XBox 2 Rumor From Latest EGM

If it doesn't include a hard drive, I'll bet my future copy of Halo 3 that it'll support Flash memory.

Not only can it potentially have tons of memory space, but it's also portable. It's the equivalent of putting your X-Box's hard drive in your pocket to go play at your friend's house.

Every song. Every save. Every game.

I would doubt that, even if the price drops in half twice in the next two years, it still wouldn't be affordable. A gigabyte of flash memory is almost $200 right now.

Large amounts of flash memory is in no way cheap, perhaps it would be better to hope for portable hard drives? Cornice recently released tiny 2GB drives for $70 a pop.

BS.

Hard drives are very cheap nowadays and it's one of the current generation's main selling points, anyway.

I hope the rumor isn't true. The hard drive for X-Box is just so damned convienient. Memory cards suck.

There is some inconvenience with the Xbox hard drive:

1 - some game save files cannot be copied to a memory card
2 - some game save files are too big for a memory card

This becomes a problem for people who have hardware problems with their Xbox. If you bought that Best Buy replacement plan, for example, you might not want to swap your system for a new one, if it means losing save files that you cannot easily get off the hard drive and transfer to your new unit. In this situation, I have known people to get the warrnaty plan directly from Microsoft - who state in their warranty plan materials that they do everything they can to keep your hard drive contents intact if you have sent your Xbox in for service.

Xbox 2 is supposed to be backwards compatible. When we trade-up to the Xbox 2 - how will will egt some of these files transferred over to the new unit, if they can't be copied to a memory card?

So perhaps there is some thinking regarding Xbox 2 to make the storage medium more portable, hence looking an alternative to the hard-drive?

An adapter using the link cable could be made to transfer files. But the market isn't big enough to warrant such a device.

I really think this is bullshit. Xbox honcho Ed Fries seems really proud of the fact that both Sony and Nintendo are hinting that they're going to copy the Xbox's hard drive strategy for their next consoles. It's damn near universally agreed that the hard drive is the Xbox's single best innovation, and I can't imagine that Microsoft would risk fanboy backlash by dumping its biggest selling point.

And asking consumers to buy a separate hard drive ins't the best business strategy...just ask Sony. Their separate hard drive add-on flopped pretty badly in Japan, and that was with the support of a Final Fantasy game.

It's bullshit. Microsoft isn't that stupid.

What? You mean people actually bought an XBOX because of a 8GB Hard Drive, that was the biggest selling point?

Please, dropping the hard drive will cause some noise in the "fanboy" market but will go virtually un noticed in the mass-market. And this is just going off the pure assumption that they will just dump it and have no viable back up plan to sooth it over.

Plus this is a rumor to console that won't hit for another two years, hell Microsoft probably tossed it out there hoped it would get press and then gauge the response.

Give a little credit to the eight million people who own Xboxes and use their hard drive every time they turn on the system. Suddenly forcing gamers to spend an extra $35 on a memory card or an extra $70+ on a separate hard drive is the type of thing that people tend to notice, even people who aren't hardcore gamers.

And yeah, a lot of people DID buy the Xbox in part because of its hard drive. No more memory cards, the ability to download new levels, characters and content, the ability to rip custom soundtracks directly into the game you're playing, and the extra processing power that gives the Xbox the (current) best graphics out of any system...yeah, believe it or not, people actually *do* care about stuff like that. Weird, I know.

I'll give a little credit to the 1/100th of those 8million who actually knew about the hard drive before the purchase, and actually knew what the fuck a console would benefit from, from having a hard drive. You are being far to generous, infact you ask most XBOX owners what the hard drive is today, and they'll tell you "oh it means I don't have to buy a memory card." They won't tell you the benefits of it caching parts of game to lower load times and in some rare instances improve the frame-rate and overall graphics, they won't tell you that NOW you can download multiple levels, patches and updates for numerous games.

I'm not debating whether the hard drive will be missed, of course it will be whether you are aware of its benefits or not. But saying that the hard drive swayed or even played a marginal factor in someone purchasing Microsofts giant anvil is just plain wrong.

