Microsoft Moving Into Chip Design With Xbox Next

adamsmith_uk writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft will more actively participate in chip design for the next version of its Xbox gaming console, tentatively called Xbox Next. By switching from using relatively standard parts to more customized silicon, the company can better optimize its game console, due in 2005. At the same time, the move potentially gives the company a toehold in a completely new market."

Comments

wonderful

[Naito]

now we can build BSODs into hardware!

Re:wonderful

[Thud457]

What, i86 isn't a screwed-up enough architecture, Microsoft needs to try their hand at the game?!!!

Re:wonderful

[tankdilla]

"The Borg are the absolute personification of evil in the galaxy. Their singular goal for biological and technological perfection compels them to assimilate all that stands in their way." -- The Borg

Substitute Microsoft for The Borg. It's not that much of a difference. They started as an OS. Then came software apps and games. Soon to come antivirus, mainframes, and chips. What's next?

Re:wonderful

[jon787]

IIRC the screen is green on the XBox

Re:wonderful

[October_30th]

The Borg are the absolute personification of evil in the galaxy.

I hope, I really hope that this is not an official Star Trek definition of evil. It's just pathetic.

Re:wonderful

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I hope you realize that the Borg are superior to humans. Only reason they lost is due to some lame stories cooked up by the Star Trek authors who were pro-human ;) A species based on assimilation will be extremely strong. Although, due to the their lack of diversity, one weakness will bring them all down.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:wonderful

[RoLi]

What's next?

Well, it looks like XBox will get an even bigger money-pit than it already is...

Like everything else, XBox depends on Microsofts only 2 profitable products: MS Windows and MS Office. If/When StarOffice and Linux can take away their profits on Servers or worse on desktops, I see a lot of unprofitable projects getting shut down at Microsoft, and XBox is one of them.

Re:wonderful

[Holi]

Everytime I see comments like these I wonder what people are thinking, or if they are thinking at all.
Do you really think Microsoft would keep it's XBox division open if it were not profitable. Please they are a business, and an extremely successful one at that. They may have initially sold the hardware at a loss. But I am positive they more then made up for that in game sales and licensing fees.

Next time someone wants to post how Microsoft loses money on the XBox, show sources or get modded down.

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about. The very fact that the Borg possess weaknesses that can be exploited by competing species is proof that they are not necessarily "superior," by whatever criteria you use that word.

And the Borg are very diverse, they assimilate everyone. When a Klingon is assimilated, he doesn't automatically become as weak as an assimilated Ferengi, nor does it make the Ferengi as stupid (intelligence is distributed and refocused, not removed). Notice how you never see any assimilated Ferengi as foot soldiers.

When it comes to their strength as a military force, their strength is comparable to that of the Soviet Union. Many countries with very different populations united under one goal that the leadership enforces on the people, despite their individual desires, through whatever means possible, oftentimes ignoring the quality or even the preservation of human life. They possessed a huge armory and an impressive brain bank of military science. That nation fell due to the influences of individualistic philosophies.

Re:wonderful

[Hentai]

Are we sure this is new?

Note the company profile doesn't mention ANY connection to Microsoft. But note the font. Note the logo. Note the colors.

Re:wonderful

[Troed]

Why don't you use Google yourself and realise that everyone else is right and you're wrong?

Microsoft are losing money on the Xbox, and always have been. You can check their own profit reports for that division on microsoft.com ...

sigh

Re:wonderful

[NanoGator]

"now we can build BSODs into hardware!"

Can we get some modern Windows jokes pls? I think I heard this on Nick@Nite once.

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one of my main beefs with sci-fi. The humans are almost always very similar to those in the decade the show was made in, and never seem to use technology to change themselves. You'd think with the borg coming down on people, that there'd be a lot of interest in cybernetics and genetic enhancements in the trek universe. But almost inevitably anything along those lines ends up with the changed person being shown as an evil boogyman. You'd think that after seeing seven of nine do everything from raise the dead to single handidly defeat batalions of enemies that someone would have become envious enough to start getting implants.

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, this is trek we're talking about. 20th century american culture with a glob of putty on head = good. Anything actually alien or different will usually (though not always) = evil.

Re:wonderful

[Holi]

Ok I can admit when I am wrong.

Re:wonderful

[Bert64]

Only the borg strive for perfection, whereas microsoft simply want perfect profits.

Re:wonderful

[nelsonal]

Steve Ballmer and John Connors told you in their own sworn to be true report to their owners. Bill doesn't have to sign them since he is just the Chairman of the Board. They were checked by an audit firm as well. In this link the product segments are described (you might have to page down once to see the segment report it's in Item I), home and entertainment is the division they classify the XBox. It also has things like Encarta, those MS branded consumer device hardware, and the bit of game software they've done for some time like Flight Sim. This segment slightly more then doubled in revenues following the release of the XBox. On the second link (you will have to read down a little to get to the table) you can see the comapny's fiscal (year ends in June) 2002 and 2003 results, XBox was released in fiscal 2002. As you can see the segment recorded operating losses of $800 million and $900 million. Notice that the loss amount increased even though they would have sold a better mix of software in 2003. They used to lose about that much when the division included MSN and several of the other money losing businesses that are now separate, they just began reporting this many segments in 2003, sorry.
Also note that only Client (Windows and CALs), Information Worker (Office, Project, Etc) and Server and Tools (Exchange, SQL, Windows Server, and Visual Studio) are the only three groups that make money. This is an extremely successful one hit pony, they have never made money at anything else.
The only reason I can come up with for them to operate in the Video game business is that they want to make a future version of the XBox the platform that you will use to access nearly everything online. Its the same dream everyone has had (Ellison's NICs IBM's PC junior, there were lots of others in the bubble) get people to buy a cheap system that is slightly propretary and then charge for access and get a cut of the business transacted on them. Expect a future version of office to be delivered to an XBox system, in addition to being sold for PCs. To al users: Finsys could possibly be the most unreliable web server in existance, please go easy on it.

Re:wonderful

[DotNetGuru]

Also note that only Client (Windows and CALs), Information Worker (Office, Project, Etc) and Server and Tools (Exchange, SQL, Windows Server, and Visual Studio) are the only three groups that make money. This is an extremely successful one hit pony, they have never made money at anything else.

It's funny that they're a one hit pony when you just listed 7 different products that they're making money on across 3 different divisions. So depending on how you're counting, MS is either a 7 trick or 3 trick pony.

Not to mention you've certainly left off a large number of products within those divisions (thinks like BizTalk server and the other stuff rolled up into Small Business Server that's available seperately; MS Money, Encarta and other consumer software. Games like Flight Simulator and other PC games MS publishes but doesn't create). Certainly these businesses make money otherwise MS would have dropped them a long time ago. They're profit is probably rolled up into one of the 3 divisions you've mentioned, but again, it shows that MS has a wide selection of software available. So depending on how you're counting, MS is either a more than 7 or 3 trick pony.

Now you might argue that the "one trick" is selling software, but then by that logic MOST companies are one trick ponies. WalMart's just doing it's one retailing trick. But anyway, MS recently posted a profit on MSN for the first time. So depending on how you're counting, MS is either a more than 7, 3 trick, or 2 trick pony.

Re:wonderful

[ShadowRage]

Microsoft linux, right after they get a license from SCO to use linux.

the sad part is that I was trying to be funny, and that even could very well happen now that I think about it.

Re:wonderful

[nelsonal]

Client is all windows, MS says as much. Server has a ton of Windows server editions profit, if you figure windows server is 1/3 of enterprise revenues, and has similar margins to client windows that's almost all of that division's profit. Also how much of the success is directly related to the fact that they sold something with Windows. How many copies of SQL or Office or Project or BizTalk would they sell if it weren't the Windows company selling it. I assume the same thing about office, so the way I look at it, all of MS success rides on their decision to provide the OS for those off the shelf microcomputers IBM was dreaming up, and derivative products or applications that run on that system. I'll grant you that applications could easily be viewed as a successful stand alone business at this point, so they could be a two trick pony.
Unfortunatly, they don't give a lot of detail about successful product lines, so they could have a successful server line.
Money, Encarta, and other consumer stuff is lumped in that stunningly unprofitable Home and Entertainment division, and there isn't much to be made in consumer finance software, Intuit is mostly a tax prep firm.
Now this is just speculation, but I'd be willing to wager that if you pull Windows and Office out of MS, the rest of the company would barely break even. They keep trying these businesses, because everyonce in a while you hit on a successful product, or to protect the profitable Windows businesses. Almost everything internet related is only there to kill Netscape/Java, which MS viewed as a threat to their application platform dominance.

Re:wonderful

[jasontwarnock]

They actually started with software then went on to OS development.

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean GSODs (Green Screens of Death), right?

Re:wonderful

[00420]

Note the company profile doesn't mention ANY connection to Microsoft. But note the font. Note the logo. Note the colors.

Noted. I don't think there's a connection.

Re:wonderful

[Code-Ex]

> What's next?

Well... looks like MS is doing a pretty good job of technological assimilation. They're probably going to assimilate biological entities next. That means...

"On Earth, MS owns you."

Re:wonderful

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I hate Star Trek for the reason you mention. Star Trek, in my opinion, is a show that is often avoided by true sci-fi fans. The society is Star Trek is such a joke, that one would think that humans didn't progress at all. Consider the hierarchial structure in Star Trek (with commander above another, etc). Just look at the aliens and you'll see that they are all humanoids with human-like characteristics. Every alien that you meet is either inferior to humans in major ways, or is so super-powerful that they don't even matter.

Shows like Babylon 5, Lexx, etc are better IMO.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:wonderful

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

And the Borg are very diverse, they assimilate everyone. When a Klingon is assimilated, he doesn't automatically become as weak as an assimilated Ferengi, nor does it make the Ferengi as stupid (intelligence is distributed and refocused, not removed). Notice how you never see any assimilated Ferengi as foot soldiers.

Borg are NOT diverse. By definition, assimilation involves including many different species/types/etc. Diversity comes from the fact that there are different beings who have different properties, and think, act, and behave differently. After the Borg assimilates someone, ALL future borgs will end up identical. So you would lose diversity over time.

When it comes to their strength as a military force, their strength is comparable to that of the Soviet Union.

The analogy to USSR is completely wrong. Either your knowledge of USSR is wrong or you have been brainwashed by USA. USSR did not try to assimilate people. I think the best analogy is Nazism, or fascism in general. Things like eugenics is basically the creation of a superior being via assimilation*. Fascists will act identically to the Borg.

(* only difference is that the Nazis were only interested in creating a being from "Aryans". A true Borg would use anyone).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:wonderful

[Hentai]

*nods* How would I go about finding out? I drive by these guys' fab plant every day, and I'm really curious.

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Your English reading comprehension skills and understanding of history both require improvement.

Congratulations!

Re:wonderful

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I guess it makese sense... if my English comprehension sucks, then it is kind of hard to read history, is it not? ;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

Friend,

My original intent was to insult you, but you have displayed a good sense of humor about things. That is refreshing to see on Slashdot.

Well done.

How much...

[defender57]

do they want to lose per console this time? If they use re-engineered pc parts, they stand to lose a lot.

Re:How much...

[Zeinfeld]

do they want to lose per console this time? If they use re-engineered pc parts, they stand to lose a lot.

I doubt that they intend to do quite as much as some are claiming. I suspect that all they are going to do is to integrate standard cells for the processor and graphics processor onto the same chip. Probably losing the FPU in the process and some other stuff that is not much use on a dedicated graphics machine - or at least not enough use to want to spend silicon on it.

The PC has been dancing close to the line where a PC on a chip becomes possible for some time. This has happened before of course, Inmos did it in the 1980s, but then you got 4Kb or Ram per transputer. Today you can get a CPU, Graphics processor and 2Mb of cache onto a chip without too much pain.

The costs of going custom are not that great for the production runs involved. We are talking tens of millions of chips. So the cost of some custom masks is really not that big of a problem. Microsoft hae to pay for the processor IP whether they use it as a standard cell or buy it in as a commodity.

The support chips will probably still be commodity items - but remember that there are a lot of things you just do not need on a game box that are vital for a PC, things like protected memory, virtual memory etc. They take up a lot of real estate but you don't need them in a game box.

Re:How much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably losing the FPU in the process and some other stuff that is not much use on a dedicated graphics machine

More than 5 years have passed since floating point units were not critical to 3D applications.

Re:How much...

[Zeinfeld]

More than 5 years have passed since floating point units were not critical to 3D applications.

In most graphics applications fixed point calculations are far more important. I suspect you can probably lose quite a bit of the FPU in exchange for on-chip access to the GPU.

Re:How much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, seriously? You don't know what you are talking about.

Re:How much...

[EnglishTim]

Seriously, you're quite a long way out of date. Games used to just use fixed-point math because

a) it was faster to integer calculations
and
b) Not all computers had FPUs, which made a) especially true.

However, modern games rely on being able to to do a lot great deal of floating-point calculations - sure, many of them can now be handed off to the GPU, but there's still a lot of stuff you have to do. If you hand all of these over to the ALU, you've got a bunch of extra problems:

a) You'll have a lot more accuracy issues to deal with - rounding hits you a lot harder
b) The same operations with the ALU will take more instructions, meaning that you fit less code into the cache, causing more cache misses - expensive
c) Floating point operations can run in parallel with the ALU, meaning your code can run quicker
d) Floating point units are a dammed sight faster than they used to be. IIRC, some operations are now faster on the FPU than they are on the ALU...

I'm not kidding. Up until two years ago I was a games programmer (I'm now working in Visual Effects), and I'd hate to have to go back to fixed point. It *does* make a lot of difference.

Nobody would program for a fixed-point only console nowadays. It's acceptable for hand-held systems but not for consoles. They'd laugh you off the stage at GDC...

Re:How much...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a troll, right? The FPU is the most important part of the processor for a games machine. You would never lose it. More likely you'd lose the caches.

As for paying for the IP, I think a chip mfr would give it away if he could sell you 10 million chips.

Re:How much...

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the crack pipe down. Games consoles run games not "graphics applications", and in games, floating point calculations are vital.

In fact, they are in graphics too. Either you know nothing about this subject or you're trolling.

Re:How much...

[Zeinfeld]

Nobody would program for a fixed-point only console nowadays. It's acceptable for hand-held systems but not for consoles. They'd laugh you off the stage at GDC...

Back in the early days of RISC the same was being said of the idea of breaking down the CPU, eliminating complex instructions.

My point is that you have a very different set of tradeoffs going on to those in a general purpose PC. The main reason PCs have FPUs is to run benchmarks, if you look at the work most PCs do they don't really need them.

The real question is just how much stuff you can fit onto a single CPU chip. It is pretty certain that you want to integrate the GPU and the CPU. The on-chip/off-chip delay is going to be a major bottleneck. That does not leave a great deal to eliminate.

The way to settle the matter is not to flame on slashdot, take some actual games and compile the damn things for a range of simulated hardware options. That is actually what we used to do in the early days of RISC, the compilers were optimized to the code, (at first to the end user code, later on the benchmarks :-)

Sure you may think that floating point is essential for games, but it is a completely different question to ask whether the best way to spend your gates budget is on a slick full feature FPU.

Re:How much...

[Zeinfeld]

Put the crack pipe down. Games consoles run games not "graphics applications", and in games, floating point calculations are vital.

How many processors have you designed? Thought so.

The fact that a feature might be 'vital' does not mean that it is 'vital' to provide a single instruction highly optimised to implement it.

You do not need to have a full feature FPU with a full width barrel shift register, you have to justify that by showing that the expenditure of the gates results in faster games.

That is what RISC is all about.

Re:How much...

[EnglishTim]

You're right, it would be interesting to run some benchmarks, but games nowadays *do* require a lot of calculations with non-integer numbers. In all but the simplest 2d games (i.e. puzzle games and the like), vast numbers of calculations are made. I'd be willing to bet that nothing out there makes as much use of the FPU as games software. Sure, some kind of fluid flow analysis software or rendering software like PRMan and Mental ray probably tax the FPU more, but in terms of the sheer number of FPU instructions that are excecuted everyday by PCs around the world, I'm sure games come out on top.

Please believe me when I say I'm not making this up - I have worked on real, published games for both the PC and console markets and we do use the FPU a great deal.

If you need further proof, just have a look at all the gaming hardware out there - the PS2 has two extra vector floating point units in its so-called 'Emotion Engine' CPU. Graphics cards (which are pretty much driven by games) are dedicated almost completely to floating-point operations nowadays - everything, from the vertex coordinates to the colours to the screen buffers are, or can be, floating point. This is the way that the gates are being put to better use - a lot of them are now dedicated to doing certain FP operations *very, very* quickly, on a scale unheard of on a conventional CPU. If the FPU is to be removed, it is likely to be replaced by additional specialised FP units, to do things like ray/sphere and ray/triangle intersections, physical simulation and the like. I don't think they'll entirely throw out the main FPU (although it could be scaled down a bit in that case - current CPUs generally have 4-part vector FP operations), simply because there'll always be a bit of calculation you need to do somewhere that doesn't fit into your specialised categories..

I suppose it is possible that the entire games industry has got it all wrong, and that this drive towards greater FP power is going in the wrong direction, but I doubt it.

P.S. Please don't feel I'm flaming - just explaining the way I see it.

Cheers,

Tim

DRM

[Rosyna]

I wonder how much of this is to make it harder to pirate games or run linux on the XBox?

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

All of it, my friend, all of it!

Re:DRM

[gpinzone]

Linux yes. Pirating games no. Sony, Nintendo, and Sega have all used "non-standard" hardware and there has always been a way to pirate games. Let's drop the anti-MS stuff for a second and realize that a games console doesn't need to be a general purpose PC. MS can get more bang for the buck by designing this animal to the spcific application of games only.

