Slashdot Mirror


More On PS3 and Xbox 2

News for nerds writes "The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem."

541 comments

  1. iGame by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

    The article mentioned that "Microsoft is obviously a software company first and foremost, while Sony has more experience in hardware", so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?

    1. Re:iGame by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Power Mac G5 already the development platform for XBox 2? A while back there was a story here on /. about a Microsoft employee that got canned for posting a picture of a pallet of G5's coming into MS's loading docks...and that was well before any inkling about what processor would power XBox 2.

    2. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Apple will release a JobsMini and all of us will work less hours per day, thus having more time to play next-generation consoles.

    3. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple sells their hardware at a premium, while game consoles usually sell at either razor-thin profit margins or at a loss. I thought of this too (especially after I saw the G4 Cube and compared it to the GameCube) but I don't think Apple would really want to contradict their normal sales philosophy. If Apple wanted to break into the games industry, their best bet is partnering with an established player (may I suggest Nintendo? Both companies seem to fit each other like a glove - especially in the realm of interface design and appeal)

    4. Re:iGame by skyman8081 · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Pippin?

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    5. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?
      Yeah right, and it will do just as well as the Pippin.

    6. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that was for their press department. Nothing to do with xbox2.

    7. Re:iGame by fembots · · Score: 1

      Pippin was like, in 1996? Apple has so much more brand power to leverage now with its iMac and iPod.

    8. Re:iGame by wankledot · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Apple can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like MS did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Sony has.) So speculating about an Apple gaming comsole is a complete waste of time.

      Next question.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    9. Re:iGame by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

      Sure, they COULD. But I don't think they will, because Apple has thus far shown less then zero interest in moving into the entertainment market. They are still strictly a home computer and portable music company.

      The fact that they've had mixed success in getting third parties to produce even desktop software for their machines does not bode well for their ability to attract game developers to the platform, either.

    10. Re:iGame by CockblockTheVote · · Score: 1

      That would be so awesome! Not only could i play UT2004 and Diablo on my TV, i could play Photoshop and Final Cut! Apple releasing a gaming console is just what the gaming world needs. Now i just hope that it comes in that fancy white so it does not match ANY of my components...

    11. Re:iGame by secolactico · · Score: 1

      That could have been for the people who develop office for mac.

      --
      No sig
    12. Re:iGame by pbranes · · Score: 0

      I think you are right on the money. Look back at 7-10 years ago with microsoft. They tried to get into your entertainment system with the web tv system. They have been developing computer games for many years. Obviously they had a hankering to get into the entertainment market. Look at apple - they have done none of that. They don't even make LCD tv's which is what every other computer manufacturer is doing right now. Apple will stay a computer and computer peripheral company.

    13. Re:iGame by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

      I'd much rather see them partner with an established console maker. The key to a successful console is the games. You need a lot of them. You need a few really good ones. You need at least one excellent, exclusive title. This would be really hard for Apple to swing all at once.

      I'd like to see them partner with Nintendo or Sony to release a built in gaming environment and compatible drives with the media. These companies make their real money on games and the licensing fees. Apple computers could all be extra consoles that sell more games. It would give games an extra market, it would solve the lack of games problem on OS X, and it would provide some 3rd parties with the opportunity to sell game pads and accessories.

      That would be a killer feature for Tiger. I don't think it is going to happen, but I'd really like to see it.

    14. Re:iGame by thre5her · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From ca. 1994: Sony can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like Nintendo did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Nintendo has.) So speculating about an Sony gaming comsole is a complete waste of time. Next question.

    15. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iKnow

    16. Re:iGame by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, the iPippin, then. How's that?

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
    17. Re:iGame by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      They'll do the same thing they always do - half the product at twice the price. Something with the functionality of the PSX, with a pricetag of around $400. Oh, but it will come in a WHITE CASE! Now that would be worth paying extra for. ..and yet the herds will buy....

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    18. Re:iGame by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that they've had mixed success in getting third parties to produce even desktop software for their machines does not bode well for their ability to attract game developers to the platform, either.

      Actually, developers are all about OS X. Heck I am sitting two offices away from some people developing Windows only software, that they are developing on powerbooks. I mean have you seen how much freeware/shareware there is for OS X? People love to develop on OS X. Businessmen on the other hand, aren't so keen on investing a pile of money into funding development for OS X, given it's small market share. Many of them just don't want to bother. Even big, entrenched players like Adobe, are less than stellar about committing to developing their products on OS X. Partly this is because so many companies have stupidly moved to MS owned technologies, and are now trapped. Partly this is just because management does not see the business case.

      Development on OS X is great. Development for OS X is a dream job for many. It is a profitable endeavor as proved by many companies. What many suits don't get is that Mac users are generally more affluent and willing to shell out money for things than the typical user. They are also often power users and aficionados that devote a relatively large portion of their funds to computing. You occasionally see a company like Adobe kill off development for a product on the Mac, even though it accounts for more than half of their user's. Thick skulled managers either assume that the Mac is dying and are trying to save money by getting ahead of the curve, or don't pay attention to their market share. Framemaker, for example, was cancelled after crappy sales for about 2 years (after they failed to make an OS X native version which everyone was waiting for).

      Basically, I disagree that they cannot find developers, but agree that they cannot find a large number of big development houses. Smaller shops do a lot better on the Mac. No what Apple will do if they are smart, is partner with Sony or Nintendo, and include an emulation environment with OS X. That way they get the games, and the development is taken care of by an already established player.

    19. Re:iGame by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Don't forget breakout and super-breakout!

    20. Re:iGame by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

      Apple COULD come out with a gaming console. So could many other companies who have and failed to keep their console significant. Take for example the N-Gage. It has already been deemed insignifant in and by the market. The portable market is simply dominated by others, namely Nintendo and now Sony. The Xbox, Playstation, and Game Cube cover more living room real estate than is really available. Many people I've known had enough of consoles in the 16-bit era. It is not safe to assume that every nerd is going to buy every console that comes out. Especially when console manufacturers offer little in the way of innovation. The console market is saturated and the only way to come out on top is to innovate. Judging by the lack of gaming available to Apple consumers currently, I'd say it is only speculation indeed...

    21. Re:iGame by wankledot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market is 1994 is nothing like it is today. Apple would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    22. Re:iGame by saider · · Score: 2, Funny

      and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?

      A pink console.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    23. Re:iGame by Vaystrem · · Score: 1

      " Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?"

      No but it already exists. Its called a Gamecube.

    24. Re:iGame by thoolihan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Sony would be the obvious choice. PS3 will be cell based, and cell will support the PowerPC ISA. Why would Apple put out a G4 or G5 gaming box to have sony come out with a 4 cell gaming box.

      Apple maybe be able to partner with Sony to help create a toolset and dev kit that could be installed on OSX and linux boxes, but IBM will probably help Sony with that anyway.
      -t

      --
      http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
    25. Re:iGame by skeptic1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Apple has thus far shown less then zero interest in moving into the entertainment market"

      Really?
      What do you think this is, then?

    26. Re:iGame by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Seems like it would make more sense for them to team up with Nintendo. The Gamecube uses a PowerPC processor and ATI graphics chip. It is also rumored that the "revolution" will use a PowerPC chip and another ATI graphics chip. Apple and Nintendo also seem to have similiar idea's about being "different".

    27. Re:iGame by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      Given the dearth of games on current Apple systems, it would be too huge a leap to intend to go from no games at all, to a game platform. Also, console makers generally lose money on the hardware, and recoup it on the games. Apple has shown they are very happy keeping a high margin of profit both on hardware and software.

