Yes. It is a hardware issue compounded by multiple subtle software bugs. Many games have problems becuase they didn't follow the official "spec" for development and took advantage of bugs in System X. On System X+1, these bugs may not exist so aren't provided for.

The more complicated the original system and the more it is different from the target system, the harder emulation is. Nintendo would have just as many problems with GC compatibility as MS has with Xbox if they hadn't merely used higher-clocked versions of Gamecube hardware.

 I think he means they're continually updating all games on the 360 so theoretically you'll be able to play all of them whereas if you have a 40gb PS3 you're screwed as far as PS2 BC goes.  There were rumors that they were working on trying to get full software BC but nobody knows if it'll ever be accomplished for any PS2 game.  

I understand you can play all the PS games but you can't just ignore the massive PS2 library that is untouchable for the 40 SKU.

There is nothing saying that you can't have an affordable console which is powerful and still maintains backwards compatibility. The problem is that Sony and Microsoft choose to completely abandon the architecture of their previous generation consoles.

The Emotion Engine was actually a very small processor and could have been used as the core of a multi-core processor (or even been the heart of a SPE on the Cell processor); at the same time Microsoft could have used an Intel, ATI, or (possibly) Via processor in the heart of the XBox 360. These processors are not (necessarily) underpowered, and had affordability been a core consideration with the design of either system they would have been affordable.

 but my entire point was that it's VERY arguable on what has "better" BC. Some (most) people would be content with the entire PS1 library out of the box and some would rather have an eventual full Xbox library. So it really wouldn't make sense to just count the PS3 worse at BC(especially by completely ignoring the 60/80gb) than the 360 if it (the PS3) still has the compatibility to play older games that is considered the best in the "3d" era, a much larger library and all straight out of the box. Regardless, I believe that the PS3 40gb will never get a patch to play all/most PS2 games but i expect popular PS2 games to be eventually downloadable via PSN, once the retailers stop caring for PS2 sales.

Microsoft is using an Intel processor in the 360... And then could not keep the similar architecture as Nividia stopped producing that Graphics chipset and was charging them an arm and a leg for it. Microsoft had to go with software emulation of old console games as hardware wasn't an option and over 60% of games work. Most look better actually... so I think thats a success.

As far as sony, they had to take out the emotion engine as they were already losing money on a console and were forced to do a 100 dollar price drop. I don't blame them for doing it...but they promoted the hell out of BC so it stings more than for microsoft.

@exindguy

Microsoft never promissed or promoted backwards compatibility like Sony. It was considered a bonus that comes with the console as a work in progress...no one can say they bought a 360 and now are angry because Microsoft lied to them and promissed BC.

Also you said... "Better graphics are to be expected at least every five years, period. Technology moves on and you can get, at the very least, a substantial increase in performance at the same price you paid for a console debuting half a decade earlier--even if they're 'only' Wii-caliber."

Good luck with that argument... I personally think "substantial increase in performance" and "wii" can't be used in the same sentance.

Also PS2 and xbox cost $299 when they came out in 2000/2001. You could pick up a premium 360 for $349 so similar price structure was kept for a "substantial" graphics boost amongst a plethora of other things such as hard drive, DVD player, component cables. Wii on the other hand was 249 at launch compared to 199 for gamecube 5 years prior... And for that you got an overclocked CPU and GPU, double the ram and motion sensor bar with wii mote. 

In any case, there were some shortcomings on the 360 like you mentioned but still consider that the premium xbox is $299 today...only having one 50 dollar price drop (in north amercia)...and the profit margin on the 360 sold is still minimal almost 3 years later. That tells you howmuch value is included in that console.

PS3 is value overkill however...I'd gladly trade bluray and built in wireless for DVD, some glow in the dark stickers and 100 dollar price rebate.

@disolitude: 360's CPU is not by Intel, in fact it's a PPC.

@ NJ5.

good call. I forgot they had a falling out with intel after price issues with the original xbox.

No, that's wrong. It might cost them because they added value inefficiently, but for what a 360 costs, you should get a bar of gold with it.

In the end, it's a videogame console.

Trying to make me think I got a good deal is damage control. The value they added costs them a lot of money, but it really added a relatively small amount of value for most consumers.

