IBM To Design Technology For XBox 2 CPU

An anonymous reader writes "According to Biz Ink, 'Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM for use in future Xbox products and services to be announced at a later date..' IBM are already working on the PlayStation 3 CPU alongside Toshiba, and have a relationship with Nintendo after making the GameCube CPU, though there's been no official announcement on GameCube 2's hardware. Is the next-gen hardware war heating up?"

Comments

Tough Luck, Intel!

[stevesliva]

All your console are belong to IBM.

Re:Tough Luck, Intel!

[drinkypoo]

What happen?

Someone set us up the RISC.

Re:Tough Luck, Intel!

[Wolfrider]

All other console are on their way to Destruction.
May it run Linux, For great justice.

Re:Tough Luck, Intel!

[Anonymous Coward]

RISC? what?

Modern PPC and modern ia32 designs have more in common then differences.

Once you pass the decoder stage (less than 2% of silicon area) they all look the same, these days.

and ia32 instructions are more dense, which means less icache space and less bandwidth pulling in instructions.

Is it still going to be X86?

[Random832]

Is Microsoft abandoning its "Intel compatibility" policy? I remember the original reason was to make it easy to port between PC and X-box, to attract developers

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[reiggin]

Just because IBM specializes in PowerPC chips, does not mean that they cannot design an x86 compatible chipset. Their facilities will just as easily manufacture a x86 wafer as they would a PPC wafer. Still, it'll be interesting to see what kind of chip ends up in the xbox 2.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[cloudless.net]

I think it is the API that matters. No matter which CPU the XBox uses, the OS will be Windows based (Windows CE). So it will be very similar to the WIN32 API and I believe it uses DirectX too. That provides portability between PC and XBox.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[saden1]

It all comes down to compilers. You can design and build a game on one platform then compile it to run on another.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[AntiGenX]

It seems that perhaps the "ease of portability" came back and bit them because of the modder scene. Perhaps they are looking at a non x86 platform to try to stem the tide of xbox hackers and homebrew apps.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[bluGill]

Any bets on how long before Gcc supports the CPU? AFter that how long before NetBSD and linux get support, and which of the two is first?

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[PainKilleR-CE]

the OS will be Windows based (Windows CE).

Just a minor nit, the XBox is Win2k based, not CE based (as the DreamCast was), so it's more than likely that the XBox 2 would be XP-based, especially with XP Embedded having taken a lot of the hype away from CE-based devices in the last couple years.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[Aliencow]

Just a minor nit, the DC was not CE based, it had a CE sticker and could boot it from a CD, but almost no game ever used it cause it sucked.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Yeah, I thought about that after I hit post and figured I'd just take the nit when it came ;)

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[dootbran]

Anyway, there were a few good games that were ce based. The biggest reason was network compatibility, ce could use the modem before sega's libs. So Sega Rally, Chu Chu, Armada and most other network able games were CE based.

Yeah it was slow, yeah it kinda sucked but it sure didn't make Chu Chu Rocket any less fun.

I was actually reminded of this benefit the last time someone said Dreamcast was Win CE based :p

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[Sentry21]

I don't see how they could abandon compatibility, since they've claimed backwards compatibility with the XBox. Hmm...

--Dan

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[Fulg]

I don't recall MS making any such claims for Xbox 2...?

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[aonaran]

If, as the artcle speculates, it is a G5 with less cache... months ago.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[asjk]

Just because IBM specializes in PowerPC chips, does not mean that they cannot design an x86 compatible chipset. Their facilities will just as easily manufacture a x86 wafer as they would a PPC wafer. Still, it'll be interesting to see what kind of chip ends up in the xbox 2.

I don't know from CPUs but what about this?

According to Bernie Meyerson, IBM Fellow and chief technologist for IBM's Technology Group, the new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors.

Re:Is it still going to be X86?

[Wolfrider]

--Didn't exactly work too well for Halo on the PC now, did it?

(I speak from experience.)

(rant) Nvidia needs to get their act together. There's too much app-specific optimization going on. ATI cards are reported to run the game better out of the box, and there's an Nvidia card IN THE XBOX!! I happen to be an Nvidia loyalist at the moment because of their Linux drivers, but they need to make sure their Win drivers don't *have* to be optimized for particular games or they'll go bust!
(/rant)

Maybe

[brejc8]

Microsoft want Xbox to be compatable and able to play the PS3 games?
I don't think IBM have an exclusivity contract with Sony over their chipset.
How far pushing the legal barriers would it be to make a console which is able to play competitors games?

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easily the dumbest thing I've heard in weeks.

Re:Maybe

[DrEldarion]

Yeah, that would never happen even if they used the EXACT SAME chip. Ignoring the fact that console games are written to run on the EXACT hardware that the console has (including I/O, sound, etc - a lot more than just the main processor), there's the fact that there's going to be protection on the CDs - if they won't let us play a Japanese game on an American PS2, what makes you think they'll have games that can be played on an entirely different console?

Re:Maybe

[Metroid72]

Why is the parent modded as Insightful?
Are we on crack now?

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? It was never moderated at all. Who's on crack, again?

Anyway, while it is pretty stupid, it's no more stupid than the initial claim that IBM will be designing and building the XBox 2, which is simply wrong.

Re:Maybe

[brejc8]

The hardware can nowdays be emulated. Just mark the I/O area as protected and kick out to software emulation on all hardware accesses.
It is probable that these new CPUs will use a second supervisor mode to allow the games to run their own "OS" but keep the system hardware hidden behing an machine kept API. (This would allow upgradebility and better sandboxing).

Re:Maybe

[dootbran]

Maybe..

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the DISCO papers (google will help you out here) if you think CPU virtualization is as simple as trapping a range of IO ports.

If it was simple, FreeVMware (err, I mean, plex86) would have overtaken VMware workstation years ago.

Sucks to be Nintendo

[Dancin_Santa]

I would much rather see the XBox whither away and die than see Nintendo go the way of Sega.

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[JFMulder]

Personally, I'd prefer Nintendo to only make games and get out of the hardware buisness (well, except the handheld buisness) and make games for the Xbox and PS2. They make really cool games and it's a shame they're available only on Nintendo consoles. I own an Xbox, and I'm really happy with it. I don't miss PS2 games at all, since a lot of them are available on the Xbox, and the exclusives one don't do it for me. But I'd really like to play games like Animal Crossing, Metroid Prime, Mario Party 3.1416 (or whatever they're at now). I'd like to buy a GameCube, but I can't afford a new console, and even I could, it wouldn't be reasonable. (pffff, reasonable... god I'm getting too old!)

