Microsoft Unveils The X Box

markf was one of the first people to e-mail us about the ahead of schedule unveiling of the X-Box. As those who have watched the news, Microsoft's gaming console has been a close secret. Now we know it's going to be about 600 Mhz, DVD-ROM drive, 64+ megs of RAM. Gates went on to talk about the market, which is very interesting. They'll be aiming at Nintendo, Sony and Sega, the triumvirate of the Gaming Market. The machine itself will be Windows-based, and will support online "stuff" - although only through high speed connections. I've got to admit - this thing looks really interesting. They are hoping for a Christmas 2001 release, which will make competing with Dolphin and PSX2 difficult.

Comments

Christmas 2001?

[hedgehog_uk]

Are you sure about a "Christmas 2001" release? Don't you mean Christmas 2000? A 600MHz box will be seriously out of date by December 2001.

HH

Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[hedgehog_uk]

But you could also argue that it's a PC masquerading as a console. In 18 months time, if Moore's Law holds, PC's will be up to 2GHz. Cutting edge PC games will be starting to take advantage of this power and may well run slowly on a 600Mhz machine. Graphics chipsets will also have moved forwards significantly. I suspect that the Emotion Engine performs significantly better than it's 300Mhz would suggest. MHz, as you probably know, is a useless indicator of the relative performance of different processor architectures.

HH


Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[hedgehog_uk]

AMD have dropped the 500Mhz Athlon already. Will they still make 600Mhz chips in 18 months? Wonder what AMD's Athlon product line will look like then? Possibly 2Ghz, 1.8Ghz, 1.5GHz, 1.2Ghz, 600Mhz?????

HH

Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[belgin]

I suspect that the Emotion Engine performs significantly better than it's 300Mhz would suggest.

It does.

It is a 350 MHz 128 bit chip. Compare this to a 600 MHz 32 bit Athalon. Be sure you include the 150 MHz dedicated Graphics subchip in the PS2 also. Now consider that this system is designed to do one thing absolutly spectacularly: audio-visual. The X-Box is off the shelf components, making it easier to program for, but if you want to do the stuff that the Emotion Engine does as easily as starting up, you have to code like a demon and REALLY know what you are doing. An NVidia graphics card would help the X-Box, but I'd wager that one year after the X-Box's release, its graphics are still far behind where the Playstation 2 is one year after its US release. (Keep in mind... that is at least three months before the X-Box comes out!)

Unless MS puts a lot more time and effort into both innovating and product testing than is normal in their business model, I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than a cheap PC with gimmicks. The console strategy is quite different than the mass-produce, hook, charge to upgrade methodology they have used successfully in the past.

I am interested to see what they actually do, rather than just condemning them on they will probably do.

B. Elgin

Re:Christmas 2001?

[acb]

Yes, but the PSX2 CPU is a customised high-performance CPU of RISC (or was it VLIW?) architecture, and not burdened by x86 legacy crud. Putting in a top-heavy Intel-clone CPU, one whose overly complex internal architecture and baroque instruction format bear witness to layers of backward compatibility going all the way back to the 8086, will be another matter.

There is a reason why non-Intel chips (Alpha, ARM, PowerPC) get superior performance at lower clock speeds (usually whilst using a lot less power as well); it's because they don't spend large amounts of time and energy dealing with the requirements of Intel compatibility.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[Cuthalion]

Look at the old celerons (not the celeron A's).. Those were VERY similar in architecture to the P2's but the p2's ran MUCH better. MHz just means how may times the clock signal flips a second, it doesn't mean now many numbers the chip can crunch, it doesn't mean how many frames you'll get in quake.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[Junks Jerzey]

It is also worth noting that the emotion engine contains three complete processors that can run in parallel, plus another two lesser processing units that aren't counted in this total of three. That's all on one chip. This isn't counting the graphics chip at all.

Re:Christmas 2001?

[belgin]

How many new game consoles are compatible with the older models? The one that we know for sure isn't Vaporware. The Playstation 2. The PS2 is almost completely backwards compatible on both accessories and games. The old methodology included scrapping all the old architecture and games along with console, because it was primarily cartridge based. Plus, people had their old consoles, so they didn't need new ones (from the companies' view). The PSX initiated serious changeover to the CD and now PS2 DVD format. This means that the new machine can run the parts of the old machine. The real intention behind my statement, however, was that "mass-produce, hook, and charge to upgrade" doesn't work when you are talking about the consoles themselves. If a console is not sturdy, functional, and generally great from the start, it doesn't take off. You don't have the ability to make it, sell it, and fix things you broke in patches every two weeks. People don't buy hardware that is not reliable; at least, not for long. When the first hundreds to run out and buy it do not have nice things to say about it, they don't encourage their friends to buy it. Game sales do not take off and game designers hold off on developing for it. There are not the selection of games available for other consoles, and gamers are less likely to buy it. Another thing to keep in mind, though, is that the X-Box is more PC than Console. This may make all the rules different. If games can be ported cheaply and easily, there may be an instant extrodinary game base that quickly pushes the X-Box up in the games department. Again, it all depends on the tactics that MS takes.
B. Elgin

MS is dead in the water...

[JamesKPolk]

...unless they can buy-out/bribe enough game companies to develop for the thing.

PSX2 will take over for the PSX as the #1 box, without a doubt. Why? 10 little letters: Squaresoft.

Nintendo, with the Dolphin and Gameboy Advance, won't be hurting, either. Why not? Game Freak, and Rare.

Console gamers only care about the games, not the internals. That's why consoles are so popular! You don't have to care about which chips you have; all games are compatible!

This is one area where I doubt MS will succeed.

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[Frac]

I think everyone was being just as(even more) critical when Sony rolled out their Playstation. "What, we already have Nintendo and Sega - Sony makes walkmans and compact disk players, they won't survive in the console market!"

The X-box is attractive because the architecture will be very close to the commodity PCs. That means it will be very easy for companies to port games to and from the X-box and Windows 9x. Easy to port translates to less money to reach a larger audience. A conformity to a single standard (in terms of hardware and software) also means developers can be more comfortable in pushing the limits of whatever they have, as opposed to creating a game for the lowest common denominator.

Assuming Microsoft doens't fsck it up too much, they have a very solid chance of taking marketshare, not from Sony, but mainly from Sega and Nintendo's lackluster lineup these days.

Console gamers only care about the games, not the internals. That's why consoles are so popular! You don't have to care about which chips you have; all games are compatible!

Oh, and I doubt the X-box will be upgradable - that's why they are choosing the specs now...

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[slim]

I think everyone was being just as(even more) critical when Sony rolled out their Playstation. "What, we already have Nintendo and Sega - Sony makes walkmans and compact disk players, they won't survive in the console market!"

Sony brought something new to the table: theirs was the first console where 3D performance was more of a design aim than 2D. Playstation did OK, but not great, for a while, then Sony pulled a marketing masterstroke, and made gaming "cool", by pushing Psygnosis' WipeOut.

What can MS bring to the table? I think of MS as being a very dull company. They make Excel: dull. Maybe X-box can be marketed as a "sensible" console which can also be used to do online banking or something...

.. but remember, 3DO was supposed to be something for all the family, too.
--

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[JamesKPolk]

I don't. :-)

The kind of people who do that sort of thing, aren't the vast majority of buyers, though.

"Oh, wow! That game looks COOL!!! Mom, can I have a Playstation?"

"no"

"please, mom"

"no"

"please, mom"

... birthday/Christmas/whatever comes around

"Oh, cool! Just what I wanted!"

... 2 months later

"Oh, wow! That game looks COOL!!! Mom, can I have a Dreamcast?"

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[Frac]

What can MS bring to the table?

How about a familiar API called DirectX, a fixed spec for less incompatibility, and the support of many PC developers who are not willing to program on the PlayStation?

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[Frac]

Actually from what I remember, N64 was the late comer in the market, with its under-performed spec (well, with no incentivies large enough for ppl to switch). It was mainly Sega Saturn's market the PlayStation eroded. And CD were used in both SS and PSX, so it can't be the CD's.

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[ronfar]

Don't forget the Sidewinder

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the Sidewinder is a seriously well made, ergonomically designed joystick. That may not seem like much, but I actually think that joystick/pad design is a big part of console development. I also think that badly designed joysticks, like the one on Jaguar, can hurt a console.