Re:DRM

[HardCase]

I wonder how much of this is to make it harder to pirate games or run linux on the XBox?

Well, as the article said, "They sure don't want to have a situation where an Xbox can be turned into a PC."

-h-

Re:DRM

[BigBuckHunter]

Cause we all know that Linux won't run on PPC and an ATI graphics card (sarcasm!!). Since the XBox Next does not feature and HDD, then why bother? Granted, hooking a HDD up to the modded USB2.5 ports shouldn't be that hard after getting the specs from SIS. BBH

Re:DRM

[Sj0]

Why does pointing out that Microsoft doesn't want linux on it's x-box have to be construed as anti-microsoft? Of course they don't want it there! It's a terrible PR blow. It's a simple fact. Whether you blame ms for it is really what makes it anti-ms or not. Do you think it's unreasonable? I don't. That doesn't change the fact that they don't want them there, or the fact that this very well could be a step towards ensuring the x-box doesn't remain a cheap linux box.

Re:DRM

[Demodian]

Hopefully, they will remember this and not port the Micoso~1 Office Game to XBox. While slaying the Werd beast in Look-Out tower with the Point of Power is difficult enough on the PC, we could use better RPG titles to make it worth the price of the new box.

Unfortunately, the ability to hack a system into a useful device is not prevented by it being something other than a PC. Plenty of network boxes, PDAs, and embedded devices run Linux or any other non-M$ OS.

It will simply be a matter of time before the system would be reversed far enough anyway to do some good for the mod community.

Re:DRM

[Troed]

Uhh .. piracy on the Gamecube was non-existant up until a month ago, and it's still not worthwile (expensive and the quality of the streamed games isn't up to par). The BIOS encryption is hacked now though so expect (expensive) add-ons to appear (external dvd-rom, hd etc).

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the only reason myself and a few others i know bought xboxs was due to the PC emulators ported, if they weren't so close to PCs and this wasn't possible I would have bought a PS2 as far more games.....

Before you say they didn't make money off my in the 7 weeks I have owned the XBOX aswell as all this 'unapproved' software I have also bought 6 games, advanced AV pack and extra controllers and light gun!

So they want to stop modding and porting etc fine, they will have even more trouble selling the thing as many will go back to Sony...

Re:DRM

[Lord_Dweomer]

Hey, porting it might not be such a bad idea. Personally I think the flight simulator easter-egg in Excel is one of the best games they've done yet!

Re:DRM

[Big Nothing]

Whoah.... that almost sounds like a challenge to run Linux on the MF.

MicroApple?

[Davak]

The IBM representative acknowledged that Microsoft is looking at the company's PowerPC technology, the underlying architecture behind the chips in Apple computers. PowerPC concepts will also be the basis of the Cell processor, which will contain multiple chip cores that handle a variety of tasks.

Microsoft absorbs good ideas from multiple places... Here they are considering powerpc concepts!

As I have said many time... Microsoft is very borg-like! I use and enjoy Microsoft everyday... but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing.

Davak

Re:MicroApple?

[Tim C]

their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing.

Then don't think of it as "borrowing" - think of it as learning. Surely that's something any good techy aspires to - to continue learning for as long as possible?

Re:MicroApple?

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems that the powerpc is doing quite well. the gamecube processor (codenamed 'gecko'), is a custom powerpc. when the next generation xbox and playstation come out, a powerpc chip will be present in every modern console.

so much for x86 domination.

on another note (and this has been mentioned already), microsoft will probably want to run the windows kernel on the new hardware (as they did with xbox), so they're gonna have to port it to powerpc. should be interesting. there were many reports of stability problems with the xbox, which runs a stripped-down win2k kernel. i wonder what will happen when they try to bring it to a new platform.

Re:MicroApple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stability problems? on the xbox? The only things that have ever crashed for me is badly pirated/stripped games and some homebrew apps by myself and other people.. but then again, YMMV..

Re:MicroApple?

[68k geek]

Microsoft absorbs good ideas from multiple places... Here they are considering powerpc concepts!

As I have said many time... Microsoft is very borg-like! I use and enjoy Microsoft everyday... but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing.

You, dear sir, are a troll. IBM is a chip manufacturer, and the fact that Apple buys their CPUs does not render all their other costumer (especially not those that are just potential costumer) as copy-cats or idea thieves.

Re:MicroApple?

[iceT]

but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing

No.. what's disturbing is they think it's 'innovation'. Why can't they just call it what it is: Integration.

(and there's room for improvement there, too)

Re:MicroApple?

[stienman]

The IBM representative acknowledged that Microsoft is looking at the company's PowerPC technology, the underlying architecture behind the chips in Apple computers. PowerPC concepts will also be the basis of the Cell processor, which will contain multiple chip cores that handle a variety of tasks.

So, MS is going to have to port over a major portion of their kernel, including directx and a few other bits, to the G5? Is this like Apple internally porting OS-X to intel, but never letting the public have it?

Although they have enough problems getting developers to sign exclusivity contracts. They are eating a little of their own pie, by telling developers that you can develop on standard PC hardware and software, then do a straight port over, but you can't sell the PC version for awhile.

Next version better have full-on network multimedia capabilities. I want to run my ripped DVDs on the TV without more than a network cord to me server. My current multimedia computer is too loud, and quiet ones are either too expensive, or too low end (no surround sound, etc)

-Adam

Re:MicroApple?

[swordboy]

As I have said many time... Microsoft is very borg-like!

And how is this different than, say, GM sitting by the wayside while other automakers figure out what works?

Chrysler introduces PT Cruiser (2000) / GM introduces HHR (2005).

Toyota introduces gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle (1997) / GM annouces plan for hybrids in 2007.

It is common for the larger companies to let the smaller ones take the risks.

Re:MicroApple?

[Anonymous Coward]

how soon people forget that microsoft has ripped many companies off by getting close to them, learning the secrets and then calling off the deal.

Re:MicroApple?

[Quarters]

So, MS is going to have to port over a major portion of their kernel, including directx and a few other bits, to the G5?

No, they won't. Microsoft has the VirtualPC technology. The ability to move XBox to a different architecture, yet still maintain compatibility, is probably one of the main reasons they bought VPC.

Re:MicroApple?

[dilbert627]

IBM PowerPC CPU + ATI GPU ???

Sounds to me like they're copying GameCube.

Re:MicroApple?

[Awptimus Prime]

Next version better have full-on network multimedia capabilities. I want to run my ripped DVDs on the TV without more than a network cord to me server. My current multimedia computer is too loud, and quiet ones are either too expensive, or too low end (no surround sound, etc)

Then just get a normal Xbox, throw a mod chip, then get a copy of XBox Media Player..

It works beautifully.

Also, if the stock Xbox makes too much noise, improve it. I ripped out all the shielding and replaced the fan with a quieter one. It runs a few degrees cooler without that insulation, but collects dust more readily. I just leave the bolts out so I can pop the lid off and vacuum it out when it comes time to vacuum out my PC's (monthly)..

Or you could quit trusting a HDD with all your rips and just slap them on a DVD(+/-)R and get a DVD player that'll read them reliably (all the progressive scan Sony's do, to my knowledge). :]

Re:MicroApple?

[stienman]

Yeah, that'll go over well with the developers.

"So, are we developing straight for the chip, or what?"
"Well, actually you'll be developing on top of DirectX, which lies on top of a cut down version of XP, which runs on VirtualPC, which runs on a microkernel, which then interfaces with the System Bios and its integrated DRM."
...
"I mean, yeah, it'll be running right on the bare metal, Real Soon Now(TM)..."
"That's what I thought you'd say."

-Adam

Re:MicroApple?

[aflat362]

Yeah, well, the GameCube is awesome so why not. But, they will never be able to assimilate the Mario franchise.

At least not until the sony PsP comes out and dominates the marketshare on portable gaming and the new Xbox comes out and dominates the console market (not so sure about the second one it all depends on the games man the games - not the hardware)

Mario could soon be pimping himself off just as a certain hedgehog is doing.

Re:MicroApple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a big hand in the design of the PowerPC architecture, as do IBM and Motorola. Just because Apple doesn't fab chips themselves doesn't mean that the technology doesn't come from them. Don't think that Apple doesn't have a design team or five working on the PPC.

Re:MicroApple?

[Hoser McMoose]

Probably not much will happen othar than that it will run. Windows was designed to be ported to different platforms fairly easily. It has run on PowerPC before (and MIPS and Alpha), and it can be made to run on that platform again.

Re:MicroApple?

[Anonymous Coward]

PSP will dominate the handheld market? Have you seen the prototype shots? WTF is up with the flush D-pad and buttons? And how can you predict the popularity of the nonexistent next xbox against the nonexistent offerings from Sony and Nintendo?

Mario will be a Nintendo exclusive forever, and, despite what anyone thinks, Nintendo will probably continue to be profitable regardless of their market position. That's how it's always been, and that's how it is now. Microsoft can't claim that any part of their xbox business is profitable. You shouldn't believe the fanboys that claim otherwise, they don't know anything about the corporate history and culture of Nintendo, Microsoft, OR Sony.

Re:MicroApple?

[NanoGator]

"but their ability to "borrow" technology and ideas is slightly disturbing."

Why? If it's a successful product, then they (typically) did something right with it.

Often is the case that the 'inventor' of an idea isn't the one who made a product worthwhile. Look at Palm Pilot vs. Newton. Apple invented Newton, Palm made it a mass-market device.

I could be mistaken about what you meant though, if you meant monopoly driven then I'd sort of agree. Thing is, though, Microsoft doesn't make a monopoly over everything it touches. Really, they only have monopolies in the Windows and Office markets. Everything else they have significantly less power in. Microsoft is not the sole provider of optical mice. I don't think anybody has a Microsoft network card. People swear by Dreameweaver and not Front Page. They're not even the server leader. So if your concern is that they borrow ideas and kill the creator, eh I don't think that's true in most cases without Microsoft doing something significant to make it a better product, much like Palm did.

Re:MicroApple?

[bill_mcgonigle]

In more ways than one.

1987 - Steve Jobs forms NeXT computer
1995 - Apple merges with NeXT
1998 - Apple announces new OS "Mac OS X"
2000 - Microsoft announced gaming platform - "X Box"
2003 - Microsoft commits to PowerPC for Xbox, called Next.

It's a funny thing about trademarks - you have to defend them by law. So, if you have limitless funds and you want to drain some cash from a competitor, just make a new product with a name similar to your competitors', and expect to change it later.

P.S. I know, X window system, directX, etc.

Re:MicroApple?

[aflat362]

I will reply to you, though I may be wasting my time as you posted as an anonymous coward (you bastard)

Regarding the PsP prototype shots. It would have been useful for you to supply a link so I knew specifically what the fuck you were talking about but since you did not I'll just have to google it and see if I can find something. Also since you did not supply a link I have no idea of the credibility of your claims of the prototype shots.

I believe the PsP will dominate over the Game Boy Advance for several reasons:

• Sony Knows their shit and wouldn't waste time and money by coming out with a piece of shit like the nokia.
• Sony has a great library of playstation games to port to the new portable.
• I never found the GBA appealing - it is lacking in its game library (no new mario platformer???) and there is no backlighting.
• The GBA is marketed primarily towards kids. The PsP will be marketed to teens and young adults. Kids have no money to spend - Teens and young adults do.

How can I predict the popularity of the next Xbox? --- Because Microsoft is the only console maker that appears to be in high gear for their next console. It will be out on the market way ahead of Nintendo and Sony's next attempt. The PS2 is already stale - I own one and might buy one or 2 more games that's about it. The current Xbox has about 3 customers and the GameCube . . . well the Cube is alright - it would be nice to see a Super Mario game though. Regardless, by the time the next Xbox comes out the GameCube will be showing its age pretty badly and gamers will be hurting for a new system. With Nintendo and Sony showing nothing on the horizon, everyone will want - and most will buy - and Xbox.

Same god damn thing happened with the PS2 - it came out first - Nintendo had nothing to offer for a long time and therefore lost their asses. Those Japs can make some F'd up games but I don't think they'll learn their lesson. Microsoft on the other hand are rutheless pricks and will seize this opportunity.

If my prophecy comes true, this will leave Nintendo on their asses. Miyamato might try to come out with a new platform and he may actually be successful with it if he makes some good mario/zelda/metroid games. Otherwise what happens when companies are shit out of luck? They whore themselves off. Is it such an unbelievable concept that mario could appear on other platforms?

Re:MicroApple?

[PainKilleR-CE]

So, MS is going to have to port over a major portion of their kernel, including directx and a few other bits, to the G5? Is this like Apple internally porting OS-X to intel, but never letting the public have it?

No, because the PPC port of NT is sitting on most of the NT4 discs out there. They just dropped support for it eventually, and unless a significant demand for XP on PPC comes along after they've put it on XBox, it's unlikely that they'll start shipping it again.

That being said, maybe shifting the XBox to PPC will be enough to drive demand amongst XBox developers to have XP on PPC (this all assumes that they aren't going to keep using 2k as the kernel for the next XBox).

Re:MicroApple?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Regarding the PsP prototype shots. It would have been useful for you to supply a link so I knew specifically what the fuck you were talking about but since you did not I'll just have to google it and see if I can find something. Also since you did not supply a link I have no idea of the credibility of your claims of the prototype shots.

Better than a google, go through last week's games.slashdot.org stories, there were 2 last week linking to different sites with the prototype shots, which is probably why he didn't bother linking to the shots for you.

I believe the PsP will dominate over the Game Boy Advance for several reasons:

* Sony Knows their shit and wouldn't waste time and money by coming out with a piece of shit like the nokia.

That remains to be seen, since they've never competed in this market before (the closest they came was the PocketStation, which was more like a DreamCast memory card than a handheld console). Nokia certainly 'knows their shit' when it comes to cell phones, but that didn't stop them from producing shit.

* Sony has a great library of playstation games to port to the new portable.

Quick! Name 10 Sony games. Nevermind, I don't really want to know. Sony has a lot of contracts with people to do PS2 games. I haven't seen anouncements on who has been contractually obligated to make PSP games, whether ports or not.

* I never found the GBA appealing - it is lacking in its game library (no new mario platformer???) and there is no backlighting.

So get a GBA-SP which has a front/side-light. I think I prefer SMB3 to a 'new' mario platformer, although I agree that if done right it'd be nice to see Mario's 2D legacy continued. 2 of the 3 Castlevania games are excellent. Then there's WarioWare, Golden Sun, Advance Wars, Zelda, and so on.

* The GBA is marketed primarily towards kids. The PsP will be marketed to teens and young adults. Kids have no money to spend - Teens and young adults do.

Which is why more GBAs are selling than PS2s, everywhere. Nokia shot themselves in the foot by saying the GBA was for kids, because, surprise, the market they claimed they were aiming for already owns GBAs. Sony's likely to find that very few people buying PSPs for games don't already own a GBA.

How can I predict the popularity of the next Xbox? --- Because Microsoft is the only console maker that appears to be in high gear for their next console.

What hole did you crawl into? Microsoft is barely starting design of the processor and has selected a vendor for their GPU. On the Sony side, they were talking about cell processors with IBM and Hitachi shortly after the PS2 was released. On the Nintendo side the work's been going for some time and they solidified their deals with ATI and IBM as well. If anything, Microsoft is a bit behind, especially since Sony's been working on the PS3 since before the XBox and Cube were released.

It will be out on the market way ahead of Nintendo and Sony's next attempt. The PS2 is already stale - I own one and might buy one or 2 more games that's about it. The current Xbox has about 3 customers and the GameCube . . . well the Cube is alright - it would be nice to see a Super Mario game though.

Nintendo already stated they won't be last to market. I think you'll find that all 3 consoles will be released close on the heels of one another, unlike this current generation, where the DreamCast was released about a year ahead of the PS2, and the XBox and Cube were released about a year after the PS2. I've still got plenty of PS2 titles I want, but then I only buy exclusive titles for it, since I'm one of the 3 XBox owners and buy most of the cross-platform games for it. As for the Cube, I take it you mean a Super Mario game besides Sunshine.

Regardless, by the time the next Xbox comes out the GameCube will be showing its age pretty badly and gamers will be hurting for a new system. With Nintendo an

Re:MicroApple?

[aflat362]

Better than a google, go through last week's games.slashdot.org stories, there were 2 last week linking to different sites with the prototype shots, which is probably why he didn't bother linking to the shots for you.

Perhaps . . . not your fault anyway.

That remains to be seen, since they've never competed in this market before (the closest they came was the PocketStation, which was more like a DreamCast memory card than a handheld console). Nokia certainly 'knows their shit' when it comes to cell phones, but that didn't stop them from producing shit.

Point taken, but Sony entered the console market quite gracefully - and they have experience as a game company. This gives them an upper hand entering the portable gaming market.

Quick! Name 10 Sony games. Nevermind, I don't really want to know. Sony has a lot of contracts with people to do PS2 games. I haven't seen anouncements on who has been contractually obligated to make PSP games, whether ports or not.

I think it is safe to assume that sony's portable system will have a similiar game library to their PS1 and PS2 systems.

So get a GBA-SP which has a front/side-light. I think I prefer SMB3 to a 'new' mario platformer, although I agree that if done right it'd be nice to see Mario's 2D legacy continued. 2 of the 3 Castlevania games are excellent. Then there's WarioWare, Golden Sun, Advance Wars, Zelda, and so on.

I was actually thinking of getting an SP - I still may but then again I may just wait until the Psp Comes out. I have super mario 3 on NES and on SNES with the Super Mario All stars. I doubt I'd pay 30-40 bucks again just to take it on the road. I'm glad you agree that some new mario 2d platformers would be nice. Which of the 3 castlevania games isn't excellent? In case I buy an SP.

