Stop complaining about backwards compatability

Everyone who enjoyed playing halo reach on the 360 was hyped when it was announced for backwards compatibility on xbox one, however from a few graphics updates and lighting changes it was exactly the same.

People complain about it not working on xbox one, it’s probably because you used up all of your storage, so this should be general problem with your xbox. I have used 60% of my storage and it runs completely fine, until you go onto split screen.

Now these minor changes turn out to use quite a bit of memory. Split screen breaks the game with serious lag, about 5-15 fps, this is the exact reason why we don’t have split screen for halo 5. Everything works fine unless you go on split screen, so avoid split screen and go play on your xbox 360, where the game will run perfectly, backwards compatibility is a perk, most consoles don’t have this, it takes a lot of work, so just appreciate that.

There are no graphical or lighting updates for Reach BC. It is the same game with an added emulation engine that runs the game on Xbone. It’s this emulation engine not being fully optimised for the game and console that is causing the lower than normal frames per second. Not any changes to the game or low memory on the HDD.

MCC, Borderlands, COD, Battlefront and older Halo games all had split screen. This low split screen fps is, again, caused by the emulation engine needing improvements, not because of any inherent problems with the hardware or split screen.

Some people have sold their 360s, and simply want to play Reach again. MS did promise Reach on Xbone and it is a little disappointing to have the game run the way it does. The game should have been delayed or fixed quickly if the game was known to be in that condition. Players just want it to work so they can play, Just appreciate that.

The best solution is to just keep your 360 and not bother with backwards compatibility.

A perfect emulator doesn’t exist on PC, probably the same on a console.

http://www.tested.com/tech/gaming/2712-why-perfect-hardware-snes-emulation-requires-a-3ghz-cpu/

And this is just a SNES emulator, I wonder how much that would be with the Xbox 360 (Xbox emulators are somewhat non existent by the way) .

The main issue is those frames per second and the input lag, I don’t think people would complain about something else…

No, it’s not storage space problems. I have over 1.6tb left on my One, and Reach is still choppy.

No, I won’t stop complaining until it works as advertised.

> 2533274837720524;5:
> No, it’s not storage space problems. I have over 1.6tb left on my One, and Reach is still choppy.

By storage, he means storage type. Solid state drives can load data way faster than run of the mill disk hard drives. Still even with an SSD there is no improvement. because the performance is fully based off of the emulation engine.

> 2533274873630868;7:
> > 2533274837720524;5:
> > No, it’s not storage space problems. I have over 1.6tb left on my One, and Reach is still choppy.
>
>
> By storage, he means storage type. Solid state drives can load data way faster than run of the mill disk hard drives. Still even with an SSD there is no improvement. because the performance is fully based off of the emulation engine.

No, OP clearly says “used up all of your storage” and “I have 60% left and it runs fine” He was referring to space.

Even so, external HDDs (at least decent ones) are meant to be faster than the internal drive because the USB 3.0 speed is faster than the internal HDD’s read speed.

But yeah, you are right with this problem lying within the emulation engine.

You have no idea what your talking about.

Stop complaining some people dont even have an xbox one

> 2547348539238747;8:
> > 2533274873630868;7:
> > > 2533274837720524;5:
> > > No, it’s not storage space problems. I have over 1.6tb left on my One, and Reach is still choppy.
> >
> >
> > By storage, he means storage type. Solid state drives can load data way faster than run of the mill disk hard drives. Still even with an SSD there is no improvement. because the performance is fully based off of the emulation engine.
>
>
> No, OP clearly says “used up all of your storage” and “I have 60% left and it runs fine” He was referring to space.
>
> Even so, external HDDs (at least decent ones) are meant to be faster than the internal drive because the USB 3.0 speed is faster than the internal HDD’s read speed.
>
> But yeah, you are right with this problem lying within the emulation engine.