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[Metroid72]

Another dumb comment modded as Insightful.
What's going on today people!!!

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[GamezCore.com]

At first I agreed with this type of argument, but lately I have moved away from this thinking. Nintendo has never really been about the hardware... it's been about the games.

In fact, they tend to not rely on any special or flashy hardware at all to make great games. This is why their consoles don't outsell competitors offerings, they aren't as flashy. I'd be just as happy playing a Mario title on a Sony console, because the focus is on the game and the gameplay NOT the system that is spinning the disc.

I'd hate to see the Big N go the way of the dodo bird too, but if they did I wouldn't lose too much sleep.

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[DaveCBio]

It's all about the games and right now I own 3 times as many game for my Xbox as I do for my Cube. If you like Nintendo games then you buy more because you are their market. Same goes for Xbox.

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Mercedes Benz should drop the car business and jump right into the hood ornament industry. I already have a Toyota, and it sucks that it didn't come with a tripoint star on the damn hood. :(

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true.

In addition to my older systems, I have a GameCube and PS2. I have three times as many games for the GameCube than I do for the PS2, simply because cross-platform games look better on the Cube than on the PS2, the controller is more comfortable, and the load times are much much faster. Having a huge lineup of worthy Nintendo titles that are obviously Cube exclusives is nothing to ignore, either.

Haven't picked up an X-box. No games there for me, other than cross-platform games.

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[Anonymous Coward]

The GameCube is USD 100 for crying out loud! Let me guess: You don't actually play with your XBOX because you can't afford the games. You are lying. You don't want to buy a GameCube. Well, tough luck arsehole. Nintendo is profitable and they will keep their franchises to themselves.

Re:Sucks to be Nintendo

[JFMulder]

What the fsck is your problem. First of all have balls and sign your posts. Second, what I do with my money is none of your buisness allright? Games are 50 bucks. Buying a GC costs the same thing as two games. Since I buy games every other months, because I can't really afford more, that would be 4 months before even owning a GC game. Yeah, that would be sooooo fun. I can't believe there are sooo many people like you polluting Slashdot. Please do us a favor and just stop posting. I hope you come back to read this post. Worst part is, if you do reply, I won't know if you're the same asshole as before.

um...i don't think so....

[Blob Pet]

Under the agreement, Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM for use in future Xbox(R) products and services to be announced at a later date.

That's all the detail that the article really gives. The rest is typical corporate marketing. No where did I see anything that says that IBM is designing the central processing unit for the XBox 2.

Re:um...i don't think so....

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Well, if you license a technology from someone - the design you derive is at least somewhat designed by the original designer of the license.

But could this be a tactical move to improve IBM's relationship with Microsoft? IBM has been pushing Linux quite a bit as of late...EVIL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUND!

Re:um...i don't think so....

[stevesliva]

Every time the press release mentions "processor," they're talking about the CPU.

It is a god-awful press release written by someone in Microsoft, though. "Semiconductor processor technology." They might mean process technology, but last time I checked, MS wasn't interested in process technology. Look for the IBM press release to actually be coherent.

Re:um...i don't think so....

[PainKilleR-CE]

The word processor is mentioned exactly twice before you get to the 'About IBM' blurb, which is tacked onto the end of every press release that has anything to do with IBM.

The first time it's mentioned, it's in the context of processor technology, the blurb most-cited so far in this thread. The second time is as follows:

According to Bernie Meyerson, IBM Fellow and chief technologist for IBM's
Technology Group, the new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in
IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors.

Regardless, it states nowhere in the release that MS will be using processors from IBM, simply that they licensed processor technology from them, which could mean anything in this day when IP is more valuable to most companies than actual property. They could simply license certain portions of IBM's technology and then have Intel or AMD manufacture the chips, or open their own chip manufacturing plant (or have any number of other manufacturers stamp out processors).

The best reason for designing their own chip with technology licensed from other companies is that they actually get the full benefit of increased yields and any optimizations that can be made to decrease the price of the chips. The current XBox can't take advantage of these types of things because they basically have to pay extra for Intel to keep spitting out chips that they would've stopped manufacturing months (or even 2 years) ago, because their current CPUs are running with different footprints at higher MHz (and bus speeds).

Re:um...i don't think so....

[Blob Pet]

Every time the press release mentions "processor," they're talking about the CPU.

It's easy to assume that I suppose...except that modern computers typically have other processors such as for sound and video. I'd rather have it state "CPU" explicitely, because I found the text to be far too vague.

Re:um...i don't think so....

[aonaran]

Besides, who says it's for the consoles, and not periperals or online services?

Maybe IBM is building PPC based servers for MS's next online RPG?

Maybe old IBM processor designs will be used in a new Force Feedback joystick... the article is way too vague to say for sure that it's the CPU of Xbox2 that they are talking about.

xbox obsolete already?

[BeatdownGeek]

So they're developing a new xbox platform already? I thought one of the nice things about consoles was that they didn't become obsolete technology as quickly as PCs. If they release a new xbox soon, 1)They're going to lose sales of their current xbox (oh wait, they already are). But more importantly, 2) if consoles are going to start becoming obsolete in just a few years, it seems to me that it's just going to cause a huge market fragmentation if new consoles come out too soon.

Re:xbox obsolete already?

[JFMulder]

Sony and Nintendo started their research on a next-gen console a few months after the launch of their current-gen console. It's a normal thing in the industry. Microsoft is not guilty of doing this. Heck, they are maybe even starting too late, even though the console might not come out before 2005/2006.

Re:xbox obsolete already?

[GamezCore.com]

Absolutely, Sony dropped the ball BIG TIME with their stupid announcement of the PS3 WAY to prematurely. Now all the fanboy's are so concerned with what will be that they lose interest in what is. Then they had to eat their loss with their acceptance that it will be 2006 or later before it actually can be mass produced.

How many sales were lost to the people who thought the PS3 would be out in a year or two???

This whole console race was initiated by Microsoft, because the perception was that they were the technological leader. This race favors M$ because their users are used to the fast upgrade cycles and Sony's are not. When you are a PC user you expect this kind of obsolecence, when you are a console gamer you tend to hang on to a beloved console till it is totally dead. Fragmentation is the only logical outcome of this, and it may just start the end of console gaming as we are used to it.