Which is why more GBAs are selling than PS2s, everywhere. Nokia shot themselves in the foot by saying the GBA was for kids, because, surprise, the market they claimed they were aiming for already owns GBAs. Sony's likely to find that very few people buying PSPs for games don't already own a GBA.

The portable gaming market is different than the home console market. GBA is the only portable - PS2 has competitors this is why GBAs sell more.

The Dream Cast was not in the same console generation as the PS2 - and if they were, who cares? They hardly went anywhere with it.

Re:MicroApple?

[PainKilleR-CE]

I was actually thinking of getting an SP - I still may but then again I may just wait until the Psp Comes out. I have super mario 3 on NES and on SNES with the Super Mario All stars. I doubt I'd pay 30-40 bucks again just to take it on the road. I'm glad you agree that some new mario 2d platformers would be nice.

Lucky for me I didn't own an SNES, otherwise there'd probably be a lot more games I didn't care about either way on both the GBA and GC platforms. I also didn't own SMB3, though I played it quite a bit on friends' NES systems.

Which of the 3 castlevania games isn't excellent? In case I buy an SP.

I have Aria of Sorrow and Harmony of Dissonance, both are excellent. I read some bad reviews of Circle of the Moon, but will probably pick it up eventually. I simply won't call it excellent until I've played it ;)

The portable gaming market is different than the home console market. GBA is the only portable - PS2 has competitors this is why GBAs sell more.

Actually, I think the GBA sells more because the PS2 costs almost twice as much (as the SP, 3-4 times as much as the older GBA), and because multiple GBAs per household is much more likely than multiple PS2s per household (comes with the whole portable thing). I have 2 SPs, an old-style GBA, and a GB Player myself.

The Dream Cast was not in the same console generation as the PS2 - and if they were, who cares? They hardly went anywhere with it.

They were in the same generation, Sony pushed the advertising for the PS2 up to keep people waiting for their console rather than buying DreamCasts (which cost 2/3 as much at launch as a PS2 that launched a year later), and launched the PSOne (redesign) around the same time as the DreamCast as well. Many of the games ported from the DC to the PS2 don't look as good on the PS2 because the DC games just looked better (especially the 1st gen titles). It just didn't do well in the Japanese market and had a shaky US launch, so it was killed off too soon. The only point, and why people should care, is that regardless of how good the system is (was), being first out the gate isn't everything people seem to think it is.

This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[Scareduck]

This is about pulling the plug on booting Linux, period.

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

True probably is..

But as everyone here knows, linux has been ported to just about every platform there is.. and a new xbox isn't gonna stop someone from once again making it work.

Linux runs on a PS2.. and it's non-standard hardware.. I know, some geek somewhere is itchin to get their hands on the "xbox next" just so they can mail a picture to billy boy showing it with a penguin on the screen.

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[FPCat]

I doubt Microsoft cares as much about Linux as the rampant piracy of the Xbox games

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[PhoenixFlare]

They certainly may consider the Linux-booting an important issue, yes, but let's not overstate things.

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[HeX314]

I don't think it's so much an attack on Linux on your Xbox since they don't even sell a Windows for Xbox.

I think this has more to do with the DRM technology that is required to prevent people from hacking the machine and adding non-certified extras (i.e. larger hard drive, mod chips, etc.).

Running Linux on the Xbox is simply an adaptation of the ability to easily hack the console.

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The Linux crowd shouldn't be so arogant.

The thing Sony has over Microsoft is the ability to spin chips and reduce COGS, thus passing the price reduction onto the consumer (or not, and reaping the profits).

There was no way in hell Intel and Nvidia would give up their IP to Microsoft after the fact in order to allow proper shrinks and cost reduction.

The chip community is all about agregate cost (cost of product over its lifespan). The problem is the cost agregate of the Xbox with its discreet components is high. The Playstation can be shaped by Sony to steadily reduce its cost over time.

Microsoft just doesn't want to lose $100 for every Xbox sold over its lifetime. Breaking even would be fine (I believe Sony approximately breaks even with the PS2, sold at a loss in the beginning, sold at a profit in the end).

If making it difficult to run Linux is a side effect, great (for Microsoft). It certainly isn't the primary reason for going this route.

Re:This is about pulling the plug on Linux

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

The number of people that hack X-Box (or other consoles) is very small. It's just like the number of people who pirate movies: very few.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Port 139?

[Troll the Bones]

So they'll hardwire port 139 open on the metal?
Best Mr. Burns voice: Excellent

Different from IBM chip deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I haven't RTFA'ed.... But I guess this is different than the IBM chip to be included in the next-gen XBOX?

Re:Different from IBM chip deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, no different. Just another case of /. bringing you yesterday's news today!

Cool, a black cube named Next...

[attemptedgoalie]

Will the innovations never cease?

Re:Cool, a black cube named Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be called blue box.

Re:Cool, a black cube named Next...

[IM6100]

The question is, five or ten years down the road, will Apple give up on the efforts of their own engineers, buy this NeXT technology and slap their label on it?

those that learn history don't repeat it

[Horny Smurf]

Back in the 1980s, IBM considered the PC to be a fad. So when they introduced one, they used cheap off-the-shelf parts (intel 8086, etc) and had MS provide the OS. When it proved to NOT be a passing fad, IBM regretted it.

The original X-Box was a reworked PC. Maybe they want a closed system for their next box so Linux won't run on it.

Re:those that learn history don't repeat it

[Best ID Ever!]

Maybe they want a closed system for their next box so Linux won't run on it.

I seriously doubt they made a major engineering decision based on the relatively small number of people putting linux on their Xbox. And we all know that Linux will end up on whatever they come out with anyway.

I'd be interested to know what actually drove this decision though. Supposedly the advantage of the Xbox was the fact that it used off-the-shelf PC parts and had a Windows environment to make it easy on developers. A custom chip changes the game quite a bit.

Re:those that learn history don't repeat it

[MrUnknown]

I wouldn't doubt that the reason for a new processor would to make it harder for linux to run on. I also don't care if linux runs on it or not, it's a gaming console, id never buy it for linux compatability nor run linux on it.
"it's a cheap PC!"
so what.

Re:those that learn history don't repeat it

[Anonymous Coward]

The original X-Box was a reworked PC. Maybe they want a closed system for their next box so Linux won't run on it.

You really think they'd change the whole damn design JUST to stop people from using linux?! There's a lot of better reasons for a closed system; piracy for example. But if people can boot linux on P2 they sure as hell will hack this to run linux too. Get a grip -- are you so paranoid they you translate every move Microsoft makes as an attack on linux!?

XBox NeXT?

[dwm]

Steve Jobs: "Get my lawyer on the line!"

Re:XBox NeXT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm suing, I'm suing! (With placating hand gestures.)

Re:XBox NeXT?

[demonbug]

Nah, more like "Get my lawyerFX on the line!"

You've gotta keep up with the fads.

Re:XBox NeXT?

[rootofevil]

i believe you mean his "iLitigator"

Re:Xbox Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are they going to call the next one?
Next XBox Next? NeXtNeXtBox?

Re:XBox NeXT?

[Dachannien]

Damn, beat me to it! ;)

This is news?

[wankledot]

Why is this news? Hardware makers with the kind of volume that the Xbox has are going to get involved with the makers... Why would they buy an off-the-shelf part? It could keep costs down, but working closely w/ IBM to get something that's better performance, etc. is probably worth it.

Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[oscast]

"X"Box - OS X
"next" - NeXT

Those who previously doubted Bill Gates love obsession with Steve Jobs be damed...

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to auction off this spare letter n I have lying around....

Any offers?

Damn :)

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

how did this get modded insightful??? Moderators -- you are on crack.

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[The Analog Kid]

The love seems to be mutual. Jaguar and Panther were both codenames for Microsoft products.

Panther - Port of Windows NT Win32 core to run atop Cougar. Project subsequently abandoned in favor of Chicago.

Jaguar - Retail implementation of Cougar (DOS 7.00). Major features included more powerful and consistent command-line options, improved NLS support, Flash Memory Filesystem, etc. Subsequently merged with Cougar and Stimpy (but not Panther) to become Chicago.

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[Dutchmaan]

"X"Box - OS X
"next" - NeXT

I've Deciphered the code!!!!

The No Sex Box!

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The No Sex Box!

Wouldn't that be a console running Linux?

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs

[Malcontent]

MS is clearly on the way to controlling the hardware as well as the software. Once they get the XP theme down right and the nice CLI built they will finally have a decent copy of a Mac.

Who would have thought the next Mac clone would have come from MS.

MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[ShieldWolf]

By switching from using relatively standard parts to more customized silicon, the company can better optimize its game console

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware is not software...
If Microsoft put DirectX 10? on top of it, it will be (almost) the same developing for it or for the PC...

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[wfberg]

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

I very much doubt the ActiveX APIs on the next XBox will differ much from the ActiveX found on ordinary PC hardware. Most of the rest, the compiler takes care of. How difficult is it to port most apps from linux-ppc to linux-i386, or even from linux-ppc to freebsd-i386?
The XBox already runs on not-quite-standard hardware and not-quite-windows-2k/xp..

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[robson]

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

You know, I'm not sure this is really a relevant issue. Most Xbox games have *not* had PC ports. Granted, developers appreciate that the Xbox's structure is similar to PCs and thus easier to work with than, say, the parallelized PS2, but that's different from wanting it for ease of cross-platform development.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Malc]

Just wait and see. MSFT are normally very good with backwards compatibility. I'll bet that they'll have a version of Windows supporting things like DirectX with an identical API to Windows on a PC. Perhaps just install a plug-in cross compiler for Visual Studio .Net 2005. Maybe comparing WinCE to Windows might be a starting place to see how well they can do???? What I care about most is whether my existing XBox games will run... Sony proved how beneficial that is with the PS2.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[javatips]

Now that they have a bunch of game developers following them, they no longer need the easy porting feature. They prove (to some extends) that they can build a competitive gaming console, now they can change the architecture without second taughts.

Like it was previously mentionned, they will probably use the VirtualPC software to provide game compatibility with the current XBox. I bet that the new API will be backward compatibile with the current one. They will certainly not do a complete rewrite of it. So current developpers will be able to quickly go on with the new architecture.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[GoNINzo]

Ah, but the guy who designed the original XBox also created one of the worst games ever, Trespasser. So what can you expect. (even if he isn't on the team anymore)

I logged onto slashdot to point out the exact same thing, but realized they can continue to use many off the shelf parts such as hard drives, usb, and different subcomponents.

I'm just curious how they intend to keep the price point the same, how they plan to treat past owners of the XBox, and what, if any, is the upgrade path.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Haeleth]

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

That might have been the case ten years ago, when most game development still took place in ASM and at so low a level that it fell out of the bottom of the console and burnt a hole in your carpet.

Now, however, that is nonsense. Portability these days is defined by the operating system and API, not the underlying hardware. If Microsoft provide the right interfaces - Win32, DirectX, .Net, or whatever - then games will be very easily ported between x86/Win32 and this new XBox, whatever it's like inside.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[dustinbarbour]

Moving away from readily available, standardized parts always drives cost up. Then again, I guess Microsoft could handle having slightly lower profits from XBox Next.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Anonymous Coward]

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

Yes, it may become less similar to the PC, but I don't think this will matter that much. I bet they'll still stick with DirectX for the graphics architecture and a Win32-like API. If they preserve those there will be no problem. The only ones who really care about the change are going to be those making bleeding-edge single-platform releases that barely fit the machine - Halo 2 and Doom 3 come to mind.

As for the CPU - nobody *needs* assembler in videogames any more - it makes the games unportable and isn't worth the performance gain as compared to designing your algorithms correctly in the first place. In general, the biggest performance problems when developing for a console are non-sequential disk access when loading a level from a CD - and CPU cache misses (budget mass-market on-chip cache compared to a PC). Everything else should be peanuts to solve if you have a good profiler. And if you're a serious developer, you're already doing three-platform simultaneous releases.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[tspilman]

And they are effectively removing the aspect of XBox that made it cost effective and appealing to developers: easy porting to the PC through common components and CPU architecture.

Just because they may ditch the Intel chip doesn't mean it will be hard to port PC games. It will still have DirectX, it will still have a limited subset of the Win32 API, and i'm betting it will still be very PC like to program for with the CPU/GPU combo doing all the work. In contrast the PS2 has 5 processors you must balance to get the same performance: CPU, VU0, VU1, GS, and the DMA controller. It can be very alien for many PC programmers to grasp. Porting difficulty on the XB2 will still be trivial unless you have a large amount of assembly in your code.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[GoofyBoy]

>You know, I'm not sure this is really a relevant issue

It isn't, the first post doesn't know what he is talking about. There are lots of games which get released simutaneously across many different consoles at the same time. An example of a company who does this is EA.

So developing for a single API isn't a problem or an advantage for certain companies.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[ShieldWolf]

Now, however, that is nonsense.
Which is why Windows NT was so successful on the MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC platforms? I realize of course that a recompile would be NECESSARY to port from XBox to PC anyways, but if the architecture is totally different, then you must rely COMPLETELY on the API's for your game if you wish to port to the PC, which is not the current state of affairs if you want the fastest game possible.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

small correction... you mean DirectX and not ActiveX...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Actually all of them were right--half right that is. Most console developers don't care about the PC market. The market is too small and the types of games that sell on the PC are different (compare what passes as an RPG on a console to a PC one, or an RTS, or ARPG, etc).

BUT I 'm sure that having a common development environment helps. I am not a console programmer but from what I understand the best thing about the X-Box is the development environment (like IDE, tools, etc).

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[glenrm]

Most XBox games hove *not* had PC ports.
Except Halo, Grand Theft Auto (in reverse), Knights of the Old Republic, Splinter Cell, Morrowind, Metal of Honor, Max Payne, Unreal Tournament to name a few.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[IM6100]

Microsoft did not want developers to write games for the XBox and port them over to the PC. They wanted the migration to go the other way. They wanted game developers with experience developing PC games to be able to easily move over to the XBox platform. As to wether the migration is now complete and they have the developer mindspace to migrate their XBox technology away from the PC architecture, well, they must feel it's a safe thing to do. They certainly haven't encouraged cross platform XBox game developers to migrate the other way, over to the generic PC...

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a fucking clue. No one in the console world cares if the mass of waste of space DX hacks can't handle real console hardware like the PS2.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[wfberg]

small correction... you mean DirectX and not ActiveX...

My bad. Damn Xes cropping up all over the place.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Most of the games you just mentionned were also available on OTHER consoles too, so I fail to see your point.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[Bert64]

Not atall, the xbox was always more expensive to produce than the ps2 or gamecube. Also bear in mind that it uses a laptop cpu, not a desktop cpu, again a more expensive item, and that even taking into account the laptop cpu, the console as a whole consumes more power and generates more heat than competing consoles.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[master_p]

At least I hope we are gonna see a truly innovative product...for example, one that can do hardware radiosity lighting at real time.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[PainKilleR-CE]

but if the architecture is totally different, then you must rely COMPLETELY on the API's for your game if you wish to port to the PC, which is not the current state of affairs if you want the fastest game possible.

Most people don't drop down past the APIs to write to the CPU any more, though. The place they do this is for the video card, using extensions or specialized languages to get closer to the GPU and get finer control. This is helped by the fact that the current XBox uses an nVidia chipset which is fairly compatible with the nVidia GPUs in home PCs. In the case of the next XBox, you're looking at an ATI part that will probably be similar to the ATI parts at home, but, most importantly, you're looking at a part that many developers have claimed does very well with straight DirectX9 code without dropping down to a lower level, because it was designed for the API and the API was tweaked with the ATI hardware available.

Re:MS is removing a key advantage of XBox

[glenrm]

The cost to have them available on the OTHER consoles was much higher than the cost to make them available on the PC. You get the PC port for almost free, the only cost is if you want to add features such as higher resolution textures or multiplayer.

The short story

[heironymouscoward]

1. Microsoft will find a partner willing to invest in designing a new generation of hardware.

2. The product will start to become a reality.

3. Microsoft will pull out of the deal, citing "differences" and go into the hardware business itself, suddenly having aquired lots of new technology and staff.

4. Lawyers everywhere will rejoice once again.

Ah, but the lure of big money will find a sucker every time. Microsoft is like a huge fat 419 scam artist. "Have $500bn sitting in games market, need someone to facilitate extraction, will give 10%".

Re:The short story

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'll still buy it.

History lesson...

[Anonymous Coward]

M$ moving into processors? Eisenhower's Domino theory rearing it's head once again. This time with a similarly sinister agent.

From commodity to specialized?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Wasn't the XBox supposed to crush Sony like a grape because it used commodity parts while silly Sony used specialized ones, therefore much more expensive?

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[steve_l]

yes. but that plan had one small flaw -it was bollocks.

Sony used custom Si with the same die area as Itanium1, yet could afford to pull it off by selling in the millions.

MS thought that by reusing PC kit they could get in the business easily (true), and ride the continual fall in PC part cost. Unfortunately, PC parts had had their cost already sucked out of them, apart from the effective 5% a month cost reduction of the Si parts. HDD and the DVD dont have much cost reduction at all, so that HDD is $70 of rotating iron whose cost is fixed. The best bit: Sony also rode the fall in Si parts, didnt have an HDD to provide fixed cost and can cut the selling price of the PS/2 whenever their spreadsheet hints that MS may be about to break even on hardware.