What's all this talk about no harddrive? By the time this thing comes out, a 40-60 gig harddrive will be cheap. This article is supposedly all factual things that are known about Xbox 2. And I'm not happy with the possibility of not having backwards compatibility. That just sucks. But all the talk about the wireless hopes for the second box are is getting my attention.

P.S.: For those of you who don't want to read the whole article:

There's another article here about all the stuff that the editors at IGN are wishing for, and I like a lot of their ideas. Especially the part about wanting reset and power buttons on a wireless controller. That would be sweet. My laziness would then be complete.

Amen. I've always hated memory cards. I like the ability to save games, no doubt, but I hate the idea that I have to spend in excess of $25 to do so. I like having a seemingly endless supply of memory, if you're just saving games, that is. Hmmmm...spend $25+ extra for 8MB of save space, or spend the same base price for the console and get 8GB save space out-of-box....tough decision.

Since I play the same few games for months at a time, I'd get a kick out of a multi-disc player. The wireless control sounds like another great way to play games without having to get up.

Assuming it includes a hard drive, what I'd like out of X-box 2 is PVR capabilities. Not for TV viewing though, but so I can save memorable moments in ANY game, and keep them forever. It's nice to save "instant replays" in sports games, but I'd like to have that for all my games.

Are they really going to use a G5? That makes no sense at all. If they want a 64 bit chip, why not use the Athlon? IBM makes both of them (although the A64 is under license from AMD), and it would be backwards compatable with the current generation of XBox games (at least it could be if they wanted it to be). The G5, while validating Apple (can you imagine the ads? Microsoft uses us!), throws aways everything from the original XBox. If this is accurate, then who knows what will happen. Perhaps the Mac will get more games in the future.

I also cannot believe that MS would support Apple, their one major competitor in the personal computing OS market. (Linux? maybe, but not yet near it) Using the G5 would only enable Apple to better compete against them where it really counts. I don't see this happening and as sorro pointed out, the A64 is a much better choice.

As to the HD point, we've already nearly agreed that most Xbox owners are early adopter/ hardcore gamers. The mainstream hasn't yet embraced the system. We hardcore gamers know about its capabilities and use them knowing that the other systems couldn't do them. An HD was very much welcome when the Xbox debuted and they better keep it in. Otherwise, Sony will maintain their massive edge.

Meh, Sony will maintain it's edge, no worries. And no, I doubt Apple would have anything to gain from the XBOX choosing the G5. I don't remember Microsoft jumping around when an x86 Pentium III 733 (That is the chip isn't it?) was the chip used in the XBOX. Outside of some sort of witty response from Jobs, this is more IBM's accomplishment than Apples.

If I'm not mistaken, Nintendo's last two systems both used PowerPC chips. Trust me, that had no effect on Apple's market share, nor the number of games they've received since.

And I would have been surprised if Microsoft decided to keep games backwards compatible, they would have nothing to gain from it. Nintendo and Sony were both competing against themselves when they allowed their systems to be backwards compatible, so it made sense for them to include such a feature.

Xbox 2 will be designed to operate more like a living-room media center than a dedicated games machine. Expect TiVo style capabilities and more online features

I think it will be a tad difficult for this to happen without a hard drive.

Leaving aside the fact that Nintendo has never made a backwards compatible home console (if you don't count the Game Boy, and I definitely don't), that's still a ridiculous statement. "Nothing to gain" from backwards compatibility? One of the PS2's huge, huge, HUGE selling points on launch was the fact that it gave you access to something like 5,000 PS1 games. For all those people who never owned PS1s, but were curious about hyped games like MGS and Final Fantasy, it was an insanely attractive feature.

Hell, the only reason that *I* bought a PS2 on launch day was that my PS1 broke earlier that week, and I wanted to finish Final Fantasy 9. Otherwise I was planning on waiting for the PS2's price to drop. I know parents who bought PS2s because they needed a DVD player, and they knew they could get an assload of very cheap PS1 games for their kids to play.

Backwards compatibility is a *huge* deal.

First, I was referring to the Gameboy Advance, which I do count with it's 17 million units sold. And something like 100 million overall when counting each iteration.

