they're missing the point with this. Backwards compatibility incites people who own your last-gen consoles to buy your new one. If you don't have backwards compatibility there really is nothing locking your current customers in to your new ecosystem.
Click to expand...

Most the people I know that wanted backwards compatible systems when the ps3/360 came out ended up not even playing the older games at all because they were playing the new ones.

I personally think that the whole backwards compatible argument is a very small minority and niche. Most want it, because they think they'll continue playing last gen items with a new gen system. Then when the time comes, and all the new games are out, no one really cares anymore.

Plus most people never tend to just get *rid* of the older systems, they keep them plugged in and playing the titles there as well. So the idea of backwards compatibility is just a way to drum up more drama over the new gen.
 
Gee, only one word for the corporate mindset here. These inhuman entities just want to suck it all up, all the time. And most of the games just approach mediocrity anyway. Very few stand out as exceptional.
 
Sony put backwards compatibility in the PS3, system ended up costing $499/599 and sales suffered. Dunno why anyone is anxious to spend that kind of money again.
 
For those who actually use their 360s to play games the One is going to be a hard sell. I can see myself jumping ship and getting a PS4- if I can't play any of my old games then I might as well go with the next gen console that has better gaming power- and that looks like the PS4.
 
So um...how many consoles out of all the consoles ever made could play games from an older console made by the same company? Like what...two...three? I'm not seeing why this is a huge shock to people.
 
Jaer44 said:
Most the people I know that wanted backwards compatible systems when the ps3/360 came out ended up not even playing the older games at all because they were playing the new ones.

I personally think that the whole backwards compatible argument is a very small minority and niche. Most want it, because they think they'll continue playing last gen items with a new gen system. Then when the time comes, and all the new games are out, no one really cares anymore.

Plus most people never tend to just get *rid* of the older systems, they keep them plugged in and playing the titles there as well. So the idea of backwards compatibility is just a way to drum up more drama over the new gen.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your dose of common sense. I was starting to lose faith. This is exactly what I have witnessed and personally feel. I knew it wouldnt be baackwards compatible and obviously it shouldn't matter if the game was DL'ed or not.

dagamer34 said:
Sony put backwards compatibility in the PS3, system ended up costing $499/599 and sales suffered. Dunno why anyone is anxious to spend that kind of money again.
Click to expand...
QFT. It reminds me of that article that was on the front page a couple days ago about how gamers expectations exceed practicality when trying to run a business.

Diseaseboy said:
For those who actually use their 360s to play games the One is going to be a hard sell. I can see myself jumping ship and getting a PS4- if I can't play any of my old games then I might as well go with the next gen console that has better gaming power- and that looks like the PS4.
Click to expand...
The PS3's cell architecture was supposed to be light years ahead of XBOX360's and look how that turned out. The new gens are close enough and it'll just matter what games, features, UI, etc you care for more.
 
I used to be one of those people that called for heads when they announced limited backward compatibility on the 360 and then reality sank in. When I bought my Xbox 360 my original Xbox didn't magically disappear into the ether it sat on the same shelf in my entertainment system that it occupied for years. Then another wave of reality hit I completely stopped playing my original Xbox as more and more games came out for the 360 and it was packed away. The same thing will happen hear so take a deep breath and all will be fine.
 
I will say I am a bit disappointed that GTAV is not coming out for next gen as well. Looks like I'll be waiting a year extra for the PC version. But that's the only game.

I do see MS helping developers port their games over to XboxONE in some shape or form. It is another way to gain revenue for these small dev shops and given the positive attitude towards indie developers here, I would think that is a good thing.

But the most apparent fact is this. IF you like your 360 games soooo much, don't fucking sell yoru old xbox. If it's that serious, keep the old system. Where does it say in MS's TOS that you HAVE to sell/donate/throw away your old system and games once you buy the new console?
 
A lot of these games have PC versions. I have a feeling if there was enough demand for a certain title they could modify it to work on the Xbox One. A port of a port! Haha
 
Backward compatible is nice but not a deal breaker for me. On my xbox 360 I may have played 2 or 3 original xbox games.

For the most part there isn't any xbox/xbox 360 games that interest me that I haven't played. Being backwards compatible just means I can put the new console in the old consoles place and not have to worry about connecting extra devices.

I'm glad all the new titles coming this year will be coming out to next gen. Being backwards compatible less of an issue for me.
 