I think the biggest mistake of MS was thinking they could sell the hardware at a loss and make money on the games. The trick is to sell the hardware at a profit and make even more money on the games. Sony do that. Adding the HDD was another error. All it does is replicate DLL hell and add the Bill Of Materials of the box.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[cgenman]

Amusingly enough, the opposite proved true. (can't tell if you were being sarcastic)

Sony's specialized parts ensured that Sony owned all of the rights. Sony's intimate knowledge of the parts and the manufacturing has allowed them to combine silicon, cutting down on overall size and costs. Likewise, the only profittaking is from Sony, and with fewer hands in the pot the margins can be shrunk. Unfortunately for Microsoft, using off-the-shelf parts from different manufacturers ensured that they needed the cooperation (and credits) from different companies. Nvidia, for example, gets a cut on the sales of the hardware, not from the software like ATI gets from Nintendo. Microsoft similarly needs to use faster hardware in their machines as they aren't exactly console-optimized. The 'Cube, again, can get away with running on much slower (read, cheaper) hardware, because it would be a terrible webserver. Say what you will about the XBox OS, it's hardware and interfaces were not originally developed with gaming in mind.

On the other hand, the success of the PS2 can probably be traced to GT3, GTA, Square, Metal Gear Solid 2, Onimusha, and a host of must-have games that were released before the Xbox hit its stride. People buy games and hardware to play those games, not hardware and games to play on that hardware.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Helium03]

Some battles are over (debut of XBox and sales relative to PS2) but the war is far from seeing the dust settle. Sony is currently almost on it's knees. It's being forced to drive the axe through some heads and consolodate some of it's internal corporate structure. I've been watching this one very closely. MicroSoft I'm sure has smelled the blood in the water and will soon pummel the limping Sony into submission. MicroSoft can afford to be patient and go slow...It will. Sony's days are nearing sun set. -Helium03-

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[MrUnknown]

I believe it was supposed to crush Sony PlayStation because of the fact that porting from PC to XBox would be extremely easy compared to PC to Sony Playstation. The PS requires almost a complete re-write whereas the XBox barely does.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[gl4ss]

using off the shelf pc components is cheap..

if you only plan to produce a limited run of the machines(cheap r&d, expensive if you use zillions of them, compared to spending a bit more on r&d up front and then being able to produce the chips yourself, without paying some % of extra to some another company for every chip).

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they never said they were going to crush anyone. They've always said it's a marathon, not a sprint.

Considering how badly some of their other services have tanked (MSN, for example), 8-10 million Xboxes isn't shabby.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Grendel Frost]

I have to disagree with you with regards to the HD. You are correct with regards to the fixed cost, but the biggest mistake was in limiting the usefullness of it. Had they included the ability to play mp3's or even wma and let the xbox be a mediacenter, then the HD would have been a great selling poit.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Hast]

Adding a HDD was one of the best things Microsoft did with the XBox, that and having ethernet as standard. Those two will be requirements for future consoles, if you ask me.

I don't see what adding a HDD has to do with dll's though.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

What you are saying may be true but why do people assume that MS didn't know it was going to lose money? It might have been their plan all along. Many companies are willing to take losses in order to enter a market and capture market share.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[fermion]

It is really the failure of the business model. MS thought that if they used commodity parts, tied everything to the monopoly, they could gain market share with a product that was only different because it was from MS.

However, the plan didn't work because of two big reasons. First, MS is horrible at creating embedded devices. People tolerate the MS PDAs because they integrate well with Outlook, i.e. MS can leverage the monopoly. The phones will succeed for the same reason. Second, games have be, are, and always will be at the forefront of technology. This is true all way back in history where we see wheels on only toys. Therefore game consoles are unique because they take technological risks that are not present on GPCs. For a console to succeed it must be, by definition, significantly different from a GPC.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[EnglishTim]

Firstly, I don't think Microsoft ever thought they'd be able run the first Xbox at a profit.

Secondly, I don't think the silicon in the PS2 has worked out that much cheaper than the silicon in the Xbox - The Xbox CPU is probably a bit more expensive due to it running at over twice the clock speed, but not much.

The big thing which makes the a huge difference is that the Xbox has a 10Gb Hard Drive and the PS2 doesn't. You just can't make hardrives that cheap - they've got too many parts. This is what made the Xbox expensive. (Well, expensive for Microsoft - here in the UK the Xbox is cheaper than the PS2...)

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Artifex]

People buy games and hardware to play those games, not hardware and games to play on that hardware.

Yup. When both were about to come out, I made a list of which games I wanted to play on each platform and decided to buy them when the games came out.

Final Fantasy X was on my list for PS2. Bought both.
Two games from the movie A.I. were scheduled for release on Xbox, and I would have bought it for those two. They were scuttled. I'm not into FPS, and haven't seen anything compelling, otherwise, to get me to buy an Xbox.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[WNight]

Console gamers are more numerous, but PC gamers look down on them because console games usually involve following an in-game movie, seperated by frustrating jumping puzzles. Rarely does anything in-depth come out and when it does, usually they resort to save-spots and other crap in order to reduce the size of save-games so they can fit them on flash-ram.

PCs on the other hand have games with tons of content, easily downloadable extras, user mods, complex games where you can save *all* the state, not just which area you're in, etc.

Why the difference? The distribution media (fixed these days with CD/DVD consoles) and a HD to store data on.

Morrowind, an example of the depth of PC RPGs, came out on the XBox, not the PS2 or Nintendo because you can talk to thousands of NPCs and be involved with hundreds of quests at any given time. GTA3 on the other hand merely records which missions you've done, at one bit each, your cash, a small number of cars, and which save spot you're at. It's even made for a console with just a few meg of ram, face away from a car and it probably won't be there when you get back. And suprise, it was developed for a PS2... Even the best of console graphics look like PC games from two or three years ago. Crappy lighting, low-poly, jerky graphics, low-res textures.

Poor console schmucks. Here's a nickel, buy yourselves a real gaming platform, one with a HD.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is the only public company I can think of that can make such long-term money-losing decisions. They are lucky, laughable bastards to have such stupid sheep as investors.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[UpnAtom]

Microsoft's monopoly and cash reserves are its main assets. They can afford to throw money at every market they can monopolise and be fairly sure of a big payoff eventually.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Ataru]

If they are sheep, then they are wearing golden fleeces.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[robson]

Morrowind, an example of the depth of PC RPGs, came out on the XBox, not the PS2 or Nintendo because you can talk to thousands of NPCs and be involved with hundreds of quests at any given time. GTA3 on the other hand merely records which missions you've done, at one bit each, your cash, a small number of cars, and which save spot you're at. It's even made for a console with just a few meg of ram, face away from a car and it probably won't be there when you get back. And suprise, it was developed for a PS2... Even the best of console graphics look like PC games from two or three years ago. Crappy lighting, low-poly, jerky graphics, low-res textures.

I've always thought it was commonly accepted that consoles are on the bleeding edge for about 6 months after launch, and then consumer PC hardware surpasses them technologically. So, for those 6 months, the console people are like, "Look what console X can do, it's so much more powerful than your piddly general-purpose PCs!" But then, after that 6 month mark, the PC gamers always say, "Hey, we can upgrade our PCs to be more powerful than your lame console, and you'll be stuck with that old tech for years!"

But it's a pointless argument because consoles and PCs are constantly subject to this cycle.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Anonymous Coward]

XBox sales were disappointing, but I don't think that even MS themselves was misguided enough to believe that they would overrun Sony with it's first generation of the console plus a 6-12 month lag on the market. If *you* believed it, then that's your fault for believing their hype. Also, x86 platform did help to garner more games than had they gone with proprietary from the bat.

Sony is doing well. They have every reason to stay in the game. But make no mistake that this is a losing game for them. The next generation of the XBox will gain marketshare on Sony. And the next generation after that, MS will be ahead of Sony. As long as MS continues support, they can afford to make several mistakes before a hit.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[steve_l]

point taken. 'If the HDD was useful then it could have been worth the money'. But as they didnt, it was $70 of cost that is hard to redeem.

Hard disks are special as their base price bottoms out above $50 -instead of their price falling, what you can get for your money increases. But while desktops and servers gain from the capacity increases, embedded systems just suffer.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[steve_l]

I think they thought they could break even and make money on the games. But sony are more ruthless.

PS/2 is a major slice of Sony's income -what 60%? They cannot afford to lose and are prepared to do whatever it takes.

MS are blessed with lots in the bank, and more coming in. Even then, a money sink in the home business unit can't be appreciated by the rest of the company. They are lucky MSN is just about breaking even these days.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[AnyNoMouse]

Actually, another reason was probably time to market. The X-Box was a fairly quick project and using commodity parts probably helped them step their timetables up quite a lot.

Now that they have some time to plan, they can get away from the commodity parts and create something a bit more specific to their goals.

Re:From commodity to specialized?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Actually nearly all large corporations do that. It's just that you never hear of them. I worked at G.E. during my summer work term a long time ago and they were basically selling one of their products at a loss to the Asian (or maybe it was European? don't remember) market so as to capture market share. Once they get their foot in the door, they can increase prices or alter their pricing strategy (just look at cellphones, cable tv, to see the same thing).

As someone who responded above says, the thing with Microsoft is that they have large amounts of cash. This basically means that you can try risky strategies. When they do succeed, they win big. It's sort of like diversified investing. They may not have done well in say webTV, Bob :), etc. But they did very well with their MS SQL Server, Windows 95 (vs OS/2), etc.

Capital is what matters under capitalism. As long as you have a lot of it (MS does), you WILL win. How much do you wnat to bet that .NET will be a standard in 5 years? How much do you want ot bet that C# will be the #1 language for new applications in 3 years?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Propritary

[AsnFkr]

By switching from using relatively standard parts to more customized silicon, the company can better optimize its game console, due in 2005.

Or cut back on piracy. Perhaps we will have to activate games online in the future!

Re:Propritary

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget game activation, you won't even be able to own the consol, just lease it on a subscription basis. This way they can fleece gamers more and control their upgrade cycle.

This is, of course, to better serve (by rear entry) gamers.

Re:Propritary

[Aliencow]

Like burned games wouldnt be cracked in a few minutes.

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Microsoft can slap poor security issues right into the silicon....no more of that slow software processing crap!

Seriously, what can Microsoft contribute that won't be a detriment to the hardware? DRM?

IBM is good

[Davak]

IBM helps microsoft build chips -- boo!
IBM brings linux to the desktop -- yeah!
IBM develops evil patents -- boo!

I'm confused. Do we like or hate big blue this week?

Davak

Re:IBM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so unusual about both cheering and booing IBM? Are we supposed to choose one and stick with it no matter what?

Re:IBM is good

[ivan256]

Do you really need somebody to tell you how to think?

Re:IBM is good

[Gherald]

> Do we like or hate big blue this week?

Well lets see...

0 XOR 1 XOR 0

Any questions?

Re:IBM is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler (oops, lost the argument already!) was an evil man. But if he had anonymously donated a vast sum of money to an orphanage, say, with absolutely no strings attached, would that have been an evil deed?

Even on Slashdot, some people are capable of looking at the world in terms of shades of grey, rather than the black and white so beloved of trolls and the media. The bad are capable of good deeds, and the good are capable of bad deeds. IBM can do good things and bad things. Maybe, you know, we like that they're supporting Linux, and hate that they're working with Microsoft, and hold an ambivalent attitude to the company as a whole?

Nah... it'll never work.

Re:IBM is good

[IM6100]

It's sort of a neurotic love/hate relationship.

It is sort of ironic, though. I mean, when OS/2 came out, it was widely perceived as a bad, baaaaad thing by all the tech freaks and fanatics. It rolled out of Big Blue accompanying the Microchannel Architecture, and everybody perceieved it as evil and proprietary.

Now, there are geeks who wax nostalgic about how wonderful OS/2 was, and who speak fondly of IBM as the savior of freedom in computers.

Proprietary Hardware

[HeX314]

Xbox .NET? Does moving to non-standard technology have anything to do with the Palladium platform and anti-piracy? (duh) I know several people who own Xboxes and have modded them to use larger hard disks and copy the Xbox discs to HD for duplicating games. If MS is losing money on the $300 original Xbox, then the proprietary hardware will prevent copies and maybe sell more games. Perhaps they will break even this time.

Yes, that it is....

[Svartalf]

But, the thing is, for the most part, only the extreme crowd is interested in doing that sort of thing. One drawback that Microsoft is going to have to work at, is that if they get too custom, they're going to make the big selling point (i.e. it's next to nothing to port a Windows game over to the X-Box...) and pretty much throw it out the window.

Re:Yes, that it is....

[normal_guy]

Microsoft isn't making anything new, they're going to actively participate in the engineering process (at least more than they did with NVidia and the Nforce-based Xbox 1). When your game machine is marketed to the hardcore gamers, hacking becomes a bigger issue - as stated in the article. DirectX is still going to be basically the same API on PC and Xbox, it's not going anywhere.

Re:Yes, that it is....

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I don't really know how much the porting feature is used by developers. How many X-Box games are there for the PC, and how many PC games are there for the X-Box? I have a feeling that porting to the PC is not a big deal. It's nice but it probably doesn't impact business decisions. The types of games that sell on a PC are generally different from teh consoles. What's the best RTS for the X-Box? How about RPG?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Yes, that it is....

[zwaffle]

The selling pitch of the XBox for developers is "The XBox supports the latest DirectX API".
Portability as to do with the available APIs and their tools MSFT provides (for sound, networking and graphics) really, nothing to do with the actual chip running them.
MSFT got into deep trouble when contracting NVidia to produce the XBox chip, as did NVidia (they spent so much resources on it, it put them behind in the graphics race).

Re:Yes, that it is....

[AnyNoMouse]

Actually, the big selling point is the familiarity with the Microsft DirectX API, which they will probably still use with the new console.

As we saw with Halo, porting to the PC isn't necessarily all roses :-P

uh huh

[Telastyn]

...and as an added benefit, they can better prevent 'misapproriate use' by being the only ones who know how the 'modified' silicon works.

Re:uh huh

[worm eater]

they can better prevent 'misapproriate use' by being the only ones who know how the 'modified' silicon works.

Except for the company actually developing the chips, which happens to have hardware development contracts with two other game console companies, which will remain nameless.

If they're so concerned about IBM's ability to keep IP under wraps, why trust them with this one?

What happened to using standard PC hardware?

[gadders]

IHNRTA (I have not read the article) but I thought the main point of XBoxs was being able to use commodity PC hardware? I thought this also made it relatively straightforward for them to port XBox PC. If this changes that won't they stand to lose even more money?

A lesson from Steve Jobs

[adzoox]

I think Steve Jobs said at MacWorld Expo 2001 that Apple was the only company that ... "makes the whole widget" therefore they can better optimize the software they create for the hardware they create because they know what the strengths and weaknesses are - the PC industry (I imagine the gaming industry is the same) is harder to control because you can't necessarily control the component structure.

Come on!

[Bendebecker]

I just shelled out 200 for a playstation 2 late last year. I can't afford to go buying another game console every 2-3 years. I know technology is racing ahead so fast the a console is already obslete by the time it hits the market but would it really hurt if a company stuck to an obslete console for 5-7 years. I mean, whose going to remember a console in ten years if it was only out 3 years before ti was discontinued? Stick with one console, build up a decent library for it, and actually work on a few good games for that console rather than the eyecandy we get now. I can't keep buying consoles like this. I don't many can. And why shoudl I* buy the comapnies latest console, when if I just continue to save my money, I'll be able to afford the next model 3 years later.

Cost of console = n + $100 where n equals the prices of the console this one renders obselete.

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

My Father bought Atari for $200 in 1980ish.
The original Nintendo cost $200.
SuperNintendo also cost $200.
PS2 cost me $200.

cute formula though.

Re:Come on!

[RobotRunAmok]

I just shelled out 200 for a playstation 2 late last year. I can't afford to go buying another game console every 2-3 years.

Who sez you have to? There's a bajillion games for PS2 in just about every niche you can imagine. How many have you played? The size of the library goes well beyond the definition of "decent," I think.

I love my XBox, but I'm pretty sure I won't be buying the next gen model the day it comes out, as by then I'll prolly be about 50 games behind (I'm fascinated by these people who "finish" games in a week -- where do they find the time?). It's all about the enjoyment, not the Joneses.

I'm sure you don't feel compelled to upgrade yoour car to the latest model each time Detroit tells you. Why do you feel the compulsion to do so with your game console?

Re:Come on!

[oGMo]

I just shelled out 200 for a playstation 2 late last year. I can't afford to go buying another game console every 2-3 years. I know technology is racing ahead so fast the a console is already obslete by the time it hits the market but would it really hurt if a company stuck to an obslete console for 5-7 years.

Sorry, but if you're just buying a PS2, then you're a latecomer. That was the end of 2002, and these were out in 2000. The PS3 isn't scheduled to be out til 2005 or 2006. These things do stick around for 5-7 years.

I mean, whose going to remember a console in ten years if it was only out 3 years before ti was discontinued? Stick with one console, build up a decent library for it, and actually work on a few good games for that console rather than the eyecandy we get now.

The SNES was dominant for well over a decade. You can buy them for a reasonable price and find games used for cheap in shops. PS1 games are still just as available and just as good as they always were. PS2 games will be around for an equivalent amount of time. (They were still making PS1 games even for the US market up until very recently.)

I can't keep buying consoles like this. I don't many can. And why shoudl I* buy the comapnies latest console, when if I just continue to save my money, I'll be able to afford the next model 3 years later.

Oh, stop whining. If you're just getting a PS2 end of 2002/beginning of 2003, you're sure as heck not someone who buys all the new stuff when it comes out. You probably won't have a PS3 until it's on its third generation, so that's a good 6 years right there.

Cost of console = n + $100 where n equals the prices of the console this one renders obselete.

This is an obvious troll. Anyone who really plays games doesn't toss their old consoles just because a new one comes out. I have a NES, N64, PS1, PS2, Cube, and GBA. I can still play games on any of them. There are many, many games I don't have for all of them. Obsolescence is something for PC's, not consoles.

