Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Best of Xbox Back Compat

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the mildly-retro-gaming dept.

53

Eurogamer takes a look at the best of Xbox backwards compatibility; the original Xbox games that run the best on the 360. From the article: "Enough ranting to embattled Zenmeister Peter Moore about the Xbox games that don't work on our 360s. What about the ones that do? It's not as though Microsoft's 'emulation ninjas' haven't already managed to get a whole bundle of them working, and with that in mind we've cheered up a bit since yesterday and started working through the 'compatible' list and had some fun sorting the wheat from the chaff."

cancel ×

53 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another reason... (0, Flamebait)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15549990)

...to buy Nintendo, or maybe Sony.

Re:Another reason... (2, Insightful)

ulysses38 (309331) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550024)

...to not throw your previous XBox out.

Re:Another reason... (2, Informative)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550127)

Or maybe Sony? Are you kidding me??

For the price of a PS3, you could buy an Xbox 360 AND a refurb'ed xbox. You'd probably still have some beer money left over.

Re:Another reason... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550202)

Uh...

$499 For a PS3 - Massively more powerful game system with free online play and 1080p support and backwards compat with some 15000 PS1 and PS2 games

vs.

$399 For the Xbox 360 - Ridiculous hardware failures,crappy graphics,backwards compatibility so bad you need to keep/buy an old Xbox
$150 For a refurbished Xbox
$200 For the money Microsoft forces you to pay just to play online for $50 a year
=$750

And that isn't even factoring in the massively marked up 360 accessories.

Pay lots more for a massively defective and weaker system that most of the games have better pc versions along with another huge old console to sit beside it in your living room...

Yeah, good plan guy!

Re:Another reason... (1)

grenz (969305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550448)

Hi troll! Gee I almost thought you'd disappeared over to digg completely but its good to see you still come back to /.
Seriously though how can you love a game console so much? Who cares?

Re:Another reason... (3, Informative)

JonLatane (750195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550505)

$499 for a PS3 with 1080p support? Get your facts straight. Only the $599 version supports 1080p. Or Memory Sticks. Or anything worthwhile.

Hardware failures on the X360? There were extremely limited cases at launch. The PS2, OTOH, is notoriously unreliable and given that even at $599, Sony is scraping the bottom of the barrel for hardware, the PS3 doesn't promise much more.

Crappy graphics are a matter of taste, but for what it's worth, Gears of War looks better than even the PS3 "tech demos." The 360 is less powerful, but more mature and much easier to develop for. There aren't even launch titles for the PS3 yet!

As for "free online," all that means is developers can charge your ass for every single game ($5/mo for just one game=$60/year), not to mention there's no framework for developers to make it easy.

If you want to play your PS2 games, it will be easier to buy a new PS2 than buy a new PS3 when it breaks down (and it will, believe me).

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550600)

Wow, you suck at FUD.

As people now know, no matter how many times Xbox fanboys try to lie about it, every $499 PS3 plays 1080p movies and 1080p games over component. Any AV person has know that 1080p component cables have been around for some time now. There is no use lying about it, you aren't going to change the fact that millions and millions of people will be using their PS3s at 1080p over component.

"As for "free online," all that means is developers can charge your ass for every single game ($5/mo for just one game=$60/year), not to mention there's no framework for developers to make it easy."

Ok, you keep praying they do while you waste 200-250 dollars over the next four to five years just for the privilege of playing online from Microsoft.

"If you want to play your PS2 games, it will be easier to buy a new PS2 than buy a new PS3 when it breaks down (and it will, believe me)."

Yeah, that insane Xbox 360 failure rate sucks doesn't it?

What is funny about all these little damage control phrases that Xbox fans keep repeating all basically are some form of:

"Nya nya your console is going to suck as bad as ours. No worse!"

Heh, fucking sad.

P.S. Did you just brag about Gears of War???

