To make an emulator it would cost them money with little benefit as it's the type of feature that might increase hardware sales(which Sony doesn't need) but it doesn't make any direct money. They make more off offering remasters and psnow.
Your quotes literally say they didn't do hardware BC like Sony did with PS3 and that BC on Xbox one is "primarily a software exercise".Here's Microsoft stating the complete opposite, that the steps to make the xbox1 backwards compatible started before the system even had a name.
They also say that full virtual emulation was too difficult without building some level of hardware compatibility into the system.
The Untold Story of Xbox One Backwards Compatibility - IGN
"
And also that it was planned as a launch day feature. But they had to push it back due to the changes they made with the always online infrastructure.
You are literally just making shyt up to fit a narrative.
Can you read?
It's pointless.Can you read?
I never said that it was straight hardware emulation, it was a combination of both.
"“This was primarily a software exercise, but we enabled that by thinking ahead with hardware,” Gammill explained. “We had to bake some of the backwards compatibility support into the [Xbox One] silicon.”
"Preliminary tests showed that support for key Xbox middleware XMA audio and texture formats was extremely taxing to do in software alone"
They literally said that having a system on chip like Sony did with ps3 would be too expensive so they designed the hardware to do part of the work and used software emulation for the rest.
They literally said that without designing the hardware with some level of backwards compatibility, it wouldn't have been possible. And all this was done while the system was still in development.
Read the entire article and stop being a fukking dumbass.
shyt is ridiculous, I'm giving them information straight from Microsoft themselves stating that backwards compatibility was something they were working on since development and that it wouldn't be possible without some level of hardware compatibility baked into the system.
It wasn't something that Microsoft wasn't sure about, if you read the links I posted they said that backwards compatibility was something that was planned for launch but the response over the always online infrastructure made them delay it because they had to work on changing their online infrastructure.
Nah mufukka you made all that up.Can you read?
I never said that it was straight hardware emulation, it was a combination of both.
"“This was primarily a software exercise, but we enabled that by thinking ahead with hardware,” Gammill explained. “We had to bake some of the backwards compatibility support into the [Xbox One] silicon.”
"Preliminary tests showed that support for key Xbox middleware XMA audio and texture formats was extremely taxing to do in software alone"
They literally said that having a system on chip like Sony did with ps3 would be too expensive so they designed the hardware to do part of the work and used software emulation for the rest.
They literally said that without designing the hardware with some level of backwards compatibility, it wouldn't have been possible. And all this was done while the system was still in development.
Read the entire article and stop being a fukking dumbass.
I guess when I say "they weren't sure about" this is what I mean, they wanted to do always online, sharing games with up to X amount of people and bc" but after the whole mess they weren't sure how it tackle it. I do remember them saying that they didn't think they could pull off BC though, I always preached about how always online wasn't a big deal especially if it meant I got to share games with other friends or access to old games. MS really was just a bit to ahead of its time then and the rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with those snobby comments.
Sony stansshyt is ridiculous, I'm giving them information straight from Microsoft themselves stating that backwards compatibility was something they were working on since development and that it wouldn't be possible without some level of hardware compatibility baked into the system.
But you have nikkas like @Liquid and @MeachTheMonster claiming I'm just a sony stan defending Sony and that its possible with the what they have currently.
I never said the ps3 was so much more complicated than the 360 and that it's not possible, the 360 wouldn't have been possible either without Microsoft taking the steps they took during development to make it happen.
Did you even read the link you posted?Nah mufukka you made all that up.
The whole point of XNA when they first developed and anounced it was that it would be scaleable/compatible with a wide range of hardware. Off the shelf PC parts have the same compatability. fukking PS4 has some hardware compatibility with XNA.
Your problem is that you don't understand what the fukk your are talking about but you want to post these quotes in a vacuum.
Obviously they are gonna sexy it up a bit when they tell the story, and that goes for both sides.
If we are taking Microsofts word at face value, they thought it was "impossible" in 2015 Xbox team thought backwards compatibility was impossible, but they hadn't tried | TechRadar
So how could they possibly have planned ahead using hardware in 2011, but thought it was impossible and hadn't tried it in 2015????
shyt don't add up
Hell them saying they "baked" anything in to the hardware is an embellishment as the hardware is pretty much just off the shelf PC parts. In that context AMD been "baking" 360 backwards compatibility in all of their hardware for the last 10 years
Again you have no clue what the fukk you are taking about.Did you even read the link you posted?
They said AT THE BEGINNING they didnt think it was possible, meaning during development, Not in 2015.
They considered a SoC option like Sony did with the ps3 but figured it was too expensive. So they went with what we have now.
I'm not quoting anything in a vacuum, I'm telling you to read the articles but yall are refusing to do that so I'm giving you direct quotes of where they talk about it.
XNA and XMA are two different things. One is a game developer tool and the other is a xbox audio codex format.
You literally dont know what the fukk your talking about.
Phil was the general manager before being promoted to his current position.Again you have no clue what the fukk you are taking about.
"An Xbox spokesperson also told us that a member of the team had gone to Phil Spencer and told him that he had found a way of making backwards compatibility happen. "[Spencer] told him to go away and make it happen and that's how it happened," the spokesperson said."
Phil spencer was not the head of Xbox in 2011 he would not have been in this position to answers this request at that point.
And a codeC is SOFTWARE not hardware.
Damn dummy
Phil had NOTHING to do with hardware decisions or the overall direction of Xbox until very recently.Phil was the general manager before being promoted to his current position.
Xma is a format used for the 360 and had to had to be baked into the X1 for compatibility.
You brought up xna like that means anything in to context of what we're talking about.
Read the damn links, I'm tired of trying to explain it to your dumb ass.