Re:xbox obsolete already?

[PainKilleR-CE]

So they're developing a new xbox platform already?

They have to be ready when Nintendo and Sony release their next platforms, even though Sony's platform is the oldest of the 3. Most people are looking at 2005/2006 for the next generation, though it's hard to say as no one's announced a release date yet (though everyone's made some sort of announcement regarding some of their hardware partners).

I thought one of the nice things about consoles was that they didn't become obsolete technology as quickly as PCs.

New PC technology is released almost constantly, though video cards probably move the fastest with new products approximately every 6 months. New CPUs come out all the time, but they're usually incremental upgrades, with the big changes coming every 2 years or so. On the other hand, the XBox is coming up on 2 years and the XBox 2 will probably not be out for another 2-3 years. The PS2 should have the longest life-span of the 3, but only because it came out about a year earlier. Additionally, if the past is any indicator, the PS3 and the next Nintendo console probably won't hit the US for 6-12 months after their Japanese releases, whereas MS may or may not decide to wait for the US release to put out the XBox 2.

If they release a new xbox soon, 1)They're going to lose sales of their current xbox (oh wait, they already are).

Which is why they aren't releasing information like release dates, yet. If people get the idea that it's coming soon, then of course they're going to lose some sales, especially to people that will wait for the new console before buying the old one (when the prices drop). As it stands, though, they're simply talking about technology licensing, which should be done well before the console is even close to shipping. Sony announced their partnership with IBM quite a while ago, despite the fact that Nintendo and MS have both pretty much promised that if they don't beat Sony out, they won't be far behind.

But more importantly, 2) if consoles are going to start becoming obsolete in just a few years, it seems to me that it's just going to cause a huge market fragmentation if new consoles come out too soon.

This console generation may be a year (or maybe close to 2 years) shorter than others, but more than likely the only people that will really feel it are the people that must have the newest console right away. I'm more of the mind that I'll wait to see titles before buying another console, much as I did with this current generation. Additionally, since the current generation started with the Dreamcast, which had a year's head-start on the PS2, it's probably longer than most people think, especially since the PS2 had a lot of availability problems in it's first 6 months or so (in the US). I got my DreamCast 4 years ago (the day after launch iirc), but my PS2's only now getting close to 2 years old, my XBox is getting close to a year old, and my GC is still a couple months short of 6 months. Needless to say, I find buying a new console every once in a while a better deal than buying video cards every 6 months (or even every year with the high end pushing into the $400-500 range).

Besides, if all the developers jump ship to the next generation within a month of release, I'll have plenty of cheap games to check out until the good games start coming on the new consoles.

Re:xbox obsolete already?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are stupid.

Re:Sucks to be miserable

[cassidyc]

I'd would rather see Xbox prosper and grow and see Nintendo do likewise.

But then I'm a nice person and don`t really see why the Xbox should whither just to stop Nintendo from becoming a games producer.

Especially given that there are 6 billion people in the world, That's probably enough for 3 consoles.

CJC

Likely to be Power5 Based....

[Daniel Wood]

IBM already took their Power4 and stripped it down for Apple(G5), next logical step is to do the same with the Power5 while ramping the clock speed.

I imagine that the move by Microsoft in purchasing VirtualPC may be related to this announcement. Take an already proven PC emulator, port it for Xbox2 use.

Re:Likely to be Power5 Based....

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

You think all of the PC ports for the XBox 2 are going to run in emulation??? There's no reason that IBM can't produce a x86 chip. The article doesn't even state that much evidence to show that a PowerPC chip will be involved. Come on...

But if you're a gambling man, I'll take that bet.

Re:Likely to be Power5 Based....

[LWATCDR]

If they did use VirtualPC I would bet it would be for XBox I games. XBoxII games would run in native PPC mode. What is interesting to me is will MicroSoft port XP to the PPC chip?
NT was supposed to be multi-platform and XP is built off the NT codebase. Could we see XP for the PPC?
An alternative could be a hardware translator that converts Intel to PPC. Sort of like the Transmeta chip.
Could be... Very interesting. The big question is will Microsoft let IBM do the same thing for the G6 chip? Apple could be a very happy company if so.

Re:Likely to be Power5 Based....

[Anonymous Coward]

NT is "supposed" to be multiplatform?

I have, sitting next to me, a CD containing NT 3.51 for such powerhouse CPUs as MIPS, Alpha and the relvent PPC. Obviously it has Intel ia32 as well.

I'm sure it'd take Microsoft ~3 weeks to have an XP kernel plus basic userland running on any relevant architecture.

How full featured do you think the XBOX OS is?

Let the Anti-MS rants begin.

[Lemental]

It is /. after all.

I thought we were here to discuss a game related article.

Re:Let the Anti-MS rants begin.

[Milktoast]

Exactly. Every Xbox related thread turns into a blind Microsoft ranting thread. I find it funny that the /. community just turns a blind eye towards the anticompetitive practices of sony and kneejerks towards MS's gaming division instead.

Too bad this gaming site can't stay focused on games.

Uhh, so which is it?

[mcc]

So is IBM "Designing and building" the x-box 2 CPU, or is Microsoft "licensing technology" from them? That's a pretty big friggin difference. And it looks like it's the latter.

Seeing as IBM does so much research these days, it seems that "licensing technology" could possibly mean something really minor. Well, it could mean almost anything.

Personally, I predict that the GC2 will be the first Nintendo console to feature backward compatibility, and will also feature an IBM chip. Which would make it really wierd if IBM made the x-box chip as well. But what do I know..

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[ncmusic]

ATI is also slated to make processors for both Nintendo and MS.

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you said that I imagined Nintendo of finally making a console that let's you put all your old Nintendo games in there. Could you imagine them doing this. One slot for cds, one slot for cartridges. Now that would be a killer. With as cheap as parts have gotten I'm sure they would be able to add these chips to the next generation console. That was what was so huge for playstation. They were the first console to ever offer backward compatibility. I remember how disappointed I was that when SNES came out none of my Nintendo games would work on it. It's nice to be able to sell your old hardware to afford the new stuff.

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[Bagels]

First Nintendo console to feature backward compatibility? The entire GameBoy series is backwards compatible - GameBoy Color runs GameBoy games, GBA runs GBC and GB games...

