Slashdot Mirror
TuxBox: Rising from Indrema's ashes
NoSony writes: "Kind of funny that LinuxToday gets a lot of the best NewsForge stories before Slashdot, considering I thought you guys had the same owners, but you ought to check out this one about TuxBox, which is a new project trying to do what Indrema failed to do - make a true open source console gaming system. I sure hope they succeed." Well, good luck.
The funny part is - that if MS was choosing AMD as it's processor for the XBox - then Intel would have been developed a game console with Linux! Ask Intel employees who where envolved with this and they'll tell you about it.
Now, regarding this console thing - it might be succseed - if they can find a partner who will create the motherboard, chipsets, and all the stuff that it's needed. Of course - any manufacturer will tell you that they will manufacture it for you - by the thousands - only if you put some cold hard cash money up-front.
And I'm not mentioning stuff like DVD playing which will need special license to fully playback DVD's with all the navigational stuff (IFO parsing etc..), writing special drivers for the various joysticks which aren't supported yet (force feedback stuff, etc), and convincing some commercial companies to write games for it...
But if they'll pull this off - I'll be another person to buy it.
Hetz (Heunique)
I can supply an example, as well. Here's the deal- a lot of the skills needed are specialised. Computer geeks don't necessarily know squat about how to (for instance) make sound that is really, seriously impressive. But _other_ types of geeks, like sound engineering geeks *bows* do have that technology and the knowledge base to know what to do. And you'll find that some of them (like me) resonate with the computer geek Free Software GNU-oriented approach.
My 'Mastering Tools' software is Free- it's GPLed. It's not C- in fact it only understands a certain type of AIFF file because I'm not programmer enough (yet) to really have the file handling routines down, seeing as I'm making sense out of the very expandable AIFF format byte-by-byte, and trying to do everything with just two file streams and no buffers.
But although it's weak from a programming standpoint, it's got two serious dither algorithms and various sonic enhancers and all of it could be put together to make a sort of SDK for a Free game console- and since this is my scene, I am certain that it could kick the butt of X-Box or whatever else is coming out there. Sure, it's only audio, but it's _there_ to be used- but you've gotta be open source to use it. And I've done enough work with digital mastering, and have enough contacts with pro mastering engineers, to inspire and produce a sound infrastructure that would _really_ kick, hurt, stomp and maim generic sound routines such as we're likely to see in X-Box et al, or even PS2 etc.
The trick is to do all the sound mixing on a high resolution mix buss like 32-bit floating point- and then reduce it to 16 bit to feed to affordable DACs using professional techniques, not the lame truncation or TPDF dither that the commercial consoles are likely to use (if that- I would not be at all surprised to learn they did everything on a 16 bit buss). This is so totally do-able, and I'd be delighted to work with anyone who's doing Free software and wishes to do things like this. It's about knowing what to do, who to ask. For instance, who here has ever heard of sidechain compression (the _audio_ compression)? Turns out that's not only an old mastering engineer trick to add lushness and detail, but it is also very easily doable realtime with just a few extra variables. I've got a 'primitive root residue' dither that sounds very deep and more importantly is fast as hell to compute- not that this matters so terribly much with today's processors! Picture something like Quake 3's sounds, only instead of being roughly mixed by a tinny 3D sound card, you'd have them coming through four channels of high-end surround sound with subtle compression and loads of soundstage depth from even non-optimal speakers- fully immersive sound _textures_ that really brought you into the game. A lot of that could be done just through proper design of the system audio busses... and the code's GPL and ready to be taken and adapted...
Mind you- this work is still going to be done whether Linux game people pick up on it or not. It's not being done _for_ 'TuxBox'. It's being done for pro quality digital mastering. But the Linux movement has started to affect people outside the arena of just raw coding- I'm not sure anyone on Slashdot would know this, but mastering engineers _and_ radio station technical people are being boxed into a corner by corporate brainlessness, overcompression and an industry-driven, listener-hostile 'arms race' of CD and radio loudness. There's a huge amount of dissatisfaction with this- and understandably, some people (like me, obviously) react to this dissatisfation by rebelling, doing stuff that makes no concessions to corporate fashion, and sacrificing mass media access- and the GNU camp just sits there, looking appealing, saying 'You can put your stuff out and share with people who will share with you, and bring whatever you have to offer to the table- do it the best you can and see where it takes you!'