(Unless of course you buy a DOA console that doesn't go anywhere. And that's just buyer cluelessness.)

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I love to play video games, esp. of the Nintendo flavor. We were all jazzed to buy a Gamecube for x-mas, when we noticed that the bottom fell out of the N64 collector's market, and now all those games that used to be in the $20-30 range just a year ago (sheesh!) are now in the $5-10 range on Ebay.

So now we're just buying a ton of the 'classic' games for our recently purchased for a song N64, and are having a blast playing through Banjo-Kazooie & it's sequel, Zelda, and Jet Force Gemini. And probably won't buy a Gamecube this x-mas, but are gonna wait.

Point is, to anyone other than a teenage gamer freak, the console don't matter, it's the games that sell the system.

Sure the GameCube is wonderful, but I didn't even think I might want one until I started playing SSX Tricky & Pimkin at a friend's house on one. And now I'm having so much fun with these 'classic' RareWare N64 Games I don't even care about the fact that our N64 is horribly out of date and isn't the bees-knees anymore, it's fun, and that's all we care about in a game system.

So the more the game console market get to be driven by how advanced a system is, rather than on the quality of available titles (Nintentdo's wonderful games, Playstation's backward compatability) the more I feel that it's alienating itself from it's core market of making fun games and getting more into that power-user geekdom crap of buying things because they are esoterically 'better' in ways that really don't matter in the long run.

Re:Come on!

[Gherald]

2-3 years is NOTHING. I'd upgrade every 1 year if the hardware came out fast enough. Some of us like to be on the cutting edge of technology.

If you want to use an obsolete console for 5-7 years (!) thats fine by me, but don't expect any sympathy from game developers who know where the real money is.

> And why shoudl I* buy the comapnies latest console, when if I just continue to save my money, I'll be able to afford the next model 3 years later.

You are right, you shouldn't. No one is forcing you to upgrade, so do whatever makes you happy, just don't expect to play the latest games.

Re:Come on!

[hobbespatch]

(Quote)Cost of console = n + $100 where n equals the prices of the console this one renders obselete.(/Quote)

Heh why way PS1 $300 dollars when it came out?

I wouldn't be shocked to see MS's Next-Box prices running higher because it will may have more power than the PS3's 4 GHz Cells ... Intel NetBurst micro-architecture (Pentium 4 or revised name) on 0.07-micron process Clock Speed: 7 GHz to 8 GHz

But it comes down to games IMHO, Sony can put out an amazing array of titles compared to X-Box. Even with X-Box being out for a while, there are clearly more PSX titles.

Re:Come on!

[m1a1]

I don't even play many games, but come on. If you are really interested in playing video games how much does a new console every 3 years really hurt you?

Seven years is way, way too long to stick with one console. Didn't the PSX come out about 7 years ago? Seriously, it was a great system, but any company sticking with it would be suicide. It can't hold a candle to what is out now. If you're serious about gaming pick a favorite console and go with it. Seriously, $200 every three years is less than $100 a year. Divide that up and you're looking at less than $10 a month for your console until the new one comes out and you know you'll keep playing it even after.

Re:Come on!

[hobbespatch]

Xbox 2 specs from another discussion thread - dated 5/18/03
Intel NetBurst micro-architecture (Pentium 4 or revised name) on 0.07-micron process
Clock Speed: 7 GHz to 8 GHz
SSE2 Floating-Point Performance: 28 to 32 GFLOPS (or 64 GFLOPS with architecture improvements)
External Bus Bandwidth: 5.33 GB/sec

System Memory: 1024MB (1GB)
System Memory Bandwidth: 32 GB/sec (or up to 64 GB/sec)

NVIDIA XGPU2
Clock Speed: 1 GHz
128 Gigatexels per Second
512 Billion Anti-Aliased Samples per Second
Full-Scene Anti-Aliasing (4x, 8x, 16x, 32x, 64x) 64-bit color (16-bit floating point value per channel, RGBA)
2D and 3D Texture Compression Z, Stencil, Shadow, and Multisampling buffers Vertex Compression
Triangle Tessellation (including NURBS support)
Programmable Pixel and Vertex Processors
Full Hidden Surface Removal (boosting effective fillrate 8x = 1 Teratexel per Second)
High-Speed Rendering Buffer (partial frame buffer): 4MB to 8MB
High-Speed Texture Cache: 8MB to 16MB
Textures and Full Frame Buffers are stored in System Memory (1024MB)
32 to 64 Hardware Light Sources
1.25 Billion Particles per Second
3 Billion Polygons per Second (peak)
1.25 Billion Polygons per Second (sustained)
800 Million Polygons per Second (with effects)
15 Trillion Operations per Second 1.14 TFLOPS (1140 GFLOPS)
Screen Resolutions: 640x480 (TV), 1280x720
(HDTV), 1920x1080 (HDTV), up to 2048x1536 (VGA)

NVIDIA MCPX2 800 MHz
1024 Total Voices (256 3D Voices)
3D Modeled Sound
Dolby Digital Encoder
Multiple DSP units
10/100/1000 Ethernet
USB 2.0, DVD, HDD Controller

40x DVD-ROM 160GB Hard Disk Drive or 30GB Solid State Drive

Begin the Drool Fest. PS3 has 1 advantage, it'll be out sooner.

Re:Come on!

[smackjer]

Yes, PS1 was $300 when it came out.

Re:Come on!

[hobbespatch]

Heh, Ok im reading more on the speeds. Apparently there are millions of people out there Flame'n each other over the "specs of Xbox2". I was a little to hasty in my posts. But regardless the general concensus is that it will kick my beloved sony's ass.
Still aint got no Final Fantasy though!

Re:Come on!

[Dutchmaan]

Why don't you just put away $10 a month.. into a jar or under your matress or something.. After 2 years you have $240.. voila! New console.

Quite frankly having to spend $200 every two years is nothing for most people. Unless you are a kid without income in which case ($200 + games = equals annoyed parent).

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, nVIDIA GPU eh? Odd how they licensed the GPU tech from ATI for the XBox 2.

Also, the current rumors are that the chip is going to be PowerPC based not Intel like shown here.

Btw, a single IBM Cell chip will operate at multiple teraflops, not the single teraflop range that this listing shows for the XBox 2.

The CPU speed and system architecture will put the PS3 years ahead of the XBox 2 so you can wipe that drool off now. Sony's about to deal Microsoft a left hook and ensure that the XBox 2 is as spectacularly unsucessful as the original XBox.

Re:Come on!

[hobbespatch]

Yeah guess that could start a little flame war. Like I posted there is plenty of debates going on boards all around the web on speed. Regardless, I need a new computer. My stuff is slow compared to these consoles ;)

Re:Come on!

[h0mer]

The SNES was not dominant for 10 years. 1990 Japanese release, I'd say it had a good 6-year run until it lost developer support and the N64 was out. Not a bad amount of time by any means, but a decade is just straight BS.

Re:Come on!

[cens0r]

You should get the gamecube just for SSX 3. Loads of fun. But I agree, it's the games not the console. I realize my playstation 2 is probably the weakest of the 3 consoles. However it has DDR, SSX, GTA 3/VC, and Gran Turismo. Those are the games I want to play.

Re:Come on!

[cens0r]

But the consoles do last about 5 to 7 years. All three of the consoles came out at about the same time in either 2000 or 2001. The next gen consoles will all be out in 2005 and 2006. That is in the 5 to 7 year window.

Re:Come on!

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

(I'm fascinated by these people who "finish" games in a week -- where do they find the time?).

Maybe cheat codes are designed for these people ;)

Or they are just gaming Gods :)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Come on!

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

What's DOA?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Come on!

[Hast]

Hasn't both Intel and nVidia been ditched in favour of IBM and ATI for XBox2? Which would make those made up specifications so clearly incorrect that it's not even worth mentioning.

And "30 GB Solid state drive"? Why the bloody hell would I want a SSD in a console?

Furthermore I seriously doubt that they'll put as much as 1GB of RAM in a console. I have that in my PC, but it's almost never used. And that's running a lot of different programs at once. A console has more use for smaller but faster memory.

Hardware that can do tesselation and such I do believe in though. At least adding a "mesh shader" should be the next big step for graphics hardware. It's make it easier to further unload the CPU for games as well.

Re:Come on!

[IM6100]

Serious Gamers are used to spending $200 every six months to get a new graphics card.

I wouldn't say your spending $200 every two to three years is an unreasonable expense.

I say this, however, being the cheap mofo whose fastest graphics card is a Voodoo 3 2000... but I bought my first PlayStation at auction two weeks ago for $20.

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

The N64 collector's market is still big, it's just that ebay isn't a great gauge of rarity or collectibility, since the morons who use ebay go in 30 day cycles when it comes to determining how much something is worth (guess why). Ebay may be relevant if they are you are a seller and they are your only option for finding buyers, but otherwise, ebay should be ignored. As someone who collects N64 games, I can tell you that the value of my N64 collection has grown, never depreciated, from what I paid for my games, even accounting for ebay foolishness, and all my games are complete/mint. But I collect for love of the games, not for investment.

What you describe regarding technology has been noted before. It's a case of diminishing returns: games on the PS3 will not better than those on the PS2 to the same degree that PS2 games looked better than PS games do. And that is why, hopefully, the next console generation will last a very, very long time. I'd love to see 3 Zeldas, 3 Marios, and 3 Metroids, in addition to all the 3rd party games, all on the next Nintendo system. That would be so sweet.

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you capitalized "Gamers." That tells me about how you perceive this group of people. To me, they are fools. An upgrade cycle of one year at least looks okay on paper, but 6 months is ridiculous and wasteful.

ATI and NVidia should setup a product subscription program for these dumbasses.

Re:Come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you both have a point. But.. regardless of the exact time that the PS2 was available, I think the problem lies with the fact that as soon as a new console comes out, the old one is dead. Sure you can still play the games you HAVE already... over and over.. until the end of time... but if you ever want to play a new game again you need to get the new console. I think its possible to make new games with low system req's for the old consoles, but the companies instead put all effort into the new console and leave the old one lying in a ditch somewhere, so that people will have to dish out if they want new games.

Re:Come on!

[oGMo]

Nah... there are so many (good) games for consoles, that you'll probably not ever have time for them all. I think I've managed to play most of the best for the SNES. I have many PSX and PS2 games (over 50 each as of last counting), and I've barely had time to scratch the surface of them. And there are many, many more for both of those platforms that I don't have. Probably a good thousand hours of play time for each platform, and that's quite a lot of gaming-hours.

Plus, if you don't have the financial ability to keep up, you can always stay behind a generation, and pick up all the good stuff at a very low price.

Re:Come on!

[oGMo]

Dead On Arrival. See 3DO, Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, N64, XBOX, N-Gage, etc. Granted the latter portion of that list has a few really good games each... but they don't have the libraries of triple-A titles that the NES, SNES, PSX, and PS2 do.

Usually these platforms are picked up by people who have no real clue, or delude themselves into thinking this will somehow really be the next big thing.

Re:Come on!

[oGMo]

Hmm, seems like you are right. I had thought the SNES was released a bit earlier. Technically there were games still being released into 1998, but AFAICT they don't really count (being re-releases).

OTOH, the 90's were definitely dominated by the SNES, and the N64 wasn't that big of a seller. Actual supported dates though are as you say.

Re:Come on!

[AnyNoMouse]

but they don't have the libraries of triple-A titles that the NES, SNES, PSX, and PS2 do.

Oh, I see you've never actually played a Saturn, Dreamcast, N64 or Xbox.

The Dreamcast wiped the floor with the PS2 the first year it came out (game-wise), but Sega just couldn't compete with Sony FUD. DOA, maybe. No games? You've got your head stuck in the sand (or Sony's butt, more likely).

Did I miss something?

[Quasar1999]

Didn't MS agree to stay the hell out of the chip making business in order to be lovey-dovey with Intel and their specs?

How's Intel taking the news?

Re:Did I miss something?

[MagikSlinger]

How's Intel taking the news?

Considering Intel's stock was doing a slow decline today, I'd say not well. Something tells me Intel will retaliate, and that Palladium initiative may find itself having "problems" very soon. ;-)

Re:Did I miss something?

[BuckaBooBob]

MS has been fliiping teh brid to Intel for quite some time... They were alot more intested to support AMD for thier 64 bit processor interal of INTEL's IA-64...

Re:Did I miss something?

[Hoser McMoose]

Probably the same way Intel takes it every time MS fucks them over, ie bending over and grabbing their ankles while praying that Linux takes off.

Seriously, there is no love between Intel and Microsoft. They both want control of the PC business. Microsoft has it, Intel doesn't, but despite how much Intel may dislike this, they know that they need MS more than MS needs them.

At one point in time MS may have needed to make deals to keep Intel happy, but now it's definitely the other way around.

You know, this time I really think...

[oGMo]

This time I really think they've picked a great name.

It's just what I'll say when I think of it.

"XBox? Next!"

(Sorry, but you have to admit they really had that one coming ;-))

Re:You know, this time I really think...

[cybergrue]

I was kinda hoping they would call it the "Why Box" for the same reason.

hrmmm

[odyrithm]

"At the same time, the move potentially gives the company a toehold in a completely new market."

What erm.. market would that be? game consoles? NEVER??!?!

Because they have to...

[pubjames]

I knew this was coming.

Microsoft made some serious design mistakes with the first X-Box. One of the big ones was they assumed that if they used generic standard PC parts that would make it somehow cheaper. However, the economic logic of the PC industry doesn't necessarily apply to the gaming console industry, where you want to make tens of millions of consoles all exactly the same. When you are doing that, it actually is worth the effort making fairly customized hardware, because every cent you can shave of the production costs of a unit makes a big difference.

Re:Because they have to...

[msgmonkey]

Your points are all correct however you have to also remember that it costs alot (in time & money) to develop libraries and a developement platform. For Microsoft it made sense to use as much as they had over from the PC, they were banking on being #1. Porting and developing for a new processor/archicture would have probably meant they would delivery way too late.

Re:Because they have to...

[Jason Earl]

Not to mention the fact that Microsoft's competitors were able to lower their costs considerably by integrating their silicon as they went along. Microsoft was stuck with chips from rival competitors that were already at their lowest possible price point on day one. The cost to produce a PS/2 has dropped dramatically. The cost to produce an XBox is almost the same now as it was when it was introduced.

Just the beginning of MS's attack on linux

[the man with the pla]

It's been said that they're doing this to stop people from putting linux on the x-box, but what this is really about is them getting practice on putting out hardware that is linux-immune. Mark my words...MS always practices their evil plots 2 or 3 times before they get it right.

Mod -10: Foul-mouthed Moron

[Anonymous Coward]

jesus, somebody actually mod'ed this Funny?

these guys can't even....

[smd4985]

keep hotmail secure. i doubt they'll get putting a zillion transistors on my thumb right ;) ....

Re:these guys can't even....

[AvengerXP]

You never get burned if you never approach the stove, right?

not to mention...

[lburdet]

...a proprietary instruction set?

would put a temporary thorn in the xbox-linux project.

Re:Microsoft and hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were some kind of device you could run that comment through to check the spelling. A spell checker if you will. Perhaps then people will understand you better.

Just a thought.

Sad, isn't it?

[roystgnr]

What's unbelievable is that they might burn the same company twice. I know IBM is a huge company, but don't any of their PowerPC managers ever chat with their ex-OS/2 managers?

Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[syntap]

With a changein graphic processors, I wonder if Microsoft plans to not include backward-compatibility with the original (current) XBox.

One of PS2's main strengths was that consumers didn't have to throw away their PSOne game libraries or keep two consoles hooked up. Sega didn't do this with their hardware and suffered as a result. Nintendo did not do this with its consoles but _did_ with the GameBoy line, and look at which one is more successful.

If Microsoft wants to build a sustainable marketshare for XBox, it must keep consumer units "in the family" as Sony did with Playstation and Nintendo did with GameBoy.

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[smcavoy]

in a wired article they suggest they will use their recently aquired Connectix product "Virtual PC" to provide backwards compatibilty.
I'm not quite sure if this is possible... Does Virtual PC emulate a processor? Or is it like VMware, and emulate a BIOS...

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[rootofevil]

the GB line was successful because it was the only option. period. the game gear was way too expensive, heavy, and sucked batteries like a drunken prom date. GBC and GBA werent introduced until way after the demise of the GG, so it wasnt backwards compatability that sold all those GBAs and GBCs.

It was 12 year olds that wanted to play pokemon.

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[h0mer]

I'm sure the cost of making the Dreamcast backwards compatible with the Saturn would not be a sound business decision. Remember that the Saturn was just as big of a flop, if not bigger (I had one and really liked it but it was nowhere near PS1 numbers.)

Now, if Sega had teamed up with Bleem! and had a version that played more than one game per Bleem disc...

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[Abcd1234]

The x86 version does the latter (virtualization).

It could work, though. They'd probably need to "emulate" the DirectX API (basically a layer one which passes through/translates calls from the virtual machine to the real hardware, much like the VMWare guest video drivers) in order to obtain any amount of speed. But, on the surface, it seems feasible.

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[Abcd1234]

the game gear was way too expensive, heavy, and sucked batteries like a drunken prom date

Which means that it wasn't because Nintendo was the only game in town (there *was* Sega, for a while, anyway). But, unlike Sega, Nintendo knew their market. They realized what they valued (portability, long battery life) and what they'd be willing to compromise (pretty, colorful graphics, backlit screen), and then they designed a portable that fit those requirements (unlike Sega), and ended up being the only game in town as a result.

