Xbox 2 Sneak Peek May Not Involve Hardware?

Thanks to GamesIndustry.biz for its article discussing the possible unveiling of the Xbox 2 at Game Developer's Conference in San Jose later this month. According to the piece, a Microsoft Japan staffer suggested that "the console's actual hardware will probably not be unveiled at GDC, and that a decision had not yet been taken to as to when the technical specifications of the system should be released." Although some basic technical details have allegedly been leaked, the piece argues: "Some commentators have suggested that Microsoft is holding back from a final decision on the RAM, and possibly on the inclusion of a hard drive, until it finds out what Sony is planning to do with the PS3."

Comments

Milking

[nempo]

Maybe Xbox next can milk that cash reserve so we can finally see M$ go bankrupt...or something.

Not that this will ever happen since windows and office pays for every other venture M$ gets itself in to.

Re:Milking

[bhima]

I think for MS to go bankrupt they'd have to give everyone on earth an xbox and a couple of games.

Still a nice idea though...

Hrm

[The-Bus]

Well, just nice to see Sony still has a real lead in the industry, not only in sales but also in deciding what other hardware will look like.

One of the reasons I buy a game for the Xbox instead of the PS2 (if it's out for both consoles) is that the Xbox has the hard drive. I don't need to worry about memory cards, I can save more, I can listen to my own music... If Xbox2 doesn't have this, it won't be a console I buy immediately. It seems like they are going backwards with this to me.

Re:Hrm

[AKnightCowboy]

Well, just nice to see Sony still has a real lead in the industry, not only in sales but also in deciding what other hardware will look like.

It's always nice to see Microsoft demonstrating their ability to innovate in any industry they tackle.

Re:Hrm

[EnglishTim]

I think actually this is a reaction that shows Microsoft's disappointment that the games developers did not innovate more with microsoft's innovation (putting a hard drive in a console). Hardy any games used it, and I don't of any that used it in a particularly interesting way.

Considering the expense of including a hard drive, I'm not surprised that they are trying to see if they can leave it out next time, as nobody did much with it this time.

Re:Hrm

[fireduck]

Its not surprising that the hard drive was not completely utilized. The only games that are going to really use it are the X-box exclusive games. You don't have that feature on either the PS2 or GC, so developers working on cross platform games are not going to spend much if any time working on a feature that is only supported on 1/3rd of the consoles (and only like 13% of the console market). So, you're left with first and second party developers to fully utilize the true power of the X-box, and except for Halo, there's been a serious lack of well-known X-box exclusive games...

I imagine if the PS3 were to have a hard drive, you'll see some serious development for it.

Re:Hrm

[*weasel]

Downloadable content for console games is forward progress if I've ever seen it. Every game that leveraged that was truly taking advantage of the harddrive. Similarly with every game that supported custom soundtracks (most prominently, imo, the GTA3/VC double-pack. because Rockstar knew they had a blockbuster even without adding features.)

As for doing something 'interesting'... well hell - what PC game does anything particularly 'interesting' with a harddrive? It lets you save huge amounts of custom data. Music, save files, custom content, etc. most PC developers don't even use the HD properly for swap.

Microsoft brought console multiplayer gaming nearly up to speed with PC multiplayer gaming. The only place they're still behind in is the mod department. Being wishy-washy on the harddrive for the neXtBox means that's not likely going to happen. It's a true shame as well, since it wouldn't take too much effort to allow an XBox game to grab custom maps/models/textures/etc from a network share.

Microsoft is showing the console audience how multiplayer gaming /should/ be - but following Sony because of this cost issue is going to blow it. (unless they stock the thing with several gig of flash memory)

Re:Hrm

[CaptMonkeyDLuffy]

A hard drive has been present for ages in computer gaming, and it doesn't bring about many 'innovations.' The ability to add content/patch the application post-release(generally a good ability, but then again the ability to patch applications is arguably part of the reason PC games have a penchant for shipping buggy), the ability to have huge save game states, the ability to use hard disk as swap space that is faster than removable media, but not at RAM speed. That's really all the hard disk brings to the table.

Also, there's an even more cynical take on the hard drive. It wasn't there for any form of innovation at all, but is there because Microsoft was trying to build a console to leverage the existing computer game industry to build a game library of shovelware ports of PC games.

As far as the expense of the hard drive, there is also the failure rate of hard drives to take into account...

Re:Hrm

[bigman2003]

I don't think Microsoft is stupid. You might dislike them, but I don't think you could say they make a lot of stupid mistakes. They know that the hard-drive performed an important function on the first Xbox.