Second, Microsoft isn't targeting previous XBOX owners as much as they're targeting PS2 owners. So game compatibility isn't that big a deal for them. Sony was targeting PS1 owners with their PS2, so adding a feature like backward compatibility made sense.

So you are saying that Microsoft will not be targeting Xbox 1 owners with their Xbox 2?

You makey no sensey.

Obviously (note the "as much as"), but the XBOX2 is already a much easier sell to previous XBOX owners, than it is to PS2 owners. PS2 owners also represent a much larger user base.

Backwards compatibility isn't some sort of must have feature, it's a frill, that is often used to goad your previous customers into adopting new hardware. Microsoft doesn't have the userbase for this to be worth the trouble.

If they do make the XBOX2 backwards compatible, great, current XBOX owners will be happy. But I wouldn't be surprised if they had no plans for it.

That makes absolutely no sense. Sony needed to entice its current Playstation owners, but Microsoft doesn't need to entice its current Xbox owners?

You seem to believe that the only way Microsoft can ever be successful is if they completely DESTROY Sony's Playstation, and that their only goal should be one-upping Sony at every turn. And that's really not the way that marketing works. Microsoft is concentrating on establishing a loyal fan base, providing the services and features that fans are asking for, and slowly building their market share until they can compete with Sony. And those are *exactly* the reasons why they need to continue including all the features that gamers have come to expect--a hard drive, backwards compatibility, etc. Cutting corners at this point in the game is going to hurt them a lot more than it would help them.

And I do understand that choosing a different graphics card might make backwards compatibility impossible for the Xbox 2. But I think it's a serious mistake that could hurt Microsoft in the long run, and nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise. The simple fact is that most gamers DO care about backwards compatibility and hard drives. Claiming otherwise is just talking out of your ass.

I always figured the reason PS2 needed to be backwards compatible was because PS1 had a shitload of REALLY good games that Sony wanted PS1 owners to keep playing... as opposed to just giving up on them because a more advanced system is in their home.

Microsoft would be wise to follow suit, but I don't think it's as big a deal as everyone thinks. First of all, Microsoft doesn't have the sheer assload of great games that PS1 had... and I doubt they're going to get a shitload more within the next year. I'm not saying Xbox 2 shouldn't be BC, all I'm saying is, it seems to be more like a luxury as opposed to a necessity... and shit, if they have to decide between BC or not in order to use a better graphics chip, I say fuck the BC.

The difference is the market. Sony owned the market with the Playstation, so it was competing with itself. Microsoft is not in the same position. The two other times a company ever did this, was when they already had a ridiculously succesful platform out there, and merely keeping their current owners would have been a success.

Competing with itself? What the hell are you talking about? Sony made the PS2 backwards compatible *because* they were competing with Nintendo and Microsoft, and because they knew that backwards compatibility is a huge draw for consumers. It's a huge selling point for a lot of people.

And you could make a pretty good argument that Nintendo began to lose its monopoly of the market share when it nixed the idea to make the N64 backwards compatible. Now the company has released two non-BC consoles in a row, and their market share gets worse with each passing year.

The argument here is really simple: Xbox fanboys will probably still pick up the Xbox 2 regardless of whether it's backwards compatible. But if they want to seriously compete with Sony, Microsoft NEEDS to make sure that their system has equal or better features that will attract gamers who are still undecided. The Playstation 3 will be backwards compatible. If Microsoft wants to stay in the game, they need to follow suit.

When Sony released the PS2, how many Gamecubes or XBOX's were out there? Now how many PS1's were out there? When you already control the market, you are no longer competing with other companies, your trying to keep your current customers in the cycle.

Think Microsoft with Windows. On the desktop, they're not competing with Apple or Linux when releasing their next OS (Longhorn), they're competing with Windows XP, 2000, ME and 98. So in order to entice those users, they make certain concessions.

Now Microsoft with the XBOX is a different story. They are competing with Sony and Nintendo, they have to expand their customer base. Things like backwards compatibility only work to entice the minority of the market. Sure, current XBOX owners would greatly benefit from it, but what percentage out of the whole are current XBOX owners? It is not a simple thing to create a fully backwards compatible system, and time wasted on that leads to time taken away from adding things that could entice the entire market, rather than a minority.