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[mcc]

Quite right. I was using the definition of "Console" that excludes handhelds, though. The definition doesn't make much sense to me-- it's all just dedicated game systems, isn't it? But defining "console" as "it plugs into a television and has detatchable controllers" seems to be common these days, and I wound up using it without thinking. Sorry :)

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[KAMiKAZOW]

GC2 will be the first Nintendo console to feature backward compatibility

Well... at least in theory SNES was also compatible with NES games. SNES uses an updated NES CPU and it was originally Nintendo's plan to sell some kind of adapter like Sega's Master System --> Mega Drive or Master System --> Game Gear.
That adapter was never officially released, but there was an unofficial NES --> SNES adapter called Super 8/Tri-Star.

and will also feature an IBM chip

Motorola could also make a PPC chip for compatibility. Doesn't need to be the CPU, but some co-processor.

Re:Uhh, so which is it?

[drinkypoo]

You were quite right to do so. Handheld gaming devices are just that; handhelds. Singular: Handheld. They've also been called portable and such, but the companies who have done that have either stopped calling them that, or have gone under, which amounts to much the same thing for our purposes here today.

Interestingly you can now get a game boy [color] emulator for the game boy advance; not the built-in stuff, but a port of some other emulator. This lets you do neat stuff like store a bunch of games, or save state. Very slick.

Better Question:

[Asprin]

Why doesn't IBM just cut out the middle-man and get into the console business for themselves?

Re:Better Question:

[musikit]

Because then they could only sell one console

Re:Better Question:

[Micro$will]

HAH! Big Blue in the console biz? I know, they'll name it OS/3 and it'll be better than all the other consoles, but it'll run like shit on current hardware and it'll have maybe 5 games.

IBM selling game consoles would be like Apple selling OSX for the x86. There's just too much competition right now for such a huge gamble.

Re:Better Question:

[netfool]

Because they can just sell all three companies CPUs for a sure profit. Risking 3 large contracts only to try to compete with them (MS, Sony & Nintendo), in an already well established market is kind of dumb - that's why.

Re:Better Question:

[sammaffei]

They could...

IBM manufactured the first production runs of the Atari Jaguar. So they have the experience. But, I just don't think they could do it cheaply enough to be viable in this cutthroat market.

Re:Better Question:

[PainKilleR-CE]

and that experience probably taught them pretty well that they were in the right place in the console business. Manufacture the parts (or license technology), cash the fat check, and sit back while the company that owns the consoles tries to sell them at a profit, or sell them at a loss and profit from games sales. As it stands, IBM makes a profit from all 3 consoles, regardless of which ones do well, and they have no need to put out a bunch of their own money to make sure that one console does make money.

I'm also pretty sure that IBM's big enough (and smart enough) not to get into the kind of problems nVidia had with the XBox production, getting stuck trying to produce yields high enough for MS' (or Nintendo's or Sony's) demands to the detriment of the rest of their products.

Re:Better Question:

[GrumpyDog]

IBM's current corporate strategy is to make money off of providing tech services. They have the economies of scale to supply and develop tech for other companies rather than deal directly to the everyday consumer. It's a lower risk position to let other companies do the speculation about consumer trends, and just provide services to the risk takers.

Re:Better Question:

[kabocox]

Why doesn't IBM just cut out the middle-man and get into the console business for themselves?

The hardware is not always sold at a profit. IBM will make money selling componets to Ninendo, MS, or Sony if it can. From IBM's point of view, why change?

Re:Better Question:

[American AC in Paris]

Why doesn't IBM just cut out the middle-man and get into the console business for themselves?

Egad, man--imagine it! Big Blue with their own console--hell, just the tag line alone would be enough to induce acute narcolepsy:

Introducing the new IBM IES/90 Interactive Entertainment System. IBM IES/90: the right solution for your personal entertainment needs.

(System ships with Advanced Tactical Defensive Missile Systems Operator 1.0. Click here for a list of authorized IES/90 vendors and resellers.)

Re:Better Question:

[eliza_effect]

Hardware is almost never sold for a profit, as far as I know. Most consoles make money from licensing games, and the sales of those games. Most console companies take a loss on the hardware itself. That's exactly what got MS in so much trouble: they had the same model as everyone else, but with no track record. They were bleeding money on the X-Box, but they were still having a hard time luring developers (especially in Japan, where they're still having big problems).

When

[Kethinov]

When will I be able to build my own XBox? Build my own Playstation? Build my own Nintendo?

Oh, right, we're talking about consoles again, aren't we. There's a reason I don't buy them. I'm not a moron. I know how to pick my hardware and build a 1337 gaming rig without having some company pick it for me. Here's a thought: continue making classic consoles for the computer (hardware) illiterate gamers and let the rest of us just run the damn games on our PCs. Take your big companies and give the poor open source non profit emulator developers some official support. Then I can map my own controls to whatever controller I want. Then I can save my game whenever I want; despite circumstance. Give us more platform freedom and I'll buy your games!

RE: When

[swasson]

When are you going to stop being an idiot?

The majority of people who buy consoles don't give a crap about picking their own hardware and building an "l337" gaming rig. Most of them don't give a rat's ass about open source non profit emulators either. One of the big draws of having a console is that sometimes people just like to sit down and play a game without having to worry about getting the latest video drivers, or having 3 Gigs of RAM, or a Radeon 9800 just to play a frickin' game. When I turn on my PS2, I don't have to worry about any of that bullsh*t. I guaran-damn-tee that no matter what the latest and greatest hardware you stick in your "l337" gaming rig, it'll be old hat in less than 6 months because something better/faster has come out.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a moron. I know how to pick my hardware and build a 1337 gaming rig without having some company pick it for me.

And you can do this for $99??

Re: When

[Kethinov]

Uh, did I say change the system for everybody? No. When are you going to stop being illiterate? Give us choice. Leave simplicity to the simpletons and give those of us who care a choice.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your 1337 gaming rig can trash talk as well as a friend sitting next to you on the couch playing some "crappy console".

Oh I forgot, you probably haven't experienced that.

People who are anti-PC or anti-Console really need a hug. Why hate? Who cares, go enjoy yourselves and get a life.