I have to wonder what people are out there working in visual imaging, AI, 3D API writing, game concepts etc. who are also being frustrated and turning to the principles of Free software. I see things like this from time to time, and then I ignore them, because that's not my field. I'm the one who's doing Free work in high end digital audio. They probably have no idea who I am, either.
But add enough of these non-communicating, marginalized people together, and you'll really have something. Aren't there people working on Free _hardware_? That blows my mind. But I suppose it would blow theirs if they knew they could spec out a severely competitive audio subsystem for cheap using regular 16-bit DACs just by knowing what parts had to be overbuilt (coupling caps, DAC or DAC buffer power supply caps), and applying software to 'master' the output busses of the system.
I agree with jfunk- "For just about anything creative, you'll find people not only willing, but enthusiastic.". But do you know how far it extends? Neither do I, because I'm not competent to spot which 3D coders or board designers are really hot. I just know that there's some overlap between the Free stuff _I_ do, and the Free game console being talked about. And I'm not going to chase it, I've got a _lot_ else to do- but I write GPLed code for a reason, and will do absolutely everything I can to help anyone who _wants_ help that I can provide. We all benefit by cooperation. That's too easily forgotten.
Chris Johnson
Mind you, if nothing ever comes together, I'll keep doing that work: I do it for my studio and digital mastering needs. It just _happens_ to be totally applicable to a Free console. Maybe not everyone feels you need to have the equivalent of 24-bit audio and professional mastering-quality onboard dynamics processing on a game console- but seriously, why not?
Aim for the stars, indeed.
Yeah, whenever someone fails at something, we should just give up on that thing forever. People don't seem to understand this.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
True. But all the GPL'd game code in the world isn't going to mean squat to your graphics and music anyway. Quake1 is GPL but their graphics and music aren't. Doom is freeeware, but their graphics and music are still copyrighted.
Open Source doesn't mean no one gets paid.
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
I can't believe that you of all people would fall for this argument (or that you'd use Microsoft's Moronic HTML, but that's another matter :-).
Sure, I believe the TuxBox will fail, for most of
the same reasons that Indrema did, but quality
control won't come into it. Official submission
may increase the quality of the end product,
but if it does so, it's not by much. Does the
vast quantities of useless apps currently
available for Windows (or for that matter,
Linux)
make the quality apps any worse? No? So why
do you think it would do the same for TuxBox?
Yes, the gaming market is very competetive, and
obsoletes products and technology even quicker
than the mainstream software market, so there is
a certain amount to pressure to release before
the product is fully ready, but I doubt that'll
be sufficient to cause a significant drop in quality.
The key to the long term success of any platform
is an unrestricted third party development market.
Sadly, it's just not economically feasible to do
this in the console market now, so we're stuck
with the current situation. Even MS backed away
from their initial stance of not requiring
approval for Xbox games.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Because there are plenty of cool games for it.
Of course, for there to be plenty of cool games for it, you'll need lots of mainstream developers excited about the system and wanting to develop for it.
What would excite a developer? How about little to no licensing fees? Right now, developing a console title means you give big bucks to console manufacter for the initial development kit and licensing rights for every copy you produce. You're kissing a healthy chunk of potential profit goodbye. In fact, if your game only does modestly well, the console manufacterer can get rich off of your licensing fees while you make nothing.
How about never waiting for the console manufacturer to help you. Development teams often beat their heads against bugs black box libraries from the console manufacturer. Open source means you have freedom to solve your own problems.
Will this work? I have no idea. But I think it's possible.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Indrema is the Amiga of the 21st century!
This thing will never die!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The advantage a console has over a PC is that it is a fixed platform. A Dreamcast (200Mhz CPU, 16Mb RAM, 8Mb VRAM, & graphics card roughly equivalent to a TNT...) will have games that look pretty much as good as a much more powerful PC (Let's say... 500Mhz, 64Mb Ram + TNT 2 Ultra...), . It is easier to optimise a game if you know exactly what hardware it will run on.