    28. Re:iGame by Metapsyborg · · Score: 2, Informative
      "I believe that was for their press department. Nothing to do with xbox2"

      No, the development kits sent out to game developers were essentially modded G5s. Pretty much any gaming mag will have the scoop, like Game Informer.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
    29. Re:iGame by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      Ah, but would it run Tux Racer?

    30. Re:iGame by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The market of 1994 is nothing like it is today. Microsoft would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 (Sony, Nintendo or Sega) dont already. All of us can go at this all day. If you want to learn about why your statment is moronic pick up "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steven Kent... You will fine that your statement has been repeated time and again and proven false more often than true.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    31. Re:iGame by MyGirlFriendsBroken · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple put out a G4 or G5 gaming box to have sony come out with a 4 cell gaming box.

      There is also the matter that ther is a G4/G5 based gaming box on the horizon, I believe that it is call "XBox Next" or something.

      Seriously though, I feel that the market is big enough for only 3 players

      --
      If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
    32. Re:iGame by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      You have to look beyond gaming. Apple is already well-positioned where Sony and MS want to be, the home entertainment media hub. That means music, videos, photos, with maybe some web surfing and email. Only missing link now is the Mac mini doesn't have a good fullscreen GUI for HTPC use like Windows MCE or MythTV. You won't run any hardcore 3D games on that 9200 chip, but they'll probably have a few titles for casual gamers. Remember how well The Sims sold, and it didn't need 3D (Sims 2 does need 3D though).

    33. Re:iGame by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      Portable Music?

      I remember when Apple produced an external CD-ROM drive that was also usable as a standalone CD player. Not too popular, IIRC.

      --
      -mkb
    34. Re:iGame by toriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Sony fought against established names (Nintendo and SEGA) too. Plus Microsoft when it introduced X-Box was up against Sony and Nintendo (SEGA having halted the Dreamcast).

      The big problem would be to find a market segment: The other three have the market divided between them (Nintendo for children and adults, Sony for teens (and some adults) and Microsoft for people who like to watch tits in DOA XXX Beach Volleyball). Not many more niches left.

    35. Re:iGame by David+Rolfe · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think Cringley's recent comments respond to your post nicely -- he says (to this effect anyway) "Would you rather have a Gateway LCD or a Sony LCD". He's speaking to the coming/rumored/inevitable sale of Sony products by Apple (and possibly vice versa); They already sell Sony cameras, for instance, so DVI displays and other hardware is the natural progression. What this says to me is that Apple wouldn't want to get in the way of SCE, they'd want to partner with it. So just like you say, Apple still stay a computer company, but partner with "Best of Breed" manufacturers to fill these other roles, like Sony.

      Off topic and and only tangentially related, consider the excellent ps-one emulators available for the Mac. :-)

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    36. Re:iGame by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 1

      All they could provide is yet another proprietary platform that is incompatible with all of the others. Two is company, three is a crowd. Four is.... well, insane. They have the resources to pull it off, but the question is whether or not game houses will want to take on yet another port of their titles.

      --
      But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
    37. Re:iGame by srussell · · Score: 1
      Microsoft would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies

      Microsoft is still fighting an uphill battle. Their Halo-box still isn't making them any money. I don't know if they'll ever cut their losses and leave the market, but probably not while they have cash to burn.

    38. Re:iGame by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      There are games for the Mac and it is easy to develop for so your reasons are pretty much wrong. However your conclusions are pretty much correct.
      The real reason that Apple will not make a console is that Apple does not sell hardware at a lose. All the game companies sell the consoles at a lose or at the very best break even. They make the money on the games. It is the old razor and blades situation. I do not see Apple coming out with a loose leader console and then locking it down to make money on the games.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    39. Re:iGame by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      A leap-frog platform. Take the Mac mini: it has standard parts, thus can easily be coded to. (All the things that make a game console better for game development). It's already a computer. None of the other 3 companies have that. It's out now.... Whoops.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    40. Re:iGame by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
      No, the development kits sent out to game developers were essentially modded G5s. Pretty much any gaming mag will have the scoop, like Game Informer.

      It may be that the xbox dev kits are essentially modded G5's, but I can tell you they don't come in the standard G5 box you'd get if you ordered one from Apple.

      Microsoft makes some products that run on a Mac. Is it wierd to think they would order some of the new G5's?

    41. Re:iGame by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      The market of 1994 had nintendo clinging out to the huge revenue from ROM and unwilling to move on to cheaper media with more storage space. This created a demand for an alternative. Sony provided that alternative and Squaresoft jumped on board because they wanted to use tons of CGI footage on their projects.

      Porting from PC to Xbox is easy, and the huge installed userbase of the PS2 make it a worthwhile investment. Gamecube sells mainly because of the highly popular first-party franchises (Mario, Metroid and Zelda sell the consoles). Apple does not have the huge installed base or backward compatibility to a gigantic software library of the PS/PS2. It does not own any IP that would promote their console like Nintendo (they should have bought bungie if they wanted this).

      1994 was a perfect time to enter the market, anyone in the industry knew that a number of third party developpers were dissatisfied with Nintendo. 2004 is not a good time to enter the market.

    42. Re:iGame by MonMotha · · Score: 1

      Actually, Sony did that, just in Japan only. You most certainly can (or at least could, dunno now with the slim models) buy a "Sakura Pink" PS2. NTSC/J region only (though I'd probably find that more useful than my NTSC/UC). The PS2 was also available in white, and some sort of blue IIRC.

    43. Re:iGame by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      There is also the matter that ther is a G4/G5 based gaming box on the horizon, I believe that it is call "XBox Next" or something

      don't forget that there is a PowerPC based gaming box on the market (and probably in your home) right now - the GameCube. Sure, it isn't the same modle chip that is in any shipping mac (it was custom designed by IBM for the big N) but it still supports the same ISA that the G3 does. :)

      IBM is in the perfect posision - a total monopoly of the TV gaming CPU market. :D

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    44. Re:iGame by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "...so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?"

      Ever hear of a little known company called Nintendo? ;)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    45. Re:iGame by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      IBM is in the perfect posision - a total monopoly of the TV gaming CPU market. :D

      I'm not sure you can call it a monopoly. They certainly have a head start and a promising platform. Given the open standard of the PowerPC platform, however, and Motorola's chips that already implement that standard, I'd say this is a win for consumers. Even Intel and AMD can jump on the PPC bandwagon if they like. It would not surprise me if it happened in the next few years. (Although it would not surprise me if it did not either.)

    46. Re:iGame by secretsquirel · · Score: 0
      "It may be that the xbox dev kits are essentially modded G5's, but I can tell you they don't come in the standard G5 box you'd get if you ordered one from Apple."

      That's a supprise, the MS designers always make stuff look so cute and "appleish." The Xbox case even looks a little like a mac if you squint a little from far away and then claw out your eyes.

    47. Re:iGame by acidream · · Score: 1

      If they follow their current philosophy, they'll just buy out nintendo and call it their own. I can see the ads now. "iGame, the worlds first dvd-rom based game console"

    48. Re:iGame by maotx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it look like this?

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    49. Re:iGame by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      yes, but at this point, it's an IBM built PPC in all 3 systems ^_^;;

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    50. Re:iGame by vrai · · Score: 1
      Sony already owned an array of media companies - including a games publishing arms. Apple don't. Sony were a ubiquitous producer of all types of consumer electronics and had near total vertical integration. Apple make a niche computer and a MP3 player. Sony had more money than God and could afford to spend billions to establish a market position. Apple can't. Sony entered a stagnating market populated by two comparatively small companies. Apple would be entering a competitive market dominated by two huge multinationals.

