Unconfirmed reports claim that the upcoming Windows 8 operating system will allow users to play Xbox 360 games on their PCs.
The site suggests an additional revenue stream and the chance to extend the current generation hardware lifespan are behind the move.
Microsoft has yet to announce an official release date for Windows 8, or the full feature set for the operating system, so take this all with a large pinch of salt for now.
Earlier this month, Microsoft announced plans to merge Xbox.com and Games For Windows Marketplace to create a one-stop-shop for players.
"Games For Windows Marketplace will fully transition over to Xbox.com," it said. "Now you can get all of your gaming needs in one place. It's convenient, it's concentrated, and it's a whole lot of great games."
Comments
66 comments so far...
RustySpoon80 on 12 Jul '11 said:
This is 1 more tick for PC gamers. Why buy a 360 if a PC plays the same games. But then why would you play the 360 version when the PC version would be superior.
Although by the time Win8 appears I'm sure we'll have news on the new xbox.
I think this is more likely that a version of Live will appear on Win8 rather than being able to play games.
slick loose on 12 Jul '11 said:
Brilliant for consumers if true, as for the comment above, not all games released on the 360 are released on the PC.
Black Mantis on 12 Jul '11 said:
Probably because the next Xbox console will be out by then and Microsoft will be concentrating on that.
slick loose on 12 Jul '11 said:
There is obviously one concern that bothers me if this is true...wouldn't pirating the games be a lot easier? Surely someone will figure out how to emulate the game without the discs...does anyone know if this will be possible as I know f**k all when it comes to these things.
voodoo341 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Paying to play online on a PC... forget it!
originalbadboy on 12 Jul '11 said:
Because its a lot cheaper ... There's a good reason for starters.
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
It's more like paying to play 360 games on your PC rather than paying to play online. I think it's a good option if it turns out to be true.
Could be a good idea for MS - they still get the fees that they get from developers on 360, still get to sell peripherals etc but have a much larger potential sales base. They might lose out on hardware sales, but I'm sure the software sales would more than make up for the probably small profits they make per console sold.
Remains to be seen though. Will you need a very powerful PC to emulate the 360, even though it's basically old PC tech?
photoboy on 12 Jul '11 said:
This could be quite cool if it allows games to run in a higher resolution or perhaps allows for faster frame rates.
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
I hadn't even thought of that!
voodoo341 on 12 Jul '11 said:
You're not going to buy an xbox game to play on your PC if there's a PC version. Especially if you have to pay again to go on line with the 360 version. That'll only apply to 360 versions which isn't a big list of games.
brookie_2001 on 12 Jul '11 said:
It would be great if this was true. Someone has just plucked this out the air though.
It is technically impossible for this to happen. The amount of work needed for this to happen isn't feasible.
Clearly the games wouldn't run natively on Windows they would have to be emulated. So there is one problem. Then if you are able to emulate the amount of processing power needed to emulate the 360 CPU/GPU would be quite high.
Still would be nice though.
plightstar on 12 Jul '11 said:
Would be better if they don't use emulation and use a 360 os virtual machine and us the DVD drive for playing discs then 5year PC's could play 360 games then. The improvement in loading times would make me buy it. Just bought AC Brotherhood, its soo slow at loading. Too used to my PC games loading times from my beautiful i7 and 8gb Ram.
slick loose on 12 Jul '11 said:
Wouldn't developers have to implement this onto the disc though? I mean I doubt you could just whack in Fable II and all of a sudden it's able to produce a native 1080 resolution or even faster frame rates.
Again I know f**k all, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sleepaphobic on 12 Jul '11 said:
I always thought it was all locked down so you'd have to play with the same textures/res etc.
Jensonjet on 12 Jul '11 said:
I suppose it's a little gift. When you own the most expensive gaming rig around, it must be nice to know you can buy games that look poor on your system for more than you can games specifically designed for your computer!