...learn from others mistakes?
;)) that although people see other people fail over and over again, they still seem to think that they are going to get it right.
No, actually they don't. Or rather; many people don't learn from others mistakes. It seems to me (through empirical data, i.e. experience
This is very strange, but it probably has something to do with peoples strong faith in themselves and their abilities.
Do they learn when they eventually fail, you may ask? Well, some people do, and become smarter. Others don't, continue to use the same methods as they've always used, and continue to fail.
People are strange.
Because it's what *I* want. Fair enough? If not, then look at it this way. If we're talking about an open spec box, so that you can make your PC "TuxBox compliant," which are you going to pick?
Granted, I was off on the main chip. The math still states that this machine is going to break $300, not accounting for OEM discounts, since I'm not an OEM.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
Consoles are always loss leaders, and this can't be an exception if they still plan on using an Nvidia chip. That alone will cost $300 and up for a GeForce 2 class video card.
If they're going to open it up, they might as well go for completely off the shelf parts, and tell gamers to build it for themselves.
How? Pick a motherboard, a specific network card, hard disk, video card, sound card, etc. What you end up with is a PC, yes, but it's a PC with very specific expected design considerations.
What they also get from this is a new standard for PC games to develop for. Since each game would have to have its own boot code, you suddenly get a game that will play on most PCs out there as well, depending on the specs you pick. Most sound cards are the same. Pick the right network card (or don't, and just rely on module loading for that), and only target Nvidia cards, are how much are you really losing in terms of a market?
I wouldn't expect it to be immensely profitable, but you'd gain *some* users from this without having to sell a console at all.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
They claim that they can put together a console for $350.
They'd better not be planning to do it with PC parts. Heck, even console makers that can use custom chips and boards to minimize parts count end up selling the hardware below cost.
How do the TuxBox people intend to build their console for the price they claim?
(I can think of a couple of approaches, but they involve using sub-optimal hardware or else having a large amount of development and fab funding.)
The problem here is that the TuxBox isn't going to be locked-down. From the TuxBox FAQ page:
In other words, it looks like this is just going to be a small form-factor PC that connects to your TV, with none of a console's traditional benefits (uniform architecture across *all* units).
You've apparently been out of the console scene for way too long. The point of a console is that you can write games specific to the hardware in the box, because
Oddly enough, these TuxBox guys don't seem to "get it", either, since their FAQ page explicitly says that anybody can change out the hardware of the console. Console developers develop for consoles because they like having a stable hardware platform. No console developer worth anything will target a "console" that has the same compatibility issues as a PC.
I'm sure there's enough of us geeks willing to support it.
Consoles live and die by third-party support (or lack thereof). Just ask Atari, Sega and 3DO.
"come off crisp and play up to the cynic
clean and schooled right down to the minute"
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
If TuxBox doesn't plan lots of in-house game development, where do they think the profits will come from? They can't license third-party developers, because an open-sourced development platform will be wide open to any developers.
I'm sure they're looking at RedHat and licking their chops. RedHat doesn't necessarily make the apps - they just put a little dev time into the platform itself and package it. However, RedHat had the edge in that their boxed product had next to zero cost! You can't say that about a game console, costs are huge.
What's your damage, Heather?
A soccer mom would look at the box and go, hey I can get this one with 30 games or an Xbox or PS2 with maybe 1 if your lucky
Oh, yeah, right, soccer moms make video game purchases based on cost. They pay no attention to their screaming kids that demand Brand X because it's so heavily marketed on TV. Riiiight. If that was the case, we'd be seeing huge sales numbers on Atari 2600's that go for $25 on Ebay with tons of games, and the Sony Playstation never would have sold a single copy. All school kids would be wearing generic clothes from Wal-Mart and cheap shoes from Payless.
Don't kid yourself, this is a very brand-conscious market. Advertising makes a world of difference in consoles. That's precisely why MS is boosting the hype now, long before their console will even see the light of day.
What's your damage, Heather?