      Apple won't enter the console market because they are not run by complete idiots. They have been very successful in the MP3 player market because they were the first company to launch a unit that had mass market acceptability. They got the jump on Sony by nearly two years. They do not have that luxury in the console market. Sony and Microsoft can easily afford to poach the best publishers and can sell their machines at massive losses. Even Nintendo, with it's pedigree and ability to produce fantastic first-party titles, is struggling to compete. To compare Apple's position now to Sony's in 1994 is laughable.

    51. Re:iGame by HiredMan · · Score: 1
      OK, the iPippin, then. How's that?

      I wasn't interested _at all_ and couldn't have wanted one less... but then when you put the little "i" in front of it...
      Now I suddenly MUST HAVE ONE!
      Anyway I could preorder one based on a bogus 'leaked' photo maybe?

      ;)

      =tkk

    52. Re:iGame by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhhhh...It is the Mac Mini. It has a Radeon 9200 (better than the gForce 3 in the XBox), a 1.25 GHz processor (Better than the 700 Mhz Celeron in the XBox), 256 MB of DDR RAM (better than the 64 MB of RDRAM in the XBox). For $29.99 US you can get a TV video adapter from Apple. Play flash games, shockwave games, emulate old systems, and play modern games ported to Mac (there are some). Plus, when you are done gaming, you can watch movies and listen to music. When you are done with entertainment in general, take it off the top of your TV and put a monitor and keyboard on it, and work.

    53. Re:iGame by YesIAmTheMan · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that the Mac will become a profitable game platform in the next couple of years. Apple's collaboration with IBM is going to be their saving grace in the computer arena, and seeing as we've only seen the first fruits of their partnership (G5), I think you're going to see Apple become increasingly interested in the game market. The work they're putting into Tiger looks to really improve the underlying frameworks that would support nice graphics, and their hardware is now (finally) easily on par with the best PC hardware. I do believe that in retrospect, this time in history for Apple will be noted as their "gearing up" period, the time before things really took off. As for an "iGame": not anytime soon. Even Sony had a computer entertainment division before they could even think about getting into the game industry, and Apple doesn't have that. But sometime in the future? It's possible.

      --
      You are only as much as what you do with what you know.
    54. Re:iGame by nuckin+futs · · Score: 2, Funny

      igame?
      great, now we're gonna hear jokes about the game controller having only 1 button.

    55. Re:iGame by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      You mean against Sega, Nintendo, SNK (Neo-Geo), and the 3DO?

      Wait, oh you mean companies today.

      That said, Apple != gaming. Apple = cool but overly expensive. Much like Sony != gaming but = cool and overly expensive.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    56. Re:iGame by prockcore · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Development on OS X is great.

      If you say so. Development on OSX is frustrating because of one thing. There is virtually zero documentation.

      APIs are half-published. Example code is poorly written. And Apple prevents google from indexing their developer site so finding the little information that *is* published is a pain in the ass.

      Developers coming from MS (with their tons and tons of documentation on MSDN) are going to be pounding their heads against the wall and finally giving up.

    57. Re:iGame by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      Playstation and Gamecube never pulled a profit untill well after their release. Game machines dont pull profits, developers paying to develop FOR your system on the otherhand do. They make a profit just not selling the machines which is exactly what all the other companys do to.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    58. Re:iGame by Anubis350 · · Score: 1
      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    59. Re:iGame by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      Your facts are a little strained here.

      The Playstation WAS Nintendos answer to CDs, except Nintendo canciled the project. Sony, pissed it had spent so much money deveopling the system with Nintendo decided to keep it going. But everyone in the industry expected Sony to tank for EXACTLY the reasons you pointed out just now Nintendo and Sega had fan bases.

      Now coding for the Xbox is a lot harder than you make it to be with numerous reports of complaints in line with how hard it was to code for the PS2. Likewise Xbox also had no backwards compatability or even as big a library as you say it does, in fact its library sucks. There are numerous ways i could think of that anybody wanting to enter the market could compete and win against the "big three" so you shouldnt poopoo the idea it could be done.

      Will it be done though, not likely, I couldnt see any reason for Apple to resurect Pippen.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    60. Re:iGame by ATN · · Score: 0

      This is pure speculation but from my understanding sony's console was orginaly supposed to be a cd add on to Nintendo's console much like sega cd. Could it be that many 3rd party devolopers had started devolopment on games for this Nintendo addon and once Nintendo decided to can it were left in the cold. Enter Sony deciding to go it alone and a bunch of ticked off developers with half finished games designed for the console and you've got yourself an equation for success.

    61. Re:iGame by TrueRock · · Score: 0

      The Mac mini runs UNIX. Isn't there a game base for UNIX? If there is little difference between Xbox 2 and the Mac mini (they both use the same processor) - wouldn't the Mac mini be preferable because it uses UNIX?

    62. Re:iGame by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0

      What about 2005?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    63. Re:iGame by ATN · · Score: 0

      That's great :)

    64. Re:iGame by TrueRock · · Score: 1

      I think the Mac mini sells at a razor-thin profit margin (or a loss).

    65. Re:iGame by labratuk · · Score: 1

      The market isn't the same as it was in 1994. And it has little to do with the number of competing companies.

      In 1994, writing games for the pc was completely different from writing games for a console. Little to no code could be reused. In 1994 console SDKs were all about assembler assembler assembler.

      These days, console SDKs are about having developer APIs. Writing an xbox game is little more work that just pulling across your directx based code. It is highly likely that the PS3 will be using some sort of OpenGL/OpenML type API.

      If you don't have a comprehensive developer API with some kind of large developer base you're going nowhere.

      Unfortunately.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    66. Re:iGame by LSD-25 · · Score: 1
      APIs are half-published. Example code is poorly written. And Apple prevents google from indexing their developer site so finding the little information that *is* published is a pain in the ass.

      Your comment about Google searches is not true, though maybe it was true at one time. I just tried searching for some functions like NewHandle and Get1Resource, and the top result for each is documentation on developer.apple.com.

    67. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RAM comparison is not fair, the MacOS is going to occupy a large portion of that 256M.

      The Radeon 9200 is underpowered to avoid active cooling (and might not do the fancy gfx effects in OSX 10.4)

      Can't say you're wrong about the G4 though!

      Let me first say that I'm a Mac fanboy. The Mac Mini is going to cost me a lot less than the G4 Cube that I own and love so very much. And it's going to be a helluva lot faster. But lets be honest, the Mac Mini is a 'budget' Mac in every sense of the word.

      I just hope Apple's no-user-servicing policy doesn't bite them in the ass. I remember not buying any Apple RAM in my G4 Cube. I ended up throwing 512M in there, and an 80 gig hard drive. Having to pay a premium just to do that (on labour, maybe on parts) might irk users who want to do a little more with their MM.

    68. Re:iGame by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've been hearing rumors that the playstation division is more or less keeping Sony afloat at this point....

    69. Re:iGame by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *Except* that the MacMini doesn't have optical out/5.1 surround sound. It's the one thing that missing from making it a good home theatre PC/DVD player/games machine.

    70. Re:iGame by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There is no reason it can't be a stock G5. It might have a different graphics card, but then it might not. It doesn't necessarily have to run the games precisely the same as they run on the console if they plan to give them consoles later that are modified to work with the development system. But, maybe you know something I don't know, and were just not being specific about that. Or, maybe you mean the shipping box :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:iGame by michaeldot · · Score: 4, Informative
      Development on OSX is frustrating because of one thing. There is virtually zero documentation.
      APIs are half-published. Example code is poorly written. And Apple prevents google from indexing their developer site so finding the little information that *is* published is a pain in the ass.