I am guessing that if they do not include a hard-drive, they will replace it with something that provides the same functionality- or better.

The first Xbox went way beyond what I expected them to do, especially for a first console. Now that they are moving into the second version, they will refine their original plan, and bring out anything new that they have been working on for the past 4 years.

Re:Hrm

[TechniMyoko]

I have to agree. I love the hard drive. It's great for replacing my CDs. And I too buy games for Xbox rather than gamecube because Id rather not have to buy a new memory card eventually. That and cube gets shafted when it comes to online. One of the reasons Id buy an Xbox 2 was if it had backwards compatability so I could get naother copy of Halo for easier lan games. And Steel Battalion is an excellent exclusive

Re:Hrm

[SuiteSisterMary]

I loves the hard drive. I noticed that the first time I played Ninja Gaiden, it sat at the 'loading' screen for the very first level, for quite a while. Then, every time after, five seconds, max.

I suspect quite strongly it was caching a lot of crap onto the hard drive, that first time through. You could stick all of the character models, the main sound effects, the music, and the UI elements onto the hard drive, streaming only levels and seldome used textures off of the DVD, for quite a speed boost.

Re:Hrm

[Ayaress]

Well, just nice to see Sony still has a real lead in the industry, not only in sales but also in deciding what other hardware will look like.

This is something I've said before several times: Don't watch Microsoft, don't watch Nintendo. Watch Sony, and you'll see who'll come out on top. Console wars aren't won by superior games or superior hardware, but by the mistakes of the front runner in the last round.

Back before I played video games, I knew a few people who had Intellivisions and C64s and such, but they were all expensive and had all sorts of drawbacks in ease of use. A lot of people I knew wanted them, but they were just too expensive, and parents wouldn't buy them. They were slow in making them easier to use, and they didn't do much to lower the price. That was their screwup, and they got beat because of it.

Atari was cheap (by comparison, at least), and you could use it if you were completely braindead. Not long after it came out, my school had shifted from the previous stance (if you had a gaming system, you were a social elite) to the opposite extreme (if you didn't have an Atari, you were a social outcast - even if you had one of the much more powerful systems). There were other systems at the time, but the Atari was IT. Period.

Atari made a couple systems (two or three, I think. I have two), but really, they were the same old: Games with boxy graphics that look like they were programmed by monkies in their spare time. They didn't really improve the quality, they just kept cranking up the quantity. That was their screwup.

Nintendo beat them with the NES which had (at least by the current standards) infinitely better looking graphics. Mario may have had pixels as big as my fist back then, but still: When we walked, he (*gasp*) looked like he was walking - and he was directionally correct! The control was smoother, games were longer, and it was much more pleasing to the eye.

Sega made better systems than Nintendo: Genesis, Game Gear (except for the horridly short battery life, anyway), Sega CD, 32x... They were capable of much more than their Nintendo counterpart (I can't think of any game on the SNES that had smooth animation and good framerates at the breakneck speeds of Sonic the Hedgehog). But the NES, SNES, and GameBoy won at every turn because Nintendo kept putting them out first, and kept getting the big developers first.

Their mistake was in the early 90's. They wanted to make a SNES CD system to compete with the Sega CD. That was their mistake. After blowing it in parterships with Sony (to make an SNES CD add-on called, ironically, the PlayStation, which never got made) and Phillips (too make a Nintendo cartridge add-on to the Phillips CD-i, which never got made), they get blindsided when Sony brought out the PlayStation as a stand-alone system. I forgot my SNES within a week, and so did Nintendo - a lot of very SNES good games that probably would have been realeased in English weren't. They took too long getting the N64 to market after that, and even though the N64 was a more powerful system, it never had a chance.

Sega *almost* made it with the Dreamcast, but they pulled production and basically handed it off to the PS2.

Right now, Sony hasn't dropped the ball yet. They got the PS2 out early, they even made it backwards-compatible, so PS1 games still in development could be released as planned and not be set back while they're ported to the new hardware, plus sales of PS1 games could continue. Users also got the extra ease of use from not having to swap consoles to play their older games.

Now, it looks (to me anyway) like they're well in the lead for the next release. If they get to market first and don't end up doing something really dumb (like shipping the first 25,000 units without installing the power switch), it could very well be in the bag for Sony.

Microsoft is being tentative, which suggests to me they're not as ready as they want to sound. I've heard nothing substantiativ

Re:Hrm

[M.C. Hampster]

That's really all the hard disk brings to the table.

