Slashdot Mirror
The X-Box: An Emulator's Dream Platform?
Fros1y asks: "Okay, it seems like Microsoft may well make a big splash in the console market when they unroll the X-Box. With all the emulators out there, why wouldn't Microsoft expand their box's ability? If they took the new Playstation emulator and ported it for the system, they could tap a large market right off the bat. Roll in some cute NES and SNES emulators and they'd have an interesting system. Being Microsoft and all, they might even want to reverse engineer or license N64 and PSX systems. I guess there might be problems with ROM loading and such, but I'd bet that Microsoft could use their clout to license older games and put them onto a network pay system. Why wouldn't Microsoft want to pursue this kind of market strategy? Or have they already and I'm just out of the loop?" A nice thought, but Microsoft would have to play extremely nice with a lot of people to pull this one off. Thoughts?
Given the availability of tools for the DC out there, and the fact that bleemcast is almost ready to roll, what's to stop anyone developing mamecast or similar for that box? If not mamecast, the next version of the sega browser will supposedly have java support built in to it, and that would be able to run this version of Pacman. I wouldn't think that XBox will be very open to develop for, but the DC might be.
If Microsoft was going into the video game emulation business, wouldn't they have already done it for Windows?
How easy is it going to be for somebody familiar with Windows to reverse-engineer an X-Box (presumably there's very little non-standard about the hardware) and write an emulator to run on another MS platform? You'll sure-as-hell not going to need to emulate the processor, for one. I can imagine that should someone do an emulator, their desktop dominance might become a big stumbling block for them: I mean, how do you sell an X-Box to people who've bought a PC who know they can play the X-Box games just as easily...?
Or are MS going to take the chance and sell an X-Box emulator to keep people with Windows? Hmm, quite a few possibilities / conspiracy theories there.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
a) a high margin on the blades which they achieve through developers licensing model at minimal risk (they get a slice no matter what games are produced)
b) blades wear out and thus require replacement. Now the trick with this is to periodically make the razor slightly incompatible enough that people are motivated to buy the new version. A more sophisticated form is make the product so compelling (a la Gilette) that the competition is basically sidelined by the hype
c) you retain control over the distribution/branding of the razor/blades. If people forgot, Sony has recently purchased a bank. Given their technical wizardry and ability to interface every consumer electronics gadget known to man-kind into their system (not to mention owning significant audio/video/digital content) then you can probably guess their strategy.
The problem with games is that the significant up-front costs of development is so high that you really want a block-buster (a la movie studios) to recoup additional money through merchandising (can we say Laura Croft?). Microsoft certainly has the cash-cow, but do they have the creative smarts to become a content powerhouse like Sony? While putting out emulators may be a short-term win, what they really want is control of your cable and entryway into your house (he who has the beachhead, controls the shores). Whichever group gets a 50% market share can then have more leeway in dictating access rights and conditions of entry (e.g. insistence of "inspection" of code against "viruses"). It doesn't have to be anal-retentive to be classified as anti-competitive (and risk bringing more anti-trust lawsuits), just onerous enough that they can delay and browbeat content producers into submission (think musicians but on larger scale). The problem is not so much *development*, but *distribution*. Control, control, control ... of the key nexuses and technologies is enough.
However, the fatal assumption is that the blades (software) can wear out fast enough to gain significant revenue flow. Emulators have a purpose, they preserve the value of any large-scale software collection against hardware obsolescence (deliberate or otherwise). One can see the case in Inform, the Infocode compiler for interactive text adventures from Infocom which a certain group wishes to preserve for their own enjoyment. It was not intended for wholescale piracy of existing works but to maintain portability of the software across multiple platforms and across a longer time scale than the fortunes of any single company.
<rant mode=on>
***** PROSUMER PROTEST *****
I reject the presumption of media companies that digital media (especially games) are a disposable item. When I acquire an item to add to my not-inconsiderable collection, I expect the value (include resale) of that collection to be retained over time. While OSs are clearly a service industry (their job is to maintain system stability and interoperability), the computing games industry business is entertainment and I expect to recreate the pleasureable experience from fragging (in the nicest possible digital way) my younger brother for many years to come in the future.
Altering the system from a durable item (console + disk + game) to a mere temporary license to use for a limited period due to the "oh, so sorry, parts for your failed console are unavailable" is a subtle form of *BAIT and SWITCH* IMHO. Hardware is failable, but software can always be recreated/emulated. Why won't companies like MS or Sony play fair? Think about it. If there was a *CREDIBLE* (ie FUD-proof) software competitor to their hardware, guess how they would retain long-term control over developers who can bypass them and go straight to the software emulator? From the point of view of a prosumer (ie take the con- out of consumer), I would prefer a long-term competitive landscape so that prices reflect reality and also give incentives for the smaller niche players (e.g. MUD) to develop really innovative games (plus as a matter of principle, I like supporting the underdogs).
If people are serious about preserving the long-term value of any games they may buy, I would strongly urge you to support the WulfStation project on SourceForge. It is in *your* long-term interests to keep any PSX2 games you buy when they roll around with the PSX3 in 5-6 years time. The X-Box may or may not be worthwhile emulation platform but that's irrelevant if the goal is to preserve your priviledges as a collector. Ditto for any X-box/Dreamcast/Amiga/Sega games in that any good ones should be preserved for prosperity if possible.
</rant>
LL
If you don't care about Microsoft, don't talk about them at all. You think this is the only place on the Internet to go whine about them? Please. And so you say, "Well we can't ignore them. They're an unfortunate reality in the business world, and so to ignore them would be unrealistic." Yeah, almost as unrealistic as discussing the "possibility" (snicker) of GNU/Linux taking the desktop from Windows?