I'll probably pick an Xbox 2 up regardless, but I'll be pist if there's no backward compatability.

Monk, I'm trying real hard to see your argument but I just can't see how backwards compatability is a draw only to a minority of the consumer base- specifically people who have XBox 1.

If I'm Joe Newgamer, I'm going to want the system that provides the largest library at the time of launch, not a system that has three shit games and one average game at launch. Not including backwards compatability on XBox2 would be a huge misstep, one I don't think Microsoft is willing to make. Especially considering how hard they've worked to tailor the system to gamer's needs.

I love the X-Box, but if 2 isn't backwards compatible, I won't be picking this up out of the gate. X-Box doesn't have that many games to begin with.

Well, first backwards compatibility isn't a draw for people buying their first system, but for those that owned the previous system in the line. Trust me, most people didn't pay $300 for a PS2 so that they could finally play FF7, when they could have plopped down $50 and gotten a used PS1.

Now, when I say minority, I'm referring to the number of prospective customers.

In North America, the breakdown is as so:

As of November 2003
Sony Playstation 2: 20,288,000 Units Sold
Microsoft XBOX: 6,669,000 Units Sold
Nintendo GameCube: 5,702,000 Units Sold

As a contrast, the Japanese breakdown is:

2003 numbers only as of November, I can't find the overall totals:
Sony Playstation 2: 2,979,035 Units Sold
Nintendo GameCube: 978,770 Units Sold
Microsoft XBOX: 99,959 Units Sold

That's 32,659,000 total in North America, if I did everything right. So at least in North America the XBOX makes up 20% of all units sold, the numbers get a bit lower when including Japan, but I don't have those overall numbers ATM.

Now, backwards compatibility requires you either creating an emulation layer, or creating the new system entirely with the previous one in mind. These aren't positives, these create restrictions on what you can do with the new systems architecture, it also costs money. For Microsoft, the number of prospective customers that don't own an XBOX far outweighs the number that do. So you'll be putting all of this time and money into a feature that only effects a minority of the entire market.

Sony on the otherhand already owns about 65% of the North American market, backwards compatibility for them effects the majority of prospective customers, which is why it makes sense for them to look into something like this.

I'm not looking at this at a consumer point of view, obviously anyone that currently owns an XBOX would love backwards compatibility... but this is about what I think Microsoft will do based on where they are and so fourth. All of this leads me to believe that they wouldn't incorporate a feature like backwards compatibility.

Sorry, but that argument is absolutely, completely, 100% WRONG.

I already have an Xbox. So when I buy an Xbox 2, it doesn't really matter if it's backwards compatible...I can still play the original Xbox games no matter what. Sure, I'll need to keep the original Xbox plugged in, but that's not a problem. I've got plenty of space.

For people who DON'T own the original console, backwards compatibility is a huge deal, because it gives them the opportunity to play all the games they missed. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are curious to play Halo, Morrowind, and Knights of the Old Republic, but they don't have the money or the desire to pick up an Xbox at the moment. Backwards compatibility ensures that not only can you play whatever new titles are released on launch date, but you also get a solid and affordable backlog of titles to choose from.

Think about what you're arguing. BC doesn't affect current Sony or Microsoft fanboys; it attracts undecided consumers who are still on the fence.

Kind of funny that the three games you've mentioned are out for PC, but that's for another day.

We're talking about consoles, not PCs. Big difference.

Alright, so back to normal.

The reason it helps people that owned the previous system, is because those that own systems tend not to keep three or four consoles hooked up to televisions, they want to be able to play their previous titles on new hardware so as not to feel like they've wasted money.

There in lies the beauty of backward compatible consoles, now you can play all of your old titles on this brand spanking new system. No need to rearrange your setup in order to play Castlevania Symphony of the Night.

Now to argue that Joe Schmo wanted a system so badly that he ignored the previous consoles entire run, seems a bit strange doesn't it? If getting the old consoles games were important to him, he'd have purchased the old system, especially at the bargain basement prices available to him once the next generation of systems are released.