My philosophy on this is, "the more the merrier, let's see what they can do." Microsoft is certainly no eviller than Sony, in any case.

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[ronfar]

Squaresoft?

Hmm, here's the thing, though, Squaresoft makes games for Wintel PCs already. So does Capcom for that matter.

I'm not sure why these companies make games for the PC platform, but Square for example, shuns everyone but Sony and Microsoft (Windows releases are on Microsoft's gaming platform, DirectX).

Microsoft is certainly going to use DirectX on the X-box, and I know Capcom (and I'm pretty sure Square too) use DirectX in their PC releases.

I'm guessing Microsoft plans on leveraging DirectX to prevent game companies from publishing games for PCs that are incompatible with X-box.

Of course, if Sony is smart, they'll come up with a PC platform to compete with DirectX that they control as opposed to Microsoft.

There is also this, SquareSoft tied to Microsoft's X-Box?

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[ronfar]

Console advocacy is based on the theory that the more converts you get to a console, the less likely that a company you like will create exclusively for a competing console. This is a big factor when you only have one console, and something of a factor if you prefer one console over another even if you have more than one.

For example, I have a friend who's fairly young, and desperately wanted a Dreamcast. He's still in school and not making much money, so in order to get the money for the Dreamcast he sold his Playstation and a lot of games. However, he now has to deal with the fact that if, say, Square, comes out with a really cool game for PSX/PSX2 there is very little chance it will come out for Dreamcast. On the other hand, if Dreamcast comes to dominate the console market, then Square will likely port at least some games to Dreamcast. This works for all consoles.

So, console owners, especially younger ones who are buying systems with their parents' money, become rabid advocates for their system of choice. They know that if they can convince enough other people that their console is cool and the others aren't that their console will dominate and get all the best games.

Of course, marketing people know this and play up to it. I'm sure Nintendo fans will remember Sega's vicious "Sega does what Nintendon't" ads from the past. I remember that their anti-Gameboy ad (the one with the slack-joyed yokels being entertained by a bug zapper) was particularly comical. The whole goal is to convince people that the competing system isn't cool, and it gets picked up by the gamers.

My brother is a fervent Nintendo advocate, it can only be compared to the way people feel about sports teams.

Re:MS is dead in the water...

[slim]

How about a familiar API called DirectX, a fixed spec for less incompatibility, and the support of many PC developers who are not willing to program on the PlayStation?

Sounds like a Dreamcast to me.

However, as the owner of nine different consoles, I can truthfully say that there are *no* games I want to play which are available for PC and not for an existing console -- and dozens of console games I love which are unavailable for PC.

A "fixed spec for less incompatibility" is not something Microsoft have brought to the table. It's what consoles have been about since the 2600.
--

Can only use DSL or other modems?

[doomy]

X-Box users will be able to connect to high-speed Internet services to
take part in multiplayer games, as well as Web access and e-mail, but can
only use digital subscriber lines (DSL) or other high-speed services. The
X-Box will not be equipped with a standard telephone modem, Bach
said.

I'm quite sure they must have ment ethernet support right about there. Otherwise the bit about other high-speed services would not be ment. X-box. What is next? propitory game cartriges for windows only? :)
--

Thus spoke Zarathrustra?

[Sludge]

Nintendo makes it's licensees sign a contract that makes any game developed for their system, be for their system exclusively. I am idly wondering of the implications of software portability if they get released with some sort of certification for this system.

Deeply evil?

Re:Thus spoke Zarathrustra?

[Sludge]

Thus Spoke Zarathrustra is the name of the orchestrated piece in 2001: A Space Oddysey that plays a couple of times, whenever mankind evolves further. The first time it plays is when man figures out how to use weapons, in a scene with an ape smashing a ribcage with a hammer-like bone.
The music rises to a pinnacle.

Console game system == PC

[apirkle]

PCs and consoles are becoming one and the same, to the point that they're even going to be capable of running the same software. We've seen lots of console emulators for the PC...how long is it going to be before PC emulators for our favorite console systems start popping up?

And of course, somebody will _have_ to port Linux to it, and then add on some better hardware and then.....oh, hey, look, its a low-end PC with a TV instead of a monitor!

Nothing like reinventing the WebTV :)

Bah. Whatever.

[torpor]

This X-Box is just a vertical-market network computer.

Big deal. They (Microsoft) bally-hoo'ed it a few years ago, because, clearly, they weren't prepared for that particular computing revolution. (If the big kids can't play, they don't want anyone playing.)

There's nothing in this X-Box that even vaguely excites me - all it looks like is that Microsoft has worked out how to apply some of its billions to manufacture run-of-the-mill PC hardware for the masses... well, we'll see, anyway.

Whereas, the PSX2, with its revolutionary design and take-no-prisoners custom chip designs, appeals to my primordial developer roots at a fundamental level.

Sony is the undisputed master of mass manufacturing consumer electronic products, which is what gaming platforms have become, and I seriously doubt whether Microsoft has what it takes to prove that it can do this, properly, to its shareholders. Don't forget that they've gotta show profitability for the X-Box division relatively quickly ...

Now, having said that, I will say that I will be watching the *developer* relationships that are fostered by these companies very closely. I wonder what lessons Sony have learned from the Net Yaroze program for the PSX - are they going to be a more developer friendly company with PSX2 this time around?

Obviously, developer relations is about the only thing that Microsoft has over Sony, so what's going to happen there, I wonder...

I predict, and time will tell, that at the very least (and possibly the very most) MS' X-Box release will have a *good* influence on the developer situation for the other platforms...

Why don't other consoles use commodity parts?

[JohnZed]

I think that the interesting thing about the X-Box is the heavy reliance on off-the-shelf components (standard x86 chip and graphics from NVidia). In a lot of ways, this seems pretty rational, especially for the main CPU. After all, the market of 100+ million x86 users has created a pretty damn good economy of scale, so you can make up in brute force what you lose in terms of gamer-targetted features (polygons, etc.).
Why don't other consoles use such commodity parts? Has it been an issue of price? Or is this the first time that the IA-32 architecture has been able to provide a good enough price/performance ratio with respect to graphics-related features? Microsoft could have easily gone with MIPS, as WinCE runs on that platform and NT used to. Just think of how cheap a 600 mHz chip will be in late 2002, when this box is only a year out on the market! Who knows, they might just break even.
--JRZ

Re:Why don't other consoles use commodity parts?

[slim]

When you're selling hardware in the quantities Sega or Sony or Nintendo expect to sell a console, the whole *unit* is a commodity part.

The advantage in using "off the shelf" components would be the enonomy of mass-production. Enough Playstations/Dreamcast/Whatever get made, that the economy of scale eventually becomes a given.


--

Not quite true...

[Green Monkey]

Nintendo only requires that Nintendo 64 versions of games released on other console systems (PC games aren't counted) contain an exclusive feature -- not that the entire game is exclusive. Usually, the companies will then add different exclusive features to the other platforms. For example, Resident Evil 2 has appeared on the PlayStation, Dreamcast, and Nintendo 64 (plus the PC); each version had its own features -- the PlayStation version had extra playable characters you could choose if you got a high ranking, the Dreamcast one came with the soundtrack and a demo of Resident Evil: Code Veronica (the DC Resident Evil game), and the Nintendo 64 version had a few extra "notes" that give additional background info on the game's story.

I think this restriction also only lasts for a year -- once a year has passed from the Nintendo 64 version's release, the game can be freely ported to any platform.

(AFAIK, I don't think Nintendo has any special rules governing the Game Boy Color.)

</karmawhoring>

Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[ratsdliw]

Here are the spec from Microsoft X-Box Site

600 MHz x86 compatible CPU Custom 3-D NVIDIA graphics processor
64 MB of RAM (unified memory architecture)
Custom 3-D audio processor
8GB hard drive
4X DVD drive with movie playback
Four game controller ports
Expansion port
Proprietary A/V connector
100 MBps Ethernet


All this for $299 USD
I think the coolest thing that the X-Box has going for it is the badass 3D support (Comeon NVDA is pretty damn cool) and the 100 MBps Ethernet.
It looks like this puppy is going to be broadband ready with this fast network port.
If the price is cheap enough these thing could make decent Linux web servers or firewalls.
I'm sure M$ would love that. :) (I'm sure the would need some more ram tho)

There is also a mpg demo of the 3D capabilities of the x-box. It's a demo of mech. You can grab it here for MPEG and here for QT4

Re:Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[Gary C King]

If those are indeed the 3D capabilities of the XBox (and typically Tech demos do push a console to graphical levels not regularly reached by games), then the XBox is crap, and their 300 million polygon/second number is a fairy tale.