Very_Silver_Ownz on 12 Jul '11 said:
If this is true what's the point of a 360 ?
tmten on 12 Jul '11 said:
As brookie_2001 said, "someone has just plucked this out the air". As far as I can see after a quick scoot around the interwebs, it would take a monstrous pc to convert xbox 360 ppc code in to x86 to be able to run xbox 360 games accurately at the correct speed - even a highly clocked sandy bridge with avx doesn't appear to have enough flops - nevermind that you'd need a similarly monstrous gpu to render it all. Although admittedly gpu's are a head of cpus in this regard, already being an order of magnitude faster than the gpu in the 360.
And even if it were doable, it would be pretty pointless next year when only a small percentage of pc's would be able to run it (assuming intel's or amd's upcoming cpu's will be fast enough).
Of course this is all conjecture on my part, and I'm a computer science drop-out not a professional software engineer, but it just seems unlikely with the current (or near future) pc hardware market. An intel i7 2600k for example, which would be an example of the highly clockable sandy bridge that I stated probably doesn't have enough flops - and is also about as state of the art as it gets x86 cpu wise - costs £240. An xbox 360 costs £160.
slick loose on 12 Jul '11 said:
It's nearly sold 60 million units, I think it's made it's point. Plus there are people like me who might not have a decent PC, or able to play from the comfort of their sofa without a 360.
Mobius01 on 12 Jul '11 said:
If it's an emulator then it will be able to render the games, not upscale, at higher resolutions. Textures can't be re-rendered at a higher res though. PCSX2 and the Dolphin Emulator render all the old PS2/GC games in full HD with tons of AA and AF.
However, those emulators have taken years of development to get as good as they are so there's very little chance of Win8 being able to run 360 games. It would take a ridiculous amount of CPU and GPU power.
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
It all depends on how they do it, how powerful a PC is needed etc. I imagine you'll be playing online with a much smaller group of people than on steam or XBL, so that might make it a bit s**t.
But yeah, if MS were still making a decent number of exclusives it'd be much better. Although thinking about it, it's probably aimed at getting Kinect on PC more than anything else. So you'd have Gears, Halo, Fable 2, Forza and XBLA exclusive stuff - not masses amounts, but if it generates a bit of cash for MS, then I'm sure they see some benefit - the console business hasn't really made them massive profits!
Still, it's an interesting idea. And playing console games at better frame rates, no screen tear etc could be nice.
Slick - if games have their frame rate locked, you won't get much benefit. Textures etc will be the same. But I'm sure devs could patch games to make some improvements to screen tear, frame rate etc but I doubt you'll see a massive improvement. If they can be arsed of course.
jimmyjamerson on 12 Jul '11 said:
Initially I thought this is a great idea. More options for consumers is great.
But when you can play 360 games on a PC why would developers spend more money to develop a PC version. I can see this holding back the development of PC games.
Also, knowing all these game companies, it could be the download titles only and won't be able to insert a disk...
Very_Silver_Ownz on 12 Jul '11 said:
Doesn't make any sense to me. They are trying to make it obsolete I think. I definitely think the new Xbox will be out next year. I'd bet someone's house on it
markyR on 12 Jul '11 said:
This has plusses and minuses, the plus is that PC gamers can have Xbox 360 games and cross platform multiplayer gaming, which I am hoping and see the market going towards.
The minus is it looks like a marketing tactic to make PC gamers pay to play online which you can't blame them for trying, MS is a business after all, and when the 720 is launched what happens?
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
MS (and Sony for that matter) make a lot more money from games and peripherals than they do from hardware sales, so if they can sell more of these, get more subs going and lose a few hardware sales, I'm sure they'd be happy.
If any of this is even true of course.
Yellow6 on 12 Jul '11 said:
I was actually thinking along these lines last week when I read the article about Onlive/cloud gaming.
Microsoft have the best online capacity for consoles.
Microsoft are still on the majority of PC's and laptops.
Microsoft are now on the fancy smart phones.
Microsoft are a software company, (the physical xbox units are jut a means to an end).
Forget Sony or Nintendo being rivals, this is a preemptive move against Onlive/cloud gaming.