Re:When

[niff]

you're missing the point.

when you buy a ps2 game, you KNOW that it will work on your ps2. you won't have to upgrade parts of the hardware, install the latest drivers, worry about conflicting software/drivers/hardware.
and all software will be optimised and tested for the specific hardware, which is not the case with pc games.

you pop in the cd, and you can be 100% sure that it works.

and that's exactly what makes these consoles so popular.

Re: When

[realdpk]

Er, you have a choice now. There are tons and tons of games for the PC. What exactly is the problem here?

Re:When

[DaveCBio]

Things do not need to be open to be good. I think closed, fixed consoles make for better games in the long run. This is just an elitist attitude most likely born from being annoyed that console now get as many or more AAA titles than the PC. Well, a moderate console game success sells 750,000 - 1,000,000 units and a big PC hit sells 500,000 units. With those numbers why wouldn't devs turn to consoles? Also, it's not just access to the consoel dev tools you'd need, but also access to the source and art for each game. That ain't going to happen and rightly so.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

When will I be able to build my own XBox? Build my own Playstation? Build my own Nintendo?

This was the principle behind the 3DO gaming "platform".

If you remember, it was the most spectacular crash-and-burn financial failure of any 90s console.

How about you and the other script kiddiez continue obsessing over your "l33t gaming rigs", and I will play video games on a video game system and use my actual real normal computer to get actual real work done on.

Re: When

[DaveCBio]

Do you know how to take apart and rebuild your car? Your DVD player? Your fridge? Didn't think so. Then why do people like you insist that everyone that goes near a computer be able to compile their own kernel?

Re:When

[Txiasaeia]

"When will I be able to build my own XBox? Build my own Playstation? Build my own Nintendo?"

What a scary, thought-provoking comment. What if the next version of XBox had two different hardware sets - one with ubergraphics, one cheaper? What if the PS3 is upgradable to a PS4? Or, in a tribute to Pokemon, what if you could combine a Nintendo GameSphere with a PS3 to create a SuperConsole? (Collect 'em all - better graphics, more games to combine)

Re:When

[dstyle5]

You know the software will work, but the PS2 hardware, that's another story. I know many people who get the disc read error all the time. I wonder if Sony will continue their hardware design problems with the PS3? My old roommates PS1, which was part of the first production run, would only work when standing up on its side, like you can do with the PS2 stand. Coincidence, or Sony preparing for their hardwares eventual failure? ;)

Re: When

[Haeleth]

The problem is exclusive licensing. That is to say, you DON'T have a choice: if you want to play $HOT_GAME, you have to fork out for $EXPENSIVE_CONSOLE, when you've already paid through the nose for a top-notch gaming PC which could easily run $HOT_GAME at twice the resolution with your controller of choice.

Your response is "so play some other game instead". That's a perfectly reasonable response. But it's not the one the poster you were replying to wanted.

Re:When

[PainKilleR-CE]

How about you and the other script kiddiez continue obsessing over your "l33t gaming rigs", and I will play video games on a video game system and use my actual real normal computer to get actual real work done on.

Or even better, I'll keep playing PC games on my PC and console games on my console and refuse to buy PC-centric genres (FPS, RTS, etc) on my console until I've played them first and know that they actually redesigned the interface rather than shoe-horning it onto the box, and refuse to buy console-centric genres (platformers, Japanese RPGs) on my PC until I've tried it first (much less likely to actually happen) to make sure they didn't just hack it onto the console and expect everyone to plug in a PS2 controller with a USB adapter to play it.

Consoles work best for console games and PCs work best for PC games and we don't need to make it easier for people to move the games back and forth without considering the system at hand. There's nothing worse than an emulator without gamepad support, and that's essentially what a lot of ports end up feeling like.

Re:When

[GrumpyDog]

Consoles provide a consistant platform for developers therefore gets more games and sales. A lot of time in PC devolopment goes into compatability testing for the various hardware configs' out there. For instance, a PS2 only needs to tested once to ensure a consistant product experience across all PS2s. This helps devs' a lot. You dont have to do a lot of tech support for a console, it is lot more trouble free.

Re:When

[eliza_effect]

Ironically, I think standing on it's side is what's killing my PS2. It's now noticably slower than when I got it around a year ago, and it shows alot in games that load "on the fly" (IE: Vice City). I assume because the disc is slightly unballanced.. soon I will be saying goodbye (RIP PS2).

Re:When

[JeffTL]

And I must inform you that, despite the smaller game library, you get the same effect with an Apple Macintosh. If you have a relatively recent Mac, and haven't modded it a bunch, all OSX software and a lot of earlier stuff (almost everything if you have a dual booter, a bit less if you are using Classic instead of OS9) will run. And guess what? Then you have your word processor, web terminal, the ability to run real games like Baldur's Gate (which, incidentally, is available only for Windows and Mac). That is why I, for one, do not use consoles; I have nothing against those who do; I am not looking in the console direction until most games can make use of a full-size keyboard for efficiency's sake.

Re: When

[Kethinov]

Important Stuff:

Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.

In other words, try reading this and then this.

Re:When

[Kethinov]

No sir, you're missing the point. I don't give a rat's ass about your ease of use. I want a choice, not a unilateral easy-to-use gaming machine that costs way too much money. You see, if they support the open source emu developers, I can have the best of both worlds for less cost even if it is more of a hassle to setup. Take your ease of use and get out of here. I don't want it.

Re:When

[Kethinov]

Things do not need to be open to be good. I think closed, fixed consoles make for better games in the long run

How naive! I almost thought you were sarcastic until I realzed you were serious. If closed source and fixed consoles truly are the wonderful solution to all gaming's problems then why do (n64) people make (snes) such widely supported (playstaion1) and successful emulators?

Re:When

[Fred IV]

Take your big companies and give the poor open source non profit emulator developers some official support.

PC console emulation has always traveled hand-in-hand with pirated console games. I understand the difference between the two, but I doubt that subtle distinctions will influence console makers to give official support to anything that could cut into licensing fees. Yes, sales to PC users could increase fee revenue, but the risk of losing traditional sales is too great to take that chance.

I'm not a moron. I know how to pick my hardware and build a 1337 gaming rig without having some company pick it for me.

I could build a 1337 rig too, but the video card alone will probably cost more than an entire console. Consoles give people who don't have a few grand to drop on a gaming machine a chance to play too.

- FIV

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good plan too.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

You, good sir, are an idiot.