To truly impress, they should have included any of the following features in the tech demo:

Real-time bezier surfacing
real-time reflection/refraction
properly weighted clothes
properly weighted hair
extremely detailed 3D scene
dynamic lighting
inverse kinematics
dynamic soft-body animation
hypertextures
amazingly detailed characters (e.g. this)
3D morphing
Behavior synthesis
Depth of field/motion blur/heat warping

As it stands, they merely showed off a nice version of the Unreal Tournament engine. 8 shadow-mapped lights (and the shadow map was pre-computed!), 2 motion-captured (and Shen Mue resolution, at that) characters, environmentally bump-mapped clothes, a texture mapped arena, and minimal facial animation. Every one of Sony's demos were far more impressive.

Re:Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[spagthorpe]

What I want to know, is how much work is required to maintain the thing. Anyone running a W95,W98 or W2K box knows you can't just use it from day to day. You have to go through and delete crap that applications leave behind, defrag the hard drive, back up your registry, etc... What do you do on this thing when the system ends up corrupted from some insane number of DirectX upgrades, and you need to start fresh? Does it come with a full copy of W2K? If not, where do you get it when the system dies? How long is it going to take to boot?

I just can't see this being any more than a hacked version of Windows, with enough kludgy hacks on it to make it a game machine. I can't see it ever replacing the simplicity of just being able to put in a game, turn it on, play, turn it off (even in the middle of a game). I don't want a computer for a game console - I want an appliance.

Re:Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[Thomas Charron]

The primary advantage of what they are looking to do is that nearly all of the limitations in most situations in the PC world in *DOING* all of this is the bandwidth from the different processors and coprocessors. Creating a custom local bus to blast data between processors at, lets say 500 Meg p/Sec would allow this type of performance, where the current PC is limited to 4x AGP at like what, 2 Meg/Sec?

A 600 Mhz machine with a dedicated BUS for pure graphics could accomplish all of your requirments..

Re:Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[Thomas Charron]

But think of what was out nearly 2 years ago now.. I could build the same machine now for that price using technologies from 2 years ago..

Hrm, perhaps that's worded wrong. Basically, that looks impressive now, but will it in 2 years?

Re:Full X-Box Specs and Movies.

[Thomas Charron]

Boy, was I way off. I knew 4x brought it to 1.something, and big mouth me went ahead and blew it by a power of 1024.. ;-P

On a side note, this is a *great* post, and should be moderated up.

Um... CLUE: It runs *WINDOWS*

[torpor]

Thus, that 600mhz processor is a *REQUIREMENT* just to get the thing to boot fast enough...

;)

Re:Windows based

[Frac]

I personally don't want my game crashing in the middle of me playing. And as we all know that if it is going to be windows based OS, then it wll crash at the most random times.

I don't get it - I'm not a big fan of Microsoft crashes, but are there actually people that think Microsoft run timers in their OSes set to crash at random intervals?

Windows 9x crashes so much because there are so many legacy applications they have to support, and memory protection-wise they don't care that much. Windows 2000 already proves to be impressively stable for 35 million lines of code.

Since X-box will be running on a unified spec, it's very doubtful that it will crash that much, since they have a much much smaller set of hardware/software to test and make robust.

I personally don't understand where MS gets off thinking that they can just jump into the Console gaming market. And if they do pull it off it will just go to show how much weight they do pull with Mindshare of the average Joe

So in other words, they suck if they fail, and they suck if they succeed?

Question:

[Tarnar]

Will the X Box be another moving target?

Why do I ask? Simple. It has a hard drive. And supports high speed online connections. Does this mean that we'll see patches and software upgrades from MS? They live on these updates in the desktop world.. Releasing second rate products and promising fixes, leaving people begging for more. With a moving target, will we see DLL Hell?

A Static Target is a Good Thing on consoles. Early on in the consoles lifespan, people code on the API's. Then they start coding on the low-level. As they get better, programs get better. Just look at how far the PSX has been pushed with FF8 or Chrono Cross.

We'll wait and see I suppose. Incoherent post brought to you by lack of sleep and lots of Coke/Code.

Re:Question:

[gizzmo]

I'm not holding out much hope for patch-free gaming on X Box. I just watched a real video interview with Bill G. over at CNN, and he said several times in the interview that the primary reason for the internet connection aside from multiplayer and music downloads (mp3 capability? or maybe just windoze media?) was for "updates." I'm not sure if he means added content, like getting new cars for Need For Speed, or if he means patching games. Not that he'd admit to that if it was the case. That said, I can't believe the are putting this out without a modem. I just really don't see the bandiwdth available for widespread hish-speed net access with in the next 18 months. Not to mention my incredulity at the fact that they talk of a fall 2001 release. Hell, a lot can happen in that much time, I'd hate to be the guy laying out tens of millions of dollars on a program that far out, and with two more established competitors coming to market before or at the same time as my product. Just doesn't make any sense. I really hope it does work out for them, it would be nice to see PC-quality games move to the living room.

Re:Question:

[nosferatu-man]

But Linux isn't the comparison that the original poster made: the X Box isn't competing with Linux (or any other desktop system). It's intended to compete with the consoles, which operate in a fundamentally different manner.

And it's why the X Box is doomed to fail. Why should /anyone/ want to use SomeDesktopOS on a box that has to operate functionally identically as my N64 -- meaning, no patches, no upgrades, no no no nothing; just turn it on and play.

(jfb)

X-Box?

[locutus074]

X-Box? That sounds like copyright infringement of XWindows to me.

We ought to get RMS, the FSF, the EFF, and any other TLAs we can think of to get out there and sue his ass. :)

--

Re:Oh great....

[Drakino]

I honestly think the X-Box will be just as stable as any of the newer consoles. The main reason Windows 9x tends to die is a problem in the drivers or the kernel working with hardware. In a console, the OS has to work with 1 video card, 1 sound card, etc. It dosen't have to worry about different hardware being there. I have yet to see Wince crash, because it runs on a few different hardware configs, not thousands. The biggest problem it will have with lockups is the same the PSX2 is having now. Heat is a definite issue.

All I can hope for though is that the X-Box tries to be a console. The PSX2 is not on my immediate buy list. Why? Sony dosen't intend for it to be a console, they intend for it to be a centerpiece for the home entertainment center. So they do stupid things like having a DVD driver on memory cards. Next you start getting PCMCIA and USB drivers on those cards, and a bit of corruption from your favorite game brings the worst things from the PC to your gaming machine. When I want to play a game, I turn on my Destination monitor and Dreamcast, and play. No driver worries here. (Destination 27inch monitors are on sale from Gateway, and kick ass as a gaming monitor for both your PC and favorite VGA compatible console.)

Will it be obsolete in a year and a half?

[A nonymous Coward]

Even assuming Microsoft can make this self-imposed deadline any more than they made the 3-years-late NT5^H^H^HW2K deadline, won't it be seriously out of date? That's a year and a half -- a long long time in this industry. I wouldn't expect Sony or the others to stand still.

--

Where will Microsoft make money here?

[Thagg]

First, it's interesting that none of the pre-announcment announcements said anything about graphics -- which is what makes all the difference in a console. All the rumors have had it that nVidia was going to be making the chips.

But, my real question is, "Why make this box?" It appears that it will be a pretty damn standard Wintel box. It is hard to imagine that it wouldn't be trivial to port games back and forth between the console and the PC platform.

The problem with this, from the X-Box manufacturer's point of view, is that it destroys the typical game profit center -- that is, that all consoles are sold at breakeven at best; if not at a significant loss. The money is made back in licensing of the games. But the PC game platform has no licensing cost whatsoever!

So -- it will have to be something like this -- to get the 'Plays in X-Box' cutesy-poo logo on your game, you'll have to pay a royalty to MS -- and MS would require that even games that are for PCs would have to have the royalty paid (or not undersold, anyway) Otherwise, would people really pay the extra 10 bucks to get the game for their console that they could otherwise get for their PC?