I would have loved to have seen what they could have done at Nintendo with Animal Crossing if they had a hard drive. As it is, it's an amazingly fun game. With more room, the city could have been much bigger and there could have been a lot more customizable content. As it was, they were dealing with the Nintendo Memory Card 57 which I think was 8Mb (~1/2 MB).

Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[chilled]

I think it's quite funny that the X-Box was sold to developers as effectively a standard PC, enabling quicker and easier development, yet they're going for a new architecture. You could interpret it as a admission that M$ got the X-Box wrong.
And unveiling something that doesn't exist seems a bit strange too. Here's hoping they fail spectacularly.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[Troed]

Well .. they saw the Gamecube outsell (world wide) the Xbox, even though a lot of Xboxes only are sold since they can be modified so easily. Microsoft then apparently made the decision to copy whatever Nintendo does for the next generation ... (IBM CPU, ATI graphics etc .. )

I am half serious, yes :)

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[*weasel]

Microsoft got developers on board because doing an XBox port was easy, and their tools are top-shelf (particularly given the PS2s SDK clusterfark). Microsoft already has had PPC compilers in their existing tools (for decades now) - so none of that changes in the least.

The only thing about the neXtBox that might be different is the omission of the harddrive. Yet, if you consider the current crop of games, most developers are only using it to store save games and downloadable content. Things a large chunk of flash memory (their proposed alternative) can do easily.

So where's the big change? The ability to use the HD for swap space is gone (largely unused anway) and custom soundtracks are uncertain. That's it.

What they got wrong in the XBox is including a part that doesn't fall in price with economies of scale. Harddrives get bigger - not cheaper. A move to flash memory will give them most of the functionality while still having a part that follows economies of scale. (flash memory gets cheaper and larger)

So long as Sony doesn't push PVR functionality, the HD won't be a necessary part, and MS will have made the right move on all counts. (flash memory has a comparatively low rewrite lifespan. It'd be no good for swap space or constant use for large files. Eg: bad for PVR.)

The only thematic shift is that instead of being standard PC hardware, the neXtBox is shaping up to be more like standard Mac hardware.

And they're not showing nonexistant hardware. The part that remains in doubt is if they'll be announcing 'what's under the hood'. They'll be showing a live, functioning unit, but they're not sure if announcing the specs this early will be unnecessarily tipping their hand to Sony.

The only reason I hope the neXtBox isn't a spectacular failure, is because at this point Microsoft is the manufacturer who's pushing the envelope. Internet gaming (the way it should be) is in the living room, Sony is test-marketing console/PVR convergence devices in Japan, and Nintendo is correctly decades-old policy cockups (bad 3rd party dev relations, high royalties, 'content' image, etc).

Microsoft has brought serious competition to the console, and this competition is good for gamers.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[VividU]

Here's hoping they fail spectacularly

Ahh! Slashdot at it's best. A refuge for those poor lost souls whose self-esteem and identity are affirmed and defined by the failure or success of a particular technology.

Exactly how would the failure of Xbox2 benefit you? Thousands of readers are curious.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[chilled]

I work for a large competitor to Microsoft.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[nologin]

Actually, the X-Box was more of a child born in order to jump into the market faster. Microsoft realized that they were 2 years late in the game and need to trim that edge down so they would end up third in the market.

The Microsoft strategy was two-fold. Close the gap on the market and try to make a product that would outperform the competition. The hard-drive was a double-edged sword. It made the console unique, but because of the PC-like architecture, it also gained the moniker "hack-box".

This strategy failed. They weren't able to breakout as the winner in the next-generation console market. This time, they are changing the architecture because they are prepared to jump into the market. Also, they have to prevent the losses that plagued the original X-Box.

Now, they wait for Sony to drop their specs down for PS3. Microsoft is using the same strategy as last time with the exception of being 18 months behind to bring to market. We'll have to see what they offer and what difference it will make this time.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[Synic]

Since Sony's push for PVR is the PSX, which is still a PS2, I don't think they have to worry much. Microsoft also plans on pushing a $100 cable kit to make MS Windows XP Media Center PC's into PVR's by using the Xbox2's connections. Whether this is just baldurdash is anyone's guess.

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[*weasel]

If the PSX is insanely popular (which by the press releases, it seems to have been) -- Sony may opt to ship a ps3/PVR combo out of the gate.

PVR is a technology that many feel is just waiting to burst into consumer's living rooms the way DVD did in 2000.