Moreover, Nintendo had the advantage of a massive set of licensees who were willing to port their highly successful titles to the GB. Not to mention Nintendo has a pretty impressive set of titles, themselves (eg, Tetris). So they won out on the library front as well.

The GBA is exactly the same story (although, lack of competition is a much larger issue here, not to mention brand loyalty).

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[rootofevil]

at the time when nintendo began changing their hardware (GBP, GBC, GBA) they were the only game in town, which means that backwards compatibility was merely "nice" instead of "necessary".

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sure the cost of making the Dreamcast backwards compatible with the Saturn would not be a sound business decision."

Your example doesn't really make a strong point against backwards compatibility. The Saturn didn't have a great American library, so of course, as you note, the Dreamcast wouldn't have benefitted from this. But the GameBoy and Playstation both have huge libraries, and later iterations of both of these have been built on a foundation of previous-generation titles.

"Now, if Sega had teamed up with Bleem! and had a version that played more than one game per Bleem disc..."

Sega hated Bleem and never authorized their work. Sega wanted you playing Sega games or games from their licensees, since they didn't make any money from Playstation software sales. And there does exist a beta multi-game Bleemcast disc. It runs some simple commercial Playstation software suprisingly well, though typically not as well as their single-game discs for Tekken 3, MGS, and Gran Turismo 2 do.

Re:Not Capitalizing on PS2 Strength, Back-Compat?

[Decimal]

Including compatibility for even crappy games would have been a plus for the Dreamcast. The real reason for a lack of backwards compatibility is that it would not have been practical to make the Dreamcast backward compatible with the Saturn. One of Sega's biggest mistakes with the Saturn was that it designed a dual-CPU system (and a whole slew of other chips, including an extra DSP patched in at the last minute to compete in the 3D arena) where the two CPUs couldn't access memory at the same time. The Dreamcast was a break away from such complexity. Sega worked as hard as possible to make sure the system was easy to program for (Hence, a supply of crappy WindowsCE-based games, which oddly enough don't run on the VGA monitor add-on) to coax third party developers back to the fold.

A good system, really. It would have been the perfect machine for Sega to create a successor with backwards compatibility to.

The joke's already been made...

[AvantLegion]

... but seriously, the new Xbox looking like a NeXT Cube would be cool. :)

NeXT-Box sounds better than "Xbox Next" anyway.

Although I am partial to "XX-Box", and eventually, "XXX-Box".

Re:The joke's already been made...

[GoNINzo]

It's better than using 'X2-box'... Because then they'd have Marvel sueing them.

Re:The joke's already been made...

[rootofevil]

that reminds me of the naming convention apple used to use.

when Apple released the II and SE, they were using the 68020 and 68000 respectively. Eventually the II was upgraded with a 68030 and called the IIx. When the SE was upgraded with an '030, it would have been the SEx if apple had kept with that naming scheme. Instead it was called the SE/30.

Re:The joke's already been made...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean this?

Re:The joke's already been made...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about X version 2 revision 1, or in brief, X2R1. That would make a cool naming scheme.

Better use programmable logic

[G4from128k]

Given the seeming inability of MS to produce high quality engineered products from the first version, they should avoid hard-wired silicon.

Re:Better use programmable logic

[vsprintf]

Good point. It's pretty hard to patch a CPU.

Re:Better use programmable logic

[randyest]

I guess you're kidding, or trolling, or whatever, but let me ask you this:

Can you name a piece of MS hardware that wasn't "high quality engineered . . . from the first version"?

Do you have any idea how much more costly and low-perfomance programmable logic is compared to "hard-wired silicon"?

Terrific....

[herrvinny]

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DNA into it," said Richard Doherty, director of research company The Envisioneering Group. One reason for that involves hacking incidents. "They sure don't want to have a situation where an Xbox can be turned into a PC," Doherty said.

No more Beowulf clusters, running Linux via the MechWarrior game, etc. Too bad.

Re:Terrific....

[tommck]

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DNA into it,"

Ugh! Mental image of Bill Gates putting his ... DNA into it...(shudder)

Re:Terrific....

[pmz]

Well, that would explain why the new Office CDs taste funny.

You thought that MS couldn't get more proprietary!

[GOPWillC]

This is going to make it much harder to port games from one system to another, which is possibly the reason why Microsoft is doing it. Since they'll have to develop the code to use Microsoft's unique system architecture/ I bet Slashdotters just /LOOVE/ Microsoft and proprietary systems. Let's give them one big sarcastic clap.:P *clap* *clap*

Will the XBox ever take off?

[pubjames]

Is the XBox actually going anywhere? Here in Spain I must see ten PS2 advertisements on the TV for every one for the XBox. And in most stores the PS2 seems to have about three to five times more shelf space allocated to it than the XBox. Not only that, but with the GameCube priced at 99 Euros, the XBox has some serious competition this Christmas. Can the XBox ever become serious competition to the Playstation under those conditions?

What's it like in the rest of the world?

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Malc]

The XBox does better in N. America. I read something in July that indicated 3 times as many were sold in N. America vs. Europe. In N. America it is 2 horse race between Sony and Microsoft, with Sony along way ahead at the moment. PS2 sales apparently have fallen dramatically whereas the XBox sales are probably growing still. As an XBox owner of 18 mos, I would say we're only just beginning to see enough games and enough range of games to even consider the platform viable.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[hethatishere]

XBox sales have not grown, but undoubtedly will with some of the slated 2004 releases that XBox has. PS2 sales have dropped more than 17% and XBox sales have dropped 3%. Due to Nintendo's extremely competitive price-point their US marketshare has more than doubled to 37%. Sony's the only loser in the recent market shuffles, but all things considered they are the biggest winner at the same time. This place Nintendo AHEAD of the XBox for marketshare in North America. This also widens the worldwide Marketshare Gap that Nintendo was closely holding by only about 150,000 units. The XBox is or isn't a failure depending on what measure you choose to look at it from. From Microsoft's perspective it's an abysmal failure. From Gamers it's a mixed bag. Personally, It's my least favorite of all three consoles and the console I play the least. But then again, I am getting into subjective measurement. With all three companies beginning work on the next set of consoles it may not even matter who gets the over-hyped second place award anyways. Sources: http://www.xbox365.com/news/zcomment.cgi/article/E pyZAyVplycFfWoeMu http://www.mcvuk.com/html/news/story.jsp?newsId=72 3521

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[gamgee5273]

I'm not trying to be contentious, but I have to take issue with a few things in your statement:

1) Even with falling sales, the PS2 is so far ahead of the pack that it's going to take a while for the Xbox and GCN combined to equal the PS2 numbers out there. Remember, there were points where the Bandai WonderSwan was outselling the Xbox in Japan. And MS had beeen fighting tooth and nail for a foothold over there.

2) You did read the post on here last week that said Nintendo has doubled its marketshare, right? As a GCN owner of two years, I can say that people will get more for their money and time out of the GCN and its library, added with the Game Boy Player and its massive library, than they would from an Xbox (from a purely non-hacker's stance).

Don't get me wrong: I don't mind the Xbox being a third player in the market (though I don't trust MS's stated intentions), but I think it's a console without a stated mission. What is there that you can do with an Xbox that you can't do with other stuff? Halo has been ported, KOTOR is on the PC soon...so where does that leave the Xbox?

I suspect that Xbox sales are beginning to wane, though they may pick up if the price is cut soon. MS is moving on "Xbox Next" as quickly as possible because they know this one has been a colossal dud. North American marketshare is the 500lb gorilla, but one can't dismiss the other markets and expect a failure in those markets to sustain itself on just strong North American sales.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[cens0r]

I think Sony is falling because nearly every gamer who wants a PS2 has one. Some of the people who only have PS2's are now buyin xboxes and game cubes.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Malc]

I think it all depends on where you read your news, and how much NaCl you can put up with. I've seen the following story repeated in several places:

http://www.gameshark.com/xbox/articles/451151p1. ht ml

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

Nintendo doubled its marketshare for a single month's sales -- it still lags the Xbox by a million-ish consoles.

For the stated mission argument, the three consoles seem to be positioned such that:

PS2: Widest variety of games
GameCube: Cheap, aimed primarily at kids
Xbox: Networked, best technology

What is there that you can do with an Xbox that you can't do with other stuff?

That's true of most consoles -- the difference is that you don't have to have an insane rig to play Halo on an Xbox. From everything I've read, even P4 3.0's are taxed to the max running that game. Most people don't play games on PCs because it's a pain in the ass to keep up with drivers and it's expensive as all get-out.

And for networked gaming, Live is really unequaled -- every game uses the same basic interface, shared friends, voice chat. I used to play a lot of Unreal on the PC, but this is a much more integrated, easy experience.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[hethatishere]

I think you giving the GameCube very little credit. By nearly stating that the GameCube is aimed primarily at kids you expose your lack of experience with the system and it's games yourself. As you say "Don't knoc ut 'til you've tried it." The GameCube's attraction is that it's middle of the road technology wise, is competitive price-wise, has strong franchises, and while having a small market of games prides itself on having some very strong titles. I know far more adults who play Mario games than I know kids. So just because it doesn't have tits doesn't mean it's not meant for kids, since on the other hand I know plenty of kids who play GTA. The fundemental flaw with the XBox still is games. Especially for the non-sports crowd it is simply lacking in good titles. XBox live was quite enjoyable until I got sick of the idiots on it, which was the same thing that drove me from the majority of multiplayer on PC's too.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

The GameCube is a powerful system (and I used to have one), but there just weren't enough unique games on it that appeal to me.

The fundemental flaw with the XBox still is games.

I just don't get that. Put it this way... there are, according to GameRankings, 98 games on Xbox that scored 80% or better and 12 that scored 90% or better. For GameCube, there are 72 games that scored 80% or better and 16 that scored 90% or better. Xbox has its share of exclusives (the past two weeks have seen Crimson Skies, Top Spin and Rainbow Six with Ninja Gaiden, Counter Strike and Project Gotham 2 coming out int he next couple of weeks), and, in almost every case, the best version of most cross-platform games.

What does this mean? Nothing really; just that neither system lacks for good titles and that any console owner probably has more options for good games than they could ever afford to actually play.

My point, though, is that Nintendo primarily aims the system at kids. It's not like it's a dirty secret or anything -- with the cutesy characters, it's clearly the primary audience they're going after. Adult-themed games (all of the Resident Evil sequels, Eternal Darkness) just haven't sold as well, so they're playing to their core with games like Kirby Air Ride, Mario Party and Mario Kart. Nothing wrong with that.

It's very true, though, that Xbox Live is rife with losers -- gotta play with friends to make it worthwhile.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Troed]

Adult-themed games (all of the Resident Evil sequels, Eternal Darkness) just haven't sold as well

You might want to check your facts before posting ... hint: Actual copies of RE:make sold vs expectations.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

Read more carefully -- RE:make sold well, but the *sequels* to it haven't sold well at all.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[dougnaka]

"And for networked gaming, Live is really unequaled "

Really? You prefer a system that you have to pay extra for vs. free online play?
To each his own I guess. Live seems cool, but I'd rather save the money and play free, well free +$50 to buy the game.

" Xbox: Networked, best technology"
I'm sure you're saying, hey, the ps2 network kit costs $$. But, remember, the Xbox DVD kit costs $ too.

I've wanted an Xbox time and again. I loved Halo, I'd say it's up there with Counter Strike for all time favorite games. But, I've never been able to bring myself to buy one. I'm not sure exactly why. I even bought a 2nd ps2. I guess it's because I use my ps2's primarily to watch DivX and other media files using broadq.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Troed]

Not hard considering there hasn't been any sequels released yet on the cube. RE:0 is a prequel (and sold well) - RE:2 and RE:3 are straight ports and shouldn't sell well due to outdated graphics. RE:4 is currently an extremely anticipated release that will introduce a free camera to the series.

Admit when you're wrong instead.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[gamgee5273]

A "million-ish" consoles? The GCN should be caught up by Christmas.

BTW, I did try it. I had a friend's, and Halo, for a week. Then I gave it back and don't miss it a bit.

I prefer to play games that are enjoyable and will stand the test of time. Halo isn't (it's overrated - admit it) and won't. Eternal Darkness, The Wind Waker and Pikmin, among others, will.

And, for the demographics: I'm 30, male, white, work in IT, have networked my house, play online games with my friends and coworkers, watch sports and action movies. I am the person MS has in mind with the Xbox. And, boy, did they screw up...

I'm not willing to spend money on a console with no staying power. I will be playing my GCN games years from now. Can you say that about the Xbox?

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

So, you're honestly trying to say that Resident Evil Zero isn't a sequel to Resident Evil? Dude. C'mon. Episode I, as a movie, is a sequel to Star Wars, regardless of where it falls in the chronology of the story. Same with Zero. And Zero didn't sell up to expectations and even at a bargain price, 2 and 3 barely sold at all, nor did Eternal Darkness.

But regardless...

Check it out... from prawth.net:
"Recently, the remake of Resident Evil was released in Japan and the USA for the GameCube. While it is no secret that Resident Evil (knows as Biohazard in Japan) has a huge following, sales of the game in Japan were just north of dismal. While sales are looking a little better in the USA, this probably won't be enough to stay Capcom's hand."

Want more?
From GameRankings:
"As reported by Bloomberg Japan, Capcom's losses for the 2002 fiscal year were even worse than anticipated... The profit plunge was attributed in part to the middling sales of three of Capcom's most anticipated games: Resident Evil 0 for Gamecube, which sold 1.12 million copies against a projected 1.42 million..."

Look, all I'm saying is that the GameCube is primarily marketed toward children. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the system or with you because you prefer it. But there's a reason that there are few fighting, driving and RPG-type games and lots of platformers, kids games and Mario-themed games -- adults tend to prefer the former group, while kids tend to prefer the latter and Nintendo plays to that base. Good for them.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

Really? You prefer a system that you have to pay extra for vs. free online play?

Gotta be honest, $50 once a year really isn't that big a deal. The nice thing is, if I'm playing Crimson Skies (published by Microsoft) and a buddy of mine wants to invite me into a game of Ghost Recon (published by UBI) or a game of ESPN Football (published by Sega), all of the people I play with and all the games I play interoperate. It's a service that's worth a couple bucks a month. I mean, it's the cost of a single game over the course of a year.

In the end, though, it's all about what you have fun with. If you like the PS2, that's all good. There's just a lot of FUD out there about the Xbox -- it's actually a pretty sweet console and not having to upgrade my PC gaming rig every couple months has saved me a bundle.

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Malc]

Ratings? They don't tell you anything about the type of game. Where are the fun multiplayer games like Superbomberman (a.k.a Dynablaster)? That's not necessarily a kids game - we sat around for hours at university playing that game on the N64 and hitting the bong. Nintendo games seem more geared towards social fun, whereas the XBox games are aimed at lonely spotty teenage boys who need to indulge in fantasies of grandeur. Yes, I own an XBox and like it, but I find the choice of games rather small, limiting and they're honesty fairly unimaginative (technology and fancy graphics seem more important than innovation).

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[Troed]

RE:make _exceeded_ sales expectations worldwide. The Magicbox had the info a year ago or so.

I'm one of the people who hacked the Xbox btw (v1.1, v1.4/v1.5) - I know the demographics of its followers based on the forums. Teens. The Gamecube-owners I know had NES and SNES when they were younger. So, based on what I can see myself - the cube appeals to _older_ people who appreciate good games - while the Xbox appeals to teens who think "duh, blood and crashing cars is cool".

I'm 29. You are .. ?

(F-Zero GX is probably the best racing game I've ever played btw)

Re:Will the XBox ever take off?

[clontzman]

I'm 30. I had an NES when I was a kid. For me, it's not an issue of "duh, blood and crashing cars" is cool (after all, the Xbox only got Grand Theft Auto last week). Not sure there are a lot of games on the Box that fit that description. There are a lot of first-person shooters, true, but not a lot of what I'd describe as gratuitous violence for violence sake.

Either way, it's just a matter of taste. I prefer more realistic racers like Rallisport Challenge, Project Gotham and Sega GT to the likes of F-Zero (which I've played and thought was okay). Something about the Nintendo goofiness just kinda gets on my nerves -- the little animations the characters make in Mario Golf after they hit a shot, for example, just seems a little (I gotta say it) kiddie. Same thing with The Wind Waker -- KOTOR and Morrowind are just more my kind of game, not for blood and crashing cars, but because they have adult characters and more complex gameplay.

The problem for Nintendo, is a matter of choice. If you don't like The Wind Waker, your choices of RPGs are pretty slim. If you don't like F-Zero, there aren't a lot of other racers for you. If you don't like Madden, there aren't any other football games. Same for baseball, hockey, fighters, shooters... But if you *do* like Nintendo's first party stuff, you're in good shape.

But hey, it's all good. It's a big gaming world and different people like different stuff. Good that people our age can argue about the important things, right? :)

(As an aside, if Nintendo made a side-scrolling Mario game again, that might make me repurchase a GC more than nearly anything. Those games were great.)

Why don't they just take off the facade?

[Trolling4Dollars]

If they want to BE like Apple Computers, they should just throw caution to the wind and do it. I imagine this doesn't bode well for Intel or AMD...

To be honest, I'll bet they are really vying to make their own chips for home users and set top boxes and keep Intel and AMD on the backend.

Keeping the hackers out

[johnmearns]

I assume that proprietary hardware keeping hackers out from swapping drives and the like is just an added bonus heh...

Re:Keeping the hackers out

[Hoser McMoose]

I don't think that played even a remote part of the decision.

However, keeping software pirates out probably did play a part in this.

ok, now this is closer to reality....

[supercooled32]

From the article:

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DNA into it,"

thats disgusting....i am thinking M$ wants to splooge their DNA all over anything they can, this is just the most socially acceptable way of doing it...

Re:ok, now this is closer to reality....