Reach and any older halo game games will feel choppy even halo 4 because they dont run at 60 fps

> 2535467992014559;1:
> Everyone who enjoyed playing halo reach on the 360 was hyped when it was announced for backwards compatibility on xbox one, however from a few graphics updates and lighting changes it was exactly the same.
>
> People complain about it not working on xbox one, it’s probably because you used up all of your storage, so this should be general problem with your xbox. I have used 60% of my storage and it runs completely fine, until you go onto split screen.
>
> Now these minor changes turn out to use quite a bit of memory. Split screen breaks the game with serious lag, about 5-15 fps, this is the exact reason why we don’t have split screen for halo 5. Everything works fine unless you go on split screen, so avoid split screen and go play on your xbox 360, where the game will run perfectly, backwards compatibility is a perk, most consoles don’t have this, it takes a lot of work, so just appreciate that.

Exactly people dont understand and everyone just hates on 343 its stupid

It should run well. The complaints are justified.

It runs almost flawlessly unless you play custom assassination gametypes where frames make a difference, other than frames don’t matter.

> 2533274838418174;3:
> The best solution is to just keep your 360 and not bother with backwards compatibility.

I cant, i have to trade him with a psVita on my One Black 500Gb, but i think if i have a chance to trade something here to another 360 (mine was Halo:Reach edition with 2 controllers) , i will not think 2 times…

> 2535467992014559;1:
> Everyone who enjoyed playing halo reach on the 360 was hyped when it was announced for backwards compatibility on xbox one, however from a few graphics updates and lighting changes it was exactly the same.
>
> People complain about it not working on xbox one, it’s probably because you used up all of your storage, so this should be general problem with your xbox. I have used 60% of my storage and it runs completely fine, until you go onto split screen.
>
> Now these minor changes turn out to use quite a bit of memory. Split screen breaks the game with serious lag, about 5-15 fps, this is the exact reason why we don’t have split screen for halo 5. Everything works fine unless you go on split screen, so avoid split screen and go play on your xbox 360, where the game will run perfectly, backwards compatibility is a perk, most consoles don’t have this, it takes a lot of work, so just appreciate that.

The game is not at all exactly the same. I ran reach on the Xbox 360 and Xbox One and there is a significant difference. So don’t tell us to stop complaining about something that we shouldn’t have to complain about. We shouldn’t have to put up with this kind of stuff from Microsoft. We deserve to get what they promised. (Oh and storage doesn’t effect performance.)

> 2535422632549060;11:
> > 2547348539238747;8:
> > > 2533274873630868;7:
> > > > 2533274837720524;5:
> > > > No, it’s not storage space problems. I have over 1.6tb left on my One, and Reach is still choppy.
> > >
> > >
> > > By storage, he means storage type. Solid state drives can load data way faster than run of the mill disk hard drives. Still even with an SSD there is no improvement. because the performance is fully based off of the emulation engine.
> >
> >
> > No, OP clearly says “used up all of your storage” and “I have 60% left and it runs fine” He was referring to space.
> >
> > Even so, external HDDs (at least decent ones) are meant to be faster than the internal drive because the USB 3.0 speed is faster than the internal HDD’s read speed.
> >
> > But yeah, you are right with this problem lying within the emulation engine.
>
>
> Reach and any older halo game games will feel choppy even halo 4 because they dont run at 60 fps

Does Destiny feel choppy to you?

Halo Reach on BC does not run at full 30fps like it does on 360. Certain gametypes run better. BTB is stil has very low fps. 30fps is actually quite smooth. I wasn’t expecting 60fps, I was expecting 30fps and we didn’t get that on Halo Reach BC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aq1XrD6RII

Reach does not run fine. This is not how it used to run on 360, and Microsoft has admitted that there are issues with the emulation.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/12/halo-reach-issues-on-the-xbox-one/

> 2535467992014559;1:
> Everyone who enjoyed playing halo reach on the 360 was hyped when it was announced for backwards compatibility on xbox one, however from a few graphics updates and lighting changes it was exactly the same.
>
> People complain about it not working on xbox one, it’s probably because you used up all of your storage, so this should be general problem with your xbox. I have used 60% of my storage and it runs completely fine, until you go onto split screen.
>
> Now these minor changes turn out to use quite a bit of memory. Split screen breaks the game with serious lag, about 5-15 fps, this is the exact reason why we don’t have split screen for halo 5. Everything works fine unless you go on split screen, so avoid split screen and go play on your xbox 360, where the game will run perfectly, backwards compatibility is a perk, most consoles don’t have this, it takes a lot of work, so just appreciate that.

Agree.

Reach works fine for me on the one, and as long as it keeps working, I’m happy.