If you claim we're overpaying for the Wii, then we are vastly overpaying for the Xbox 360, because it doesn't really offer up anything the Wii doesn't in the area of fun gaming experiences. Online yeah, but I pay for that too. I suppose I'm getting more than I pay for there too though? No man, we're never getting more than we pay for.

There is a reason that 360s sell at a loss. It's because if they weren't only marginally too expensive for a game console, they wouldn't sell at all. It's a game console, it shouldn't cost 500 dollars if it doesn't cook my eggs and maky my breakfast.

I've been gaming for years, and enjoying the hell out of it. I've never said, "This could be so much better if I had a freakin' Blu-Ray player."

You can get a PS2 for 100 dollars? It's a WAY better value for your money than a 360 or a PS3. WAAAY better. Not even a comparison. It's funny to hear people say that a 450 dollar PS3 or 360 is a good deal and we should feel lucky to get it. Laughable.

You don't understand the basic concept that it doesn't matter how much money it costs to make something. It matters how much utility you get from the product. If Sony wants to spend 200 dollars a console adding a blu-ray player so they can push their format, then good. Let em take a loss. Don't expect me to be all happy that the system costs so much cause I got a blu-ray player though.

It's like "Oh your TV can now make waffles, but it'll cost you 100 dollars more, even though we're taking a loss on the waffle maker."

I should be like "oh a wafflemaker, I'm getting a great deal?"

No, I'm more like, "Take that crap off of there and give me my 50 dollar rebate. I bought this to watch TV, not make waffles, where did you even get that freakazoid idea from? Ripoff central, jeez."

On topic, it costs a ton of money, it should be fully BC, it only takes time and they've had 2 years. They just aren't working on it hard enough, imo, and as a customer, I still think less of Microsoft because of this. It's an insult, for as much money as this thing costs and XBL monthly fee to top it all off, I need to get a part time job to game now-a-days, and I got worse and less games than I had in PS2 or NES area, and now I got a freakin Blu-ray player in my PS3, so I should be happy about how much it costs?

WTH man?

I don't even own a Blu-ray. If I wanted to own one, I would buy a player for it. Spend that money on Backwards Compatability please, cause it's very important considering the back library of games for all the system predecessors are excellent and you can't buy an Xbox anymore in stores.

imho that is. I traded my Wii straight up for this Xbox 360, and I think it was a fair trade. They both do the same thing, which is give me pleasure. I don't really care if one of them has to download patches to do it.

I'm mad at the fact, I want to play Chronicles of Riddick but I can't just because it's not fully backwards compatible with the Xbox 360.

Sucks but I'm planning to buy a original Xbox this coming week. So I can play all those original Xbox games that I like :)

It sucks to have to buy original console and Microsoft is taking their lonesome time updating the list.

So here goes $60 out of my pocket to GameStop/EBGames this coming week :)

As NJ5 pointed out already the XBox 360 doesn't use an Intel processor, but the loss of the GPU should have had a minimal impact because you access the GPU on the XBox 360 (and original XBox) through DirectX which has a hardware abstraction layer to enable you to switch hardware; it should be similar to switching your graphics card on your PC from a nVidia graphics card to a ATI graphics card.

The problem with both Microsoft and Sony was that backwards compatibility was never considered when they were designing their system and was worked in as an afterthought. Microsoft and Sony both decided to abandon their existing CPUs and go a completely different route with their current generation consoles but they didn't have to. Sony had to include the emotion engine in the PS3 because the Cell processor doesn't share a similar instruction set; and then later had to remove it because they couldn't afford it.

To put it another way ... Modern PCs are entirely backwards compatible with decades worth of previous systems mainly because it is the #1 consideration with PC hardware; they are dramatically more powerful than they were 5 years ago, and at the same time they are much more affordable than they used to be.

I'm not saying that their choices were either good or bad, but they could have easily designed a system which was powerful, affordable and maintained backwards compatibility. For Sony and Microsoft their decisions may have worked out for the better because Microsoft was "Screwed" by both Intel and nVidia in the last generation and (we assume) wanted to be able to own the processors in the XBox 360, and Sony always talked about how the Cell processor was going to become important to the entire company (including discussion of it being a DSP replacement); but Sony and Microsoft could have easily made different design decisions, and partnered with different companies to produce their systems in such a way that they were 100% backwards compatible.