[happyfrogcow]

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DNA into it,"

I presume this quote is a result of MS Office's spellchecker which was used to publish this article. The spellchecker did not understand DRM and autocorrected to DNA.

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DRM into it," just makes so much more sense.

Re:ok, now this is closer to reality....

[PD]

We need a term for this. It's got to be catchy, and sort of intellectual sounding. Foreign words are good. Managers need to be able to use it as a buzzword as a way of sounding important, "in-the-loop", and "forward thinking".

How about "organizational bukkake".

Great quote:

[3Suns]

The company has also been wrestling with Xbox hackers, who've been able to turn the $179 console into a fully functioning computer.

This really highlights the stupidity of MS's anti-hacking efforts. I don't ever remember a company spending so much effort and money on an attempt to remove functionality and desirability from their products.

Re:Great quote:

[Animaether]

.. an attempt to remove .. desirability from their products

ah, but it is the 'hackers' desirability. And guess what ? Microsoft themselves do -not- desire their X-Box to be hacked around with.
Especially if it turns the box into :
A. a machine capable of playing warez games, which pisses off the developers
B. a machine capable of running generic software making it 'interesting' for those who have no intention whatsover of running X-Box games on it.

In both cases, Microsoft loses royalties on games sales.

So, again... hackers' desires != Microsoft's desires

Re:Great quote:

[MarsCtrl]

I don't ever remember a company spending so much effort and money on an attempt to remove functionality and desirability from their products.

*cough* SunnComm *cough*

Re:Great quote:

[mblase]

I don't ever remember a company spending so much effort and money on an attempt to remove functionality and desirability from their products.

Agreed. Usually Microsoft removes those things from their software and makes money. Ironically, they call it an "upgrade."

Re:Great quote:

[BuckaBooBob]

Well with MS knowladge of secuirty and the ability to secure the OS's.. I am sure it will be hours before the Xbox2 gets hacked and a few weeks/day later till someone has a semi workable linux port running on it :)

Re:Great quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Don't you people know the first thing about this industry? Microsoft loses money on hardware. They make money on games. Anyone who uses the hardware to run free software loses Microsoft money.

Functionality and desirability are irrelevant. The hardware is a means to an end and the end is to make money off every single X-Box disc that's sold.

Xbox Next?

[Selfbain]

NeXtBox would have been far more delicious.

Its not just the 'next' name

[drgroove]

but the chip as well:
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,6106 5,00.ht ml?tw=wn_culthead_4

So, the new XBox will be called Next, and will be running a G5 chip.

Only thing left to happen now is for Apple to come out with a video game console running on an Intel P4 called "Apple ME", and we'll know for a fact that the whole world has gone to hell.

For a second there. . .

[Belisarivs]

I thought you said XBox .Net

Phoenix BIOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember they got closer to Phoenix BIOS? Gee wonder why.

So in other words...

[hirschma]

The Next Xbox won't be done until Linux won't run. :)

Jonathan

Xbox Next?

[ThrasherTT]

I think NextBox rolls off the tongue quite a bit better...

I was going to make a witty M$-bashing comment...

[demonbug]

But then I realized I tend to like most of the Microsoft hardware I've used, so maybe its actually a good thing. Besides, if Nvidia builds the next chipset all by itself, the next Xbox would probably require a 2.5 ton air conditioning unit (Get the new Xbox - Xboxier! Only $299. Note - price does not include installation of concrete pad for heatsink unit).

.Net Box

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where they finally dump all their loser architectures and go .Net from the ground up. They will build a platform that can run IL really fast and build a custom version of DirectX in .Net. Bye bye COM. Good riddance.

Microsoft Moving Into Chip Design

[vasqzr]

Translation:

Today, Redmond-Wash. based Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) announced it is purchasing xxx chip corp for $150 million in cash and $100 million in company stock. w00t.

IBM of the RIng

[bstadil]

This is not a problem for IBM, the reason being that there is no other manufacturing player in town.

Once the process is decided that it it. You can't just switch to someone else.

This means that for once in their life MS is at the mercy of someone else.

Screw IBM and you just free up resources for Nintendo and Sony (Assume you know that they have chosen IBM as well), and delay your own product by 1-2 years, meaning the project is pretty much dead.

IBM is the Ring that Rules them All.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[tekunokurato]

No other manufacturing players in town?

Do your semis research, man. There are probably a hundred companies with top engineers that have the capacity and knowledge to design a great graphically-oriented processor. Loads of them. Why would Nintendo and Sony go talk to IBM when they've been doing their own thing for so long, anyway?

Re:IBM of the RIng

[Gherald]

> IBM is the Ring that Rules them All.

Does that make it evil? Or just very tempting?

Re:IBM of the RIng

[randyest]

I'm in a hurry, but I'll be back in a few hours if you want to debate this. But before I leave I must say:

This is not a problem for IBM, the reason being that there is no other manufacturing player in town.

Huh? NEC, LSI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, . . . there are plenty of manufacturing players.

Once the process is decided that it it. You can't just switch to someone else.

Wrong. We port ASIC designs from competitor's processes all the time.

This means that for once in their life MS is at the mercy of someone else.

Not at all.

Screw IBM and you just free up resources for Nintendo and Sony (Assume you know that they have chosen IBM as well), and delay your own product by 1-2 years, meaning the project is pretty much dead.

Sony is making their own chips. Nintendo uses NEC.

IBM is the Ring that Rules them All.

I'm not really sure of what overall point you were shooting for, but every statement you made is false.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are incorrect about some things:
1) Nintendo GameCube currently uses a PowerPC derivative (Gecko) designed and produced by IBM. AFAIK, the next generation is also slated to be a powerpc. (Not 100% sure on that count.)
2) Sony's development of "CELL" for its next-gen console is being done in conjunction with Toshiba and IBM.

It is interesting, actually, that IBM is potentially involved in all of the major game console platforms... (And something that I hadn't actually realized until seeing it written out... I knew about the deals but never added them together.)

Re:IBM of the RIng

[kennedy]

how wrong you are. Nintendo currently uses an IBM ppc cpu (i'm pretty sure it's a powerpc 440 variant) as well as an ATI chip for 3d. the only part of the cube that's made by NEC is the memory, which is actually on the same die as the ATI chip.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[randyest]

Gamecube's system LSI (which is what the original article is about -- not CPU's) was designed by ATI + Nintendo. It is manufactured by NEC, using NEC's 0.18um embedded DRAM process. DRAM processes are used for more than just memory. In this case, a full system LSI chip is done in a DRAM process, but all of it, embedded DRAM and the logic that goes with it, is manufactured by NEC. It is one chip, after all, so all of it is made by NEC. It was designed by ATI and Nintendo, but we're talking about manufacturing here.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[bstadil]

It is interesting, actually, that IBM is potentially involved in all of the major game console platforms..

That was precisely the point I was making in the original post.

There is a lot of SC design houses and a lot of SC makers but only a select few major players. that has the needed process technology and the manufacturing capacity.

Someone mentioned LSI and NEC, Not even close.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[bstadil]

Sony is making their own chips. Nintendo uses NEC.

The PS3 will use Cell technology jointly designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, the Gamecube is using PowerPC derivative Gecko and Next generation will use IBM as well.

Your point about porting an ASIC design is not relevant we are talking huge design not a little piddely GA/ ASIC point solution.

Come on give me a break on mentioning LSI and NEC, a TSMC has the manufacturing capacity needed but not piss ants like LSI. But you need the designs skill and the manufacturing capabilities. This narrows the field a lot.

IBM, Intel, TI is all I can think of. Spend 15 years in the industry by the way.

Re:IBM of the RIng

[randyest]

The PS3 will use Cell technology jointly designed by Sony, Toshiba and IBM, the Gamecube is using PowerPC derivative Gecko and Next generation will use IBM as well.

Sony designed it and (at least planned) to make it themselves (COT flow with TSMC). They soon found that the needed more cash and help with physical implementation (despite having snarfed up some great talent from all over in an effort to make thier own in-house physical design team), which is where IBM and Toshiba come in. They could have (and perhaps still can, depending on the contracts in place) taken their design to any of a half-dozen or more places to get it PD'd and fabbed.

Your point about porting an ASIC design is not relevant we are talking huge design not a little piddely GA/ ASIC point solution.

Your age is showing. ASIC aren't all gate arrays any more. We have cell-based designs now. And they're far from "piddely". Hows about 20M gates on a die? 10M are very common, even mainstream ASIC now. This isn't full custom stuff we're talking about -- it will be made with a fairly-standard ASIC flow with a few critical paths being hand-placed and routed.

Come on give me a break on mentioning LSI and NEC, a TSMC has the manufacturing capacity needed but not piss ants like LSI. But you need the designs skill and the manufacturing capabilities. This narrows the field a lot.

LSI could do it, though likely with some difficulty and potential delay given their recent problems. NEC is fully capable, and was even offered the job, but turned it down. Hell, anyone in the Top 10 could handle the job.

IBM, Intel, TI is all I can think of. Spend 15 years in the industry by the way.

I've got 10 years. It might help you understant if any of your 15 were recent. A lot has changed since 1um gate array days.

Get with the program

[ianscot]

You buy a new PC how often, again? How much does a graphics card cost for your PC, assuming you want to be able to run the latest system at any given point? C'mon, pony up the cash, we're consumers, that's what we do...

would it really hurt if a company stuck to an obsolete console for 5-7 years?

Wouldn't hurt the company directly to lose those console sales, anyway. The truth is, consoles themselves are mostly a break-even proposition, or even a loss leader.

The real money's in the games, so if you can keep people buying them you're good. The original PS was behind Sega for a significant pause there before the PS2 release, but those Dreamcasts never got to critical mass in terms of the cartridges they could sell. So, there -- there's an example in which the mediocre old system survived on its market share, for a bit. (Even when PS2s were all the rage, the brand new flashy Sony system was about par with Sega's older one...)

But let yourself get leapfrogged for two years by a company like Nintendo, and you're over. Or Microsoft, despite their inexperience...

When will the Linux port for it be done?

[MadHungarian]

Maybe there could be a contest!

Great

[Madmonky1]

"Soon to come antivirus, mainframes, and chips."

So now I'm supposed to trust MS with anitvirus?

manufacturing?

[proj_2501]

i remember apple having a hard time when they were using LOTS of custom parts on their motherboards.

there were numerous suppliers who weren't keeping up with demand, thus shipping was held up.

maybe microsoft has a better plan in mind but relying on many external suppliers can be hazardous!

Finding engineers

[raider_red]

Where do they think they'll find chip-design engineers who will work on Windows? I wouldn't do that type of work on that platform, and all the others I know will only use a Unix based system for their engineering work. Does this mean that MS will be installing a new Linux network to develop their new ASICs?

I'm sure it's possible, but designing ICs requires some serious software and hardware tools, and an OS that won't get in the engineers way.

Not an entirely new move

[WARM3CH]

Although Microsoft did not produce key components of the PC, yet it had a very active participation in designing the standards ruling the PC world. From 1184 paralell port to ISA Plug&Play, from ACPI to DirectX 9.0 it was Microsoft who decided how the hardware should interface to the OS and in cases like DirectX 9.0 it acutally dictated lots of the arcithecture of the hardware. So it's not a surprise that it get goes one step forward for a product that is going to carry it's own name on the box...

Service packs

[0WaitState]

Microsoft involved in chip design? Um, so how do apply service packs to silicon?

Re:Service packs

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

Microcode upgrades. Most CPUs support this.
But seriously, IBM is clearly doing most of the work. Microsoft will decide how big the cache should be and things like this.

Re:Service packs

[NotoriousBob]

Fairly simple actually, when your Buy your "Xbox Next", it will come with a soldering iron and few KMs of solder to apply the patches on a daily basis. As an added bonus, they will include soldering crash course booklet for free. Microsoft has also decided to use quick release mechanism so the box could be opened with ease.

Re:Service packs

[Kindaian]

Ask Intel...

They do it within their processors since Pentium Pro... Chips have a very small flash memory that can "overwrite" execution paths and thrus changing the execution of one opcode... (the operational word here is "small", which means, not for the feith of heart to do everyday... another problem is the lost performance that each entry adds to the processing, a small pay for the "corrected" chip).

Alas, its better to make it well in the first place! (and that is also why there are "versions" in the chip designs)

doubtfully

[*weasel]

Their compiler and tools group is extremely strong. I'd be surprised if it was at all any more difficult to port to Xbox Next than Xbox.

I'm sure 95% of it will still be a solid C compiler and directx api.

hell, it'd probably have a setting for Endian notation in the dev env too.

the main loss is that with general components they can send devkits to developers early and when the ps3 specs get announced, MS could simply bump up the included cpu and gpu on the release units - guaranteeing that it'd keep ahead.

more likely though, it's just a matter of cost. It was too expensive to pay for a general purpose machine in each xbox - when it wasn't needed. they just better have backwards compatibility - which would be the one true victim of a powerpc switch.

Re:doubtfully

[Bert64]

Also the fact it was standard hardware, familiar and compatible, and cheaper than buying the same hardware off the shelf, resulted in people buying the machines to hack them into doing things they werent designed for.

Re:doubtfully

[*weasel]

people will hack them anyways. you put a machine that powerful out there for half its market value and that's -going- to happen.

there are ppc linux distros. people -will- reverse engineer the rest of the system. it might take 'em a little longer, but remember that the hacker community got linux running on the very customized ps2 long before sony started releasing the DIY kits.

nothing stops the hacking - it only slows it down. more likely MS wants to push its 'trusted computing' initiative into XBNext, and couldn't get nvidia or intel to make a dedicated general purpose chip for them in time that followed the standards.

or, it wasn't worth paying for customized general purpose chips if, in fact, they were just getting stock chips with DRM. at that point it simply makes sense cost/performance to get a from-the-ground-up chip. they'd be paying for it anyway, might as well get the extra performance.

Special Silicone

[kaffeinekiwi]

I thought they used up all the special silicone when they published Dead or Alive: Beach Volleyball...

DRM applications to trusted computing?

[rbird76]

it might not be so much to prevent pirating or Linux computing on the X-box as a way to get into chip design and knowledge for the hardware required to implement Palladium - if MS is solely dependent upon Intel or AMD for implementation of "trusted computing" it may not be as able to control the implementation effectively, while if they have an internal resource to design and fabricate chips, they can compete more effectively with competing standards from chip manufacturers. Since the evil that is trusted computing is a centerpiece for Microsoft's future, knowledge of the technologies required for it makes sense for MS. (this is assuming that Microsoft doesn't already have internal resources for DRM - even in that case, this may be another way to try DRM out in the field and to see how it works/doesn't work before they release it as part of Palladium).

Xbox NEXT? For most of us it will be a PS3

[popo]

There have been *maybe* 5-7 decent games written for the X-Box since launch. And that's *if* you're versatile in your tastes.

Not to mention the fact that my ancient PC had better anti-aliasing at 1024x768 than my X-Box has at TV resolutions.

What's the next console for X-Box owners? Its called the "Playstation III".

That's retarded.

[JMZero]

Changing architectures will not change whether the new box can be hacked. And if it can be hacked to run code at all it can be hacked to run Linux. Or OpenBSD. Both, and many others, are very portable - and any obscurity about the system's setup will be penetrated. Heck - changing architectures will just make the hacking more interesting.

I'm not saying that "security" won't be a priority, just that it is not overwhelmingly affected by architecture - and certainly isn't affected enough to dictate a major change like the one they're doing.

This change was about performance, price, and possibly politics.

Re:That's retarded.

[JAHA]

I would think the idea being that a less familiar architecture will at lease be more difficult to hack.

Re:That's retarded.

[praedor]

OK, so where is the linux-running PS2? If the architecture (and who controls it) doesn't matter, then why aren't there PS2 boxes running linux or *BSD and being used for cool/cute tricks?

Re:That's retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Opens mouth, inserts foot)"OK, so where is the linux-running PS2? If the architecture (and who controls it) doesn't matter, then why aren't there PS2 boxes running linux or *BSD and being used for cool/cute tricks?"

(Shoving praedor's foot in further)
I know it's difficult for some people to do work, but try using Google!

http://playstation2-linux.com
http://librenix.c om

Re:That's retarded.

[bninja_penguin]

As the others have replyed, you can get a PS2 version of Linux. As a matter of fact, you can purchase from SONY a kit that includes a hard drive, Linux distro, and I think even a keyboard, for under $200.00.

Re:That's retarded.

[praedor]

I happen to like the taste of my foot.

After I posted I realised I should have googled first...but never having heard of anyone mentioning the "coolness" of running linux on a PS2 I assumed it wasn't there.

Onward. I do not do consoles. To much Mortal Combat style GARBAGE. That being said, if the PS2 isn't so great and the Xbox is, then why is the PS2 so much stronger, sales-wise, than the Xbox? From the stuff I've seen, it has great graphics, no different really than what I've seen with the Xbox. Is the particular interest in the Xbox simply because running linux on it is a solid screwjob for M$?

XT box?

[twitter]

Yeah, an XT, and it will run COBOL! How cool is that?

It's friggin amazing!

[Anonymous Coward]

MS gets bashed for trying to pawn off a PC as a console, so now they are moving to a proprietary hardware solution, just like Sony and Nintendo, and once again MS is getting slammed for it!

Its fucking amazing!

This is great...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but will it play Metroid Prime?

They have this one figured out.

[whittrash]

They will be using a Power PC processor (Mac). They liscensed UNIX from SCO. IBM is to be the chip manufacturer. The circle is complete.

Xbox/2

[Curt]

Wasn't one of the "strengths" Microsoft was touting with the original Xbox was that because it uses standard PC parts it would be easier to develop and port games?

Now it looks as if the parts are going to be as "standard" as WMA.