That fucking low poly overly normal mapped turd that was the booby prize Microsoft got from Epic after they failed to land UT2007 as an exclusive??? Yeah, console players are going to flock to the troubled 360 once they see they can play some PC company's bumpy/shiny pc style shooter!

Hahahaha!!!

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550803)

The orig XBOX was no less unreliable. Just go into any mom and pop store and mention the word toshiba and xbox together and you will quickly see what I mean. When Halo 2 came out I saw stacks of xboxs that did not 'work' as the laser inside had either filmed over or would not read any games. They also had extreemly flakey power supplies.

The ps2 on the other hand had a poor drive tray (due to the less stout plastic they used) for the 2nd gen ones, and for the slimline a bad controler port was the typical victim.

Also I have both and never had ANY issues with ANY console. Other than a missaligned port on the orig NES. MOST bad things I have seen broken on consoles can be blamed on the people who use them. Leaving a console that has a fan on the carpet is a good way to fill it full of dust and hair (I even saw an xbox once that was home to a cockroach nest). Pull the cables out as far as they go tend to stress out the controler ports. Plug the machine into a 10 strip of power and the power supply will quickly follow if you use all the other items on it. These are basicaly desktop systems. Put them in a crummy enviroment and the hardware WILL fail.

Gears of war is what you consider the 'top' game? I saw it and said 'oh just what the world needed another FPS'. Oh dont get me wrong its pretty and all. But it is just another FPS just like the other 500 or so of them out there.

Re:Another reason... (1)

freshman_a (136603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550830)


$499 for a PS3 with 1080p support? Get your facts straight. Only the $599 version supports 1080p.

Bzzt. Wrong. Both versions support 1080p. The less expensive version does not support HDMI. Perhaps it is you who needs to get the facts straight. Take a look: http://www.ps3portal.com/sony/article/308.html [ps3portal.com]

There aren't even launch titles for the PS3 yet!

...and the FUD continues. Please look here: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/636/636848p3.html [ign.com]

The PS2, OTOH, is notoriously unreliable

Hmm, that's funny... My first generation PS2 (the older big one) still runs like a charm. And yet, I know a couple people who have had Xbox360s for less than 6 months who have had to already get replacements.

You are either completely clueless, or one of the anti-Sony koolaid drinkers. Careful, or the bandwagon might leave without you.

Re:Another reason... (2, Interesting)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550221)

Yeah, but can your Xbox 360, refurb'ed xbox, and beer let you play PS1-PS3 games?

I like backwards compatibility. It was easier to just leave my PS2 plugged in then swap the cables with the PS1.

My point was that with the other two next gen consoles, you can play the current gen games fine through hardware, not software emulation.

Backwards compatibility is an issue I personally like in systems, even though some don't.

Re:Another reason... (1)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550319)

yeah, but can your ps2/ps3 play xbox 1 or box 360 games?

exactly, what a fucking stupid point to try and make.

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550345)

"yeah, but can your ps2/ps3 play xbox 1 or box 360 games?"

That is what our pc's are for...

Re:Another reason... (1)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550537)

Now why would I want to play Xbox games? I don't even own one.

My *point* was that PS3 and Revolution have backwards compatibility with the current generation through hardware, or at least they are suppose to.

Software emulation can get pretty good, but it takes years to get to that point.
The day I buy a PS3 or Revolution I'll be able to play any game I already own for the current generation of that line. My understanding is that is not true with with XBox.
That is my point!

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550800)

I guess you're not up to speed on the state of the PS3. Sony was going to implement BC via software emulation just like the 360, but have run into the same problems (worse actually) that MS had. Rumor is they are now considering adding the PS2 chipset to the PS3. Unfortunately, that introduces its own set of problems because it increases the cost of the unit and introduces more design changes to a system whose hardware should have been locked months ago. Do they add the PS2 chipset (which still doesn't guarantee 100% compat because of some of the ugly things games did when talking to hardware that will still have to be emulated like the DVD interface) and risk introducing another point of failure in an already fragile design, or do they go the software route and incur the wrath of Sony fanboys everyway who have been touting the mythical 100% backwards compatability?