Adding that dual functionality may be something that convinces people it's acceptable to pay a premium for. People might pay $350 or $375 (covering the HD costs) for a console + PVR the same way DVD playback convinced people to pay $300 for a gaming console + DVD player.

If Microsoft isn't planning for such a device at launch Sony could steal significant thunder from them, and might keep them from being able to establish a significant user base during their yearlong 'head start'. If they get a HD into the neXtBox they can always add PVR functionality via an XBLive update (consumers would need online service anyway to get listings for a pvr.)

The problem with the cable-kit is that it only applies to XP Media Center PC's -- and the whole deal is much more complicated than replayTV or Tivo. It's more a stopgap, or a gimmick to help move Media Center.

It certainly wouldn't be enough to keep the neXtBox feature-competitive with a ps3+pvr combo.

Given that the neXtBox may ship with a rewriteable blue laser optical drive -- they would be able to clean up in the PVR arena.

(having a console + PVR + being able to archive shows and files would blow all competition out of the water)

Re:Technology U-Turn from X-Box

[Synic]

"Given that the neXtBox may ship with a rewriteable blue laser optical drive -- they would be able to clean up in the PVR arena."

I highly doubt this. The expense of such a drive would make the neXtBox too costly to produce in mass quantities and still deliver at a reasonable price point. I would expect such drives to arrive on the PC starting at $400.

Sony's Catch-22

[Dark Paladin]

Sony now has an interesting decision to make: reveal how the PS3 is going to act and look like with enough time to let developers make new games for it, or wait just long enough for Microsoft to shoot itself in the foot.

Sony's probably got most of the specs nailed down already, and their just going over the nit-pick details. If they're clever, they'll just make the system very modular with a range of products:

Regular PS3: No hard drive or ethernet/modem port, costs $299. Add in hard drive/ethernet is $99.

PS3/PSX: Basically the PSX now being sold in Japan, only with PS3 components. Tivo, satellite reciever, built in DVD burner, oh, yeah, and plays PS3 games, costs $700-900.

With this, they can delay right up until the last second what it's going to do and keep MS looking like an also-ran. Personally, I do find it disturbing that rather than blazing their own trail with what could be a great set of hardware (G5-ish chip and all), MS is just sitting back and "Well, whatever RAM they have, we'll have more! Our penis will be bigger!" approach.

Might please the fanboys, but personally, it just makes me want to give the Xbox 2 a long wait until I decide to get one, especially if it doesn't offer backwards compatibility. I have 3 consoles already - I don't need 4.

Re:Sony's Catch-22

[Theaetetus]

Sony now has an interesting decision to make: reveal how the PS3 is going to act and look like with enough time to let developers make new games for it, or wait just long enough for Microsoft to shoot itself in the foot.

Sony's probably got most of the specs nailed down already, and their just going over the nit-pick details. If they're clever, they'll just make the system very modular with a range of products:

Or, they'll screw over Microsoft by "leaking" specs like a DVD burner, built-in TiVo, 180 GB HD, four CPUs, 2GB of RAM, 16 player capability, built in cable modem, etc... Then release their own with much more reasonable specs and half the price.

-T

Re:Sony's Catch-22

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft and Sony get their marketing information through "leaks" in Slashdot.

Re:Sony's Catch-22

[Tarindel]

The biggest problem with not including a standard ethernet port or hard drive is that games that want to reach the largest target audience on the console will not be able to take advantage of these features. That in turn gives players less of an incentive to purchase them, which in turn means even less software that will use them. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

My guess is that Sony would like to see MMORPGs become more popular than they currently are, given that they not only bring in money for the console and software, but also a regular monthly fee. In order to do that most effectively, built-in broadband and a hard drive and/or large build-in flash memory storage seems very reasonable to include.

The XBox2 and the Phantom

[pudge_lightyear]

Is anyone thinking the same thing?

We've seen pictures of the phantom, we know it's the most powerful thing out there, but we've yet to see any software.

We're about to see the XBOX2's software, which is arguably (according to MS) the best in the world EVAR!!!!!, but will not see any hardware.

Maybe the two companies should join together and actually make a full console?

Or maybe I should go back to work and quit trying so hard at humor.

Re:The XBox2 and the Phantom

[mczeke]

"Or maybe I should go back to work and quit trying so hard at humor."

Yes, yes you should.
-Your Boss

Probably just inspiration.

[Trejkaz]

Nah, I think it's just that Microsoft is now getting its inspiration from Infinium Labs.

If I were Sony, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Leak fake specs
2. ???
3. Profit