View Full Version : GamePro Hands-on with 360: Halo 1/2 confirmed BC
dukmahsik
13-Oct-2005, 20:36
check it out here
http://gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/previews/49071.shtml
_leech_
13-Oct-2005, 20:40
All the speculation indeed turned out to be true and, performance wise, the game plays exactly the same, if not better than on the original Xbox, with no slowdown or hiccups. Interestingly, the textures seemed more crisp, perhaps due to the more advanced anti-aliasing.
Probably a placebo effect, like N64 players who used the 4MB RAM expansion on games that didn't support it and claimed improvements.
The Halo 1 and Halo 2 BC I expected - I mean... c'mon!
The fact that all the other titles they tried had some sort of issues though, that's what I found surprising. I was thinking that the number of games with issues would be a definitie minority. I guess they'll eventually work out the kinks in any of the games that matter though.
_leech_
13-Oct-2005, 20:51
The fact that all the other titles they tried had some sort of issues though, that's what I found surprising. I was thinking that the number of games with issues would be a definitie minority.
I don't know, this was exactly what i was expecting. It was pretty clear right from the start that Microsoft had no intention of adding backward compatibility to the X360 to begin with, they've been struggling to stitch it on after Sony's announcement.
I don't know, this was exactly what i was expecting. It was pretty clear right from the start that Microsoft had no intention of adding backward compatibility to the X360 to begin with, they've been struggling to stitch it on after Sony's announcement.
I have to say though, if it was just going to be Halo and Halo 2, they might as well *not* have made it B/C. People prefer a non-feature to a poorly implemented one when reflecting on the quality of their purchase. Oh well whatever, like I said I'm sure they'll workit out eventually. At the very least I would hope Ninja Gaiden and the other 'biggies' get proper B/C.
Joe DeFuria
13-Oct-2005, 20:55
I have to say though, if it was just going to be Halo and Halo 2, they might as well *not* have made it B/C. People prefer a non-feature to a poorly implemented one when reflecting on the quality of their purchase. Oh well whatever, like I said I'm sure they'll workit out eventually. At the very least I would hope Ninja Gaiden and the other 'biggies' get proper B/C.
Is there any reason to believe that game-pro's experience is going to be the actual initial OOTB experience when the actual product ships?
Is there any reason to believe that game-pro's experience is going to be the actual initial OOTB experience when the actual product ships?
In all honesty I would say the answer is 'yes,' since at this point I have to consider Game-Pro for all intents and purposes as having an 'actual product.' Certainly nothing is going to change for the 360 between now and Nov 22nd - as we speak probably the last of the 360's for the 22nd launch are getting set to go out. What's left to be manufactured for the launch at this point is a minority of the launch allotment.
Struggling to stich it on? They were working on it before sonys annoucement. Anyway who know what games they tried, it could work with 100 other games for all we know and they simply picked games that haven't been emulated yet, or perhaps the emulator version could have been old. We really don't have the entire story yet, so don't jump to conclusions.I'm certain Sony will have to jump thorugh the same emulation hoops to make PS3 backwards compatable with PS2. infact they have an even more difficult task. They have thousands of games that need to be backwards compatable.
they said they would annouce what games will work pretty soon. i'm sure it's going to be more than just Halo 1& 2..
In all honesty I would say the answer is 'yes,' since at this point I have to consider Game-Pro for all intents and purposes as having an 'actual product.'
Well thats where you are wrong. They are using a "debug" kit, and not a retail xbox. it's for games that are in development, not finished games.
scooby_dooby
13-Oct-2005, 21:01
I don't know, this was exactly what i was expecting. It was pretty clear right from the start that Microsoft had no intention of adding backward compatibility to the X360 to begin with, they've been struggling to stitch it on after Sony's announcement.
You make it seem like MS was taken by surprise when Sony announced BC...
PS3 having BC is basically a foregone conclusion, I don't think anyone was surprised by that statement.
_leech_
13-Oct-2005, 21:03
You make it seem like MS was taken by surprise when Sony announced BC...
Sure seems that way, Microsoft were pretty adamant that the X360 wouldn't offer backward compatability at all. Want me to dig up some quotes?
Well thats where you are wrong. They are using a "debug" kit, and not a retail xbox. it's for games that are in development, not finished games.