Perhaps, you say, the X-Box will has some dramatically great API for games that is not available on Windows, and legally protected from reverse engineering somehow. Would Microsoft really do this, really cut off their nose to spite their face? Microsoft dumped a lot of money into something called 'Talisman' a few years back; it was meant to be a revolutionary game enabling technology. Basically, instead of rerendering 3D geometry every frame, it was rendered every 10th frame (say) and then the various elements were distorted into position in subsequent frames. Nothing has been heard of Talisman in a year or so, though; even though MS made a huge hoopla at Siggraph about it. Still, it was a stupid idea then, and even more stupid today.

I really don't see how they are going to get the licensing money that is critical to the game market.

The obvious answer, of course, is that they are not in it for the money, at least, not in it for the gaming money. They are in it to establish a beachhead in the living room; a box with a highspeed line connecting your eyeballs directly back to MS. The myriad ways of milking that connection for money are left to the reader's imagination.

thad

Re:Where will Microsoft make money here?

[Cy Burdock]

The simple answer is that they don't intend making any money on this. Not until Nintendo, Sega and
Sony are dead ducks. This is exactly the same strategy they used with Netscape. Kill the company
by using their monopoly (which has given them these vast resources) and then reap the benefits of
owning the market.

Hmm ... looks like adios to Nintendo,Sega and even, eventually, Sony. Shame if that did happen.

Re:Where will Microsoft make money here?

[Bad Mojo]

"Hmm ... looks like adios to Nintendo,Sega and even, eventually, Sony. Shame if that did happen."

Hahahaha! You're a very funny person. While Nintendo and Sega might have to fear a software company in the US, Sony probably doesn't. Sony has reached a plataeu even Microsoft has not yet in sheer size and market domination. Sony has even outdone IBM. Sony has redefined the unstopable, immovable, unchangeable blob of a corporation and I really don't see Microsoft releasing some puny market killer affecting Sony.

Now, if Microsoft bought the Pepsi chain and Disney, then I might start to worry. But who are they gonna get to drink Pepsi v5.3 Second Edition?


Bad Mojo

Re:Where will Microsoft make money here?

[Basje]

They won't be able. Sony still owns some of the patents on CD's. If microsoft goes too far, they can theoretically revoke ms' right to use CD-roms. Imagine that.

Microsoft knows that. So I don't think there's a strategy aimed at driving out their opponents. I think they will try expand the console market, with a box that has a bit more functionality than their competitors and predecessors. Eg, a console that primarily plays games, but which can also be used to access internet pages, or which can be used for video conferencing. I'm sure they can think up a lot of things.

My suspicion is that is alresy the case with the upcomming X box. I think the reason for waiting so long is that it has some functionality which requires a lot of bandwith, which they calculated to be available by fall 2001, or shortly thereafter.


----------------------------------------------

Re:600mhz of pure ego

[JimPooley]

One reason why people should care.
PC games.
Because this console uses a PC processor, and PC hardware, it's going to be pretty damned easy to port PC games to it.
Is Quake III on the PSX2? Unreal Tournament? (insert name of hot new PC game here)?
Porting games to this baby will be a doddle for any PC game manufacturer, and that's possibly the best thing going for it.
THIS is where the game developers will be...

Double standard.

[Matt2000]

I find it ridiculous the number of people on here that are simultaneously deriding this MS X-Box thing as a closed product, while pumping up sony and its playstation line.

Sony is the king of closed and proprietary standards (or at least non-standard) that it refuses to open, and refuses to let drop. Memory sticks, mini-discs and all manner of crazy ports for their machines.

I like Sony's products myself, but only because they allow fun games on their platforms and generally have a good design sense.

In some way a more moral company than Microsoft? Unlikely.


Hotnutz.com - Funny

Re:Double standard.

[palo0019]

I hate to stomp on the /. idealogy, but what the fuck is wrong with closed standards? Whats wrong with innovation? 'Open' isn't always the best. An open console platform would be disaterous. The market would be flooded by look-a-like hardware.

And btw, I own a Sharp MiniDisc player. :)

Who is MS Selling this To?

[skeller]

I don't get what market the X-Box is going for. Nintendo and Sega pretty much exist thanks to their in-house development teams, and Sony has done well because it has been able to court 3rd parties very effectively (particularly that little company called Squaresoft). It seems that the X-Box's primary games will be ports, either from other consoles or from a PC.

This raises the obvious question: who cares? I can buy an X-Box for about $300 in 2001. The PS2 will be cheaper than that in the U.S. by that point in time, the DreamCast already is and Nintendo is aiming for a low cost solution as well. The PS2 will have had more than a year's head start in terms of software and market penetration. Ditto for DC. Nintendo would seem to be more in direct competition, but Nintendo really has its own market built in (people buying it for things like Mario, Pokemon, etc).

Making matters worse for MS, crappy PC's are getting cheaper and cheaper, and so I don't see someone who wants a low cost PC spending the $300 on the X-Box. A hardcore gamer who wants to play PC games probably already owns a decent PC.

What MS needs are some exclusive titles. Having ports from everyone else is all well and good, but you can't sell a console on it. I don't think that they're going to get a lot of these (who the hell would want to develop something just for the X-Box when it's running off of generic PC hardware? You could port it to a "standard" PC with little problem, and dramatically increase your potential market). Without these, the X-Box will just be playing catch up to everything else. You can't sell a console with a pitch like "Hey, we've got all the PS2's games, only six months later!"

What strikes me as most odd is the fact that MS seems to be competing directly with Sony here. Both the PS2 and the X-Box are heavily integrated with online features, both have DVD-movie playback and both seem to be about the same price. That's suicide on Microsoft's part, because again they'll be launching too late to do this all that effectively (especially in Japan, where Sony rules even more). I see this thing going the way of the 3D0 and the CD-I.

Re:Who is MS Selling this To?

[Bob Ince]

I see this thing going the way of the 3D0 and the CD-I.

An interesting comparison. Both of these were, like the X-Box, reference designs, to be manufactured by OEMs, rather than single, managed hardware platforms.

Has this strategy ever worked for games consoles? ISTR the MSX was supposed to have been quite popular in Japan, or something, but I never met one in Europe myself...

--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.

Danger will Robinson Danger!!!

[Mr. Flibble]

My fear:

This gamebox becomes a sucess.

Now let me explain why.

There is no doubt that MS will push DirectX and all their other game API's on this system. I doubt that it will be designed to implictly support OpenGL. (But I bet it runs quake anyhow...)

The danger that this poses is the integration of the PC into a gaming machine. Now don't get me wrong, I play plenty of games on this machine. The danger comes in the form of more games for a single platform -Windows-. Will the games for the MS box run on a Mac or a Linux box? No. (Maybe under VMWare.) If MS corners this market then they have a great opportunity to control the game market. If they do this the odds of people choosing an alternate OS (Linux, Beos, BSD et al.) is slim.

If all the good games, or just a majority of them are run under Windows (as they are now) or on this box MS has a very good leverage point over the desktop market again. Think about this: Some parent buying a home computer. The child says "don't get the one with Linux on it! It can't run Bozo Spacewars XXVII!!" Now, Linux could dual boot as we know, but its the percetion or as they like to say "mindshare" that is important here.

Microsoft is trying to kill two birds with one stone here. They are trying to generate a viable gaming market for their OS/Firmware, and they are trying to mantain/expand their monopoly grip on software.

If this becomes a success I can only see games that are developed across multiple platforms to decrease.

No sir. I don't like it.

FUD for Developers..

[eshefer]

The reason MS is "announcing" a product that is MORE then a year into the future, using Nvidia Chips that are'nt in production, yet, is to get developer support. now.

But more importantly to get developers NOT to develop for compeating systems NOW.

It's classic MS tactic: announce something that is far into the future so people will believe that MS will be dominant in that market, just to scare of developers from spending resources and developing for alternate platforms.

The alternative platform being PS2, dolfine, and in the PC space Linux and mac.

It's not going to work. It's too little, too late.
--------------------------------

Re:FUD for Developers..

[eshefer]

It's almost two years into the future.

IF THEY ACTUALLY HIT THE DEADLINE...

It was announced in a huge PR event.
--------------------------------

Funny...

[Black Parrot]

Last week it was a 1.5GHz machine. Now it's down to 600MHz.

Best you grabbed one now; they may be down to 12KHz next week.