Slightly bad move, what they should do is make cheap games say uner $10.00 US. Lets face it the thought of free my sound inspiring, but it won't you you far, however it will make you broke really fast. Create a pay pal account and have users of their games give what they can under $10.00 (US)
Reread their site - they're not planning on doing game development, so the revenue stream wouldn't actually help them. Your business model would require game developers to charge $10, something more akin to shareware. While id Games may have started that way, I don't think it's a model that most of us aspire to. I can make more money at my day job.
why not approach some of the game developers with an idea of porting all games to their box, and a small price
That was the tack Sega took: the Dreamcast was based on CE, so it was actually really easy to port Windows DirectX games over. That project was a beautiful failure, but a failure nonetheless.
Think about it Zelda X on this machine would rock, and everyone would enjoy it
And it wouldn't rock on the Xbox or PS2 or Nintendo cube? This box is going to cost $350, so why would I invest in it over a platform that has tons of games?
What's your damage, Heather?
Linux games pretty well lack the development effort thrown into Windows games, and my (lame) business sense tells me that it's because there just aren't enough Linux boxes out there.
Now, bear with me here, but wouldn't the same logic hold through if a Linux console ever made it to the shelves? The game support would be close to nonexistent, compared with even the few games available for PS2 at its release. Nobody would buy it, and nobody would develop for it because of the missing audience.
Sega, a company with a lot more than a foothold in the console business, is smart enough to get out before Microsoft and Nintendo both jump back in with full force. Sega had huge resources (well, not compared to Microsoft, but certainly compared to any open source console project) and couldn't make it work. Any new open source console could only dream (no pun intended) of the market penetration that Dreamcast got, but it still wasn't enough to ensure success. Why would it work for someone else without funding?
What am I missing here? Why would anyone think yet another console would succeed? Even worse, why do we get excited at the thought of it?
Pretend for just a minute that Sega was going to open-source the Dreamcast platform tomorrow. Would you start working on developing games for it? Are you more qualified than the leading developers? Do you think you could save it? Do you think anyone could? Then why start a whole new project from scratch without funding?
What's your damage, Heather?
I've seen this before.
l
A project fails and someone with absolutely no clue jumps to capture the publicity of the project.
but Riley and Isley pledge to provide daily updates to TuxBox project members. The project also has regular IRC channel [irc.openprojects.net #tuxboxproject] where developers discuss their issues.
They are expecting volunteers on the net to magically build a console for them because they maintain a news page and IRC channel. It's not gonna happen. Consoles take a lot of $$$ to finish and manufacture, not just skills. I worked with Sony to help create the PlayStation 2 and I can say with 100% confidence that such a product could never have been created without a serious budget, even if you delude yourself into believing you are
saving development time by using the Linux kernel. There is a reason Indrema failed and it's all about money.
Open consoles sound great, but really they suck. The cost of consoles is subsidized by the profits of a software titles. If the console is open then:
a) there is no money recouped from software, and thus the hardware will be much more expensive.
b) More expensive hardware means less sales of hardware - which means no one will want to sink development money into making new games for this thing. A port of a top ten game cost on the order of $300k-$1m to do. There aren't going to be enough units out there to make that money back.
c) There will be no quality control, 99% of the games for this thing will be crap. Who wants to pay $600 to play crap when they can get a DreamCast/PS2 for half that with good games? A big job of Sony/Nintendo, etc is do quality control on titles (though developers hate it, its good for consumers).
d) Marketing budgets? If your hardware is not subsidized, then you have to mark your price up further to cover marketing budgets. This further gets into the problem of lower hardware sales leading to fewer software titles etc.
No, I don't believe the pair listed in the news article have any intention of getting out a product - merely trying to grab attention. They don't appear to have any experience in this industry, programming or business-wise. A true sign of someone who couldn't finish this project is someone who starts IRC channels.
I think these people have read one to many stories about how Linux was created by "a lose band of volunteers" There is no parallel between how Linux was created and how a game console is created. The "kernel" is one of the least important parts of a console.