Re:When

[Mike Mentalist]

Perhaps the fact that they can play commercial games without having to pay for them is a big reason.

Re:When

[DaveCBio]

Show me one Open Source game that is as polished, complete and fun to play as the Top 10 on any of the current consoles.

Re: When

[DaveCBio]

How about no? When I make an investment of my time and money into a project why the hell would I want to give it away? I don't think I am speaking from naivete as I have been making games for over 6 years now.

Re: When

[DaveCBio]

Well, seeing that most consoles now cost less than a mid-range video card, let alone a whole PC, that's not really much of a point.

Re:When

[Kethinov]

Show me one Open Source game that is as polished, complete and fun to play as the Top 10 on any of the current consoles.

What the fuck? That's like saying Windows is better than Linux because it's closed source.

Re: When

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you got modded up for that and he got modded down. What a bunch of fucktard mods.

Re:When

[drinkypoo]

If you just wait until consoles are used these days, you can use them to emulate other consoles, and then you can play console games while being able to map your own controls. Witness playing super nintendo (or neo-geo, or genesis, or game boy advance, or blah blah blah) games on the Xbox. A used Xbox is $130, hacking it is free if you have the right one and know the right person. So it pays to be a gamer, which is to say, someone passionate about gaming, and to be social at the same time. (So visit your local used games store frequently! Unless it's Software Etc., then you just sort of blitz it in order to look for used shit. It's not a visit so much as a raid.) And talk to people. Funcolands are great for this.

And there's always the dreamcast, which emulates NES very well and SNES not so well, and I don't know about any of the rest (I haven't been using it since I hacked my Xbox) and sells for a song. Burn a copy of Dreamtendo 2000 - take off the roms you don't have if you're concerned about the legality or ethics of it - and you too can play classic games with button mapping on a game console. Dreamcasts are like fifty bucks with two controllers and a VMU these days. The Xbox is just nice because it has a hard disk which can be used to store games.

Re:When

[Anonymous Coward]

You got owned on this one charlie. 2 days and you still havent named a game.

Hardware war

[ArmenTanzarian]

Is the next-gen hardware war heating up?

Sounds like it's cooling down, for IBM at least...

It makes perfect sense

[GreatDrok]

Why should Xbox2 use x86? The x86 32 bit family will still be around, or a 64 bit decendent anyway, but I think the experience with the Xbox is that building a games system based on commodity PC hardware actually works against you in the long run as it doesn't get cheaper over time in the same way that the more custom designs such as PS2 and GCN have. Besides which, the next Xbox will likely not be a 32 bit chip so it is sensible to move to another platform and use x86 emulation (eg virtual PC/Xbox) to allow the playing of old games. A move to something based on Power5 would likely give the necessary increase in processing grunt to take on the PS3 and that is going to be something MS will really want to do. The only reason the Xbox was slightly more powerful than the PS2 was it was so late.

Of course, it is still debatable that MS should even bother to do an Xbox2. The move into media PCs, along with a standardisation on games that can run directly from a DVD-ROM rather than installing on the HD would negate the need for the expense of selling an Xbox system. Get a standard PC into the living room and make it play games as well as a console and you would have a winner........

Re:It makes perfect sense

[sammaffei]

Owned and played both PS2 and XBox. Xbox is more than "slightly more powerful". Heck, the GC is noticabley better that then PS2.

The Proof:

Comapre the Xbox's GTA Double pack (comes out this week) versus the PS2 version. Let's see which is better.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[Naffer]

What use is a 64bit processor in a gaming console? The largest limitation so far has been RAM. I mean, the PS2 had only an 8MB frame buffer. If it needed more then 8MB for textures (which happened ALL the time) it had to swap out of the main 32MB memory. Thats not enough.
The GC had 48MB of RAM and a 16MB frame buffer
The Xbox had 64MB of unified memory. The GPU memory was shared. My computer has 1024MB. Games often take 200-300.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[Haeleth]

...building a games system based on commodity PC hardware actually works against you in the long run as it doesn't get cheaper over time in the same way that the more custom designs such as PS2 and GCN have.

What? Are you claiming that x86 chip and mobo prices have remained constant for the last few years? How naive of me to believe that they were getting cheaper over time just because the numbers after the pound signs were shrinking so fast!

Re:It makes perfect sense

[GreatDrok]

...building a games system based on commodity PC hardware actually works against you in the long run as it doesn't get cheaper over time in the same way that the more custom designs such as PS2 and GCN have.

What? Are you claiming that x86 chip and mobo prices have remained constant for the last few years? How naive of me to believe that they were getting cheaper over time just because the numbers after the pound signs were shrinking so fast!

Not at all, what happens is that when you go to a shop to buy some new kit you end up getting just that; something that is newer and faster than the previous equivalent for the same money. The older stuff just gets discontinued.

With consoles it doesn't work that way, they are a fixed standard and in the case of the PS2 for instance the current machine is cheaper to make because Sony has been able to combine components and reduce the process. With the Xbox using commodity components it doesn't get this benefit.

If MS was to upgrade the hardware weekly as with normal PCs then the Xbox would be 3x as powerful today as it was in its original form, but that is not how consoles work so it actually doesn't get any cheaper to make. It doesn't have the volumes of normal PCs, or of the PS2 even so it will always be expensive. Interesting that the GCN is so cheap to make though, neat little box.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[evilWurst]

Xbox 2 will use x86 because it's the only feasible way to play Xbox 1 games. Seriously, what is going to be able to do software emulation of a 700mhz P3 perfectly enough to handle the variety of Xbox 1 games?

Re:It makes perfect sense

[Ed Avis]

But surely whatever tricks Sony is using to keep prices down could also be applied by hardware manufacturers of the Xbox. The fact that the same components used to be PC standard hardware three years ago wouldn't make any difference.

Unless you mean that Sony planned forward, arranging five-year contracts with hardware suppliers to ensure a continued supply of cheap components, while Microsoft didn't and got bitten by obsolence.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[drinkypoo]

Not at all, what happens is that when you go to a shop to buy some new kit you end up getting just that; something that is newer and faster than the previous equivalent for the same money. The older stuff just gets discontinued.

Poppycock. Top of the line Desktop PC hardware is simply getting cheaper over time. You used to pay $3500 for a 386 from Tandy. If you spend that today, you can get a dual processor G4 or Xeon fer chrissakes, AND some addons. And those Tandys weren't the best of the breed either.