--

Re:What's a Trimuverant

[Mike Schiraldi]

Hee hee. Reminds me of this.

They paid someone to design that?

[Detritus]

Sony, Sega and Nintendo are designing race cars. Microsoft is designing a mini-van with chrome hubcaps. Yuk.

A Wintel box carries so much legacy junk with it that it can never be a fast, efficient game machine. Not to mention that the quality of most PC games is terrible by game console standards. Consumers want an appliance that works, not a PC.

600 MHz at Christmas 2001

[]ix[]

Ok so it wills till run at tv resolutions but at
christmas 2001 I will have that kind of power on my linux-pda.

christmas 2001 is about 18 months from now so I guess AMD will be unveiling their >2GHz-line if Moores law still aplies, the X-box with a 600 MHz cpu will be a tad on the weak side.

I also wonder if they will stick with Nvidia as their sole supplier of graphics hardware, who knows if they are the best supplier in 18 months.

/das Ix

I'm lazy

[JamesKPolk]

I don't want to have to put the game CD in the drive, when I want to play.

Now, id Software wants to make things difficult for me, but most games haven't given me trouble.

Hard disk space is cheap, compared to the inconvenience, again and again, when it comes to swapping CDs.

Oh, yes.. and some people like to play audio CDs in the computer drive, while playing games. I've done that on occasion, even...

umm...

[nomadic]

Anyone else worried about what this might really mean? I mean, it's not really a console, it's just a PC. Does this mean MS is moving into the hardware arena (beyond their peripherals)? I think that's a lot more significant than just some new game console...I hope they put the same quality engineering into it as they do into their software (maybe they should paint the blue death screen on the monitor and save on the electricity); at least they won't be able to make the same old "it's the hardware's fault, not Windows'" excuse. Is that coherent? I can't tell anymore, I've been up for too long.

Don't I have one of these already?

[CapnGib]

I already have a PC that runs windows and plays windows games. Why the hell would I want another one that hooks up to the TV? At least on my windows box I can write my thesis, download porn , burn some cd's and even boot to linux.

I don't see why developers woule like the idea of porting windows games to a PC-ish, windows-ish console. Just release the friggin windows games! For all the crap linux people talk about windows, it sure has a hell of alot of decent games. (Counter-strike beta 6 comes out today)

I also own a PSX (can't play gran turismo 2 on a windows machine.) I will likely buy a PSX2 (gran turismo 2000 or somwthing like that should be out.) I will likely buy the next latest-and-greatest video card for my windows machine. I'm pretty sure I will NOT buy an X-Box.

Re:Windows based

[Noke]

After reading all his other posts under this article, yes.

I only have one question....

[Darth Yoshi]

I only have one question, who is going to make the x-box? Seriously.

Follow me on this. Traditionally, console companies have made little or no money (or even lost money) selling the system itself, but they make up for that in licensing fees and game sales.

As I understand it, Microsoft doesn't want to make the system because; a) they're a software company, and b) there's no money in it. They just want to produce a specification and license it to third-party manufacturers. So, I'm guessing here, Microsoft figures they'll make money licensing the spec and/or selling the OS for it and/or maybe selling some games for it.

So Microsoft is cool with this, and game manufacturers are cool with it, but what kind of company is going to manufacture and sell the console itself at a competitive price (i.e., little or no profit) against Sega, Sony, and Nintendo? The spec's I've seen for x-box aren't that much better than Playstation 2 or the mythical Nintendo Dolphin.

So seriously, who's going to make the system?

Disclaimer, I'm just a humble engineer, not an MBA or anything.

Re:I only have one question....

[CaseyB]

As I understand it, Microsoft doesn't want to make the system because; a) they're a software company, and b) there's no money in it. They just want to produce a specification and license it to third-party manufacturers.

Where did you hear this?

The economics of game consoles are pretty well understood now. You have to build the box yourself and sell it at a significant loss, and make up the difference selling licenses and producing 1st party games. You can't attempt to even break even on the box, or it'll be way too expensive.

The only company I can recall that's tried a different model is 3DO, and all the companies involved in that (I think Panasonic was the only company to make a box. Creative made a PC card version) got burned pretty badly.

Why MS are making the X-Box

[Ralph Bearpark]

I guess MS have to make the X-Box so that people stop playing games on their PCs. Only then can MS can safely drop the MS-DOS compatibility from Windows ME (Millenium Edition).

Meanwhile, this is another odd name choice for MS - the MS X-box - shortened to MSX - reminds me that failed MS-Japanese home-computer initiative of 10 or so years ago.

Still not as painful as WINCE tho. For a marketing firm they make some pretty strange name choices sometimes, don't they?

Regards, Ralph.

They could replace Sega...

[belgin]

I know, I know. Most folks don't have any faith in MS's ability to develop much of anything of quality. Their move is likely, however to be in some way opportunism.

The Dreamcast was Sega's official last console system. They are changing to a software company.

Microsoft might have known this, because they were working with Sega to allow CE to run on the Dreamcast.

MS wanted into the market, and they know an opening is coming up soon. Whether they have anything good or not, there is room in the console market for three major players. Sony won't squash them, because they aren't worth it. Nintendo won't kill them, because they are much more worried about Sony and have lost most of their ability to do so. Sega is quitting the game anyway.

The end result is that MS has a WIDE opening. If they can get in and establish a beachhead in the console market, they aren't too worried about losing money right off the bat. The simple trick for them is to become good enough with their first console to stay in the running. Once they are a respected (?) name in console gaming, they can continue from there, because they are going to do their damnedest to make sure that anyone with an X-Box is hooked in some way and has to stay linked to them.

I am curious to see how they actually do it. Some of us may find the results are good enough to overcome our collective loathing of MS. Just because they usually make medocre products, doesn't mean they always do.

B. Elgin

Re:They could replace Sega...

[belgin]

This rumor was started with a quote taken out of context from a Sega executive. It's not true (Sega has said so themselves).

I have to ask was this the first rebuttal, or was there a second?

There was a misquoted article that indicated Sega was dropping out of the console race. This created a furor, until someone pointed out that this was a misquotation and everybody relaxed about a week later. Then a couple of days after that Sega figured out what had happened on the media front and released a statement that, yes indeed, they are planning to drop out. They explained that they had decided to leave the hardware market and focus instead on an internet based software strategy of some sort. I don't recall all of the details, but it created a second furor on the gaming sites.

My question to you: I know about the first time this was refuted. Was there a second time? Just because I didn't hear of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

B. Elgin

Expect buyouts

[acb]

I don't get what market the X-Box is going for. Nintendo and Sega pretty much exist thanks to their in-house development teams, and Sony has done well because it has been able to court 3rd parties very effectively (particularly that little company called Squaresoft). It seems that the X-Box's primary games will be ports, either from other consoles or from a PC.

Sony also owns Psygnosis (formerly an Amiga game developer). Psygnosis have been instrumental in making the PSX into a viable platform, by providing a steady flow of games early on and not supporting rivals.

If MS go through with this, expect them to buy out some game developers to support it; perhaps Electronic Arts or Infogrames or GT Interactive will fall to MS and cease supporting non-MS platforms.

Re:Expect buyouts

[powerlord]

Cool... as a former Amiga owner (till I accidentally fried my A1000 motherboard) I always wondered what happened to Psygnosis.

On to the topic though... don't forget that Microsoft already had a Game Developer in its pocket... itself. They've been producing games for close to three years now (everything from Age of Empires to Hellstorm to Mechwarrior III). Looking at their track record they seem to be developing titles that will apeal to the Console gamer, so I have a feeling they were planning on this for a while. If the console supports the DirectX API (no reason not to) then you could very well see them putting out their own games "Only available on MSX" ... and maybe the PC.

*IF* this is a good idea, then...

[Sloppy]

...It can be trivially one-upped. Haven't there been some cheap PeeCees that come preloaded with BeOS or Linux, in the $200-$300 range? Mainly intended for 'Net surfing, I think. Why not put a decent chipset in them and then use them for games?

The point is that anything they can do in hardware, someone else can do too. And anything they can do in software, anyone else can do a lot better. The only way Microsoft can prevent it is to make exclusive deals with all the 3D graphics chip makers to agree not to sell their chips to anyone else. Now, I wouldn't put that kind of move above Microsoft, but I don't think they can pull it off, these days. If someone like VA Linux decides that they like the idea of the X-Box, then Microsoft's X-Box is toast.