From the Indrema mailing list:
> From: Owen Swerkstrom
> It will
> > be a miracle for Microsoft to get their Xbox out
> by fall, let alone a
> group
> > of open-source idealists (indremists?) to somehow
> build up and
> mass-produce a
> > console from scratch.
http://idn.indrema.com/www-discuss/msg03398.htm
I think that hits the nail on the head.
-- Virtual Windows Project
Both the Indrema and the X-Box are nothing but PCs stuck in funky boxes. Therefore you aren't going to get any extra performance or added features that aren't already available in a standard PC. Whoever makes them is also going to be forced to sell them below cost just to get people to buy them. There are some people who will spend four or five hundred dollars on a gaming console, but they are not the average gamer. The average gamer might spend a couple hundred dollars on a common console and as much as three hundred for a hot off the press, state of the art, kick ass, newfangled console. Of course a PC in a pretty box with a TV hookup is none of these things. Selling the console below cost means that you'll be forced to make up your profits by charging more for the games themselves. This works for Sony and Nintendo, where the company directly or indirectly controls what titles are available and gets a cut of the profits from any title sold. It won't work for a company that is encouraging others to create the games independently.
A Linux platform for gaming already exists, its called a standard PC with a supported 3d accelerator. I'm using one right now as I write this.
The best thing these guys could do is work to make better tools for creating games under Linux. If they're hot-shot game programmers maybe they should be contributing to a game engine like CrystalSpace. Maybe they should be working to expand the range of 3d accelerators that Linux supports. There are all sorts of effective and useful things they could be doing. Trying to create a Linux based X-Box isn't one of them. Don't be fooled into thinking that the X-Box is a great idea just because Microsoft is the one doing it. Remember Microsoft Bob? I think that the X-Box is going to be a flop in the short run. Whether it is a success in the long run I can't say, but I doubt it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hmmm, tell that to all of the artists who worked on the GIMP. What about all those guys that do backgrounds, rendered images, videos, and Flash animations for the sheer joy of it?
Actually, replace "artist" with "developer" in your post, then look at Freshmeat and Sourceforge.
As for musicians, look at MP3.com and all of those MOD musicians in the days of yore.
For just about anything creative, you'll find people not only willing, but enthusiastic.
kill two birds with one stone?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
All the GPL'd game code in the world isn't going to mean squat if you can't get artists and musicians. If AAA-game quality people can be convinced that working without payment is a Good Thing, then right on. Personally, I don't see it happening. I can imagine the conversation now.
Wannabe Game Developer: So you see, you should spend months creating content for my l33t game. It'll have lens flares and stuff.
Artist: Okay, lets talk rates.
Wannabe Game Developer: Oh, it's open source. You don't get paid, but people can take your art and use it in their games. Cool, eh?
Artist: Riiight...
If TuxBox doesn't plan lots of in-house game development, where do they think the profits will come from? They can't license third-party developers, because an open-sourced development platform will be wide open to any developers.
-- Support Ometz le-Serev.
...learn from others mistakes?
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
"This computer is TUXBOX Level 1 compatible" If you see a sticker like that, you know that any TUXBOX Level 1 game will just run on that computer.
Here is a possible spec for TUXBOX:
128 MB of RAM or more
CPU chip of 600 MHz or over
Sound Blaster Live (any version: Value, Platinum, whatever)
any video card from a (very short) TUXBOX-compatible list
CD-ROM drive or DVD drive
Then a TUXBOX CD will load a Linux kernel, X, and anything else needed for the game. Then it will run the game. So, you can boot from the game, or boot from a generic TUXBOX boot floppy, and just play.
They should then make a TUXBOX CD disk that has about 30 games. This disk would boot to a loader that lets you choose which game. You should be able to play multiple games without rebooting. Any save game info can be saved on a floppy disk.
And, if you are already running Linux, you know you can just pop in any TUXBOX CD and play, without having to reboot.
If this were to happen, lots of small computer shops would burn TUXBOX CDs and give them away with the computers they sell. The computers would not even need to have Linux installed.
