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

DRM

[Rosyna]

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

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

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

[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.

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%".

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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: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.)