---

Re:There are reasons to boycot MS products ...

[ronfar]

Ok, well first of all you won't get any arguement from me about Micros~1.

However, my opinion of Sony is that they are not consumer friendly. I think they'd be just as anti-competitive if they could, and they are a prime mover behind the current deCSS battle. Oh, I shouldn't forget their lawsuits against Bleem! and Virtual Gamestation as well as their tough, anti-import stance on games and systems.

Hmm, sounds like the console to get therefore is Dreamcast or Dolphin... certainly nothing with X anywhere in the name. (PSX2, X-Box)

I like Lotus products, well Wordpro anyway. I bought Wordpro '96 and haven't needed an upgrade since.

Why would anyone use commodity parts?

[P_Simm]

The reason this hasn't been done before is probably because it ISN'T the best price/performance ratio, and still isn't. The x86 architecture is still around for persistant legacy purposes, not because it's efficient.

Microsoft is making a console out of x86 parts solely because that's the market they want to see expand into the console world - because that's the market they have an OS stranglehold on.

Don't kid yourself into thinking this XBox is actually up to the price/performance standards that the PSX2 is going to give you for a console machine.

I doubt it.

[Lysander Luddite]

"The danger comes in the form of more games for a single platform -Windows-. Will the games for the MS box run on a Mac or a Linux box? No."

This is already the case now. You can't play Sega or Sony games on PCs or Macs without an emulator. Its rare a PC game is ported to Mac adn when it is it usually makes a mockery of Mac UI standards.

What I think is more likely to happen is the PC game market will fragment.

Think about it. The PC game market suffers from continual hardware/software updates and the resulting conflicts. PC game developers continually push the envelope on the latest hardware and software. X-Box comes in and eliminates this problem (possibly!) because it is a consistent hardware and software setup.

Game developers can either continue to push the envelope like they do now on PCs or publish to X-Box. Likely they'd develop a base setup to run on X-Box and add enhancements for the current (at the time) PC hardware. But if its too much work developers have to make a decision as to which to support. And the answer will be based on the market.

The real danger to other computer platforms is MS's pushing of ActiveX and abandonment of OpenGL. If X-Box does not support OpenGl and if it becomes a hit, then we're less likely to see ports of PC games to Mac and Linux.

But remember, in video games exclusive licensing and properties are the main draw. You won't see Crash Bandicoot on X-Box nor will you see Mario. MS's challenge in this regard is to get developers and licenses unique to their platform. If X-Box is compatible with PCs this will be even harder to do.

Re:Anyone remember the Console Crash of '84??

[Junks Jerzey]

The crash of 1984 wasn't just a console crash. It brought down home computers with it and just about killed the coin-op market. The only home computer to really survive was the C64, and it was pretty wobbly for a while, but managed to come into its own a few years later.

X Box, best thing since sliced bread

[Kagato]

The X Box is the best thing to come out of M$ since the California MSN rebate money. Why you ask?

Well, game consoles are sold at a loss. Sega, Sony, Nintendo, it's at cost, or below cost. Maybe* when you start pumping 15 Million units a year do you start seeing money from console sales. It's all in the games. Getting a chunk of the game sales makes up for the loss of the console.

Okay, so MS will lose money if people don't buy the games...what does that get us? Well, let's look at eh X-Box. It's all standard PC stuff. Probally Micro ATX form factor. In fact it's probally the same system that ASUS sells to various US phone companies for their set top boxes.

So what does that get you? Add Linux, Mozilla, X Window. You're got a nice set top box that will run all the fun software from Loki, and has a good (non-MS) web browser to boot. Best of all MS took a bath on this because you're never going to buy a X-Box game.

Re:X-Box? no joke

[coyote-san]

It sounds like a joke, but it's not. I had assumed that the "X" in "X-box" was a mere placeholder. If it is the actual product name, there will be a *lot* of confusion between X Windows and "games" programming in 2002.

Microsoft has already preempted the term "Windows." Even in technical circles, refering to "MS Windows" elicits strange looks as most of the people wonder what other type of "windows" exist. Now they're trying to equate "X" with games programming - something you would never want associated with your mission critical backbone.

The simple fact is that "Windows" is a generic term which the X Consortium didn't challenge at the time -- but which Microsoft has been ruthless in defending as its own since then. Now Microsoft is trying to "embrace and extend" "X" with its own meaning. Given its history, I have no doubt they will vigorously prosecute anyone who tries to introduce "new" display software which includes the letter "X" but doesn't relate to their gaming software.

So What the Fsck are we supposed to call our display manager? In 2003, are we supposed to tell people that we run "SYSTEM", since Microsoft will sue into nonexistence anyone who uses the words "X" or "Windows"?! Or do we just go with "Version 11"?!

It sounds like a joke, but given Microsoft's legal history we can't laugh until after MS announces a different name for the product, its display system, etc. Because of history, neither the X Consortium or our community can easily dismiss the continued use of "X" as a mere coincidence. The legal trademark holder *must* ask Microsoft to find a different name since the proposed name is likely to cause massive confusion among the public and (non-Unix-centric) technical communities.

Possible Linux gaming box?

[RayChuang]

Folks,

I think EVERYBODY is missing the point here about XBox.

Given that XBox is more or less a variant of a standard x86-compatible desktop PC, there's one thing the hardware could become: a flat-out superb Linux gaming box.

It appears that an XBox machine could in theory run a slight-modified variant of most commercial Linux distributions as easily as the modified Windows Microsoft plans for this machine. So, instead of running DirectX, we'll use OpenGL to access the registers on the new nVidia chipset.

I have this sneaky feeling that as part of the settlement deal on the US v. Microsoft case, Microsoft will provide the specifications necessary to run gaming applications written completely in Linux on XBox.

BTW, for those who still think x86 PC's can't compete with console machines in terms of graphics quality for games, has anyone bothered to see Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress, Flight Simulator 2000, and others at 1600x1200 32-bit color using a graphics card that has the nVidia GeForce 256 chip? It is just flat-out STUNNING to look at, especially on a 19" or larger monitor.

Re:Possible Linux gaming box?

[kcarnold]

> I have this sneaky feeling that as part of the settlement deal on the US v. Microsoft case, Microsoft will provide the specifications necessary to run gaming applications written completely in Linux on XBox.

Like we (?) need specs... How different can it be from a standard (whatever that means) x86 machine? Windows, especially Win98 (which IMHO is what the "modified" Windows will be based on), depends on all sorts of subtleties about the x86 platform -- PnP, for example (I know that isn't the best example, but I'm not a architecture lawyer). The only thing that I could possibly imagine being different is the BIOS. (Which one are they going to use anyway?) In that case, modify LILO as necessary, possibly modify isapnp to handle different defaults, and recompile kernel. The only possible problem might be getting it to boot the kernel to start with... but then there's always LOADLIN (they will keep MS-DOS in Windows-XBox). Tada, awesome Linux box. If it wasn't Microsoft, I would actually consider buying one.

If you think that I am wrong, I probably am. Okay, Kenneth, stop being so modest...

Kenneth

Re:Possible Linux gaming box?

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Like we (?) need specs... How different can it be from a standard (whatever that means) x86 machine?...The only thing that I could possibly imagine being different is the BIOS.

Erm...you're forgetting the negligible component called the graphics chip. Yes, it will be *based* on a then-current NVidia card, but it certainly be substantially different enough to require entirely different drivers. (Yes, all of NVidia's current drivers work across their entire line of chips, but that's just because they've specifically been designed to.) Furthermore, assuming this machine is DirectX only, they might tweak their chip quite a bit to run DirectX better. And I would certainly bet that, as part of their contract with NVidia, MS has insisted that this chip be a) incompatible with other NVidia drivers, and b) closed-spec. (The idea that MS couldn't do this because of the antitrust trial is clearly ridiculous, so I won't bother addressing that.)

So now we're stuck reverse-engineering OpenGL drivers for a chip with over 15 million transistors that may have been designed not to run OpenGL very well anyways. Good luck folks.

Course, they got BSD running on a Dreamcast, so what do I know?

But will it run Microsoft Office?