If the TUXBOX spec got some momentum going, they would have a small but nice revenue stream certifying computers as TUXBOX compatible. At that point, maybe someone would actually fund a company to make consoles.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
The important question is, how big do they expect this to be? If they're staffed on a volunteer basis, and make a profit on each box sale, then who cares how many they sell? Whether they make 5 or 5 billion, they'll still keep their heads above water.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Sure, Free linux games are fairly primitive right now, but the advantage of the GPL is that we never have to reinvent the wheel. Now that we have TuxRacer, anybody can go ahead and use the engine for a new racing game. If B&W gets open sourced, we'll have another great engine.
Okay, this is a long shot, but just because Free games haven't worked so far doesn't mean there couldn't be some potential advantages.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Probably not - the whole set of things needed to make this system run, and run by Fall (!) is probably an impossible task.
But... they have the potential to truly create something new and interesting - I thought the part about "He sees developing a freeware game for TuxBox as good resume fodder for those who want to work in the industry; developers will pay just a small certification fee as insurance that the games work properly with TuxBox." an interesting idea. I mean, how many wanna-be developers can get their hands on development kits for a Playstation 2, just to kick it around and see if they can get it to work? But if this Tux Box is truly open, anyone can tinker around and figure it out. It might - just might - lead to an interesting wave of independant console developers. Imagine having your cheap-ass game out for the Tux Box (you meaning your garage game making friends) that sells for around $10 - the "fame factor" alone might make it workwhile. And you wouldn't have the whole DirectX/weird graphic card drivers crap to worry about.
If nothing else, it could be an exercise in how Open Source development can actually make a better product, and I wish them the best. Heck, if it does everything they hope it will (without the MPAA and RIAA breathing down their necks...) I might even buy one.
Of course, I could be wrong.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
hey I can get this one with 30 games or an Xbox or PS2 with maybe 1 if your lucky or pay an extra $1000 for that many games. Such a system might not need as much marketing...
Then the soccer mom comes to her senses: "Thirty games, but none of them is Pokemon. My kids want Pokemon. They love the TV show (even though it doesn't follow the games at all) and the toys (which match the TV show rather than the games). Which system has Pokemon?" and eventually walks out with a Game Boy Advance and a GAMECUBE console. That's how Nintendo takes your POcKEt MONey.
Yes, I know they're not out yet, but GBA and GC will definitely beat (Tu)xBox to the shelf.
Will I retire or break 10K?
porting linux to the X-Box
Is not viable. The Xbox will have anti-piracy measures. Anti-piracy in the console sense means anti-third-party-software, with copyrighted boot loaders that must match a copy in ROM bit-for-bit or "no boot for you." Would-be Linux developers would need to buy expen$$$ive SDKs in order to develop for the beast. And the console model is incompatible with the GPL, as there is no way to load end-user-compiled software onto the machine.
Will I retire or break 10K?
or crack open a crate of grenades. There's more than one way to skin a cat (so to speak).
--
All right, in an attempt to not say what everyone else has been saying, here are my thoughts.
According to this page this box will have a 750 Mhz duron processor with 64 MB of RAM. I run a 700 Mhz duron with 196 MB of RAM, and they aren't very expensive. My motherboard (an Abit designed for overclocking, if I feel like it) was by far the most expensive component, but my processor was only $55. 64 MB of RAM is only $30. These are consumer prices, not mass wholesale prices. I'd imagine they could probably get a motherboard custom made for about $50-75 without any expansion slots in mass. Then of course they need their custom cases, which I have no idea how much they cost. Last but not least are the hard drive and video card, and dvd drive (I'm assuming networking and USB is built onto motherboard).
With that said, I think they could manage to mass produce these for the $350 sale price selling them at cost. However, there is no way they'll be done by fall. Pessimistic, yes, but it's already mid-April and they don't even have a prototype unit built, so the stages of development and testing cannot possibly be started.
Moving along, I think it's a wonderful project, and it could very likely be my first console I will buy since the original NES (yes, it was computer games after that for me). On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a sort of emulator that would be able to read TuxBox games and play them on my (almost exact TuxBox equivalent) PC. The only sticky point here is how dependent they get on a particular graphics chip, but if they're smart they'll go through the OS to access the video card and not put too many vendor-specific calls to it (so I can have an NVidia instead of an ATI chip, for instance).
