Xbox One backwards compatibility


Recommended Posts

Kinda negates the ability for a "quick" game though, doesn't it? And if your game collection is large, you're going to be doing a fair bit of reinstalling.

 

Seems rather inefficient to me to have multiple installs of the hyper-v image...

 

Well, that is just here-say. We don;t know that for sure.

 

EDIT: Just re read President Devils post (properly this time :p ) , certainly looks like what they're doing, can't think of any other explanation as to why they'd balloon so much (not even debug code). It's not an issue for me though, just interesting.

 

Let's say it is though, with a 2TB external plugged in, you've no need to be reinstalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess that really depends on how much you use the PVR features too... If they ARE installing seperate HV images per "emulated" game, then there's clearly a lot more going on inside it than just configuration differences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was 2 ways Microsoft Game Studios could have approached this:

  1. They build their emulation to just run a separate 360 OS that could live on its own. When the One OS launches a 360 game, the Hyper-V would simply insert whatever ISO that game is saved to and the 360 VM would just load it up. However, this would have the possibility of having a performance issue so I think Microsoft went this route instead:
  2. They build each game with a VM around it. They design each image for that game and take out all the other things that were apart of the whole 360 experience. This allows for the ISO to be a part of the VHD and all the One OS has to do is boot up the 360 VM for each game and boom they are in business. Microsoft took this route so they could show off some *performance* tweaks and make it look like they couldn't have done this at launch.

Overall, I think it is silly to have increased sizing for games. Take some of the bigger AAA games for example. Their discs used to come 2 part back in the day because they couldn't fit it all on a single disc. I will be buying a ext hdd for my 360 games I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was 2 ways Microsoft Game Studios could have approached this:

  1. They build their emulation to just run a separate 360 OS that could live on its own. When the One OS launches a 360 game, the Hyper-V would simply insert whatever ISO that game is saved to and the 360 VM would just load it up. However, this would have the possibility of having a performance issue so I think Microsoft went this route instead:
  2. They build each game with a VM around it. They design each image for that game and take out all the other things that were apart of the whole 360 experience. This allows for the ISO to be a part of the VHD and all the One OS has to do is boot up the 360 VM for each game and boom they are in business. Microsoft took this route so they could show off some *performance* tweaks and make it look like they couldn't have done this at launch.

Overall, I think it is silly to have increased sizing for games. Take some of the bigger AAA games for example. Their discs used to come 2 part back in the day because they couldn't fit it all on a single disc. I will be buying a ext hdd for my 360 games I guess.

 

I'm actually intrigued to see how they will support multidisc games in this setup since they were mostly not available for Games on Demand unless the developer made a separate AiO build (or had it thought out from the start with the second disc being installable DLC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually intrigued to see how they will support multidisc games in this setup since they were mostly not available for Games on Demand unless the developer made a separate AiO build.

 

Psh, they will just mount the ISOs and merge the data. When the game goes looking, or prompts for the second disc, I think it just looks for the data, and if the data is not present then it will prompt for another disc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, just played on an Xbox One at a friend's house. Hexic blew up in size from about 60MB on the 360 to 600MB on the Xbox One. Clearly they are installing additional software alongside the games.

They're probably installing the emulator alongside every game in a folder with specific settings for the emulator but a game blowing up 10 times in size is quite significant.

 

It's the same basic concept as with old games through GoG, you're installing a preset package that has the 360 OS + the game ready to go, in a nice clean VM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, just played on an Xbox One at a friend's house. Hexic blew up in size from about 60MB on the 360 to 600MB on the Xbox One. Clearly they are installing additional software alongside the games.

They're probably installing the emulator alongside every game in a folder with specific settings for the emulator but a game blowing up 10 times in size is quite significant.

 

Looks like i might be owing you an apology, not yet though, we'll wait and see :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like i might be owing you an apology, not yet though, we'll wait and see :p

 

Let's wait and see if the later lifecycle games run without any issues. To me, in the end it doesn't matter how it's done, it matters if it's done right for the gamer ;).

 

 

It's the same basic concept as with old games through GoG, you're installing a preset package that has the 360 OS + the game ready to go, in a nice clean VM.

 

I get that, but it's not a space efficient way to do it, considering most Xbox 360 games are of the XBLA sort and thus small in size.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each VM is optimized for that game. Just like Steam libraries. You have to install DirectX redistributables and stuff each time because each game has its own specific version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda negates the ability for a "quick" game though, doesn't it? And if your game collection is large, you're going to be doing a fair bit of reinstalling.

 

Seems rather inefficient to me to have multiple installs of the hyper-v image...

 

Or you can take literally a second to plan things out and just say "hey, I know I want to play this so I'll let it download and install while I'm at work or running these errands, or etc" and then it is a quick game again. Not really a big deal.

 

It also seems like something that perhaps they'll be able to iron out as time goes on, but who knows. It still seems small compared to the apparent feat it was to even be able to bring BC to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all talk backwards compatibility

mass effect comparison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjblk1ADq9k

 

That is pretty cool, that seems to be the consensus after people have been playing it. A rather large improvement, and not just in Mass Effect, but in all the games so far. They did pretty damn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the list of backward compatibility games? If I have it, could I just put it in my xbox if I have the preview program?

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/backward-compatibility

Yes, you put your disc in and it downloads a digital version I believe. You still need your disc to play though. If you have a digital copy of the game on 360 you'll see it now as ready to install in your games and apps app.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pray rockstar says ok to MS and they add it, it's up to the developers/publishers of each title to agree.  But I think they will, I doubt anyone wants to do a "remaster" of RDR on the new consoles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Digital Foundry noticed there are still quite a few performance issues in Mass Effect and Perfect Dark Zero.

I'm sure it'll be improved with newer revisions. At least there isn't the horrible latency/input lag like on PS Now.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-vs-backwards-compatibility-on-xbox-one

 

I wouldn't worry too much about performance whilst it's in beta. Clearly the emulation system is still under development.  If it's still performing badly after it's actually released, THEN worry. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Digital Foundry noticed there are still quite a few performance issues in Mass Effect and Perfect Dark Zero.

I'm sure it'll be improved with newer revisions. At least there isn't the horrible latency/input lag like on PS Now.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-vs-backwards-compatibility-on-xbox-one

 

Gamers themselves haven't had issues. In fact, they are reporting just the opposite, with much improved performance. That is my experience as well. Quicker load times, less pop in, faster elevator times. Everything seems much smoother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamers themselves haven't had issues. In fact, they are reporting just the opposite, with much improved performance. That is my experience as well. Quicker load times, less pop in, faster elevator times. Everything seems much smoother.

 

Yeah, when I tried it at a friend's two days ago, that was my experience too. I did find the Mass Effect combat feel a bit sluggish though, only a little, but that was it. It all ran fine IMO, but we didn't have a framerate counter at the top of the screen :).

Like FFM says, let's just wait until everything is ready for General Release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm way more interested in the technical aspects of this, and whether some brainy bugger can leverage it into PC based 360 emulation! :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.