If the games weren't enough for the person to pay $300 for a system in the past, why would those same games (now years older, and technologically inferior) change a persons mind on another $300 system?

Back during the previous console generation, I got the N64 because I was a loyal Nintendo fan and I only had money for one console. I was out of country when the PS2 launched and didn't get it until they released that GTA pack and the GC and XBox were out. The reason I got the PS2 was so I could play the PS1 games that I missed as well (notably the Square games). Similarly, the XBox is the only current gen console I haven't got, and if XBox 2 had backwards compatability, it'd probably be my first console of the next generation until the others built up a base. BC is huge to me, and Sony will win unless they give me it.

You're making bold assumptions. I don't own an Xbox right now, but I plan on getting one pretty soon... but lets say I waited until Xbox 2 came out; not because I wanted to wait, simply because I never got around to buying the first Xbox... now a person like that, who didn't give much of a shit about the first Xbox, more than likely isn't going to give another shit about playing old Xbox games on the new Xbox system. When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense because someone who didn't buy the first Xbox is probably NOT a hard core gamer, otherwise they would've gotten it (they had 4 years!)... that being said, BC is probably only going to appeal to hard core Xbox 1 owners, which (based on the numbers above, minus all the Joe-schmos; a huge chunk) isn't that many.

Why would someone want to play technologically inferior games on a technologically advanced system unless they already owned and enjoyed playing most of the old games for the old system? And even then, if they do in fact want to keep playing the old Xbox games, all they have to do is keep the fucking system. I really don't want Microsoft making sacrafices on their new system for a mostly insignificant preference that doesn't make much sense in the first place.

I don't agree with that at all, Colt. There were a handful of games I wanted to play on the Dreamcast, but not enough to justify buying the system, games, controllers, memory cards, etc. But if Sega had stayed in the hardware business and had released a new console that had backwards compatibility, I would have been tempted to pick one up. Not only would I get all the cool games for the new system, but it would have also given me a chance to try out all the old DC games I missed. It's like getting two systems for the price of one.

The *seriously* hardcore gamers aren't really anybody's target audience anyway, because they'll buy all three consoles regardless of the features, just so they don't miss a game. But I'm sure there are plenty of casual gamers who are curious to see what all the fuss was about with games like Halo and KOTR...not curious enough to buy a new console to play them, but probably curious enough to want to play them eventually. For people like that, backwards compatibility suddenly becomes a pretty attractive feature.

Forgot this:

After I got my PS2 and SSX, the next several games I bought were all classic PS1 games that I had missed out on. I did this because:

1) The classic games were all now incredibly cheap.

2) Launch games suck. You can count the number of truly good launch games for all major consoles on one hand. Few of them are worth buying, and even fewer are genuine classics. I had way more fun with "Symphony of the Night" and "Final Fantasy 8" than I would have had playing "Summoner" or "Ridge Racer 5." Backwards compatibility means that new consumers don't have to wait 6-10 months before they can start playing good games on their new system.

All good points Slater, as usual, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now, I'd understand if making Xbox BC did NOTHING to hinder the performace of the system... I'd say go for it! But I've been hearing that BC might force MS to make compromises they wouldn't have to have made, had they axed the BC feature.

To me, it just doesn't fly... if you're going to compromise your new system just to allow a small percentage of your potential customers (that includes Xbox 1 owners) to play your old games, that were for your old system, you may as well put a fucking disclaimer on the front of the box that reads:

Just kidding.

Heh. Yeah, that's kind of what I've been trying to say all along.

I understand that if backwards compatibility won't work with Microsoft's new hardware, and if their only choices are to release a mediocre console that has backwards compatibility or a kickass system that is not BC...well, they should definitely go for the kickass system. That's understandable. The hardware is more important than the perks.

But if Microsoft is cutting out perks like the hard drive and BC just to save a few bucks on every console, that would really piss me off.

All I'm saying is that if it can be done without jeapordizing the X2's hardware, they should do it.

I doubt you have to worry about Microsoft worrying about-of all things-money.

Xbox Japan chief comments on Microsoft's next-gen plans