Last, about making money, everyone has been saying how they can't make money with those prices and that target date. Here's the thing - it's a volunteer effort, with no apparent desire to make loads of money off of it (though it isn't exactly nonprofit). That means the only real overhead is the hardware and marketing, which apparently are being supported by the members of the TuxBox community, which is growing. This is the point where I see the TuxBox project failing, due to lack of funding, but we'll see.
If you like the concepts behind this project, I think we could all find a way to support it. Perhaps they should turn the project officially non-profit and set up a page for donations to buy prototype hardware and support marketing expense. Think, the first open-source and non-profit console ever created.
Oh, one more thing. I doubt a first-generation open-source device will reasonably compete with the major consoles. Microsoft has the XBox in development for a few years now, and they're having a hard time coming up with the release by fall, so you know it's a complicated and difficult project. PS 2 has the market with the PS 1, being solid fun platforms well supported by developers. Nintendo will probably release its GameCube early next year. I think it will take a second-generation device to truly have the polish that consoles need - stability, playability, and developer support.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
...would not be in the mass market.
Game consoles gain popularity and longevity from their excusive titles. The odds of a small (in comparison) company who's just entering the game market getting a exclusive licence to the next killer app, is slim to none.
But that's OK, because I see the real use of a console such as this as a platform for hobbiests and other bored programmers (heh) to write for and distribute. IMHO, it would basiclly become a cult thing (but hey, RPGs were at one time as well, and look where they are now) with a small but dedicated fan base. While this is not particularly good for the company (as they will probably just break even on hardware sales), it would still be nice to have. And I would buy one because of this.
But then again, it'll probably just go the way of the Indremia (or however you spell it).
--
--
#nohup cat
Why waste time and money on developing the hardware to become the next Amiga
Just ship a "TU" sticker and install linux on an XBox.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Then you start getting back to the "Dreamcast Ethernet" problem. As it was explained to me, only Dreamcast games that were explicitly written to use the ethernet card can support it. End-users are SOL if the game developer only included modem support. By keeping some parts of the OS away from each game, you can better support the hardware. That way, the machine itself can provide a simple "connect to ISP" command for the game to call and then it doesn't matter if you've got a modem, DSL, PPP-over-serial to another Linux box, or a set of tin cans. All the game needs to worry about is that a connection exists, that it has an approximate speed of (foo) bps, and (maybe) there'd be some proxy settings.
ad infinitum on /., the console business is based on the idea of losing money (or only breaking even) on the console
If emachines can sell a $399 computer - why cant TuxBox (or indrema) build a $299-$350 console? Consoles save a few bits, but require higher end pcs in other cases... it may be possible.
Im sure the 'sold at a loss' idea serves the console makers well when helping to convince people their "new consoles are the latest high-tech-turbo-extra-super-dooper gaming rig' possible - its so terrific; we sell it at a loss!" With the economies of scale, the specialized fabs and controlled/single-purpose manufacturing systems - why does the PS2 have to cost more than $299? I can understand when they are running them out at $129 (even then every box sold has less fixed costs...) but why isnt anyone willing to challenge this dogma?
Leaving at 5:30 in morning... wish me luck!
I hate to be negative, but I don't think we've seen a console system take off in this country without a ton of money behind it. What you have with TuxBox is a great console idea, but with little or no money behind it. Don't think that developers like EA don't look directly at the advertising revenue of a new console platform before deciding to develop for it. That's why you still hear so much more about Windows, Photoshop, and such. Free tools will get the small developers, but they can't afford to make Need For Speed, nor can they afford the cobranded primetime TV commercials that promote the box. The big development firms consider the tools the least expensive part... They may spend more on coffee and stocking the bathrooms than on development tools in one year.
The tuxbox team sez: "What do you mean "open source"?
The TuxBox, like many other open source projects, will be customizable. If you wanted to upgrade a certain piece of hardware, that would be possible on the Tuxbox.
Well, so much for the "sameness" of the TuxBox. This is the fundamental mistake they're making and this will drive TuxBox to failure.