Re:Another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550909)

Ok...

Sony has been on record since the middle of 2005 confirming that the PS3 would include the PS2 chips necessary to implement the same level of 99.8 percent backwards compatibility the PS2 did with PS1 games. Sony has also recently confirmed that they are working on a software only solution for possible use in future PS3s but that that solution would not be used if or until it achieves the same virtually perfect level of compatibility the current inclusion of PS2 hardware does. What is funny is it is clear which headlines over the past few months you are parroting your FUD from.

Re:Another reason... (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550400)

My point was that with the other two next gen consoles, you can play the current gen games fine through hardware, not software emulation.

As far as I know Sony has not made any official statement on how backwards compatibility will be implemented on the PS3. It seems likely to me, though, that they will do it by including a separate PS2 chipset, such as the one in the PS2 Slim model. Which isn't 100% compatible with all PSX or even all PS2 games.

Nintendo's new console will play Gamecube games in hardware, since the two consoles have a common architectural design. The "Virtual Console" retro games, though, will use software emulation (though The Big N is shying away from using that terminology, with its implications of ROM piracy).

Re:Another reason... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550567)

No, the Wii will play Gamecube games in hardware because it is a smaller version of the gamecube with a different controller. It is how nintendo is going to get you to spend $250 on something you already own, add a nifty (external hardware required ((IE, its not built into the console))) controller.

I'm just kidding after all, Nintendo has never [magickcupboard.com] tried [gameboy-micro.com] to [photobucket.com] sell [zock.com] you something, slightly repackaged, over again, and again, and again

Re:Another reason... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550886)

http://www.thewiire.com/features/1/1/Exclusive_Rev olution_Report_Talks_with_ATI_about_Hollywood [thewiire.com]

Revolution Report: Is Hollywood based off Flipper, a current or upcoming PC architecture, or built from the ground up?

Swinimer:It is designed the same as the Flipper was -- from the ground up for a specific console. Totally different sort of architecture from what you might find on the PC. Certainly, there are some underlying values, you know, how you get graphics on the screen, that's there. It's not, for example, like we took a PC design and said 'oh, you know what? If we tweak this and test this, it will work in a console.' [That's] not the case.

http://www.thewiire.com/news/340/1/ATi_E3_Graphics _Were_Tip_of_the_Iceberg [thewiire.com]

Speaking with GameDaily.biz, ATi's Senior Public Relations Manager of Consumer Products John Swinimer noted the graphics for Wii titles on display at E3 2006 only scratched the surface of the machine's visual capabilities.

Nintendo's definition of the Wii as a New Generation platform is quite valid; the system is much more powerful than the Gamecube but does not include some of the technology that the PS3 and XBox 360 do. Since few people really understand what Nintendo is developing I'll spell it out for you; I'm going to characterize the processors in PC terms in order for rapid understanding).

The PS3 could be characterized (in PC terms) as a AMD X2 3800+ with a Geforce 6800GTX, the XBox 360 could be characterized as a AMD FX5500+ with a ATI X800, and the Wii could be characterized as an Intel Pentium M 2GHz with an (supercharged) ATI Radeon 9800. (I'm not saying that these systems remotely resemble the actual archetectures of any of the systems ... it is just a conceptual model). Essentially what I'm saying is that the CPUs of the systems are (in theory) pretty similar in real world performance with vastly different designs and specifications, on the GPU side Nintendo choose to include a less technically advanced (in feature set) GPU that performs at a very high level. You can choose to believe it or not but the Wii has far better single thread performance than either of the PS3 or XBox 360 and can produce more geometry with greater texture detail; the PS3 and XBox 360 destroy the Wii in Multi-thread performance and have the ability to do highly complex pixel and vertex shading operations.