      I rarely do this on Slashdot, but I'm calling pure BULLSHIT on this one.

      The interactive documentation built into Xcode is a pure delight. Double-click on a Cocoa/Carbon/QuickTime/Java method or function call and you get an instant lookup to extremely comprehensive documentation.

      Every method in the class, full description of all params, cross-referencing to related methods, historical notes on version compatibility.

      As to its highly organized and fully up to date web site documentation: Apple *uses* Google for its web site searches. It is fast and efficient.

      Google does index Apple dev. I've many times found links to just the right posting in an Apple hosted Cocoa/Carbon/OpenGL mailing list or other article simply by entering the function name in the Google search box.

      In short, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you're just innocently ignorant, but I really don't know what people like you gain from contributing such misinformation. You've made at least one Mac OS X developer mighty annoyed at the fiction you're trying to spread.

      The fact that you've been moderated +5 Interesting shows that the people who have mod points today are as clueless as you. Don't think I'll bother to read any more of /. today.

    72. Re:iGame by starunj · · Score: 1

      I dont think the Radeon 9200 is better than GeForce 3.
      According to Tom's VGA Charts:
      GeForce3 > Radeon 9000 Pro
      and
      Radeon 9000 Pro > Radeon 9200
      Therefore, Geforce 3 > Radeon 9200. Its not a definite comparision but its what I found. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    73. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...ofcourse they can always cram more iPods into their iAnus'?

    74. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the Windows API docs nearly useless. Maybe I just need to be shown how to use them, but I can find what I need in OSX without even thinking. In windows I look for C++ docs on font rendering but I end end up getting side tracked on some obscure ActiveX dodang and nearly forget what I'm doing.

    75. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really not interested in paying $600 for some schmancy Apple console, which is probably what it would cost when you take into consideration the Apple-overpricization-factor.

    76. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple sells their hardware at a premium. Last I heard Apple sold all of it's hardware to 30% net profit. That was as few years ago.

    77. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asfaik the Mac Mini has a 9200 SE equivalent (64bit), which is a slow pos. If you're lucky you may get Halo to play at lowest settings and only because they spend 6 months optimizing it for the mac.
      The Intel Integrated Graphics are only marginally slower than what the Mac Mini has (although the intel has less features which makes some games artifact), and the next version will be faster asfaik.

    78. Re:iGame by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      December 31st didn't register due to massive alcohol intake, so I started back on January 1st, 2004 the next day.

    79. Re:iGame by colmore · · Score: 1

      Although to be fair, that statement has been *right* a whole lot as well.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    80. Re:iGame by WoBIX · · Score: 1

      They were going to market the Scotty Pippin, but found that the funny walk he had after they installed the mainboard was a big turn-off for the focus group.

    81. Re:iGame by tuxrulz · · Score: 1

      well, they need a lot of money since all console manufactures loss money on consoles, that's why they also sell games. And they will need an inhouse or very close game publishing company, and a lot of power for a low price to compete.

    82. Re:iGame by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I doubt it... they don't exactly pay retail for those parts.

      Apple are making a profit from the Mini... probably not a lot of one at the moment (development costs, marketing etc.) but one that's repaid (with a mobo revision or two to bring to cost down) they'll make loads.

    83. Re:iGame by thebagel · · Score: 1

      The Developer Tools documentation on MacOS 10.1 and 10.2 was definitely lacking. I tried to pick up Cocoa programming based on it, and even the examples provided in the Cocoa Tutorial PDF were wrong. A lot of methods, etc. were not described in depth, like all of the Cocoa file handling methods (yeah, yeah, I know, use stdio). The situation has improved, true, but he was right as well.

    84. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From ca. 1994: The market of 1986 is nothing like it is today. Sony would be fighting an uphill battle against 2 companies, and what could Sony provide that one of the other big 2 (Nintendo and Sega) dont already. All of us can go at this all day. If you want to learn about why your statment is moronic pick up "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steven Kent... You will fine that your statement has been repeated time and again and proven false more often than true.

    85. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made at least one Mac OS X developer mighty annoyed at the fiction you're trying to spread.
      Please don't cyber-hurt anyone. You might go to jail and then where will the the 150 users of OS X buy their poorly written shareware?

      Don't think I'll bother to read any more of /. today.
      Noooo! michaeldork please no! Please read more of slashdot today, please please please!
      Get some perspective nerdball, no one cares if you *ever* show up again, you shameless fanboy.

    86. Re:iGame by Kn0xy · · Score: 0

      "... so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?"

      Nothing, and that's the best thing for them to do right now for at least the next 3-5 years. Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are the Top Dogs right now, with other players trying get off the ground (e.g. Phantom, etc.). Sure, Apple has a name for itself that is recognized in just about Any Household, and I'm pretty sure the Macities would buy an 'iGame' should one ever appears, just for the fact it's a Apple product, but how well do you think Apple could compete with the Big Dawgs when they all have very deep footholds within the industry. And I am not just talking about with their respected Fans, but also with Hardware and Software vendors who some may have contract restrictions that could impede on any deal that Apple would hope to get inorder to get a product to market quick.

      Honestly, it would be safest for Apple to just continue on what they have going for them currently (iPod, iMac, etc.) and let the top 3 beat the hell out of themselves.

    87. Re:iGame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind giving some pointers on where all this documentation is? I'm interested in developing for the Mac (specifically USB drivers) but haven't been able to find any real examples or documentation. The documentation on developer.apple.com isn't that great. I don't have xcode, any idea what it costs? I'm assuming that it contains all the documentation.

    88. Re:iGame by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      great, now we're gonna hear jokes about the game controller having only 1 button.

      No, they know game controllers need more than that. It'll be a clickwheel.

    89. Re:iGame by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      "and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?"

      "A pink console."

      With one button controllers.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    90. Re:iGame by archangel77 · · Score: 1

      Xcode is delivered with every boxed version of Mac OS X. You can also join the Apple Developer Connection (ADC) for free and download it or have it shipped to you for just 20$

    91. Re:iGame by Triv · · Score: 1
      They already sell Sony cameras, for instance, so DVI displays and other hardware is the natural progression.

      I don't think so - the reason Apple sells Sony cameras is that a. people want cameras and b. Apple doesn't make them. Apple DOES make displays, so the idea of them selling a competing product is rather foolish. On high ticket items (ie, not mice and whatnot) Apple would far prefer you buy within their product family - you don't see them selling alternative mp3 players, do you?

      Triv

    92. Re:iGame by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      They could, but I wouldn't want it. It would probably look really cool, perform like any other console out there, cost three times as much, only come in pastels, and only play games bought from Apple's new iGames store. No thanks, I'll stick to PS3 and Xbox2 and whatever those crazy cats at Nintendo end up shipping.

    93. Re:iGame by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I want a loose leader. Seriously. I don't want to sell at a lose, though. My goodness, did no one ever tell you the difference between lose, loose, and loss? I will assume not, so please allow me to do so.

      Lose - verb - To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys.

      Loose - can be adjective - Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks

      -or a verb - To let loose; release: loosed the dogs.

      Loss - noun - The act or an instance of losing: nine losses during the football season.

      If you don't think it's important to use the correct words, I will re-write your sentences for you.