Sheesh calm down - I'm hardly raising a flag here - I was simply explaining my logic. On the contrary, I'm one who thinks that MS will work out a majority of the B/C kinks. That being said though, what would inherently be different on the debug kit in relation to the retail when certainly the 360 B/C emulation via the hard drive must be locked in since several months ago? Patch downloads I can understand, but in that case the performance between the two - again - should not be too inherently different.
Shifty Geezer
13-Oct-2005, 21:05
Well they're running the same hardware and software aren't they? As for the issues on the other games there were no details. Only the one-liner "Of course, the console choked on every other first and third party game we threw at, with one exception, the original Halo". Choked sounds worse than having some issues, as though they didn't run properly.
It'd be nice if they looked at the HDD contents to see if they can find a patch for Halo, what size and form it might take, and give some other info. Though I was expecting better results. More recently MS were talking about success with 1st Layer only software which was supposed to be a fair percentage if i remember right, but the article says 1st party and third party titles were choking. I guess there aren't many 1st layer titles, or what constitutes a first layer title isn't what GamePro tested.
Go right ahead, they certainly weren't ademant... Despite what was said in interviews they were still working on backwards compatability for a long time before E3, it simply wasn't made official. Anyway SONY is going to have the same issues.
Shifty Geezer
13-Oct-2005, 21:07
I don't remember MS ever being adamant. They did say BC wasn't a priority and would be difficult.
Sheesh calm down - I'm hardly raising a flag here - I was simply explaining my logic.
I 'm already calm thanks. You explained you logic and I explained mine.
That being said though, what would inherently be different on the debug kit in relation to the retail when certainly the 360 B/C emulation via the hard drive must be locked in since several months ago? Patch downloads I can understand, but in that case the performance between the two - again - should not be too inherently different.
There's a hardware and software difference between retail kits and debug kits. The software on debug kits needs to be manually updated by developers with each Xdk release. basically they blow everything on it away and give it a fresh install with each new Xdkversion. As I was saying before, it could be that this debug box has an older version of the emulation software...
Joe DeFuria
13-Oct-2005, 21:15
That being said though, what would inherently be different on the debug kit in relation to the retail when certainly the 360 B/C emulation via the hard drive must be locked in since several months ago?
Why must it have been locked down several months ago?
Why should debug kits have all of the latest and greatest B/C libraries for all the games?
I just don't understand why "alarm bells" are going off. Certainly, there's going to be issues with many games and B/C upon launch. But we're just going to have to wait until final "off the shelf" kits are reviewed to find out.
_leech_
13-Oct-2005, 21:16
I'm definately recall Microsoft stating firmly that there woiuldn't be backward compatibility for the X360, unfortunately all of the results i'm getting from searching are turning up articles from after the E3 announcement.
There's a hardware and software difference between retail kits and debug kits. The software on debug kits needs to be manually updated by developers with each Xdk release. basically they blow everything on it away and give it a fresh install with each new Xdkversion. As I was saying before, it could be that this debug box has an older version of the emulation software...
Well, that's true that could be the case. I guess we'll see soon enough what Microsoft feels their 'good enough' B/C list is anyway when they put it up next week.
Why must it have been locked down several months ago?
Why should debug kits have all of the latest and greatest B/C libraries for all the games?
I just don't understand why "alarm bells" are going off. Certainly, there's going to be issues with many games and B/C upon launch. But we're just going to have to wait until final "off the shelf" kits are reviewed to find out.
Well, it's stored on the HDD isn't it? And I have to imagine the HDD received is a newer one, since it just went out to them.
As for the 'several months ago' - since launch 360's have been being stockpiled now for several months, well there ya go. It's easy to follow my train of thought there. Obviously further patches/additions will be available through future downloads and via updated HDD's, but as far as I'm concerned the final 360 - as it will be received next month - was frozen in time several months ago.
I agree on the waiting for the actual day though to say one way or the other how well B/C was executed.
Alpha_Spartan
13-Oct-2005, 21:25
Probably a placebo effect, like N64 players who used the 4MB RAM expansion on games that didn't support it and claimed improvements.
Or maybe it's the Bleem effect where since it's running on an emulator it can use more advanced features from the new GPU.
At any rate, X360 b/c will be half-assed at best. MS is just doing this to say they have it. In two years I'll be surprised if MS is still writing emulators for Xbox games. Who still plays PSX games on their PS2? A show of hands please.
If you raised your hand, you're an anomaly and a freak.
Joe DeFuria
13-Oct-2005, 21:40
Well, it's stored on the HDD isn't it?