The design of the Wii was entirely intentional ... Their goal was to design a system where you could make beautiful games with no focus on photo-realism. Essentially, it is Nintendo's belief that gamers don't need to see the pores on a avatar, or the sweat on a basketball player to see a game as beautiful.

Re:Another reason... (1)

Gattman01 (957859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550981)

Information posted here [gamedaily.com] seem to indicate that there will be a hardware solution.
I haven't been following the story, though.

I've wondering how long it will be until there is a "3rd party" "virutal console" to let you play any games you already "own a copy of" on your shiny new "Revolution."

Re:Another reason... (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550805)

If you drink enough beer, it is pretty easy to convince yourself that you are playing a PS1-PS3 game (or hell, even a Colecovision).

Re:Another reason... (0, Flamebait)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550286)

Why would I buy an Xbox 360 or an original Xbox? The company is famous for terrible design and taste that borders on criminal. Its aesthetic sensibilities most closely resemble those of a puddle of vomit seeping into a gutter somewhere in Long Island City. As regards its console, both generations have reflected the company's thoroughly wretched philosophy of design. So I ask again: why would I spend my money on a spraypainted, shellacked turd, when I could just as easily save it to reward a creative team with a less brickheaded sense of beauty?

Re:Another reason... (1)

rufo (126104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15551269)

Re:Another reason... (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15551322)

Ugh. Actually, I meant Nintendo or Apple. I'll take a dozen spare Wiis over one PS3 or two Xboxes.

Links (5, Informative)

janet-on (982800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550052)

Here are some links you'll find useful:

Backwards compatible title list:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibil itygameslist.htm [xbox.com]
Launch titles:
http://www.majornelson.com/2005/11/14/xbox-360-lau nch-day-titles/ [majornelson.com]
Arcade titles:
http://www.majornelson.com/2005/11/15/xbox-live-ma rketplace-launch-content/ [majornelson.com]

The list of backwards compatible games will grow over time, so if you're not already signed up for Xbox Live (even Silver, which is free), you should do so. Enjoy your 360!

Ghost Recon 2: Summit Strike & Forza (3, Interesting)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550054)

They're right on the money with GR2: Summit Strike. I still play it way more than GR: Advanced Warfighter. The maps are better, there's a lot more variety, and you don't have to deal with the kiddies who rig the game to get their rank up. And Forza is still my racing choice. All of the idiots who play bumper cars instead of racing seem to have moved over to PGR3, and there's some great competition on Live in Forza.

Woah (0)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550078)

I had to stare at that title for a minute trying to figure out what the hell "compat" was. No room for ability?

Re:Woah (3, Funny)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550087)

This is slashdot. Its never had editor ability.

Re:Woah (0, Troll)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550390)

It used to, but this is Zonk we're talking about.

Re:Woah (1)

JackBuckley (696547) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550613)

I concur. Actually, I read it as "cowpat."

Re:Woah (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#15551215)

Mind you, sometimes people make mista

Re:Woah (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553867)

Or "ibility", for that matter.

The winner is of course: (2, Funny)

Kesch (943326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550081)

Barbie(TM) Horse Adventures(TM) Wild Horse Rescue(TM)

Everything else is irrelevant.

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550106)

Okay, posted as a joke or not...Barbie Horse Adventures has given Microsoft a lot of grief. Why was this made backward compatible before Splinter Cell? (any tons of other games..)

This was just a throw-in...meaning that when they made something else backward compatible, this game came along for the ride. They didn't have to do any work to make it happen.

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550185)

Barbie Horse Adventures has given Microsoft a lot of grief. Why was this made backward compatible before Splinter Cell?

My guess is because it was a lot easier/cheaper/faster to make Barbie Horse Adventures backwards compatable.

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550671)

My guess is because it was a lot easier/cheaper/faster to make Barbie Horse Adventures backwards compatable.