I've always believed that consoles in general were purchased almost exclusively by people too lazy to learn how to make good use of their PCs. If you want the kind of gaming environment *you want* then the only place that's available is on the PC. Backwards compatibility? I am playing 10-12 year-old Windows games on Win8x64, and games 20 years old can be run on Win8x64 through DOSbox. Nothing comes close to a Windows PC in backwards compatibility terms. Not only that, but games are cheaper all the way around. Most PC games are priced *lower* than $64.95 when they ship.

Things like:

*Don't want kinect? Check.
*Want Kinect? Check.

...are possible on PC but not possible on an xb1, etc.

*Want DRM? Check
*Don't want DRM? Check.

Basically, if you can think of it it's possible on a PC. The price is learning how to use a Windows computer. It's well worth the price, whereas the console that I would buy has yet to be made.
 
I’ve never understood the outrage, people would cry if Microsoft went proprietary and skipped x86 to allow it and they would cry if they added 360 chips to the One causing it to be 125 bucks more on release.
 
kbrickley said:
My understanding is that the PS4 won't directly play any previous generation games either ... whether they support emulation is likely to depend on whether they continue to sell the PS3 ... it would be an enormous advantage to both companies to make their new platforms zero backwards compatible and continue to sell the previous generation platform at a discount price ... with good new next generation games they can sell two consoles for the price of two ;)
Click to expand...

No not really.

Zero compatibility means you better have some darn good launch game titles. For the past few consoles generations, both MS and Sony release their standard lineup. Racing game, sports games, and first person shooter game. No real games that make you wanna run out and buy the console. Are we going to see Dead or Alive Bikini contest this time?

At the very least when an Xbox 360 gets Red Ring of Death, it might make more sense to upgrade to Xbox One, if the compatibility was there. It would also make sense that Xbox One games would run on Windows. At least you would think, given how similar in hardware the Xbox One is going to be compared to a standard PC.

images
 
WaltC said:
I've always believed that consoles in general were purchased almost exclusively by people too lazy to learn how to make good use of their PCs. If you want the kind of gaming environment *you want* then the only place that's available is on the PC. Backwards compatibility? I am playing 10-12 year-old Windows games on Win8x64, and games 20 years old can be run on Win8x64 through DOSbox. Nothing comes close to a Windows PC in backwards compatibility terms. Not only that, but games are cheaper all the way around. Most PC games are priced *lower* than $64.95 when they ship.

Things like:

*Don't want kinect? Check.
*Want Kinect? Check.

...are possible on PC but not possible on an xb1, etc.

*Want DRM? Check
*Don't want DRM? Check.

Basically, if you can think of it it's possible on a PC. The price is learning how to use a Windows computer. It's well worth the price, whereas the console that I would buy has yet to be made.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't strictly the learning question (note that I am exclusively a PC gamer) ... part of the problems with PCs is their inherent flexibility ... a console game runs the same on every version of the console because they are identical (same processor, same graphics, same configuration) ... a PC game has to contend with variable processors, variable graphics, variable settings, conflicting programs, poorly maintained systems, etc ... contending with all that variation makes it much more difficult to support a game and keep it running effectively

it is a similar model where iOS programs have often been more popular with programmers due to the lack of variability vs Android ... some of the programmers of Android versions spent significantly more time and resources to maintain the Android versions than the iOS versions due to similar variability
 
Funny how a company that could make DOS compatible with 64-bit operating systems, or run 32 bit code on 16 bit CPU's suddenly has a problem with compatibility.
 
Ashbringer said:
No not really.

Zero compatibility means you better have some darn good launch game titles. For the past few consoles generations, both MS and Sony release their standard lineup. Racing game, sports games, and first person shooter game. No real games that make you wanna run out and buy the console. Are we going to see Dead or Alive Bikini contest this time?

At the very least when an Xbox 360 gets Red Ring of Death, it might make more sense to upgrade to Xbox One, if the compatibility was there. It would also make sense that Xbox One games would run on Windows. At least you would think, given how similar in hardware the Xbox One is going to be compared to a standard PC.

images
Click to expand...

Since both Sony and Microsoft own software developers now I think they are more willing to put their money into system exclusives to lock in their customers (and gamble on their stable of popular games to hold onto their customers) ... although the independent studios will continue to program for the big three (MS, Sony, PC) I think you will see the bigger studios use strategic partnerships with MS or Sony to lock their games into only one system ...

we will just have to see what they show at E3 next month ... they will certainly be advertising their exclusive titles to prepare for their system launches in the Fall
 
Quix said:
Frankly, I think they're missing the point with this. Backwards compatibility incites people who own your last-gen consoles to buy your new one. If you don't have backwards compatibility there really is nothing locking your current customers in to your new ecosystem.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point- for me who uses my 360 to play games 90% of time I don't care about all of this entertainment stuff they spent most of their One presentation explaining. No backwards compatibility means I am starting from scratch again- from a gamer's perspective it appears the PS4 has better hardware. There is no incentive for me to stick with Microsoft. Maybe that will change after E3, but we will see. If the old rumor that the One can somehow integrate your existing 360 then that will change things.
 