Yes, presumably. And the contents of the hard drive would be the easiest thing to "update" prior to launch.
As for the 'several months ago' - since launch 360's have been being stockpiled now for several months, well there ya go.
Says who? Certainly components have been stockpiled...but fully assembled and packaged?
I agree on the waiting for the actual day though to say one way or the other how well B/C was executed.
Well, that settles it then. ;)
Alpha_Spartan
13-Oct-2005, 21:44
Anyway SONY is going to have the same issues.
Well, I wouldn't say it like that. I would say that Sony will have to face the same hurdles that Microsoft faced since the PS3 hardware is completely different for the PS2.
With that said, I don't expect PS3 b/c to be as good as PS2 b/c because of this issue.
I would agree with Alpha Spartan. I think MS approach is to do BC just good enough just so that they can use it in the marketing.
The only thing that makes me think that they might take it seriously is that they are actually paying Nvidia a fee foe emulating the hardware. I can imagine that that fee is extremely small but still, it must be painfull for MS to keep handing over money to nvidia after all these years, so who knows we might afterall see a very good BC, but I am sceptic...
london-boy
13-Oct-2005, 21:49
Hooray! All the speculation indeed turned out to be true and, performance wise, the game plays exactly the same, if not better than on the original Xbox, with no slowdown or hiccups. Interestingly, the textures seemed more crisp, perhaps due to the more advanced anti-aliasing.
If anything it might be because of Aniso filtering, not just AA. Morons.
Shifty Geezer
13-Oct-2005, 21:50
Says who? Certainly components have been stockpiled...but fully assembled and packaged?Considering MS have released a movie of XB360's being manufactured and boxed I think it safe to assume that the final hardware, firmware, and installed softwares were finished a few months ago.
Well, I wouldn't say it like that. I would say that Sony will have to face the same hurdles that Microsoft faced since the PS3 hardware is completely different for the PS2.
That's what I meant. Sony will have the same issues as MS with backwards compatability.
BC=meh unless the old games run at 720p
Who cares anyone that own's an Xbox and doens't mod it once the 360 comes out is crazy, a modded Xbox is one of greatest multimedia\gameing tools ever.
Shifty Geezer
13-Oct-2005, 22:12
That's what I meant. Sony will have the same issues as MS with backwards compatability.Except PS3 has a degree of hardware level backwards compatibilty to support the develops who 'do things Sony weren't expecting them to do'. So I don't think Sony have the same issues such as GPU difficulties; at least until we hear one way or another how they are handling BC.
if not better than on the original Xbox, with no slowdown or hiccups.
oh good... maybe now I won't get that annoying slowdown with 8 players all in the middle of the Warlock map with 6 grenades and 10 weapons going off and dead bodies flying with thick smoke effects all over the place. :D
Well really that doesn't matter. They had a FULL ps1 inside of teh PS2 and it still wasn't 100% compatable. pretty close but not 100%. We really don't know exactly what hardware is in PS3 to allow for better backwards compatability. I'd be willing to bet there isn't any included as it would just increase cost, and they plan to use cell to emulate just aboout everything. Anyway I'm fairly certain sony is going ot have just as rough a time if not more so, as PS2 games were all written directly to the hardware with out a thin layer API between. The fact many xbox games didn't get right to the hardware will probably increase the chances of it being backwards compatable.
Mefisutoferesu
13-Oct-2005, 22:50
Looks like the article broke the site's NDA. It's gone now. MS had stated that they would reveal the BC list next week, so I don't think this is too non-representative. One thing I'm wondering though, is where does the debug kit fit in terms of production and beta? I would imagine it's very much like... mmmm, say a modded production kit, no? Anyone know how this is set usually? I'm asking not so much for BC, but because the debug kit has a power brick, which should be inside the production model... I'm worried MS may have had heating issues and gone with the brick, which isn't all that ellegant. Yeah, yeah, yeah hush... I care.
Powderkeg
14-Oct-2005, 00:41
The one huge advantage Sony has in regards to B/C is the fact that they own all of the IP's for the PS2, so they can do any type of emulation they want without having to worry about paying someone else royalties to do it.
MS doesn't have that luxury. It's going to cost MS much more to have B/C.
MS already paid for a license of the tech needed to do this from Nvidia.
MS already paid for a license of the tech needed to do this from Nvidia.