PC hardware has simply become less expensive. A top of the line is plainly less expensive now. Meanwhile, high powered game consoles have always cost three hundred bucks at launch, and low end ones have always cost about a hundred bucks.

You could actually say that the $300 price point is dropping with Nintendo's recent foray beneath it, but their console provides substantially less functionality than their competitors, in that it is not a DVD player. Sure, the Playstation is a crappy DVD player, but at the time, it was important that it be one, because many households didn't yet have one.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[damiam]

Microsoft owns Virtual PC now. I'm sure that, if they wanted to, they could get a 3Ghz PPC proc to emulate a 700mhz x86 proc pretty well.

Re:It makes perfect sense

[nathanh]

I mean, the PS2 had only an 8MB frame buffer. If it needed more then 8MB for textures (which happened ALL the time) it had to swap out of the main 32MB memory. Thats not enough.

The PS2 streams textures from the 32MB of main memory. It doesn't have dedicated texture memory.

The framebuffer isn't 8MB. I think it is 4MB split between z-buffer and framebuffer.

Keep in mind that the bus designs in a PS2 are completely different to Xbox. Especially once you consider the DMACs and the split GPUs in the PS2. Comparing memory sizes is pointless.

Make things short...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) XBox and PS2 fans: "Nintendo Sucks!"
2) XBox and Nintendo fans: "PS2 Sucks!"
3) PS2 and Nintendo fans "XBox Sucks!"

It's great that I'm a IBM fan and can afford all three consoles :)

Good night!

Re:Make things short...

[Naffer]

I'm pretty sure it stems from some desire to justify their purchases.

Probably like how people with Apple Computers brag about how fast they can run photoshop because there aren't any other programs for them. -Zing!-

Re:Make things short...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it comes from the childhood and serious damages of the ego.

hmm

[Hythlodaeus]

Imagine the implications of DirectX running on non-Intel CPUs.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It already did on the Sega Dreamcast... Hitachi Super-H CPU, NEC PowerVR GPU... Windows CE plus DirectX.

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Like an AMD?

Re:hmm

[ChaoticLimbs]

I think he meant non-x86.

Will it run?

[sporty]

Will it run OSX? /g5 reference

Re:Will it run?

[PirateMeep]

if ($anti_mac == true) Nothing. The horible OS will die.. [i hope].. and all of the users will go with it to. else Umm.. i dont know maby intel and motorola will mate.

The real question is...

[gearheadsmp]

The real question is, will IBM be left with a bad taste in it's mouth like Nvidia, and further reference being IBM's failed 'deal' to coop OS/2 with Microsoft.

More focused competition - this sounds good

[MBraynard]

What this means is that the next PS, presumably the next GC (who currently uses IBM chips), and the Xbox2 will all be using IBM chips that will presumably be similar in capability - or at least no one will have a tremendous advantage over anyone else.

The result? The consoles will have to get an edge over each other in other areas - like having DVR capabilities, better 3d implementation and technologies, online play, and, of course, better games. We will be less likely to face a decision now of 'more good games/inferior technology' versus 'less good games/better technology.'

Re:Sucks to be miserable

[GrumpyDog]

I would rather see more competition in the market as it is good for the consumers. When one company sits on a lead they don't innovate at all because there is no reason to.

You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The anticompetitive practices of Nintendo in the past.

Re:You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are all forgetting those of Microsoft as well.

Funny, when discussion about Microsoft turns to games, it's as if their past predatory practices never were. When Microsoft owns the living room, as the sole point of entry into your home entertainment center, just think of how awesome it will be to hear about Microsoft's outstanding stock performance on MSNBC, either via your DirecTV/Xbox combo PVR or streamed via encrypted WMV to your Windows 2007 Lockdown Edition PC "protected" by its Palladium2 BIOS.

Anything that takes Microsoft down a peg or 500 is fine by me. With the shit they pull, they killed my grandpa, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy life after college; try valium, try busbar, but try and graduate to the real world first.

Re:You forgot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm crazy and in college, that must be it. And you've never been placed in a position to pay twice for a Windows license with money you've earned, apparently.

Thank goodness Slashdot is full of you fuckwit MS apologist Alzheimer's patients. It wouldn't be fun here without you.

Uhhh... yeah.

[JMZero]

There's a reason I don't buy them. I'm not a moron

Yes - it's much better to spend 5 times as much up front to have a system that will be games-functional for about half the time.

Whether or not a console is stupid depends on the type of games you prefer, the amount of money you have, and how much you play. For many people, buying a gaming-class computer would be retarded - even if they use it for other things.

Re:Uhhh... yeah.

[Kethinov]

Yes - it's much better to spend 5 times as much up front to have a system that will be games-functional for about half the time.

Hah! What a weak argument. The difference between my 5-times-more-expensive computer and your easy to use little console is my 5-times-more-expensive computer can do about 10 times as much stuff. Between emulation, online games, and PC-only games, I've got you beat, sir.

Re: Throw out your stereos, radios, clocks and...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you get rid of any stereo systems, clocks, radios, etc you own then? And your television for that matter. Obviously anything those appliances can do, your computer can do too.

Your figures are wrong

[grahamwest]

PS2 has 4megs of local memory for the graphics processor. This is used for frame buffers, Z buffer and textures. DMA from the 32megs of system memory is pretty fast - it's rarely the limiting factor in game performance.

Gamecube has 3megs of local memory, just enough for 1 frame buffer, 1 Z buffer and whichever textures are being used to rasterise the current primitve. Textures are automatically DMAed from the 24megs of (extremely fast and low-latency) system memory as they are needed. There's 16megs of (PC100) audio memory and some games use that as a backing store for extra data - DMA to/from it is quite slow though.

You're right about Xbox's 64megs but it should be noted that the memory is divided by the crossbar memory controller into 4 16meg chunks and by carefully arranging what is in what chunk you get better performance because each chunk can be accessed at full speed (ie. as if the overall memory wasn't shared).

Game consoles really don't need a 64bit address space yet, but they do need a very wide data bus and wide CPU registers. Right now I'd say raw CPU performance and pixel fillrate are actually the two most limiting factors for games. More RAM would certainly be nice but throughput is a bigger concern, at least with the games I've worked on.

Re:Your figures are wrong

[drinkypoo]

You forgot to mention for the clue impaired that if you increase the ram, you will only further increase the demand for bandwidth to pump data around to and from it.