      The real reason that Apple will not make a console is that Apple does not sell hardware at a To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay. All the game companies sell the consoles at a To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay or at the very best break even... I do not see Apple coming out with a Not fastened, restrained, or contained leader console and then locking it down to make money on the games.

      Doesn't make much sense, does it? It's very simple. If no one uses words according to their definitions, how will anyone know what anyone else is trying to say? For example: Blue fishes break beats totally agonizing sorrowfully. Did that mean anything to you? What I wrote was: You can't always get meaning from context. Then, I randomly replaced each word with a different word. If you don't use the correct words, you won't convey your intended meaning. Also, it makes it appear that your grasp on the English language is rather loss. (ha ha!)

    94. Re:iGame by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It really is a shame that you are not bright enough to deal with a simple typo. I for am at a loss that you can not loose this obsession with spelling. I guess slashdot is no longer News for Nerds but a refuge for frustrated third grade English teachers.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    95. Re:iGame by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

      Yes, way too much. Game consoles eat money until your one of the big players. With MS Sony and Nintnedo already in the field it'd be stupid for apple to enter the arena. MS is losing money still, So to expect apple to do it any better is naive. We might hate Ms but they aren't incompetent, they jst value different things.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    96. Re:iGame by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was uniformed of the exact specifications. Anyway, they are of compairable specs, if not exactly the same.

    97. Re:iGame by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      no no no, not "displays", TVs. A 35" Sony HD is not the same, feature or purpose-wise as a Apple Studio display. These are complimentary products not competing products. E.g. I don't hang a $6000 Apple Cinema on my wall in the living room, I keep two of them in my lab -- I hang the Sony on the wall.

      Additionally, Apple hardly makes their displays - and to some extent that is true for Sony as well... I'm sure both are manufactured by wage slaves in China.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    98. Re:iGame by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I see that I was unclear when I cavalierly threw around the words DVI display and Gateway LCD when I was referring to Sony HD TV's and Gateway branded televisions... I should have been explicit.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    99. Re:iGame by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Yes. You're right. We should all just use whichever words we want, spelling them however we want and intending them to mean whatever we want, instead of what they actually mean. That will make it very easy to communicate. It's ironic that a site for 'Nerds' would have so many people who don't even know the definition of simple words. I mean, lose, loose, and loss? That's second-grade material. I guess 'Nerds' don't need to pass second grade anymore.

  2. i remember... by fresh27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when Nvidia said their GeForce FX series could render 6 Jurassic Park quality dinosaurs in real time. Long story short, this is bullshit and it'll be a while before we get such great quality.

    --
    http://ipod.fresh27.net/
    1. Re:i remember... by stupidfoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The same thing (rendering Toy Story like movies in real time) was said about the PS2 and Xbox. Has this happened? No. And it won't happen with the Xbox 2 and PS3. They'll look great, but they won't be of that quality.

    2. Re:i remember... by pbranes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      We have heard all of this before. PS3 marketing is doing what marketing does best - lying. Only believe it when you have the hardware in hand. We have never been given any evidence that the PS, Xbox, or gamecube marketing departments ever tell anything close to the truth.

      Case in point. Read this time article from before PS2 came out:

      http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0320/j apan.sony.html

      Don't believe it till you are holding it in your hands.

    3. Re:i remember... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Well, if you use normal/bumpmaps and some other trickery you could make the viewer believe what he sees has the same quality...
      Besides, my Radeon 8500 did 8 million polygons at a decent framerate in 3dMark2001, game logic and environment eat a lot of ressources those press demos would have left for characters (they didn't say anything about a forest for the dinosaurs to live in, right?).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:i remember... by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      I'm holding my PS2. Can I believe it now?

    5. Re:i remember... by mbbac · · Score: 1

      This is true. However, I'd say that Virtual Football 2006 will look almost indistinguishable from live football on SDTV.

      --

      mbbac

    6. Re:i remember... by Marvelicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question is: would it really be a problem. I'd hate to see Hollywood have to use actors instead of computers and all, but c'mon. Lets face it, the largest use of graphics in movies is kids movies, and that market won't really be hurt. As for the rest of it: if you can do it in real time on a game system, maybe its time to step up and improve movie graphics again. ...After all, it still doesn't look real to me!

      --
      Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    7. Re:i remember... by demonbug · · Score: 1
      Only believe it when you have the hardware in hand.


      Of course, at that point the marketing has already succeeded. Assuming you didn't steal the console, anyway.

    8. Re:i remember... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Nintendo claimed that the N64 could do movie quality effects.

    9. Re:i remember... by say · · Score: 1

      Well, that could be true, dependent on which movie you compare it with.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    10. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sales != Marketing

    11. Re:i remember... by c0rN_g0aT · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually Nintendo released that the GC could do 6 to 12 million polygons per second when it was actually capable of 20+. They gave the real world specs for the GC.
      Sony and M$ are the liars.

      http://www.segatech.com/gamecube/overview/

    12. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its actually less bullshit than one might think at first. The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.

      In a movie you have a fixed set of camera angles and actions to be performed, if you could throw all your polygons, artists and CPU power to render those, you would get results close enough to the movie. However in a game you end up having neither a fixed camera angle, nor fixed actions, most stuff is up to the player. You just don't have enough artists to tweak each and every situation. One time the player might have a bazooker, next time a MG and next time he might want to crash into the dino with his jeep. So since you can't prescript all actions you have to let a physic engine and AI handle it, which in turn burns down valueable CPU, which you no longer can use for pushing polys around, in addition to that you no longer have an artists involved who can fine tune the stuff that happens on screen, so you might run into clipping errors or silly looking situations.

      Overall it is simply impossible to get an interactive situation look as good as a movie, even if you have all the CPU power you need at hand you still lack the artists for the fine tuning and often have zero control over the camera angle.

      Beside from that we already are in a situation where yesterdays cutscenes are tomorrows gameplay scenes, yet, most gameplay looks for more borring then the cutscenes we saw before.

    13. Re:i remember... by Heliostica · · Score: 1

      Soooooo If Toy Story 2= Toy Story 1 PS2 = Toy 1 = Toy 2 = PS3

    14. Re:i remember... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't PS2 supposed to do movie quality graphics? We know the graphics are going to be better than what came before, why do we need to have these obviously false and untestable statements. Why not give us some real data like bandwidth, MHz, GFlops, and polygons?

    15. Re:i remember... by FoXDie · · Score: 1

      Bwhahahaha. That's gotta be one of the greatest things I've ever read. "Here's the world Kutaragi envisions: from your mobile phone, you send an e-mail telling the machine to turn up the air-conditioning at home. "Welcome home," it purrs when you open the front door; it then puts your video e-mail on the TV monitor. You command the PS2 to download the movie you want and play it 30 minutes later. Mid-film, you stop to cue up a video game featuring the movie's main characters. Then you e-mail a virtual friend you met online who also likes this game; you face off against each other." I remember that. I wanted my damn super console. And how bout those flying cars while you're at it Sony?

    16. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, an even bigger difference is that games need to be rendered in realtime. For movies you can have render-farms running overnight.

    17. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats a difference that simply fades away over time, a ten your old renderfarm can't really do much more then a PC from today. Sure a PC can't do exactly what the renderfarm can, but thanks to better algorithms it can get results extremly close to that of the renderfarm with much less wasted CPU/GPU (no need to render hundreds of polygons when a single one with normal or parallaxmapping will do). PC also don't need to do renderings at cinema useable resolutions which reduces the work they need to do even more. If you compare the ten year old Toy Story with todays Doom3 there really is not much difference when it comes to the rendering quality, a little to less polys here and a unsharp texture there, but thats something that will quickly disappear in the next years. Beside from that, such issues are exactly my point, in a movie a blury texture doesn't matter, you simply don't move the camera close enough so that the viewer notices, in a game players will stick there noise into the wall, so even if the PC renders better then the movie, the results will be worse. Interactivity ruins the results today far more then the rendering power.