That extended as far as the Xbox. As they are now emulating Nvidia specific IP on an ATI chip they are required to pay royalties (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=9562) separate from that original deal. This is otherwise known as the HDD tax ;) (imho)
That extended as far as the Xbox. As they are now emulating Nvidia specific IP on an ATI chip they are required to pay royalties (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=9562) separate from that original deal. This is otherwise known as the HDD tax ;) (imho)
I think that deal you linked to is exactly what QRoach was refering to though. ;)
Exactly what I was talking about. :)
NavNucST3
14-Oct-2005, 02:25
BC=meh unless the old games run at 720p
Who cares anyone that own's an Xbox and doens't mod it once the 360 comes out is crazy, a modded Xbox is one of greatest multimedia\gameing tools ever.
I'll drink to that!
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 02:27
Well really that doesn't matter. They had a FULL ps1 inside of teh PS2 and it still wasn't 100% compatable. pretty close but not 100%. We really don't know exactly what hardware is in PS3 to allow for better backwards compatability. I'd be willing to bet there isn't any included as it would just increase cost, and they plan to use cell to emulate just aboout everything. Anyway I'm fairly certain sony is going ot have just as rough a time if not more so, as PS2 games were all written directly to the hardware with out a thin layer API between. The fact many xbox games didn't get right to the hardware will probably increase the chances of it being backwards compatable.
Wasn't like 99% of PSone games playable on the PS2? I think 15 games didn't play on the PS2. Get over it Qroach. And the PS3 will have BC with PS2 games on day one. HDD or not.
Wasn't like 99% of PSone games playable on the PS2? I think 15 games didn't play on the PS2. Get over it Qroach. And the PS3 will have BC with PS2 games on day one. HDD or not.
Thanks for supporitng my point. Sony had the entire pSone in hardware. There's no way they can have the entire PS2 in hardware this time around, and that's the point I was making. Sony will have a much harder time making PS3 backwards compatible compared to teh previous attempt with PS2.
You need to stop being so unreasonable and think about it for a moment.
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 04:21
Thanks for supporitng my point. Sony had the entire pSone in hardware. There's no way they can have the entire PS2 in hardware this time around, and that's the point I was making. Sony will have a much harder time making PS3 backwards compatible compared to teh previous attempt with PS2.
You need to stop being so unreasonable and think about it for a moment.
How am I being unreasonable? Don't you think it's unreasonable to think that the Xbox 360 will have better BC than the PS3? Your quote.
The fact many xbox games didn't get right to the hardware will probably increase the chances of it being backwards compatable.
That dear sir seems more unreasonable than anything that I've said.
How am I being unreasonable? Don't you think it's unreasonable to think that the Xbox 360 will have better BC than the PS3? Your quote.
That dear sir seems more unreasonable than anything that I've said.
Why the farther your software is seperated from metal the easier it is to emulate, no one can argue with that. Now with that said I don't believe the 360 will have better B\C than PS3 I just don't think it's as high on M$ priority list and rightfully so.
PARANOiA
14-Oct-2005, 04:23
I guess it's time to reiterate that MS's backwards compatability is a piss-poor solution vs Sony's
The one huge advantage Sony has in regards to B/C is the fact that they own all of the IP's for the PS2, so they can do any type of emulation they want without having to worry about paying someone else royalties to do it.
MS doesn't have that luxury. It's going to cost MS much more to have B/C.
I find it fascinating that Sony knew this but chose to go the NV route this gen. This seems to limit them with the PS4's graphics chip, doesn't it?
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 04:26
I find it fascinating that Sony knew this but chose to go the NV route this gen. This seems to limit them with the PS4's graphics chip, doesn't it?
Perhaps they have paid for it with future impletations in mind. Maybe that's in the contract.
randycat99
14-Oct-2005, 04:51
Similarly, perhaps it is a given that Nv will be in it for the long haul with Sony.
PARANOiA
14-Oct-2005, 05:07
Maybe - it's just that five years is a hell of a long time in the electronics sector. I would be very, very surprised if it's a multi-machine contract.
Who knows? I'm sure Sony's exec team is smart enough to think of this, but I don't know the intricacies too well.
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 05:16
Who knows? I'm sure Sony's exec team is smart enough to think of this, but I don't know the intricacies too well.
You're right they are smart enough. But if they did leave this stone unturn then expect the PS4's BC to be teh doom3d!!11 I hope Ken put time into this I mean it looks like he has so far.