[Animats]

From the specs, it looks like a good desktop machine for low-level office workers. It's more than enough for the people who need only Word and a browser. It comes with a good LAN connection. It's cheap. And it will be easier to administer than a PC, since it has a fixed configuration. A lot of those boxes will end up in offices.

WinCE: What's the point?

[Cid Highwind]

Forgive me for asking a question that's probably obvious to everyone else, but why does a game console need an OS at all?

All the OS does for a game is provide a uniform interface to non-uniform hardware, like DirectX does. All the rest of an OS's functions, scheduling, resource managment, etc are irrelevant when only one process (the game) is running. Also, a console is uniform! One X-box will have the same sound and video hardware as another, why bother abstracting the hardware? All it can possible do is add more complexity and slow down the game. In this case it would seem to me that one library could provide the same functionality as an entire OS, with a fraction of the system overhead.

Re:WinCE: What's the point?

[Graymalkin]

Separating the kernel and apps makes the system more stable, a fault in the game code won't necassarily bring down the whole system if the processes are separate. Every try to write a raw program that ran on some embedded system with no kernel or anything? Your program is responsible for EVERYTHING which increases it's complexity and hence makes it more prone to error. You would also have the problem os one software company doesn't write decent system operation code and the whole thing slows down.

Re:X-Box? no joke

[coyote-san]

X is a *lot* more than a "graphical shell." Consider the fact that essentially all graphical display on Linux (and Unix and *BSD) systems use X. Alternatives exist (SVGA, GGI), but few applications use them.

Anyway, under trademark law the real issue is if the names will cause any reasonable person to be confused. Nobody will confuse United Airlines and United Van Lines, but "X programming" suddenly means both X Windows programming and X-Box programming. Microsoft will undoubtably avoid it, but people writing code for the X-Box will naturally refer to it as "X Windows" programming, since it's Windows programming for the X-Box platform.

This isn't an abstract worry - one of my professional hats is X/Motif programming and I know that a lot of technical recruiters already confuse "X Windows" and "[MS] Windows." This new platform will only make it worse.

All of this ignores the fact that the law doesn't make the fine distinctions you assume. To the lawyers, computers are computers are computers, so (IIRC) it's infringement to have similar names on both hardward and software. I believe that Chris Carter could even make a valid claim that "X-Box, the entertainment device" conflicts with "X-Files, the entertainment programming" because of the likely confusion if/when approached another vendor for an X-Files game.

What's wrong with lookalike hardware?

[Ami Ganguli]

I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with lookalike hardware? The PC industry is full of lookalike hardware and it's been a huge success. The competition has been great.

The problem with closed systems is that vendors will rely on their monopolies to guarantee them a market instead of providing the best possible product. Clearly the monopoly is in the best interest of the company that holds it (ie. Sony) but everybody else loses: the consumer, game manufacturers, and other console manufacturers.

Of course, as long as there are several strong players in the market (ie. Nintendo, Sega) Sony's monopoly is limited to Playstations, not game consoles in general. It's still bad, but not nearly as big a problem as Microsoft which has a lock on the desktop market as a whole.

Re:What's wrong with lookalike hardware?

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with lookalike hardware? The PC industry is full of lookalike hardware and it's been a huge success.

Not in terms of games it's not. A PC that can run games that look as good and run as fast as, say, a $200 Dreamcast probably costs about $1000. A PC that runs games as reliably, and with as little aggravation and technical knowledge required as any console in history does not exist.

Yes, a huge part of the reason for this is that PC's are multipurpose, and have the overhead of a real OS, and all of that. But another large part of it is that it's damn hard to program for "lookalike" hardware--because in reality, to the programmer it doesn't look all that much alike. When a game programmer has to support every machine from a P2 200 with some crappy old integrated ATI 3d chip, up to the latest machines of today, and even try to anticipate the capabilities of machines that won't be out for another few months, well, that lowers his ability to take each machine to its full potential. For one thing, he has to program in variable levels of graphic detail, instead of designing a game to look best in one particular resolution/level of graphic detail. (And if you don't think that's a problem, just witness the number of *web pages* out there with notices like "this page looks best in 800 x 600 32-bit color".) For another, he has to deal with all number of different video cards, each of which supports the three major 3D API's--OpenGL, D3D, and Glide--to varying degrees and in varying qualities, or not at all. Not to mention the fact that every video card will have an installed base of probably at least 10 major different driver versions, (each of which supports those API's to differing levels of quality), with new drivers coming out every couple weeks or so.

And it's not just graphics. Take sound--many gamers have 3D positional sound cards, but if you want to make a game that requires a player to use sound cues to tell just where their opponent is then you've just made it a lot less fun for all the people who don't have 3D positional sound. So instead, most new games have 3D sound as an option, but don't take advantage of it to the degree that it really starts to affect gameplay.

Finally, lookalike hardware makes it so a game developer these days absolutely cannot program at any level lower than the API's, because there's just too much hardware to support. That's why a Dreamcast, with its much less powerful hardware, can compete with a decent PC in graphics performance, and why as programmers get more and more comfortable programming to the metal, it, like all consoles, will see graphics quality improve over the life of the console.

Now, this last point might not count in the case of the X-box which, while it will have one ironclad hardware spec, is designed to leverage its compatability with Windows API's. It's interesting to note that almost none of the Dreamcast games have made use of its much-balleyhooed ability to use WinCE and DirectX for sorta quasi Windows compatability--because the overhead involved removes the programmers ability to get more out of the hardware than he could on a PC.

Clearly the monopoly is in the best interest of the company that holds it (ie. Sony) but everybody else loses: the consumer, game manufacturers, and other console manufacturers.

Um...if the consumer loses, can you point me to a PC that offers anywhere near the game experience/price ratio of, say, a $200 Dreamcast and a few $40 games (take Crazi Taxi and Soul Calibur for starters)??? Or anywhere near a $100 Playstation??? In six months, do you think there'll be a PC for $300 that can compete with a PS2 (much less one for $2000)?? Now, of course, if you already have a PC lying around for other stuff, then sure, you can get a similar game experience--I happen to enjoy PC-style games better than console games. But if you have to choose between one or the other just on the basis of its value as a game machine, there is absolutely nowhere close to a comparison.

Furthermore, it ain't so bad for game manufacturers either. A million-selling game for the Playstation isn't such a rare thing--after all, less than 1.5% of the 70 million Playstation owners worldwide have to buy your game. Games that sell 10 million copies are not unheard of, and 5-million sellers are quite common.

In the PC gaming industry, on the other hand, selling 1 million copies is a pretty impressive achievement, and the vast majority of games don't make it. Games that sell 10 million copies are called Myst. Guess that's why nearly every major PC developer is moving resources over to PS2 development. (Sierra has announced that they will devote 60% of their resources to console development; Epic is hyping their PS2 port of the Unreal engine like mad, as is Monolith with their Lithtech 2.0 engine. Even id is porting the Q3 engine, and strongly exploring developing for PS2 themselves.)

As for your contention that the console monopoly is bad for other console manufactureres...well, you got one thing right.

General info/karma whoring

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Some more corrections/thoughts that seem to have gotten missed in this discussion so far:

1) It's not necessarily an AMD chip

Many of you seem to be under the impression that the X-Box will be using an Athlon variant (presumably a Spitfire), but the name of the CPU vendor was conspiciously left out of today's announcement. Indeed, according to this article at C|Net, MS has decided to go with Intel for the CPU instead of AMD as earlier rumored.

If I had to guess, I'd say this means a 600 MHz Coppermine modified to support Willamette's new SSE2 instructions, which look quite impressive. (Although the most impressive things I've read about them (see this article at Ace's) are in regards to their double-precision SIMD performance, and IIRC games almost always use single-precision floats.)

This makes sense because two of Willamette's other signature features--a 20-stage deep pipeline and a double-pumped ALU--don't make sense here; games don't need much in the way of integer performance, and the deep pipeline is only good for increasing clock speed (indeed, clockspeed being equal, it slows things down)--and is definitely not necessary to reach 600 MHz.

On the other hand, Willamette's "400 MHz" (really quad-pumped 100 MHz) bus might not be such a bad idea for a next-gen console. Indeed, it might be just the thing to keep the NV15 based graphics chip full of data. The problem, of course, is cost, cost, cost. Which leads me to my next point:

2) 600MHz isn't such a bad decision

Yeah, I know that by the time this thing comes out, new PC's will be sporting 2 GHz Willamettes and 1.8 GHz Athlons. However, there's one problem with all y'all going around saying that that means that the X-Box should have a much faster chip too; those 2 GHz chips are going to be selling for something like $800-$1000 a piece.