Which is wrong. Or, well, not exactly right. Bigman answered his own (rhetorical?) question correctly already:

This was just a throw-in...meaning that when they made something else backward compatible, this game came along for the ride. They didn't have to do any work to make it happen.
In other words, Barbie Horse Adventure either used the same engine as some other game, or was so technically simple that it just works without any extra hacking. Why they bother to list it on the BC list is beyond me, though. Maybe the 6 year old girl demographic is really important? :)

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553872)

Why they bother to list it on the BC list is beyond me, though.

Perhaps because they have a script that adds anything that has been confirmed as working? Doesn't the emulator use a list of compatible titles internally as well?

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550768)

This was just a throw-in...meaning that when they made something else backward compatible, this game came along for the ride. They didn't have to do any work to make it happen.
You're probably right but considering the amount of grief they've got over it you have to wonder if they would have been better off just leaving it off of the list

Re:The winner is of course: (1)

blugu64 (633729) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550667)

OMG PONIES!!!1

Re:The winner is of course: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554250)

Oh yes.

can you play live 360 vs live xbox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550091)

Just wondering if it is possible with backwards compatibility.

Re:can you play live 360 vs live xbox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550129)

Yes

Majority of the Great Games (1)

killercentipedes (782350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550101)

I understand that they have plenty of them ported for playing on the 360, but the fact is that there is that 'game' that i want to play and i can't play it the 360. This and a lack of a great launch library is what caused me to sell my 360 in return for a working XBox. There are plenty of great old games and not that many great new games, how are you going to play the majority then.

Xbox 360 - One Big Tax Write Off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15550134)

It's as if Microsoft is trying to actively blow it in the console market. It's like someone at Microsoft deliberately chose the maximally worst possible way to go about the process of handling BC.

First Microsoft decided the Xbox library of games was too small and not worthwhile enough to bother with BC. A huge portion of the Xbox library you can just run the better pc version of most of the games.

Then Microsoft's marketing types started making promises around the middle of last year.

Then Microsoft was forced to scramble to try to hobble some sort of software BC at the last minute before the system hit the shelves last November.

And the trickle of games every three months or so does nothing but remind the rest of the console world of just how badly botched BC was handled by Microsoft.

And most of the games that Microsoft calls 'working' are plagued with slowdowns, graphics glitches, and sound/music glitches.

Microsoft should have stuck to their guns and just continued to stay with the message that they didn't feel BC was something gamers want. End of story.

Along with the absurd failure rate of 360 machines seven months after hitting the market and the poor sales of the system, one has to wonder what exactly is going on up there at Microsoft? Isn't it time some people were shown the door and some competent people were brought in to set things in order? It's five years into Microsoft's entry into the console market and they appear to be making negative progress.

Re:Xbox 360 - One Big Tax Write Off? (1)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550212)

And still no Blinx!

Re:Xbox 360 - One Big Tax Write Off? (1)

roguenine19 (901001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15550324)

Or Shenmue II. Granted, I don't think that's ever going to happen.

I wasn't aware... (1)

Saurian_Overlord (983144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15552761)

...of the backward compatibility issues (i don't keep up on XBox news). Why is it so complicated, anyway? I mean, does anyone know of any PSX games that don't run on PS2, for example?

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

Locke03 (915242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553232)

I don't keep up on it to much, but IIRC, MS is working BC into the XBox via a software emulator (hence the need to Xbox Live, gotta get the new patches) instead of just making the 360 hardware BC with the old Xbox hardware. With the playstation, the PS2 hardware was BC with the PSX.

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

Saurian_Overlord (983144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553284)

I see. So instead of building existing hardware into the new console, they're giving the new console the "capability" to emulate its predecessor. Nice. As powerful as the 360 supposedly is, they probably still have to push it to its limit for that. Besides which, the fact that it's an emulation makes it pretty obvious why it doesn't work with every game. That should do well...way to go, MS.