"I find it fascinating that Sony knew this but chose to go the NV route this gen. This seems to limit them with the PS4's graphics chip, doesn't it?"
Umm, they had no choice. Japanese tech has fallen far, far behind the west in GPU's.
I mean what would they do, have Toshiba design it? MS would laugh all the way to the bank if they had done that.
Acert93
14-Oct-2005, 05:26
Similarly, perhaps it is a given that Nv will be in it for the long haul with Sony. And indeed the press released indicate just that. Their agreement is clearly forward looking according to Jen Hsun.
"I find it fascinating that Sony knew this but chose to go the NV route this gen. This seems to limit them with the PS4's graphics chip, doesn't it?"
Umm, they had no choice. Japanese tech has fallen far, far behind the west in GPU's.
I mean what would they do, have Toshiba design it? MS would laugh all the way to the bank if they had done that.
Actually wasnt there talk about Sony having Toshiba develop a specific purpose GPU to do tasks that the Cell couldnt do or needed help doing? (Obviously changed now) This was back when talk about the PS3 and Cell involvment first began? Thought I remember reading something a long time ago but I could be wrong if it was Toshiba or another partner.
Im sure Sony figured with the power of Cell that they could emulate the last generations of games. MS is in a different scenerio with NV and their contract with them. Although possible to emulate previous gen games, I definately see the reason why MS would only choose specific titles.
Inane_Dork
14-Oct-2005, 07:09
And indeed the press released indicate just that. Their agreement is clearly forward looking according to Jen Hsun.And if you dug up PR about MS and nVidia, do you think you'd find statements about future collaboration? That's quite possible. I think the real question is whether Sony is dedicated to working with nVidia. It's already more than painfully clear that nVidia is begging to be let in on any project. And that dedication can only be shown over time, IMO. No PR will suffice.
On the topic, I'm really surprised that no one has brought up that even if the HDDs were installed months ago, MS can have an update to the code at launch day. So the list of games that work for sure out of the box may be smaller than the ones that work day one.
HDD (or firmware) will store the list for BC-verified titles which can be updated only by MS, so you can't test the emulator's compatibility itself by running some random games on it as they are rejected before actual execution if they didn't mean other things by 'it choked them'.
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 09:34
And if you dug up PR about MS and nVidia, do you think you'd find statements about future collaboration?
There's always these daft PR soundbites where companies working together say how strong and pwerful their collaborations will be. But I certainly got a sense of more real meaning from nVidia's talk. They were saying they worked with other companies, but shared an ideology with Sony and Cell. Sony's agreement with nVidia is looking at using nVidia tech in other devices IIRC. Suggests to me that Sony have decided upon nVidia for their long-term graphics partner. They're not going to want to keep switching GPU architecures between Cell products as that's a pain in the arse for cross-Cell-plaform development.
On the topic, I'm really surprised that no one has brought up that even if the HDDs were installed months ago, MS can have an update to the code at launch day. So the list of games that work for sure out of the box may be smaller than the ones that work day one.Potentially, but with a warehouse full of 2 million boxed and packaged consoles how realistic is it for MS to unpackage each of them, update the software on HDD, and repackage? More likely there will be a software update on day 1 for download if there is any update to be had. Unless that's what you meant and I'm preaching ot the converted!
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 09:46
Wasn't like 99% of PSone games playable on the PS2? I think 15 games didn't play on the PS2. Get over it Qroach. And the PS3 will have BC with PS2 games on day one. HDD or not.
15 is not 1% of about 7000, which is the estimated total number of PS1 games available. It's more like 0.2142%. Which means PS2 has a 99.7857% functional backward comptatibility. :wink: So yes, it's 100%.
Still, as Qroach said, PS3 won't have a PS2 inside so having the same percentage this time around will be near impossible.
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 10:02
Still, as Qroach said, PS3 won't have a PS2 inside so having the same percentage this time around will be near impossible.Though we don't know how much of a PS2's vitals it will have. The tricky bits might be done in hardware leaving the easy software emulation of bits on Cell. How can anyone know how hard or easy PS3's BC will be when we don't know what level of hardware support for PS2 will be in there?
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 10:09
Though we don't know how much of a PS2's vitals it will have. The tricky bits might be done in hardware leaving the easy software emulation of bits on Cell. How can anyone know how hard or easy PS3's BC will be when we don't know what level of hardware support for PS2 will be in there?
Well, "we dont know" so all we can do is speculate.