    18. Re:i remember... by The-Bus · · Score: 1
      the largest use of graphics in movies is kids movies


      You're... insane. Sure, CGI-only movies like Jimmy Neutron, Shrek 2, and Finding Nemo are all "kids" movies, but there's "graphics" in almost every single major movie released, especially in the top-grossing.

      To whit (graphic/CG-intensive movies in bold:

      *** 2004
      Shrek 2
      Spider-Man 2
      The Passion of the Christ
      The Incredibles
      Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
      Meet the Fockers
      The Day After Tomorrow
      The Bourne Supremacy
      National Treasure*
      The Polar Express

      *** 2003
      The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
      Finding Nemo
      Pirates of the Caribbean**
      The Matrix Reloaded
      Bruce Almighty***
      X2: X-Men United
      Elf
      Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
      The Matrix Revolutions
      Cheaper by the Dozen

      Even going back to...
      *** 1995
      Toy Story
      Batman Forever
      Apollo 13
      Pocahontas
      Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
      Goldeneye
      Jumanji
      Casper
      Se7en
      Die Hard With a Vengeance

      Source: Box Office Mojo

      I would say that the larger movies are action films and family-friendly kid fare. However, you don't need CG to make either of those work. Like it or not, CG at this point is everywhere.

      * I didn't see this one but I imagine it to be standard action/adventure popcorn fare. My guess is that is IS CG-intensive but having not seen it, I won't comment.
      ** The skeletons!
      *** Sure, some CG was used, but this could be easily done w/o CG.
      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    19. Re:i remember... by Dorothy+86 · · Score: 1
      While it may not have been quite movie quality, the graphics on the N64 were quite amazing. I'm thinking of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (not too sure on the spelling, but you know what I'm talking about), IMO looked amazing.

      The point is, the N64 made some major advancements in console graphics.

    20. Re:i remember... by Caraig · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.
      Not true. The big difference is not in the interactivity, but rather in the realtime rendering.

      A movie such as Jurrasic Park is made by putting the scene into a 'render farm,' a series of dozens if not hundreds of computers. Each computer not only works on a single frame, but more often than not works on a single element in each frame: color, specularity, shadows, alpha/transparency, Z/depth. In addition, very often, the individual characters and layers of static scenery within a frame are also rendered independantly, each with separate specularity, shadows, color, alpha, Z, etc., layers. This is why the average frame in Final Fantasy is said to be made up of 60 layers.

      Typically, rendering time for a single frame, assuming all layers and elements and components being rendered in parallel, could take between an hour and several hours, depending on the polycount and the texture size. This is done mainly because it grants the production team unprecidented control over the final product without having to render out entire frames after a single change to, say, a slug's specularity needs to be done.

      You simply cannot do this sort of thing in realtime, which is what gaming requires. It isn't a matter of scripting or interactivity or camera angles. The rendering engine usually doesn't care what camera angle it's at, it will still have to calculate polygons and textures and bumpmaps and all that other good stuff. It comes down to one thing only: pure computing power. If you can get a machine which will render a mad amount of polygons and several hih-resolution texture-, bump-, shadow-, and specular-maps (and maybe even normal maps, as well)

      There's also a slightly more subtle reason why a game will never look like a movie: framerate. Cinema framerates are almost universally 24.11 fps. Your typical twitch gamer would turn up his nose at such a framerate. ^^ It's the same reason videotape looks different from film: video is typically 30fps or so.
      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    21. Re:i remember... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can do this sort of thing in realtime someday, but by then we'll be watching 3d movies in two or more senses, and game console makers will be telling you the next version of their console will let you fuck virtual claudia schiffer in the ass for just $299.99 for a console, $29.99 for a memory card, and $49.99 for the game itself - because the more things change, the more they stay the same.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:i remember... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are answers to both blurry textures and poly counts. They both require more memory bandwidth and CPU, but both of those increase all the time. The first is multi-res and the second is procedural textures. You can decrease poly counts when you're not looking right at something, and you can render textures more fully when you're closer to them. All hail mighty mathematics, if only I were not horrible with it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:i remember... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0

      Cine film 24.11?

      Video 30 or so?

      You don't have a clue, do you?

      Also, please try and comprehend the difference in performance between dedicated FPGAs and DSPs compared to general purpose CPUs. For tasks like video, the dedicated GPU can be orders of magnitude faster.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    24. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...i do remember. There is nothing in the article that is wrong. Where are their lies? You probably own a DC.

    25. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, the technology is there to do it now.
      Just don't expect it to render at 4k resolution and with the polycounts they were originally rendered with PRman, but that attention to detail wouldn't be nescessary in a tech demo.
      You still wouldn't see much of a difference.

      Motion blur, depth of field blur, displacement and bump/normal mapping, everything is possible at real time with your average gaming rig capable of playing Doom 3 at acceptable framerates.
      Again, just don't expect the same polycount as a model that's supposed to be rendered at film resolution.

      They just lack the artistic talent to make such a convincing demo, but the technology is there.
      They should hire some ILM guys that worked on Jurrasic park to do the artistic work for them.

    26. Re:i remember... by Slothy · · Score: 1

      That logic is so circular. It's impossible to render a movie in realtime because movies can't be rendered in realtime? A renderfarm is a means to an end - the goal of movies is not to make use of a renderfarm.

      Modern video cards CAN render mad amounts of polygons and several high-resolution textures, with bumps and shadows and specular. Heck even Doom 3 used specular maps, shadow maps, and normal mapping.

      On the last one, since movies are not rendered realtime, the framerate means absolutely nothing. Comparing a non-realtime framerate to a realtime framerate doesn't even make sense.

      The point is games ARE doing what you claim is impossible at a good framerate. To say that nobody could do that even better on future hardware is silly.

    27. Re:i remember... by Slothy · · Score: 1

      Okay, that framerate part is KILLING me. I have to reply again. Are you claiming (first of all) that a game can never look like a movie because it will be displaying at a higher framerate than a movie? I think you're missing the point...

      On top of that, you're aware that consoles connect to televisions, right? And DVD players also connect to televisions? So for both watching a DVD and playing a game, they will both be at 60hz (assuming NTSC), either interlaced or progressive. So the refresh rates will be indentical.

    28. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they could! Only that they rendered the dinosaurs inside a black box...

    29. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### You simply cannot do this sort of thing in realtime, which is what gaming requires.

      You missed the point. The fact is that you CAN do all these things in realtime, not at the same resolution, not with the funcky raytracer enabled to get caustics and such, but normal, paralax mapping and all those other things that you can do with todays GPU will get you extremly close to what a ten year old render farm put out. Effects in Terminator2, Abyss and the like are quite doable in realtime today.

      The thing that you however still can't do is get the animation and camera angles right. Movies have a director, a bunch of artists, camera mans, maybe a crew to do motion capture and whatever. All those people tweak the hell out of a few second long sequence to make it look cool, these people do the major work to make it look good. Now what have you in a game? A crappy AI, a very limited number of motion captured animation and Joe Sixpack gamer who is bunny hopping around the final boss. No matter how much rendering power you throw at it, Joe in bunny hopping mode will always look like Joe in bunny hopping mode and not like Arnold doing a cool fight at the end of Terminator2. The simple reason is that there is nobody to do any directing, no actors to do the job and no way to change the camera angle without turning the game into an uncontrolable something.