TuxBox sounds dangerously close to XBox. Methinks these guys may be getting a call from Redmond soon.
You know, this wouldn't be so hard. Kernel, C and SDL libraries, a few binaries... You could probably squeeze enough Linux and drivers to support a nice 3D-enabled game into 20 megabytes or less on a game disc.
Not a bad idea.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
What could really help is if EVERY game came with its own custom tailored version of linux to work with the hardware. That way, there would be NO confusion of libraries or out of date software. Every game is its own OS.
As has been noted ad infinitum on /., the console business is based on the idea of losing money (or only breaking even) on the console to make money on the games (primarily through SDK's). Having a free SDK makes this difficult.
When the average gamer is shown the TuxBox, which in order to be competitive feature-wise with the Xbox, Cube, and PS2 will probably cost $300 plus, versus the $200 competition, he'll not be likely to buy a Tux Box.
About the only way that the TuxBox can survive is if a slew of good games are released for it that are significantly cheaper than their competition on other consoles. But commercial titles are unlikely to be significantly cheaper: the game makers will simply accept the higher margins. This could cause them to push the TuxBox version more, but that's anything but a given.
As to legions of developers around the world contributing free games for it, I say that the games are not likely to be competitive with their commercial brethren. With the possible exception of Tux Racer, there has not been a modern-style game released as free software. The reason is this: all you need are hackers to write a kernel, or a GUI, or even most apps. But games (especially modern ones) require the investment of artists (which are possible under free software), and legions of support people (motion-capture, sound effects, etc.) who aren't likely to get any benefit out of working on a free game unless they're paid (and they're not necessarily cheap).
Acutally, the developers didn't use the words "better gaming console," the writer of the story (that's me) did.
"Sigh... Going up against a heavy hitter such as Playstation is way far fetched. Even mentioning them when your first project wen to shit makes the whole project laughable. They need to focus on their own product, get it up and running. Talk is cheap."
Again, same issue. You're putting words in the developers' mouths. I used Playstation as an example of their big competition, they didn't actually mention Playstation.
Grant Gross, Washington reporter, IDG News Service
What they should do is approach some of the gaming companies for assistance on the project. One of the failures I saw on Indrema (why it lost funding or hopes of funding) fell into expecting some VC to back them, which we know from stats, won't happen for some time.
The company's founders should have approached a game developer with their idea along with the statistics (or expected analysis) of what they forsaw in terms of users. (which in turn create revenue)
Even a game company no matter which platform they created for would have had to take a look at the marketability for the product, unless MS bullied them
Thats a lousy way for the developers to put it "better gaming console", since their underlying job is to bring out a gaming console, and when you have little by way of revenue, going up against heavy hitting marketing teams like that of MS' xbox is a killer in itself.Instead of being arrogant about it, the company should just do whatever it takes, then brag later.
Again, I hope these guys get it right this time around, and pull together from managing the entire project, from the upper level teamwork to actually getting the code right. (not that it was wrong the first time) Slightly bad move, what they should do is make cheap games say uner $10.00 US. Lets face it the thought of free my sound inspiring, but it won't you you far, however it will make you broke really fast. Create a pay pal account and have users of their games give what they can under $10.00 (US) this way they have some form of revenue to keep their business afloat, and away from dying as fast as Indrema did. Sigh... Going up against a heavy hitter such as Playstation is way far fetched. Even mentioning them when your first project wen to shit makes the whole project laughable. They need to focus on their own product, get it up and running. Talk is cheap. This does little for this who are keen to playing games they're familiar with. Again why not approach some of the game developers with an idea of porting all games to their box, and a small price. Everyone makes money, and everyone can look forward to playing games with familiarity as well as propietary games.Think about it Zelda X on this machine would rock, and everyone would enjoy it, money would be made, the company wouldn't end up on fuckedcompany.com before it even launched.
who is deran9ed?
360 degrees of Karma
The problem with these consoles is that they never really think much past making it open source.
Sure, it's great and all that it's running on linux, but why ELSE would I wanna buy your machine over someone else's?