Qinsp said:
Funny how a company that could make DOS compatible with 64-bit operating systems, or run 32 bit code on 16 bit CPU's suddenly has a problem with compatibility.
Click to expand...

There have been some people suggesting that Windows would be much more competitive performance wise if it were to abandon its backwards compatibility ... the day is coming (especially with all the competition with ARM) when both Intel/AMD and Microsoft are going to have to cut loose the legacy support (or support it through emulation instead of direct backwards compatibility) ;)
 
dagamer34 said:
Sony put backwards compatibility in the PS3, system ended up costing $499/599 and sales suffered. Dunno why anyone is anxious to spend that kind of money again.
Click to expand...

Sony put hardware in the PS3 to be compatible with PS2 games. Microsoft made a software emulator for the Xbox 360 to play Xbox games. Which didn't work 100%, but enough to work.

Software emulation would work just fine. We know Sony could have done with, since the community has built PCSX2, which is a fully working PS2 emulator for PC. Unlike the community, Sony knows the entire ins and outs of the PS3, so there would be no need to reverse engineer anything. Their emulator would be much faster and more compatible.

There was even a rumor that Microsoft had a working Xbox 360 emulator for the PC. It was going to work exclusively on Windows 8. They probably do, for developing games. My guess is that the reason they don't include the emulator for Xbox One, is because they're afraid people might rip the emulator and package it for PC.

As for why they don't release the emulator at all, might be a piracy issue. Microsoft probably doesn't have a way to detect real Xbox 360 games from fake ones. So if people got their hands on one, would cause chaos for MS. Even though their focus is on Xbox One, they will continue to make more money on 360 then on One for a long time.
 
I believe Xbox is switching over to parallel processing this round, which would make backwards compatibility difficult. They expected more people to use backwards compatibility last generation, but everyone lost interest in the limited title selection and it cost them a bit financially. But it was better PR to support it anyway, instead of giving it then taking it away like the PS3 did.

If they did backwards compatibility you'd end up with a similar situation that sounds better on paper than in reality.
 
Not really a deal breaker for me but glad I never purchased too many XBLA games. I understood not having backward compatibility for traditional consoles.. but there's no such thing anymore. If they're trying to build an ecosystem in which you pay a good amount of $$ monthly for just being a part of it, imo it's bad business to not let you bring your games over as you upgrade from system to system. I would have no brand loyalty because I'd know eventually I wont have access to them albeit possibly years later from a broken console or changing ecosystem. Personally I dont want a bunch of consoles in the living room to be able to play XBLA games. They're basically erasing your purchases once the console is obsolete. At least I could still sell or trade older disc based games. (which they are now trying to kill)
 
Is likely because they have a bunch of xbox 360 specific optimized machine code that won't translate to an efficient equivalent on the x86 without constant nursing.

And on the long run, it probably perceived as better. Their focus isn't just games. And I'm wondering if its games at all, really. "TV...TV...Television...TV...Sports...TV...TV...TV". My take away from May 21 is that it would be a mistake to think of this device as a gaming box. Swiss Army knives are nice and convenient, but ultimately a dedicated knife, dedicated screw driver and dedicated bottle opener are all better at what they do. xb1 is not in the latter group. Corners are being cut and that includes backward compatibility.
 
I don't give a shit about BC since I'll want to play the new games. For PS4 it makes sense that it can't since the PS4 doesn't have a cell processor. What killed the X1 for me was the no used/lent games. As long as the PS4 allows for used games I'll buy it at launch.
 
guitarguy6 said:
I don't give a shit about BC since I'll want to play the new games. For PS4 it makes sense that it can't since the PS4 doesn't have a cell processor. What killed the X1 for me was the no used/lent games. As long as the PS4 allows for used games I'll buy it at launch.
Click to expand...

You you know that you can buy used games for the XboxOne, right?
 
XamediX said:
You you know that you can buy used games for the XboxOne, right?
Click to expand...

Yes but you have to pay a fee to activate it which looks like it will be $60. If it's a reasonable fee like $10 then I wouldn't mind as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top