This site was better when no one was under the illusion that it's either a political force or a real news outlet.
Slashdot openly proclaims its hostility with that [mildly amusung, I'll admit] Borg icon. And all pro-Microsoft posters are flamed into oblivion. I see more anti-MS FUD in one day here than I've ever seen anti-Linux FUD in Redmond. And yet we still have those that would say, "It's news for nerds, not just news for Linux users." And then we see stories about the X-box and Windows-only games.
The FUD is going to be this movement's downfall. There's enough wrong with Microsoft; who needs to make stuff up? But every day I see more and more of this childish anti-"Windoze" attitude. When did it become so trendy to constantly talk about how much Microsoft sucks? When you installed your l337 Red Hat 6.2 distro? And why do I know that 99% of those poseurs could't even begin to discuss the technical merits of UNIX and NT kernels? But I digress. The childish attitude prompts people to say things like, "Oh, well I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly [do something on a computer] because I use Linux . <snobbish, elitist sneer>" Is that kind of attitude going to help us? No. The average luser sees that and thinks, "This guy uses some crazy, fringe OS. Apparently this OS can't do anything Windows can. And its users are mean and talk down to people." The fact that Malda, who usually rises above that crap, did this exact same thing in a story post a few days ago seems to be an omen. (Come on, Rob, you're as elite as it gets. You don't need do act that way. You should be encouraging the same mature activism that you applaud Maddog for, instead of perpetuating the snobbish-yet-amazingly-ignorant-5cr1p7-k1dd13 act. If you're willing to waste hours playing games on that Windows box, you should be willing to turn it on to see a video clip for a story post. For the amount of cash you get to run this site, you'd better be fucking willing to.)
In today's world, each and every Linux user on this site is a spokesman for our cause. Maturity and a realistic attitude, combined with a real knowledge of what makes Linux the best choice in some situations, is the only hope we have to take any real market share away from the "dreaded" Microsoft.
LOL, this is what happens when you start a rant at four in the morning. G'night.
---------///----------
--
I like to watch.
Emulating is a nice gimmick, but nothing more. MS needs to market their x-box as on par with the current generation of game consoles. Being compatible with a few obsolete platforms is not very relevant for them.
In addition they need to market their own platform, so they'll focus on marketing directX games. Unlike other game console platforms they will have a huge amount of existing directX games when this thing is launched (assuming it is relatively easy to port them). So the need to include support for obsolete platforms is not very high.
And finally, emulators could be ported to other game consoles as well. There is not much stopping Sony from porting mame to their platform, yet they are not doing it. The reason is simple, you don't buy a playstation 2 to play old nintendo games.
Jilles
MS has produced one of the most popular game emulators out there. They spent a considerable amount of time and effort to emulate a deck of cards using the advanced innovative technology of Windows, but right now their emulator is only limited to one game, solitaire. They are planning to rectify this by adding support for Poker and Blackjack in a service pack that is slated for release by Fall 2014.
I am a full-time "professional" videogame developer in the process of building my first software studio. I have worked on projects from Corporate Flagship Title all the way down to shareware puzzle game, but almost always on PC (the occasional Mac title being the exception) I have been watching the console market for quite a while, looking for my chance to jump in, and I must say this is an extremely interesting point.
Most of the posts so far have been concerned with either Playstation emulation or older cart game emulation like mame. I have a much different take on the situation, namely that the Dreamcast is the most obvious target for emulation on the X-Box, as it is WinCE/COM based code already. Right? Not only that, but with the hardware being sold as a loss leader for software recouping, and Sega's position as an underdog in the market, this would be a dream come true for Sega. Not to mention [Sega's] recent and heartening madcap maneuvering with ideas like free Dreamcasts with Internet service, broadband support, etc. I think they would embrace this wholeheartedly. It even makes me think there is room for a Sega buyout by Microsoft. Not totally out of the question, if you ask me.
This makes a huge impact on my strategizing, as I have been deliberating with my partners about whether to pursue psx2, psx1, Dreamcast or PC. We aren't even thinking about Dolphin or N64 for what are to me obvious reasons. We have been leaning in the direction of a PC title, because of the promise of quick porting to the X-Box. Also, we don't necessarily want to spend the $250,000 to $1,000,000 that the console mfctrs. are asking for development rights. X-Box doesn't look to be heading in this direction, which is the surest sign that it will succeed (If I am wrong here, I would love to know, I have been looking for any hints as to what licensing model is actually being planned). Another point in favor of X-box development (for developers) is that MS probably won't be nearly as anal as Sony approving a game. Sony (and to a much worse extent, Nintendo) is notorious for their strong-arming over final approval.
Now, with the notion of easy console-to-console emulation being planned/thrown about, it makes the Dreamcast extremely appealing, because we could finish two or three titles before the X-Box hits the shelves. We could possibly have our first title ported by that time, but with emulation as a built in feature, we wouldn't even need to worry about it. X-box market share could be viewed as a subset of Dreamcast market share for as long as the first year X-box is out! This would definately make courting investors much much easier.
:)Fudboy
:)Fudboy
I guess I'm only a Fudboy, looking for that real Transmeta
Scene: Microsoft and Sony Suits, in a plush but generic corporate boardroom, commence negotiation.
MS: We are very interested in running Sony Playstation titles on our new X-Box.
Sony: We are not interested in licensing our technology to you for that purpose.
MS: We hear that you are also losing interest in licensing our Windows technology.
Sony: Ah, well, when I said that we weren't interested in licensing our Playstation technology to you, what I really meant was that we are interested. Yes. Definitely very interested.
MS: Good! Now to details...
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
The X Box does not yet exist.
___