I think the vast majority of us doesn't expect PS3 to have any PS2 hardware inside. Some think it might have either the EE or the GS. Some think it will have both.
Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but personally i don't think having 99.78% BC with PS2 is in such high demand to make Sony go all out and put a PS2 inside PS3.
Having a selection of the biggest games on PS2 will be enough.
Problem is, they already said they want PS3 to play close to 10.000 games (PS1 and PS2) through BC... We'll see.
Well really that doesn't matter. They had a FULL ps1 inside of teh PS2 and it still wasn't 100% compatable. pretty close but not 100%. We really don't know exactly what hardware is in PS3 to allow for better backwards compatability. I'd be willing to bet there isn't any included as it would just increase cost, and they plan to use cell to emulate just aboout everything. Anyway I'm fairly certain sony is going ot have just as rough a time if not more so, as PS2 games were all written directly to the hardware with out a thin layer API between. The fact many xbox games didn't get right to the hardware will probably increase the chances of it being backwards compatable.
This is not true. There isn't a full PS1 in PS2, which is why your whole argument as to why PS3 won't have an equal percentage of backwards-compatibility right out of the box as PS2 is inadequate. This has already been discussed. Fafalada or ShootMyMonkey (I think) has commented on the problems of emulators and why there are games that despite full emulation don't work perfectly.
As long as we don't know what of PS2 is going to end up in PS3, no one is really in the positions to make any claims. Fact is though: Sony claims to be backwards compatible with 13'000 titles on day one - as to what percentage that relates to isn't really the point. Expect just about every big hitter to be compatible and a selective few not to be. Given this claim and no supporting evidence on your side, I really don't see why we have any reason to doubt anything.
This is not true. There isn't a full PS1 in PS2, which is why your whole argument as to why PS3 won't have an equal percentage of backwards-compatibility right out of the box as PS2 is inadequate.
Sure it's true, essentially there is a full PS1 in PS2. PS2 is a hell of a lot more complicated hardware and thus will be more complicated to emulate. If you think PS3 will have perfect backwards compatability, you can go ahead and keep thinking that.
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 12:44
Well we can play semantics here and say there isn't a "full" PS1 in every PS2.
Fact remains that when you have the CPU+GPU of PS1 in PS2, whether that's the "full" PS1 or not, it doesn't matter. It's all that's needed to get near-perfect BC, which is the point here.
We most likely won't get PS2's EE+GS in every PS3. If we do, good for us, if we don't, and we have no reason to believe this won't be the case since Sony never said PS3 will have EE+GS inside, then BC most likely will not be as good as it was on PS2.
Exactly what I was talking about. :)
Egads, my bad sorry :oops: The way you posted after Powederkeg suggested to me that you were contradicting him. I had a horrible suspicion that we were all saying the same thing :(
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 13:32
We've already covered the BC story in a XB360 vs PS3 BC thread. Is there any real reason for everyone to regurgitate the same POVs again?
I find it fascinating that Sony knew this but chose to go the NV route this gen. This seems to limit them with the PS4's graphics chip, doesn't it?
Well supposedly, they intend to work on the PS4 GPU together, though we'll see what actually happens there down the line. Still if so, at least we could be assured of something more of an exotic custom design come ~2011 rather than the G70 re-working. Of course they may go the straight 'adaptation' route again as well, who knows.
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 13:47
On the topic, I'm really surprised that no one has brought up that even if the HDDs were installed months ago, MS can have an update to the code at launch day. So the list of games that work for sure out of the box may be smaller than the ones that work day one.
Huh? Care to explain and little more.
valioso
14-Oct-2005, 13:48
Huh? Care to explain and little more.
you can get updates at the xbox 360 kiosks on the stores and over xbox live.
Fact remains that when you have the CPU+GPU of PS1 in PS2
Agreed, but this isn't the case: The PS1 GPU isn't in PS2, which is why Qroach is quite obviously wrong.
PS2 is a hell of a lot more complicated hardware and thus will be more complicated to emulate. If you think PS3 will have perfect backwards compatability, you can go ahead and keep thinking that.
more complicated is purely relative - besides, since you fail to know exactly what's in the hardware in the first place, I doubt you're in a position to make any claims how complicated it is. We already had a thread on backwards-compatibility in which different possibilities were discussed. We pretty much know there's going to be some sort of PS2 hardware inside PS3 to help backwards-compatibility - without knowing what it is, there's really not much more beyond the previous speculation to discuss about. Obviously, I am trusting Sony's marketing division when they state "backwards-compatible with 13'000 titles" and assume that they'll obviously hit their target when they state so. The burdon on the proof is on them once launch day is here, but until they launch, the burdon of proof is on you to state explicitely why you think they'll fail on their target. No one is talking about if it's going to be challenging - of course it'll be - and putting words into my mouth obviously won't help your argument gain credibility either.