Sure we'd all like to see consoles have twice as much ram, it would improve their hacking value significantly. I know I'd pay ten more bucks for a console that just had the memory socketed, especially if it were as PC-like as an Xbox. But obviously as you say the bandwidth is significant. Nintendo is using some kind of small amount of RDRAM in GC, right? Just as they did in N64? Surely they decided that was the cheapest way to go about it, and in small quantities RDRAM is neat stuff.

Re:Your figures are wrong

[grahamwest]

I mostly agree about the bandwidth demand but there are times when RAM will save you. More RAM means you can preload and/or precalculate more things, or arrange data in a more friendly format. On PS2 people waste some amount of VU1 time packing and unpacking data so their DMA chains use less space in system RAM, for example. We'd also be able to spend the time that is taken up straining to get the game to fit in memory and use it to improve other areas of performance or just generally implement cool, fun things that gamers actually experience.

Gamecube doesn't use RDRAM to my knowledge. The system RAM is some special 1-transistor SRAM design that NEC came up with, and the audio RAM is ordinary PC100.

Now we know...

[Lars T.]

why Even Microsoft wants G5s - and doesn't want Intel to know ;-)

Re:Now we know...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with anything? Any idiot knows Microsoft writes software for Apple, so of course they would buy some G5s. Try to be more on-topic and less of a zealot. It's just a computer and has a lot of disadvantages compared to both Microsft and Linux.

Re:Now we know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, interesting. A friend at MSFT told me those boxes were sitting in the loading dock of MS Research, not the Mac Business Unit. Remember, that guy got fired not just because he took the pictures, but because he mentioned which building those G5s were going to...) I guess now that XBox has chosen the PowerPC, we're going to see a lot more of those...

Obligitory quote

[gearheadsmp]

>IBM walks into Xbox Next meeting room.

ATI: "Big Blue!"

IBM: "ATI!"

>ATI exec pulls Gamecube out of briefcase.

IBM: "Together Again!"

*ATI merely bought the company that designed the GPU for Gamecube, hence the ATI sticker.

Re:Sucks to be miserable

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather have Nintendo prosper and have all the daughters of Microsoft execs sucking my dingdong as remunerations for their fathers' crimes against humanity and freedom.

That would be nice.

Re: Throw out your stereos, radios, clocks and...

[Kethinov]

Why don't you get rid of any stereo systems, clocks, radios, etc you own then? And your television for that matter. Obviously anything those appliances can do, your computer can do too.

Despite your sarcasm, there is truth to that statement. I don't need a TV when I've got Kazaa (except perhaps to S-video out my computer to the TV ;) and I don't need a stereo when I've got 3400 mp3s, and I don't need a radio when I've got mp3s.... list goes on.

Well, you don't have me beat...

[JMZero]

...as I also have a computer. And, like you, I get a lot of value out of it that I wouldn't get out of a console. However, I also know plenty of people for whom none of our bonuses would be a bonus.

Many people can have all their gaming desires met cheaper, simpler and better with a console. They're not illiterate or retarded - they just like different things.

Re:Well, you don't have me beat...

[Kethinov]

I also have a computer

Really?! I wouldn't have guessed seeing as how you post on Slashdot! [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, the difference is that it's a helluva lot cheaper to just have the computer and not buy the console. I understand your argument that some people want the simplicity of it just working, but I'd rather take the cheaper solution that requires less money despite more effort and I suspect many agree with me. We should have both!

Re:Well, you don't have me beat...

[Mike Mentalist]

Seriously though, the difference is that it's a helluva lot cheaper to just have the computer and not buy the console.

Erm, no it isn't. I can buy a Gamecube for 79, whereas I would need more than that just for a decent graphics card.

What's the Timeframe?

[WebGangsta]

According to the Yahoo version of the article that I read, The next version of Xbox is expected to be announced in January by Microsoft founder and Chairman Bill Gates and to be on sale next fall ahead of the holidays, according to Doherty..

So does this mean that we should expect...

• Xmas 2004: XBox2
• Xmas 2004: PSP
• "sometime in 2004": PSX
• Xmas 2005... if we're lucky: PS3

'cause if so then I'll need to make sure that I have $299 for the XBox2, $700 for the PSX, $200 for the PSP, and enough time to save up for the $299 PS3. And don't forget your $50 per game for each system. (yeah, I know the PSX will play the PS2 games, and the Xbox2/PS3 are supposed to be backwards compatible, but still, that's a lot of dough to be shelling out in one year for new electronics...)

Re:What's the Timeframe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Xmas 2004: XBox2

No. Because the software developers who are going to be working on this platform will require at least a year's notice if Microsoft expects any launch titles. Microsoft internal software teams may already be working with X2 in mind, but that's going to be an exception.

Expect Xbox 2 to launch at least 1 year after developers receive preliminary versions of their development kits. And since they're going to want to launch in the 3rd quarter - this puts Xbox2 no sooner than fall 2005.

Re:What's the Timeframe?

[WebGangsta]

I agree -- PS3 and X2 emulators haven't even gotten to EA yet (or at least, not that they've announced).

Either someone working in MSFT marketing/press is wrong, the folks at IBM have a different expectation of when X2 is being released, or that reporter Guy Smiley was wrong.

Or, MSFT has been secretly replacing everyone's regular coffee with Folger's crystals, and ARE aiming for the surprise attack... er, release date of Fall 2004.

Nobody expects the microsoft inquisition! Their chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... their two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency.... Their three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...

Re:What's the Timeframe?

[WebGangsta]

The Yahoo! article says "the next version of the Xbox" will be on sale in 2004. Of course, this raises the question of whether MSFT is talking about the new revamped Xbox or the Xbox2.

Today's version of the article in this morning's newspaper says the following:

"MSFT selected IBM to supply the processor for its next generation Xbox game machine. The second version of the popular machine is expected to be on the market during 2005. The new Xbox is MSFT's next weapon in its battle with game machine leader Sony." So which do we believe?

not for xbox2

[Anonymous Coward]

nowhere does it say in the press release this technology is for the xbox2. the next xbox is not xbox 2 its the smaller xbox often rumored.

I'm all for IBM in xbox2...

[double_plus_ungod]

...as long as GTA3 is ported and i still get to star in donkey pr0n.

sincereley,
l3urr0