      To make the difference a bit more clear, just compare GTA or GrandTurrismo with some car chase in say Ronin, sure Ronin is a real movie with real actiors and such so CPU power is still a bit lacking to get that, but the point is that in games you always sit behind the steering wheel, while in a movie you get all kinds of interesting camera angles, you simply can't get that without interrupting the gameplay quite a bit. There are some attemps to bring movies and games closer together by adding something along the line of 'inline' cutscenes (NFS, Burnout3) where you get an instant replay of crashes or jumps, but they still are far far away from a proper directed car chase in a movie.

      Last not least, movies are 2 hour long, everything that doesn't surve a purpose gets cut out, games are 10-30 hours long and nothing gets cut out, if the player walks a few minutes or hours in circle since he can't find the exist, so be it, no director there to change it.

    30. Re:i remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in addition to that you no longer have an artists involved who can fine tune the stuff that happens on screen, so you might run into clipping errors or silly looking situations

      Exactly. If you have the DVD of Shrek 2 (pretty sure that's the one I'm thinking of) somewhere in the extra features they have a section for outtakes. It's all scenes where the models are screwed up ...incorrect rendering/clipping/texturing.

    31. Re:i remember... by Marvelicious · · Score: 1

      Christ on a crutch! What a list! No wonder I don't go see movies anymore!

      Anyway, as far as i can tell the list just made my point! The LARGEST use IS kids movies. Look at it. I'm not talking movie by movie, I'm talking total minutes of CG. Shrek 2 by itself... I'm talking about movies RELYING on it as they are compared to video games. Lets say an X-Men game comes out (I'm a fan of the comics from way back...) and the graphics being rendered are indistinguishable from those in the movie... so what, your console still cant produce Hugh Jackman, except perhaps for limited cut scenes.

      Plus, once again, I'm still convinced that they can do a better job with some of the CG, I dunno, maybe my problem is not the technology, but how they implement it, but a lot of it still looks pretty cheesy to me. Like the Skeletons in Pirates... About half of it was great, and the other half reminded me that Disney was involved. I remember the LOTR series as being very good, but I only watched them once (didn't want to spoil it). As for the Matrix, all the technology in the world still can't turn "Ted" into an actor.

      --
      Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    32. Re:i remember... by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Actually if you look at real-time rendering on some graphics demos, the quality really isn't so far off. I believe there's more truth to that statement than hype, although you would definately only see such rendering in a very specific, optimised scenario.

      Having said that, there is certainly a great deal of hype happening in the Sony camp. 4 Cells in a PS3, huh? Each Cell more powerful than the CPU in a PC? So what they're saying is the PS3 is more powerful than a 4-way Opteron. If that was the truth, I would expect the cost to be the same as well. It won't be, so the Cell isn't really going to be everything it's meant to be, unless Sony likes spending vast amounts of money making expensive CPUs and selling them at a loss.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  3. Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We have no idea what the two will look like, but that doesn't keep us from making Wild-ass guesses and then providing 'analysis' on them!"

    1. Re:Quick Summary: by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      PS3 will contain the 'cell' chip from IMB, Sony, Panasonic. I think that is a pretty awesome detail.

    2. Re:Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what ACTUAL INFORMATION do you have on the 'cell' chip? Aside from the hype about how a single cell will 'outperform a billion-jillion Opterons!'... have you seen one? Have you gotten any benchmarks? Is it another emotion-engine type hype where its theoretical numbers are impressive, but real-world output sucks because it's bottlenecked and compilers can't seem to squeeze more than a quarter of theoretical?

      'cause if you have, lemme know.

    3. Re:Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking retarded? The post was sarcastic.

    4. Re:Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are YOU fucking retarded? The post was serious.

      See here.

  4. Movie animation by truesaer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.

    1. Re:Movie animation by Omnicrola · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, your computer would only have to generate a maximum of say, 1600x1200 resolution frames. To put something on a film, which is projected on a 40-100ft (diagonal) screen, you need something on the order of 4000dpi images. (not sure what that works out to in pixels, as the aspect ratio is different between computer and film) Either way that's a heck of a lot more pixels. Plus, a lot of advancement has been made in 'shortcutting' to better-looking graphics. Jurassic Park probably used a lot more polygons than they would take to do the same job nowadays. You have pixel shaders, normal mapping, and a slew of other things that can be done in real-time now. Granted, there will probably be a disernable(sp?) difference to the trained eye, but that's just a fallacy of being educated in the art of the polygon. :)

    2. Re:Movie animation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just has to look good.
      You can fake real time lighting with gpus quite well nowadays without raytracing, and it's quick. As long as you have fairly complex models and cheat for lighting, fogging, focus etc, who cares if the console is not 'really' rendering, as long as it's doing it in real time.

    3. Re:Movie animation by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 1, Informative

      The PS3 is rumored to have a very fast processor

      http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/15/ 1439212&tid=212&tid=10

    4. Re:Movie animation by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Looking at FFX and keeping the advance of technology in mind I'd say that's possible. You don't do fluid dynamics or individual hair physics, use normalmaps instead of subD meshes and stuff like that. The result won't be as good as a real movie, no, but the difference should be small enough not to matter. After all, games aren't using proper AI, either.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Movie animation by alphaseven · · Score: 1
      This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video?

      I thought Doom 3 looked as good as some animated movies. Part of how it's pulled off is spending hours rendering the lighting for everything before it's put in the game. Disadvantage is that more stuff is static and you can't destroy, say, every wall in the game. Also Doom 3 has little quirks like monsters don't cast shadows on one another, if too many lights fall on the same surface things slow down, shadows don't fall on things like round pipes very well, and characters that look high-polygon have silhouettes that look low poly. Looks great though.

    6. Re:Movie animation by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      When you talk about 4K resolution, you're talking about 4K per frame, not per inch.

      4000dpi on a 100 foot (diagonal) screen? Are you making movies about fractals?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    7. Re:Movie animation by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      "I thought Doom 3 looked as good as some animated movies. Part of how it's pulled off is..."

      By having most of the game take place in the dark?

    8. Re:Movie animation by Frohboy · · Score: 1

      The parent post doesn't really make much sense.

      I don't understand why projecting something on a larger screen would require a higher DPI. In fact, because the audience is farther from the screen, it would be precisely the opposite (i.e. individual pixels implicitly look small, simply because they are far away).

      Furthermore, digital cinema simply does not use a resolution far beyond that of modern PC video. Doing a quick Google search for "digital cinema resolution", I ended up at a little blurb which mentions that the digital version of Attack of the Clones was recorded at 1920x1080 (which, granted, is higher than the 352x240 NTSC output needed by a console, but not by the discussed orders of magnitude.) Even looking at DPX (digital picture exchange) 2K, we only get a resolution of 2048x1556.

    9. Re:Movie animation by jensen404 · · Score: 1
      Part of how it's pulled off is spending hours rendering the lighting for everything before it's put in the game
      None of the lighting in Doom 3 was pre-rendered.
    10. Re:Movie animation by dokebi · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a common misconception. Star Wars II in digital projection had a resoltion of 1280x1024. Many graphics cards can now do this resolution with very high polygon counts without much trouble.

      What really differentiates PC/console graphics and render-farm graphics is in the physics engine. The article mentions this as well. The reason Pixar films look so great is because they have very detailed physics models that do a lot of particle interactions--ruffled clothing, waving hair, splashing water, etc. The next generation consoles will have the capability to do *some* of this.