Question to you Qroach: Have you ever written an emulator?
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 14:27
Agreed, but this isn't the case: The PS1 GPU isn't in PS2, which is why Qroach is quite obviously wrong.
But it's unarguable that the PS2's GS is basically the PS1 GPU. Just lots of them in one single chip. With things added obviously. That's a very very simplified explanation, but the point is that the architectures are so similar that emulation there would be trivial.
PS3 is *completely* different from PS2.
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 14:32
Unless the GPU in PS3 has something of a GS on it, or GS compatible behaviour. It's too early to state for a fact PS3 is *completely* different from PS2 until we know what the hardware BC support is.
London-Boy, I suggest you read up on what exactly the Graphics Synthesizer is and how it differs from the PSone's GPU. To address your other point: What if Sony's puts the full EE into PS3 and they only have to emulate the GS? Given this scenario, it wouldn't be that drastic different off hand.
Personally, I would see the opposite more likely: Have a GS in hardware on PS3 and emulate the EE and rest along with it. This would spare the headache of emulating the low latency high bandwidth eDRAM and if I remember correctly, Fafalada sees emulation of the EE as an easier task given the GS is used in quite unique ways for fullbuffer effects which would quite challenging to say the least. I'd have to dig up the thread though.
Still, at this point: we don't even know what really is in RSX, so there really isn't much point in arguing over what is more complicated without knowing "with what (CELL / RSX) you're supposed to emulating something that at this point is unknown (EE / GS / EE + GS)".
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 14:48
London-Boy, I suggest you read up on what exactly the Graphics Synthesizer is and how it differs from the PSone's GPU. To address your other point: What if Sony's puts the full EE into PS3 and they only have to emulate the GS? Given this scenario, it wouldn't be that drastic different off hand.
Personally, I would see the opposite more likely: Have a GS in hardware on PS3 and emulate the EE and rest along with it. This would spare the headache of emulating the low latency high bandwidth eDRAM and if I remember correctly, Fafalada sees emulation of the EE as an easier task given the GS is used in quite unique ways for fullbuffer effects which would quite challenging to say the least. I'd have to dig up the thread though.
Still, at this point: we don't even know what really is in RSX, so there really isn't much point in arguing over what is more complicated without knowing "with what (CELL / RSX) you're supposed to emulating something that at this point is unknown (EE / GS / EE + GS)".
See, EE and GS is the least of Sony's problems. It's that 48GB/s EDRAM bandwidth inside the GS that's the real biatch :wink: Where are they gonna take that out from?!
Easy, as I already stated, if they include the GS in hardware (Note: The GS + the eDRAM is on the same die already). Truth, is we don't know what they're putting in for a fact, so who are we to discuss what is challenging and what not? Especially when we don't even have an idea with what they're going to emulate it, given we still don't know the details of RSX.
Shifty Geezer
14-Oct-2005, 14:52
One option is data compression over the existing BW. But all this has been said before, in the other epic BC thread, so a forum search will come up with all the answers and all the questions.
mckmas8808
14-Oct-2005, 15:24
One option is data compression over the existing BW. But all this has been said before, in the other epic BC thread, so a forum search will come up with all the answers and all the questions.
Yeah that thread should be called the BC Bible. It had lots of answers.:smile:
seismologist
14-Oct-2005, 15:56
See, EE and GS is the least of Sony's problems. It's that 48GB/s EDRAM bandwidth inside the GS that's the real biatch :wink: Where are they gonna take that out from?!
There's only 4mb Edram on the GS. I'm sure it wont be too difficult to squeeze that from the L2 cache. Probably fairly trivial problem to work around. I dont see any issue with PS2 emulation on the PS3.
It seems like the biggest difficulty is in emulating the emotion engine. But Cell lends itself to that task nicely. And I dont think this is a coincidence. It seems like Sony has had BC planned from the get go.
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 16:00
There's only 4mb Edram on the GS. I'm sure it wont be too difficult to squeeze that from the L2 cache. Probably fairly trivial problem to work around. I dont see any issue with PS2 emulation on the PS3.