And then there's the problem of how chips are normally clocked versus how they need to be clocked for a fixed-spec market like a console. You see, when Intel (or AMD, or whoever) makes a chip, they don't stick a clock multiplier on it until it's done. They make the chip, then test it to see how fast it can reliably run (this depends on lots of factors, among them the quality of the particular piece of silicon; there's no way to definitively know this number without actually testing it), and then stick on a multiplier such that it runs at that speed (actually a speed bin or two lower, just to be safe). This means that some (very very very small) percentage of P3's ends up being smacked with a 10x multiplier and being sold as a 1GHz chip; some get an 8x multiplier and are sold at 800MHz; and some--but just a few--can't manage to run reliably at even 600 MHz (or whatever the lowest speed P3's are sold at these days is), and are tossed in the trash).

Now the thing is, all of this probability stuff is built into the price. You see, it costs Intel exactly the same--around $70, IIRC--to make that one chip that ends up being branded at 1 GHz as it does to make the one that gets sold at 600 MHz. The difference is, it takes a whole lot of chips before they make one that's good enough to run at 1 Ghz. And a bunch of them are lost to the trash bin along the way. That's why they charge different amounts for the faster chip--to make up for the fact that they're harder (but *not* more expensive) to make. And that's (partially) why even the cheapest P3's still cost about $200--far more than the cost to fab each particular one.

In the console market, though, that little trick just doesn't work. When you're fabbing CPU's for the X-Box, either it runs at 600MHz, or you throw it away. Furthermore, since the entire thing is only going to cost $300, the CPU better not cost more than, say, $35 or $40; after all, that $300 has to include 64 MB of (possibly Rambus??) RAM, the graphics chip you're buying from NVidia, which itself will have probably 32 MB and possible 64 MB of RAM (possibly DDR RAM); an 8 GB hard drive, a DVD drive, a motherboard, a stylish case, a controller, possibly a keyboard, probably pretty impressive sound support, and I'm sure a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting. Point being, you want to make sure you can make these chips run at 600 MHz with *very high yields* in comparison to the yields that Intel and AMD normally achieve.

Furthermore, with a kickass graphics chip (and especially one that has hardware T&L like the GeForce does and the NV15 will) the speed of the CPU is much less important. Indeed, as Kyle over at HardOCP showed (check here and here), with today's fastest chips, in real-world conditions it is sometimes faster to run with a GeForce's Hardware T&L turned *off* (i.e. so the CPU calculates T&L) than with it on! On the other hand, that same GeForce, when paired with a mediocre CPU, speeds things up tremendously. Of course, the T&L in the NV15 will be considerably improved, such that it will no doubt be a great help when paired with that 600 MHz chip. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's a waste when paired with those 2 GHz Willamettes everyone wants in the X-Box instead.

3) The X-Box will perform identically to a 600 MHz / 64 MB RAM PC of today--i.e. worse than a PS2

Absolutely definitely maybe not.

First the absolutely not: the real guts of the X-Box is not its 600 MHz CPU, but rather its NVidia based graphics chip. Even today, a pretty slow Celeron with a kickass graphics card--i.e. a DDR GeForce--will be pretty competitive with the latest Ghz P3 with a very respectible graphics card, say a Matrox G400, when it comes to running games. Indeed, in many situations (i.e. at high resolutions), it will run just as fast as that Ghz P3 with the same kickass GeForce--and much faster than the P3 with the Matrox--because at high resolutions (i.e. 1280 and 1600), the limiting factor is always the fill-rate of the video card. Course, this doesn't help if you're running at TV resolution, but you get my point: for games, the video card is *more* important than the CPU--and the GPU in the X-Box will be much better than any graphics card on the market today.

Next, the definitely: the X-Box, like all consoles, will only come in one spec. That means game developers can program their games knowing exactly what they'll be running on--and taking full advantage of that as much as possible. This means, amongst other things, that they won't have to design their games to look adequate across a wide range of resolutions and graphical detail levels, but can instead concentrate on making it look good and run fast at the one graphical level it will be run on. Secondly, this means that, like on any other console, developers will be able to dip below the API level and reap the speed benefits that come from being able to program a much lower levels, including hand-tuning important graphical code at the register-level in the GPU. This can only be done when you know that the specs of the machines that will run your game are all identical.

Now for the maybe: one of the major "points" of the X-Box is that it will be nearly compatible with normal PCs, which of course come in all shapes and flavors. The difficulty here is that, in order to maintain this compatibility, developers would need to stay at the API level, and would need to design their games from a hardware-agnostic point of view, which would remove most of the benefits of uniformity I just mentioned. However, I'd guess that what will most likely happen is that developers will keep most of their code at the D3D level, but still optimize the most important routines for the X-Box's GPU. The end result will be that X-Box games *will not* run on PC's (although PC games might run on X-Box??), but that it will still be considerably easier to port PC games to X-Box than to any other console. On the other hand, it's reportedly very easy to port PC games to the PS2, so maybe this advantage isn't as great as MS banked on. In any case, it's important to note that it's this same loss of the benefits of uniformity which has lead to almost no Dreamcast games making use of the Dreamcast's ability to run WinCE and hence pseudo-D3D. Indeed, I believe that MS has officially withdrawn their WinCE support of Dreamcast due to a complete and total lack of interest from Dreamcast developers.

4) It's Windows, and it's a PC, so it will be confusing, take forever to boot, and crash like crazy

This is almost certainly wrong. For one thing, the X-Box will be running a version of what up to now has been called Embedded NT--which should be extremely stipped down and quite reliable, as well as offering very short boot times. (Reportedly the PS2's boot time is quite long for a console--on the order of 5 seconds or so.) Furthermore, probably most Windows crashes come as a result of either bad drivers--which should never happen on a standardized machine like the X-Box--or as a result of problems with memory management of legacy code--again, no problem since there will be none--or with multitasking apps not behaving themselves--which won't be a problem since the X-Box will only run one thing at a time. Furthermore, 64 MB of RAM should be more than adequate, considering the lack of multitasking and the fact that the OS will be much much leaner than normal Windows or NT.

On the other hand, I have to say that the prospect of an 8-gig hard drive scares me a bit, if nothing else than because it offers the possibility of quite a lot more complexity and variations in end-users' actual setups. I doubt MS will allow anything like DLL hell to manifest itself, though; I'm sure the X-Box OS will keep every program's DLLs seperate and well managed, especially since this is a (more like the) feature of MS's upcoming-and-stupidly-named Windows ME.

Phew. So--do I think the X-Box will be phenomenally successful? No, not really, I don't. While I do believe that it will be more powerful that the PS2 on a theoretical level, I don't know if the difference will shine through in the games. Basically, there are two possibilities: most X-Box developers will try to keep their games as trivial ports from their PC counterparts, in which case they won't be able to take advantage of the uniformity of having a single machine to develop for, and thus the PS2 will be more impressive, or X-Box developers will try to "program to the metal", in which case they will be a year behind on the learning curve of low level programming, and thus their games will probably never decisively beat what's coming out for PS2 at the same time.

On the other hand, I think that it just might be successful (depends on if the PS2 actually conquers the world beforehand, as many predict), and I'd give it about equal odds to succeed as, say, Nintendo's Dolphin.

More info

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Ugh, I know it's awful style to reply to my own comment (almost as bad as posting such a long-ass comment in the first place), but I found some mighty interesting X-Box info in this item at firingsquad.

First off, the 64 MB of RAM is shared between the GPU and the motherboard--less than ideal, but it certainly makes sense from cost considerations. Second, the GPU will be running at 300 MHz, which pretty much kicks ass (current GeForces generally run about 150 in their default configs).

Finally, the CPU, while based on the P3 (read, probably no SSE2), *will* have the quad-pumped "400 MHz" bus off the Willamette, as they have its memory bandwidth listed as 6.4 GB/sec. That strongly hints at the inclusion of RDRAM, as it's the only stuff that can really take advantage of that kind of bandwidth.

The have its performance specs listed at 300 million particles/sec, 150 million transformed & lighted polys/sec (no effects). Not bad at all.