Getting the xbox back-catalogue online is the first move into cloud gaming.....for Microsoft.
monkeyd_93 on 12 Jul '11 said:
this is only to compete with steam and the inevitable strengthening of the Sony+pc (valve) relationship, but i cant see it doing too well, when many gamers are happy with the free online services available now (besides the pay per month games) as well as steam dominating majority of the market. Besides if gamers wanted to play 360 games, they would buy a 360 to play it, rather than run an emulator on the pc to do it.
ste hicky on 12 Jul '11 said:
i know someone who'll dive at this immediately just for red dead.
jtthegame on 12 Jul '11 said:
This could be good. The 360 will live on once the new xbox comes out and they start focusing on that. I did notice when i watched a video about windows 8 and then seen the new xbox dash that is coming it did strike me that the design is very simular.
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
Same here. And Vanquish, Bayonetta, XBLA stuff, LA Noire and more. More about the multiplatform stuff that doesn't get on PC than MS exclusives.
deadstoned on 12 Jul '11 said:
This story sounds like a load of bs
LordVonPS3 on 12 Jul '11 said:
The board is set, the pieces are moving, we come to it at last, the great battle of our time. Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!
In our time, you will pay a XBox Live subscription just to access DirectX compatible PC / XBox games. That is how Microsoft wants it and neither gamers nor publishers nor developers should.
Microsoft are the enemy. The Sauron of the Internet... A threat to isolate and control every content developer, publisher and consumer. Sauron will buy the roads you drive on, buy the vehicles you ride in, buy the land you live on and own until it owns you. First you will pay to leave your own home, then you will pay to live in it and ultimately - you will pay to live at all.
EA, Valve, Activision, EPIC, Bethesda, Ubisoft, etc... Publishers - I address you... It is time for you to build your own Linux compatible content delivery / gaming platforms, compete, stand and fight alone, for all our sakes, for choice and for greater liberty. Many gamers cannot and do not want to pay both content platform subscription fees and Microsoft's XBox Live toll-bridge fee. Publishers, you may command greater rewards if neither yourselves nor gamers empty your pockets to pay the toll man. Gamers, the Internet is a virtual domain where all ideas may be equally realised so you need not pay for a virtual bridge anymore than you would pay for virtual clothes. If you will pay today - you will be asked to pay forever. Gamers and publishers... UNITE TODAY!
XBox Live can never be a free bridge. Heed my warning!
only_777 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Oh god stop, just stop!
No, you won't be playing xbox 360 disc games on Windows 8!
What you might be playing is selected arcade Market place games which don't require much processor power to run.
Does anyone here have any idea what sort of power you need under the hood to emulate a PS2 game on a PC? It's a lot. To run at full speed with v-sync on your looking at at-least 8gig quad core with 4gig RAM (fast ram at that) and the minimum GFX card would be a 1gig Geforce 480gtx.
And that's PS2!
As no ones PC has identical hardware to a 360, a disc can only be run via emulation and the horse power needed is not even around to buy yet!
Come on CVG, you look foolish posting such stories.
LordVonPS3 on 12 Jul '11 said:
The PS2 Graphics Synthesiser was a custom crafted GPU tailored to provide a very quick fill rate, which is something that modern day GPU's still aren't particularly tailored towards with their 16xMSAA, tesselation, alpha-to-coverage and other h/w features that focus on other aspects. To summarize... It's a different architecture - thus a different problem to emulate (and is partly why the PS3 isn't PS2 b/c).