Squeeze from where? There's less than 2MB total cache on Cell. Hardly trivial.
You might not see any issues with it, but you're not Sony :wink:
seismologist
14-Oct-2005, 16:10
Squeeze from where? There's less than 2MB total cache on Cell. Hardly trivial.
You might not see any issues with it, but you're not Sony :wink:
If I were Sony it would be even more trivial since I'd have all of the details ;). But It's actually less than 4mb since for most games, half of that is allocated for the frame buffer.
london-boy
14-Oct-2005, 16:14
If I were Sony it would be even more trivial since I'd have all of the details ;). But It's actually less than 4mb since for most games, half of that is allocated for the frame buffer.
Exactly. That would mean splitting some memory between the main memory on PS3 and the Cell cache. Frame buffer here, rest there... All from existing games with no rewriting. PS2 games are not coded with standards in mind, one game does something one way and another does it another way. It's not like trying to run old DirectX games on new hardware. Completely different. Again, not trivial.
Could be wrong, and i'd love to be, but that's the impression i get.
Sony will have a much easier time with BC than MS in my opinion. I'm surprised that MS are bothering at all considering that it is "impossible", but too many people viewed it as a selling point for them not to try I guess. They did start late, because they gauging how important it was to people, with the hope that they wouldn't have to at all.
Johnny Awesome
14-Oct-2005, 18:44
None of this will matter much in the end.
Exactly. That would mean splitting some memory between the main memory on PS3 and the Cell cache. Frame buffer here, rest there... All from existing games with no rewriting. PS2 games are not coded with standards in mind, one game does something one way and another does it another way. It's not like trying to run old DirectX games on new hardware. Completely different. Again, not trivial.
Could be wrong, and i'd love to be, but that's the impression i get.
Exactly, but then again, a *very* fast cache could make up for memory shortcomings if it can reload/fetch data quick enough in and out to make it a virtual 4 MB memory space. Given the implications though and the fact that it is a 48 GB/sec bandwidth and the low-latency eDRAM gives, *I* see EE emulation as an easier task. On the other hand, having a rather simple rasterizer with eDRAM in there seems like a waste to me if it can't be used in any other way apart from backwards-compatibility. And again, we still don't know what's built into RSX - maybe, they have something in there that could help the process significantly?
Regardless, Sony claims backwards-compatibility with 13'000 titles across both last consoles and I see no reason why they would state something that confident if it were clear that it's too big of a task. In fact, after 2 very successful generations, not having backwards-compatibility now would be a desaster (since many, as my self, see it as some sort of standard to expect from the PlayStation brand) and so I see that Sony factored this in as a necessity from the very beginning. It's something that will contribute in mindshare being passed on to the next generation and will ultimately be a factor in many of today's PlayStation owners who have an extensive library and a slowly old and breaking PS2. The importance of this should not be underestimated, thus I am very confident that Sony's claim will hold true, even if the accurate tested number in the end is + / - 1000 games or so that no one knows anyway.
Inane_Dork
14-Oct-2005, 20:24
Potentially, but with a warehouse full of 2 million boxed and packaged consoles how realistic is it for MS to unpackage each of them, update the software on HDD, and repackage? More likely there will be a software update on day 1 for download if there is any update to be had. Unless that's what you meant and I'm preaching ot the converted!Yep, I'm converted. If I could just communicate accurately now... :p
Huh? Care to explain and little more.This guy already said exactly what I meant (in case you were wondering):
you can get updates at the xbox 360 kiosks on the stores and over xbox live.
scooby_dooby
14-Oct-2005, 20:52
Here's something I don't understand. Do the Kiosks accept a HDD?
You need HDD to have BC but you can update your BC at Kiosks which, up till now I had presumed, only accept MC's.
Are they forcing someone without high-speed internet to purchase a HDD & a MC to get updated BC files? That makes no sense...
valioso
14-Oct-2005, 21:25
Here's something I don't understand. Do the Kiosks accept a HDD?
You need HDD to have BC but you can update your BC at Kiosks which, up till now I had presumed, only accept MC's.
Are they forcing someone without high-speed internet to purchase a HDD & a MC to get updated BC files? That makes no sense...
Thats a good question, I have no idea since it has not been mentioned. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that updates will also be available from official xbox magazine, or maybe even xbox.com. But thats just a guess.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.