So, what will be the advantage the Xbox has now? I doubt there will be that much of a technology gap between any of the next-gen systems. It puts it much closer to the other consoles, and among those, sheer numbers usually wins out - these days, namely, Sony. Only if the custom parts become much cheaper, and the Xbox stops creating losses for MS, would this be a good step for them.

If anything is going to tip the scales away from Sony in the console wars, I doubt it is going to happen this round.

Re:You thought that MS couldn't get more proprieta

[Anonymous Coward]

Tey should be more open like Sony right? Oh wait a second, PS is proprietary! Go figure!

\. hypocrisy at its finest.

MS never fails to amaze

[iamanatom]

Just as the pace is accelerating to commodity parts and more open standards MS decides to go as in house as possible. Let them do what they want. They are dooming themselves to becoming an irrelevance.

Well gee, that's easy to answer

[devphil]

I just shelled out 200 for a playstation 2 late last year. I can't afford to go buying another game console every 2-3 years.

So? You are not their target market.

This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[popo]

Ask any developer in the country: working with Microsoft means jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops, and complying with really awful regulations (like all that X-Box Live crap).

Why do developers do this?

Because development for the X-Box is otherwise relatively easy. The X-Box being a modified PC, means that porting PC titles to the X-Box is cake.

The modified PC architecture also allows Microsoft to raid E3 for hot-titles, and buy out (or sign advance release deals) on hot titles. ("Halo" for example was originally supposed to be a PC release).

But what happens when Microsoft begins to move away from standard components?

The first and most obvious advantage to Microsoft is cost. Owning the chip manufacturing reduces the overall cost of production, not only by cutting out the 3rd party, but through efficiencies of custom architecture. This will translate into a more competitive console price. Most people don't know it, but Microsoft is in a state of panic right now over console prices. GameCube and PS2 can undercut X-Box comfortably in the late-stage console cycle (2 years after a console's release).

But (buyer beware) even though the X-Box NEXT will carry a nice price-tag, the number of titles will be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER.

Developers *hate* working with the X-Box team at M'soft, and if coding for the X-Box was as difficult as coding for the PS2 developers would choose 1 console and stick with it.

This is almost guaranteed to happen with the release of X-NEXT. Watch as Sony announces a larger than ever release calendar and Microsoft is forced to go on an acquisition streak in order to bulk up on releases.

Also watch as GameCube surprises everyone with their next console which will demolish Sony and Microsoft's benchmarks...

Re:This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[Zed2K]

Also watch as more and more people speculate about this and guess about that and spout off about whatever they want when talking about products that don't exist in any form yet and won't exist for at least a year and a half.

Re:This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[Chokolad]

> Developers *hate* working with the X-Box team at M'soft, and if coding for the X-Box was as difficult as coding for the PS2 developers would choose 1 console and stick with it.

I actually heard quite the opposite. One of the developers of "Buffy The Vampire slayer" told me that working with MS was much better - better tools, better support, etc. compared to GameCube and PS2. He specifically said that Xbox developer support was so much better than Sony

Re:This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[KirkH]

Ease of development has almost nothing to do with hardware design -- it has to do with APIs. If MS provides a familar DirectX API to developers, then it doesn't matter what the hardware underneath looks like.

Re:This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[burns210]

i thought halo was originally going to be a mac or mac/pc release.

Re:This will result in fewer X-Box titles

[sean23007]

First of all, it would be Nintendo surprising everyone with their next console, and there is absolutely NO guarantee that it will "demolish" anything. In fact, at this point it seems dubious that it will be able to compete with the Cell, leaving Nintendo in the same place it was with this generation: relying on zealots who ignore better hardware and more innovative games because of Mario. Sony will win the next generation like they won this one and the one before it.

YOU KNOW NOTHING!

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux works fine with PPC, too.

There is now reason to be concerned.

And they need to reduce per-box losses badly

[Morgaine]

every cent you can shave of the production costs of a unit makes a big difference

Your reasoning is spot on for any console manufacturer, but it's especially important for Microsoft because of the dreadful arithmetic of long-duration per-box losses resulting from slow growth of Xbox against the PS2.

The problem there is that Microsoft doesn't write a whole lot of games itself, so they're at the mercy of the usual game dev companies' choice of platform and rate of production. That rate has been slow, and every month that the ramp-up drags on with the PS2 light-years ahead in terms of game numbers represents another chunk of losses stemming from the high cost of the console versus number of games sold.

Exactly why Xbox hasn't exploded onto the scene and become a head-for-head PS2 rival after all this time is a good question which I haven't seen explained anywhere. It's nice hardware from a dev perspective, so why so few games? (Even the Xbox mags are disappearing from shops. Looks bad.)

With the present sluggish rate of new releases and with way under 200 Xbox games in most of the "Coming Soon" lists despite Xmas approaching, I don't see any light at the end of the Xbox tunnel for a long time to come. Under these inauspicious circumstances, I'd have to guess (and we can only guess) that bringing down the pre-console loss must be extraordinarily important to MS.

Re:And they need to reduce per-box losses badly

[Ataru]

Basically, the PS2 had a massive head start. The Xbox is wonderful to develop for, but the publisher doesn't give a fuck, they want a PS2 version because that's what most people have. The PS2 is an absolute fucking nightmare to develop for. Hence lots of developers going bust while publishers want more and more PS2 shit in less time... At the end of the day it's all about money. It has precisely fuck all to do with good games any more. C'est la fucking vie mate.

Oh great.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Say g'bye to the PS2 and Gamecube; Micro$oft will soon conquer yet another market.

Re:Oh great.....

[Anonymous Coward]

All thanks to you microslaves for allowing them to abuse you.

Does anyone know the polygon count....

[zymano]

on these new consoles ? Cell ?

Polygon count is very important to me in selecting a console.

The quality of games also ofcourse.

Linux?

[twitter]

Harder to run Linux, maybe. Getting past their little BIOS BS to run x86 software on a no so spectacular x86 PC was not too much trouble. It might not be worth the trouble when you have to figure out what dumb thing they do next to the hardware on the other side. Time will tell if people put forth the effort. I told them then and I'll tell them now to spend their money and time on honest hardware instead.

The flip side to this is that it will throw their own developers off. They, bless their suffering hearts, must put up with all the ugliness on normal M$ work and then some. Time to buy another SDK, suckers! Considering the poor sales, I don't know where they will get then next batch. What M$ screw their develpers again? Say it ain't so.

ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

That was pretty funny. :-)

I'm assuming that it was intended as a joke, seeing that after all this time Xbox is not even in the same ballpark with PS2 in terms of sheer variety and number of games available. That's pretty sad because Xbox is a far nicer platform. Unfortunately, it's just never been able to bridge the gap to PS2 for some reason.

The only area in which Xbox is ahead is in online games with Xbox Live, but then there is no other console to give it competition there as Sony seems to have only a token interest in online games beyond its collosal PC offerings.

Re:ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

The annoying thing is that MS might be able to cover this up. In three separate Future Shop's, X Box has well over 2-3 times the floor space that PS and PS2 do combined for all games and accessories. I'm guessing that future shop is maybe getting a discount on MS hardware (keyboards/mice) and MS games for that (that or else execs at future shop refuse to fix a mistake). However, if one heads over to a walmart or toys r us, one sees the situation reversed.

Does anyone know if any other stores look like they've gotten a deal to feature x-box over PS2 ? Likely candidates would be game stores, or Best Buy/Circuit city.

Re:ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess that floor space matters a lot mainly around Xmas time, because that's when the non-gamers enter the games shops in a big hurry and buy whatever seems to be "big" and whatever has the best deals.

During the rest of the year, most purchases are probably by gaming devotees who know exactly what they want and aren't swayed too much by shop-floor advertising.

So Xbox had better sell well during the Xmas rush, as it's fighting a losing battle against the huge torrent of PS2 games the rest of the time.

(I've got both consoles, and I even prefer the Xbox hardware, but the PS2 has it beaten into a bloody pulp in terms of variety and number of games.)

"Old" semiconductor companies salivating....

[ReadbackMonkey]

I can just see the Intels, Siemens, TIs and NECs of the world lining up for patent suits on this one. If Microsoft plans to wade into this battle without any existing IP they are going to get smacked very hard with the infringement stick... ... all the "old boys" need to do is wait for the system to come out and then the money to start rolling in.

Re:"Old" semiconductor companies salivating....

[Ondo]

f Microsoft plans to wade into this battle without any existing IP

They're not, as the article makes clear. They've licensed IP from IBM, ATI, and SIS.

They need a new naming director...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, what kind of name is Xbox Next? I mean, Microsoft may not be the most creative bunch around, but I think they can do better than that...

Oh, and so what about the upcoming deal with IBM processors in the Xbox? Will that be scrapped?

DNA?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is clear that Microsoft wants to get a lot of their DNA into it,"

Is this like the DNA on Monica Lewinsky's dress?

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs & IBM/Lotus

[wbowman]

IBM used "R Next" for the follow up to Lotus Notes & Domino R5. This eventually becaume Notes 6 and Domino 6. Can't Microsoft come up with at least one original idea? Maybe they could name it "X Successor". Around the office they could shorten it to "X Sucs".

Yeah but Apple put USB & FireWire & AirPor

[crovira]

SCSI & hardware etceteras, and Unix on/in every box with a likable GUI which is morphing into a more business-like grey and white GUI.

M$ has only led in anti-trust violations. Of yeah lets not forget Bob and Clippy...

Why doesn't Gates give up and just tie himself to one of Jobs's helicopter skids.

DRM is insane and will lose sales

[thenarftwit]

The down-side I see, is that the new xbox will not draw people who like to mod the box (hardware and software) and play with it's configurations. Of course, this is what MS wants, it also want to try out its DRM on the gaming crowd first and will probably crash and burn as a result. I wil, for one, look to buy the old version of xbox, MS doesn't get it that a platform that is non-hackable won't be as popular as a hackable platform...when the windoz DRM version arrives someday, there will be a big sound of migrating consumers to non-DRM technologies like Linux. People do not like having their computers turned into dumb dvd players controlled by big companies.

Re:DRM is insane and will lose sales

[westlake]

Get real. Modding is for technical hobbyists. Consoles are mass marketed to kids and families who don't have these skills and will never crack open the box.

The misleading title....

[JollyFinn]

Microsoft simply defines the overall architecture and some parts while gets real world players to implement. This was the reason they got PPC and IBM for XBOX2, as I mentioned then. The 970 with several customizations put in place some custom asic functions attached to it and SEPARATE GFX chip would be the thing. The GFX should be separated for cooling issues, we don't wan't these two hot cores next to each other. The decoding signatures for software may be integrated in hardware and THAT part MS would probably be interested in mostly. So you wouldn't be able to run non signatured binaries on it. So as MS controls the signaturing XBOX2 is unreachable for non certified software. But I think still its some of its partners that do the hardwork here. MS will simply just gets more on the IP rights of the work. And its more active simply means that they will define what they want others to make them, while NOT taking a standard parts from them. So don't expect running your favourite OS on XBOX 2, and for memory bandwith issue. Well they could go a specialized memory that is made for highbandwith embedded enviroment like XBOX. 3.2Ghz memory interface running 64 bits at a time could be the thing, for XBOX 2 that separates it from non custom chips by far. IBM is a large ASIC company that integrates CPU:s in those asics so this is not anyway new to them.

How important is backwards compatibility?

[Anita Coney]

There is a rumor that Xbox2 games (or whatever it'll be called) will not be backwards compatible with the Xbox.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12587

On the other hand, Sony claims that the PS3 (or whatever it'll be called) will be backwards compatible all the way back to the PS1. In other words, right out of the bat the PS3 will have more games available than the Xbox2 ever will have.

My question: Will this kill the Xbox2?! Is the ability to play all your old games that important to gamers?

Re:How important is backwards compatibility?

[Beolach]

My question: Will this kill the Xbox2?!

I wish it would, but it won't. I don't expect anything to actually kill the Xbox or Xbox2, because M$ has the money to pour into it regardless of it's success. Most of M$ products actually lose them money, it's just that they make so much on their OSes & MS Office that they can afford to lose money on other things simply for the market share.

assembler

[HongPong]

Yes the day of MS assembly viruses will soon be upon us. Corruptible registers overflow, spilling electrons all over the place. But some gamers will come to enjoy that 'buzz-worthy' feature.

The New XBox. Because grounding is for pussies.

FPU not worth much?

[JAHA]

you haven't written a game lately have you?

Design Requirement #1

[Anonymous Coward]

That the hardware not allow any form of Linux or Unix to run on it.

Microsoft monitors? motherboards? printers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long till Microsoft has entered the last IT market it can find? Will we all be controlled by Microsoft in all IT market segments some day?

And my A/V amp is BSOD ready!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My Yamaha A/V amp shows a helpful blue screen when I plug the Xbox in, unlike the black level it shows for PS2.

I conclude that either Microsoft has BSODs trademarked and Yamaha is just steering clear of legal trouble, or else the Yammy is exceptionally clever and is using lookahead to tell us what kind of Xbox event is imminent. :-)

Sources please

[Mr.Sharpy]

Most people don't know it, but Microsoft is in a state of panic right now over console prices.

Developers *hate* working with the X-Box team at M'soft, and if coding for the X-Box was as difficult as coding for the PS2 developers would choose 1 console and stick with it.

Also watch as GameCube surprises everyone with their next console which will demolish Sony and Microsoft's benchmarks...

And you know all of this how? Sources please.

DRM anyone?

[kipple]

great. now we'll finally see how computer producers will integrate software DRM (a la Palladium) into their hardware! ..open source hardware anyone?

Uhhh....

[JMZero]

Try http://playstation2-linux.com/. Or one of the other hundreds of sites google will return. Linux is pretty much officially supported on the PS2, and it's easy to do.

The better question is "why does nobody care about it?" And the answer is that the PS2 isn't amazing hardware.

Microsoft Microcode Chips?

[Anonymous Coward]

I first read about this a while ago. The author of the article I read cited third party suppliers as a reason why Microsoft might either tweak the chips themselves or even create chips with entirely new instructions sets. The chips would emulate x86 instructions.

More to the point though - If MS does make chips that this in Xbox it will mostly be used a test bed for a new version of Windows that will only run on these chips. MS would mostly likely say that this allows them to manage code and make security water tight.

Which it could do. It could also prevent people from running certain other pieces of software. Like Linux.

MOD PARENT UP SIX TIMES

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO

Damn, you are a funny bastard.

Wasn't the whole purpose of the XBox exercise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the whole purpose of the XBox exercise to use standard PC hardware so that they could take advantage of cheap commodity hardware, plus making it easier for developers to write for the XBox? (Hey! Porting is easy!)

Didn't they deride / riducule the old game-box makers for using closed / proprietary systems?

And now they're finding out that the old game-box makers knew what they were doing all along?

Yep... this has Microsoft's NIH fingers all over it.

Probably better to integrate anti-hacking features

[WoTG]

The Game Cube did very well at preventing mod chips and pirated games. I suspect Microsoft will try to do something similar by integrating more of the security wise critical components into one chip - without a bus to be tapped. MS most likely looses money on each console sold, so they, of the 3, are most in need of preventing mod chips from being used. (I suspect Sony breaks even on PS2's, after all, they sell somewhere in the realm of 10x more units than MS or Nintendo)

Product lifespans also bit them.

[Thag]

One other problem is that in the PC industry, hardware product lifespans are 2-3 years.

Unfortunately, game console lifespans are 5-7 years.

This means that after a couple years, your supply of those "cheap PC parts" starts drying up, and your costs start rising again because you're the only ones still buying 700 mhz Pentium 3's.

For things like IDE DVD-ROM drives, it's a simple fix to replace the part with a newer equivalent unit. For your CPU, GPU, ethernet chips, etc, though, you're stuck either paying to keep an assembly line open, or redesigning the console.

Jon Acheson

Re:Product lifespans also bit them.

[MagikSlinger]

One other problem is that in the PC industry, hardware product lifespans are 2-3 years.
Unfortunately, game console lifespans are 5-7 years.

Bingo! Because Sony owns the plant, a 5-7 year lifespan suddenly becomes an asset instead of a liability. A lot of electronics have to be designed with "future compatibility" in mind. I.e., you ship out your consumer electronic product and you want to make sure your authorized repair places can still get parts for the damned thing 5-7 years down the road.

Dealing with companies like Intel who like the shut down a line almost immediately after its run its shipping lots makes this whole exercise that much more painful.

It also

[luekj]

It also puts them in the same position as Sony and Nintendo.

/me thinks that they will still have things to base x86 pc stuff, and this is just hype. Microsoft never does more than it has to. If anything, they bought some design from bitmapbros or some coherent startup.

Security perhaps?

[Neo-Rio-101]

Something tells me that Microsoft is going to take the opportunity to work the next Xbox security system directly into the mechanics of the CPU. I guess if they were planning this, they'd be assuming that any hardware hacker wouldn't dare meddle with the actual CPU, lest they break the whole machine.

....although that idea falls apart when you consider that all it takes is for a buggy game to crash, as in the current XBox..... and then the security breaks.

Re:Bill Gates loves Steve Jobs & IBM/Lotus

[bninja_penguin]

Now that's funny!!! Too bad I don't have mod points.

Consoles v. PC graphics cards

[xixax]

I have a friend who buys consoles all the time. He only plays games, and he can upgrade all his hardware for far less than most PC gamers spend on this year's uber video card.

Even with a 3 year life, consoles represent excellent value.

Xix.

SSX3 better on PS2

[cbriscoe]

You can play it online on PS2. Plus on the PS2 version, you can use all the grab buttons. Graphics may be slightly better on the Cube, but SSX3 has the best PS2 graphics ever, IMHO.