* Graphics processing unit: "Graphics Synthesizer" clocked at 147 MHz
* Pixel pipelines: 16
* Video output resolution: variable from 256x224 to 1280x1024 pixels
* 4 MB Embedded DRAM video memory bandwidth at 48 gigabytes per second (main system 32 MB can be dedicated into VRAM for off-screen materials)
- Texture buffer bandwidth: 9.6 GB/s
- Frame buffer bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s
* DRAM Bus width: 2560-bit (composed of three independent buses: 1024-bit write, 1024-bit read, 512-bit read/write)
* Pixel configuration: RGB: Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8, 15:1 for RGB, 16, 24, or 32-bit Z buffer)
* Dedicated connection to: Main CPU (Emotion Engine) and VU1
* Overall pixel fillrate: 16x147 = 2.352 Gpixel/s (rounded to 2.4 Gpixel/s)
- - Pixel fillrate: with no texture, flat shaded 2.4 (75,000,000 32pixel raster triangles)
- - Pixel fillrate: with 1 full texture (Diffuse Map), Gouraud shaded 1.2 (37,750,000 32-bit pixel raster triangles)
- - Pixel fillrate: with 2 full textures (Diffuse map + specular or alpha or other), Gouraud shaded 0.6 (18,750,000 32-bit pixel raster triangles)
* GS effects: AAx2 (poly sorting required), Bilinear, Trilinear, Multi-pass, Palletizing (4-bit = 6:1 ratio, 8-bit = 3:1)
- - Multi-pass rendering ability
- - Four passes = 300 Mpixel/s (300 Mpixels/s divided by 32 pixels = 9,375,000 triangles/s lost every four passes)
The XBox 360's ATI GPU is technically inferior to any modern-day ATI card / nVidia card - which thanks to DirectX - both are compatible with. All X360 games are DirectX 9 compatible. Notwithstanding that modern day PC's typically have 24GB of RAM and a faster (at least) quad core processor and s/w improvements to Windows 8 / DX 11 to enable the X360 feature-set. It shouldn't be a significant problem to run most of these games with a bit of tweaking.
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
24GB?!? Is that a typo have you got a beast of a rig lord???
LordVonPS3 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Yes, 24GB. It appears the power of modern day PC's have passed you by ricflair...
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
Typically? I don't know anybody who has that much.
LordVonPS3 on 12 Jul '11 said:
... and I probably still have a 486 kicking about too.
For ~£500 - a PC with 24GB of RAM can be yours!
ricflair on 12 Jul '11 said:
No, 8GB seems to be the max for people I know. 16GB for people who use them for stuff beyond games.
spam23 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Windows 7 is good enough for now. I wish there was an alternative OS for PC gamers though. M$ doesn't seem to give a s**t about PC gamers these days. Linux is too fiddly and geeky and can only run a handful of games, Macs are too expensive and can only run a handful of games...
If only there was an OS to rival Windows, built with PC Gamers in mind.
tmten on 12 Jul '11 said:
@LordVonPS3
why list the specs for the ps2's gpu, which is massively inferior to the 360's, to argue that 360 emulation would be relatively straightforward? the ps2 needs a decent pc not because of it's reasonably powerful (for it's time) and somewhat arcane architecture (those vpu's are pretty mental), but because the unpaid and doing it in their spare time pcsx2 coders have to fumble their way around reverse engineering the whole bloody lot.
also, referring to direct-x feature-set compatibility as further evidence of why this is possible is kind of missing the point. of course it's possible in theory. any computer software can be emulated - in the simplest terms possible a good analogy of emulation is of a conversation between two people speaking different languages with a translator between them translating; the conversation will be slower than if they spoke the same language. with computers it's the speed of translation that is key, and bearing this in mind it would appear that for most people 360 emulation will not be possible next year. that's the point.
oh, and I almost forgot - 24gb!!!!? can i have some of what yr smoking please?
Yellow6 on 12 Jul '11 said:
16GB seems a lot for pornography?
budobear on 12 Jul '11 said:
I already pay to live in my house....... its called a mortgage!
(please note it has nothing to do with Microsoft though)
LordVonPS3 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Obviously the GS is inferior to the Xenos, I wasn't claiming otherwise. Take a look at the i/o bandwidth and you'll see the GS is actually pretty darn quick though. As it has a different architecture, emulating the GS is not straightforward hence "777" wasn't making a good point about PS2 emulation on PC when comparing to the Xenos which is more compatible with modern day cards. That's why I brought the GS spec to the forefront.
No argument from me there either.
Not at all. DX compatibility means one less thing to try and emulate. That's pretty significant - not missing the point at all (as even you just mentioned it - see previous paragraph).
"Most people" being the likes of you of course...
What do you mean by no?
Your opinions aren't any more authorative than anyone else's and your views are limited by your circles of influence. Everyone I know who bought a PC either 3rd qtr last year / this year has 24GB of RAM. In all this time, no-one's paid more than £700. Facts are facts, you can't just say "no".
cjw101 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Von's point was that as PCs and Xboxes both use DirectX there is no need for the 'translation' you are talking about - they already both speak the same 'language'...