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

Locke03 (915242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553321)

In theory, yeah, but as you can see from some of the other posts here, it's being implemented very badly. Sony has set the bar pretty high in this field and MS seems like it isn't even trying to compete at times.

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15553894)

MS made a bad hardware choice last gen and as such cannot use hardware compatibility. The competition offers compatibility so MS saw itself fored to do something as well.

Re:I wasn't aware... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15554523)

I don't know how you can say MS made a bad hardware choice with the XBOX. It was king of the hill its entire generation, and not just by a little. They can still port any game out today to it with quite respectable results, a claim that certainly can't be made by the PS2 and the Game Cube can only dream of. No, I dare say they made no mistake with their hardware choice for the XBOX, only time will tell about the 360 though.

There are a million arguments to be made for mistakes MS has made with the XBOX. My personal favorite is that they should have released a Windows OS for the XBOX. It'd be really hard for your Windows install to get messed up when its burned on DVD. Not only would they have sold many more XBOXes they would have sold tons of copies of Windows for it as well. At any rate, that's neither here nor there. My point is that the hardware that comprised the XBOX is about the one thing that MS unquestionably got right.

I suspect the only reason the 360 doesn't use standard modern PC hardware is they felt switching to an entirely different hardware scheme would thwart hackers. I could be way off base here, but I personally don't think the hacker issue was that big of a deal, and possibly even helped the XBOX. Even though I never did anything to my XBOX other than play games on it, I always liked knowing that inside it was a PC that I could bend to my will should I ever be so inclined. The 360 might as well be a microwave.

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15555193)

I don't know how you can say MS made a bad hardware choice with the XBOX. It was king of the hill its entire generation, and not just by a little.

Well, IMO the XBox didn't have a large advantage over the Gamecube. The difference was small but the difference in cost to the manufacturer is enormous. The XBox used very cost-inefficient technology, by licensing designs instead of having them custom developed and owning the rights to them MS made the hardware even more expensive and, which is the real issue, made it ineffective or impossible to put an XBox on a chip in the XBox 360.

The PS2's hardware is completely owned and made by Sony, they don't need to pay any (substantial) royalties and they were able to develop smaller versions of the hardware as they went along. Sony can add a miniaturized version of the PS2 hardware to the PS3 and avoid the additional costs from developing and maintaining a software emulator.

Nintendo used a very similar hardware design for the Wii compared to the GC so they can do compatibility in hardware without substantial additional costs as well.

Had MS contracted their suppliers to make custom chips and hand over the rights to the designs to MS in the end for higher R&D costs obviously) they would have been able to make the Xbox for much less money later on and perhaps even add an XBox on a chip to the 360. The harddrive is a separate problem, the basic HDD assembly does not decrease in price and as such presents an additional cost factor. Nintendo opted for flash memory instead of a harddrive, which would both fall in price eventually and be cheap to implement as a default in their next console.

Not only would they have sold many more XBOXes they would have sold tons of copies of Windows for it as well.

I doubt that, the standard retail price for Windows is about the price of an XBox 360. It'd be cheaper to buy a prebuilt computer with an OEM version.

I suspect the only reason the 360 doesn't use standard modern PC hardware is they felt switching to an entirely different hardware scheme would thwart hackers.

I think they saw Nintendo making a profit off hardware that was sold for significantly less yet had very little difference in power. MS now went with the same suppliers Nintendo had for the GC, most likely in a bid to increase price efficiency. Never mind that they royally pissed NVidia off so using the same suppliers again was probably not possible.

Re:I wasn't aware... (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 8 years ago | (#15557219)

There are a million arguments to be made for mistakes MS has made with the XBOX. My personal favorite is that they should have released a Windows OS for the XBOX.

I think the 'funny' part of people requesting this is that the XBox and XBox 360 BOTH run Windows. The Version on the XBox is the Win2K core, and the 360 sports the XP/2003 64bit core.

I guess most people don't realize that an XBox is just a core version of Windows running a version of DirectX.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?