StonecoldMC on 12 Jul '11 said:
Is it fair to say that this article is based off of a rumour and no one really knows what MS have got planned for Windows 8
?
Imaduck on 12 Jul '11 said:
Ooooh! Nice!
justforkicks101 on 12 Jul '11 said:
360 games on my pc ? never going to happen, unfortunately..
brookie_2001 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Ok, so they both technically use DirectX. Right... how do you emulate a PPC 3 core Custom CPU. It just isn't feasible. Even if they did, you'd still need a heck of a lot of processing power to emulate it at a reasonable speed. Then take into consideration all the different specifications a PC can be.
Why do you think they never properly allowed backwards compatibility with the xbox on the 360? It is just very difficult.
We can keep arguing this but at the end of the day. It is a rumour someone made up. It isn't going to happen.
Jensonjet on 12 Jul '11 said:
And all our bases belong to you? What I meant to say is p*ss off!
mufc-striker on 12 Jul '11 said:
Sounds like a welcome addition if true, at least ill still be able to play gears etc when my 360 gets RROD..... again
only_777 on 12 Jul '11 said:
I take your point on board regarding PS2 emulation, but we both know the huge horse power needed to emulate 360 is just not going to happen.
Besides, MS can't even get a decent xbox 1 emulater working on the 360!
coldburner on 12 Jul '11 said:
Guys, check youtube! there are already xbox 360 emulators out there for Win 7! So what will happen to Win 8 is inevitable
kimoak on 12 Jul '11 said:
Bull, and indeed, s**t. I don't believe this for a second.
only_777 on 12 Jul '11 said:
Get your facts in order first. What is actually playable on this emu?
FlacidDonkeyGuy on 12 Jul '11 said:
Xbox 360 250 gig £270, XBL sub £40, Reasonable size HDTV £400, fast-ish internet £20 per month, Reasonable laptop £350, Ten games at 10/15 per more each title. Total £1420
A PC tower with:
2500k sandy bridge OC'd @ 4.5 Ghz
Gigabyte GA-Z68A-D3-B3 Motherboard
Coolermaster TX3 Cooler
Corsair 8GB (2x4GB) Vengeance 1600Mhz RAM
1TB S-ATAIII 6.0Gb/s
Xigmatek Asgard Mid Tower Black Case
Xigmatek 500W 80% Plus PSU
2 x Bonus 80mm case fans
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 1GB Total £530
Internet £240
Keybord & Mouse £40
Same TV £400
10 Games £280
Grand Total £1490
By the time I renew my XBL sub and buy a couple of new games I would start to save money and that money would go towards a new card in two years time. Three years on for then I would get a new build.
Welsh Jester on 12 Jul '11 said:
This is interesting indeed
though i wouldn't buy the majority of games as PC games are always better.. though having extra is never a bad thing.
Considering you only need to upgrade your whole pc every like 4 years, gfx card every 2-3 for a top one.. PC's are well worth the investment.
I have an i7 920 since it came out, 3gb of ram, asus mobo, 5870 gfx, 750w psu, 128gb g skill ssd, 1tb hdd and it still runs games like butter today.. except maybe that crap called crysis
solamon77 on 13 Jul '11 said:
This seems a bit far fetched to me. The PC and the 360 have very different hardware. It would take quite a beefy computer to properly emulate the 360. Plus, what monetary incentive could Microsoft possibly gain by shooting their 360 sales in the foot like that?
slick loose on 13 Jul '11 said:
Well that's hardly a fair comparison when for no reason what so ever, you have included a laptop when buying a 360. I mean that just seems like you are trying to make up the numbers, why not just send it over the edge and add a toaster and a kettle? You don't need a laptop to buy a 360 at all...
Plus like many others on here I already have an HDTV. But I also have an appalling PC, so when you think about it a PC that would be able to run this emu would cost me a LOT more than going out and buying a 360.
oliversmith on 13 Jul '11 said:
Next generation console will and need to kill the PC platform. I only wish that vendors hear my cry for plea for having native keyboard and mouse support as well steam integration then I'll gladly leave PC...I rather spend 500 dollars on a console that lasts 10 years rather than 500 dollars every 3 years just to keep my computer up and running(thanks to the s**tty ports PC gamers get).
Having being really impressed with the unreal engine 3.9 demo,PC is now cornered. If the graphics are that good, who the hell needs to buy an expensive graphics card anymore?
ricflair on 13 Jul '11 said:
Plus, if we're using best prices a 360 costs about £160 now and you can get Gold XBL for £30 max. Plus no optical drive on that PC.
PC gaming is no way as expensive as people think, and of course you can use a PC for much more than you can use a games console, but at least be accurate if you're trying to prove a point!
Raptor117 on 15 Jul '11 said:
wahahaha....haha....really? really? This is your arguement?
The PS3 and X Box 360 were designed to last 10 years and yet now (just 5 years later) we see developers are moaning, bitching, asking, begging, taunting even for Sony and Microsoft to make PS4 and X Box 720. They are stumped with those stale technology.
That Unreal engine 3.9 demo your that said will kill PC.....was demoed on a PC with current hardware! How can the PC be cornered when by the time there are consoles capable of playing those kind of graphic, PC hardware would already be 2-3 generations ahead. Epic was using PC tech to get Sony and Microsoft to get off their butts and start making next gen consoles - which means they can make a game out of it NOW but only for the PC (at that same level of fidelity). Sure, current consoles could also play it, no doubt, but they'll be in the same position as console Battlefield 3.
I built my PC the same year as the PS3 and XBox 360 were launched and it still rocked at gaming. Not bad if you know what you're doing not spend on the premium stuff.
Face it. The consoles need PC gamers. Where do you think all those money they spent on cpus, gpus and RAMs go to ? Straight to AMD's, Intel's and Nvidia's R&D to build newer and better hardware which in turn what the console makers would need to build future consoles. Don't they need a PC to make a game? How can the developers code a console game using a PC and then tell us they can't make a PC game. Lie to us? Tell us that the PC can't play those games like what Star War The Force Unleashed and BF Bad Company PR said?
I'm not comfortable with gaming in the living room- feels so obnoxious when you have a large family and you're hogging the only TV. I've played The Witcher 2 using the living room's 42" LCD TV at full HD and the first scene that came up is the sex scene between the hero and the heroine. Luckily the family weren't around to see that spicy moment. Hmmm...I guess that's an early warning for those who's going to pick up the X Box 360 version later this year (but I think North American gamers might be safe- it'll be definitely be censored there).
julioaragon on 17 Jul '11 said:
microsoft never seems to dissapoint me they always seem to surprise me,another great idea playing 360 games on pcs ..and alot of games on xbox r not on the pc...plus playing online ,a huge step in online gaming and crossover gaming
kenneth50 on 17 Jul '11 said:
Hmm, just had an interesting speculation.
In the world of analog synthesis emulation some of the most highly revered soft synths are those which accurately reproduce the random snap, crackles and pops which came as part and parcel of genuine analog synthesis - to the point where they are literally programmed to randomly generate these noises. Yet, when the synths were originally debuted decades ago these little idiosyncracies were just by products of their operation - probably undesirable more than anything else.
Now, I wonder whether in future years the best 360 emulators will be those which sporadically issue you with a RROD in lieu of genuine authenticity!
MD1500 on 18 Jul '11 said:
This makes sense. Think about it. When Win8 comes out, the Xbox 720 will probably exist.
Windows 8 will be able to play the old Xbox 360 games, but almost certainly not current Xbox 720 games.
This gives Microsoft more profit from stuff they've already released, while not taking away the reason to buy a new console..
PDHale on 18 Jul '11 said:
Relax, XBox fans--as has been said earlier, just because windows 8 can run 360 games doesn't mean that everyone will be able to do it. There's no way you can run XBox games on standard laptops that have Intel HD Integrated graphics. You'll need at least a mid-range graphics card, meaning either a 1,000 dollar+ laptop or a 500 dollar+ tower.
slick loose on 18 Jul '11 said:
Unless it's cloud based and not disc based...