      Yes, it's true PC's can't do cinema type CG rendering, but not because of the reasons you give.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
    11. Re:Movie animation by gunnk · · Score: 1

      The reason people are talking about this kind of power is because the PS3 is going to be based around the Cell processor.
      Whether or not the Cell really is "All That" remains to be seen...

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
    12. Re:Movie animation by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I think he means 4000dpi on the actual 80(or whatever it is)mm film, assuming your using film at all.

    13. Re:Movie animation by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ever played Tron 2.0? The typical home computer or Xbox can easily produce graphics indistinguishable from movies-- as long as the movie is an effects show in Tron.

    14. Re:Movie animation by temojen · · Score: 1

      32mm, unless it's IMAX, which is 70mm.

    15. Re:Movie animation by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pixel Count has next to nothing to do with movie quality rendering. Shading, Lighting, and Animation are what make movie quality rendering. Real Time Global Illumination? I don't thinks that's going to be a feature of these consoles. How about Caustic effects? Real Time Refraction? probably not. Those are some of what set a movie quality renderer apart from your 3d accelerator chipset. Not even polygon count does as much as those things to increase the realism in a rendering.

      --
      If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
    16. Re:Movie animation by Bob[Bob] · · Score: 1

      32mm, unless it's IMAX, which is 70mm.

      I think you mean 35mm there.

    17. Re:Movie animation by temojen · · Score: 1

      yes.

    18. Re:Movie animation by kcorporation · · Score: 0

      The models in the game may not have the same resolution as those used in movie special effects, but through some tricks (like turning polygons into normal maps, as seen in Doom 3), you can produce environments and graphics that seem to have more triangles than they actually have. In fact this technique is already in use on the XBox in Chronicles of Riddick. It's entirely possible that the PS3 will be able to produce graphics that, for the intents and purposes of a game, seem to be of movie special effects quality.

    19. Re:Movie animation by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Star Wars II in digital projection, at least in my opinion, looked pretty miserable. It might have been better-looking farther back from the screen than I was (the only seats left I could find when I got there were in the first ten rows or so), but from where I was sitting, I could make out the individual pixels on the screen.

      Some things did look sharper than on film, but the overall effect was fairly annoying to look at. Not only do games have some catching up to do before they reach movie quality, the movies themselves still have plenty of room for improvement.

    20. Re:Movie animation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your correct. Some people need to read up on somethings before they try talking about them.

      The reason Doom 3 is so dark most of the game is that having more real time dynamic lights made the game perform too slow on the target machines.

    21. Re:Movie animation by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      My computer can produce graphics identical to those in Final Fantasy in real time. Look, it's doing it right now! Please ignore the faint hum coming from the DVD drive, it's just a quirk of my system...

    22. Re:Movie animation by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I think the basic problems is that you're a bunch of geeks who aren't knowledgable about this area, and your trying to apply your knowledge about another area.

      First of all, drop the dpi. That's printing terminology.

      Second, unless you absolutely know what the display hardware is, ppi is going to be meaningless, and get you into trouble.

      4K refers to the size of the frame. If you're working with (or talking about) digital movies, there's no ppi or dpi. There's frame size.

      Film can be digitized as high as 6K. What makes film resolution variable is film stocks, lenses, and aperture. For instance, if you use a zoom lens, which is not going to be as sharp as a prime lens, you're not going to be able to get as much information. Zooms don't have the same resolving power.

      Look. All I'm saying is that if you're going to argue about comparisons of on-the-fly rendering and film resolution, know what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise, you're not much better than the marketeers.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    23. Re:Movie animation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies*!

      * Lab movie: The Golden Voyage of Sinbad

    24. Re:Movie animation by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The SW-AotC resolution is now 3-4 of years old and a limitation of the camera he used. I'm sure that if Lucas could have shot the film in a higher resolution he would have. BTW I thought the film had a definite `video-game' feel to it even though it was higher quality.

      For digital work from film (archiving, restoration, duplication, special effects etc), a full 35mm frame is generally digitized at 4k x 3k x 12bits, or thereabouts. That's 75MB per frame or well over 1TB for a standard 20mn reel. Some films are digitized at higher resolutions still.

      Most current computers are not able to animate these digitized films at full frame rate, let alone render it!

      At that resolution you can generally see the grain of the film in dark areas, but it's obvious you have not captured everything the film has to offer.

      I've done some recent film restoration, so I know, believe me.

  5. But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom for the country. I think Nintendo's system is definitely the one I'm most interested in seeing.

    And anybody else upset that Microsoft wants to rush the next next generation? I still don't think this generation has been tapped out yet in terms of graphics and gameplay potential (maybe I'm just a bit bitter cuz I bought an Xbox last week :P)

    1. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by fwitness · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm with you, but not as strongly. Unfortunately, the PS2 is really starting to get long in the tooth. I'll be sad to see it go as the new war begins. I am however, still pissed at Sony and Nintendo for rushing this DS/PSP thing, as the software lineups for both show is obviously the case.

      As for Microsoft, they may be trying to push forward a *little* bit early, but console history shows it's about time to introduce the new generation for early adopters.

      Don't worry about your XBox though, people still have PS1's lying around, and many a good game was released for that generation after the launch of the PS2/XBox etc. This generation of consoles still has some life yet, they just won't be media darlings anymore.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    2. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I plan on buying a bunch of used XBoxes, modding them, and using them for everything from XBox Media Center to Folding@Home number crunching boxes...

    3. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, yeah, but the Xbox, great as it is, is getting a bit old. The PS2 is positively ancient. The tech is from the late nineties, basically (OK, the Xbox is tip of the century, but only just), so it's nice to see it upgraded. What I'm most worried about, is the mod scene. They have to go right back to scratch with the next Xbox and the next PS3. I wonder how long it'll take'em to hack'em.

    4. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom..."

      In that respect, it's a lot like Apple. Actually...

      Both companies do very well with their portable products, even above and beyond their non-mobile ones. Both companies enjoy zealous followings, and suffer some zealous detractors. Both companies are often featured in articles with the word "beleaguered" or synonyms thereof.

      Is Shigeru Miyamoto Steve Jobs in disguise? We've never seen them both at the same time...

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    5. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is Shigeru Miyamoto Steve Jobs in disguise? We've never seen them both at the same time...

      The real question is: Would you want to?

    6. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Troll'N · · Score: 1

      "And anybody else upset that Microsoft wants to rush the next next generation?" NOT AT ALL!!!

      One of the things that has kept the Xbox behind the PS2 (i said one but there are others) is the fact that sony flat out beat them to market. by the time xbox came out sony had serveral titles that were already on there way to platinum sales while Xbox was only able to get massive sales of halo.

      Also, by getting there dev kits out now they may very well have an edge on sony by having a better game library for the first year or so.

    7. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well first off, Nintendo doesn't kiss up to EA, so EA isn't about to do vice versa. EA doesn't innovate and loves to just do big-budget things, just like Sony. Nintendo innovates, EA doesn't, hence they have nothing in common besides being in a shared market. (And don't even try the old 'they just recycle zelda, metroid and mario' argument, recycling characters and innovating controls and game design are two completely different things.). Sony also LOVES hype, they life for it, because they seldom actually deliver when the final product is delivered. Their entire profitability has stemmed from:

      a) Getting CD-ROM drives in the console first, so they can sell cheaper games.

      b) Cornering the 12-16 yr old male market with violence and boobies. Go Sony.

      Without these 2 factors, Sony would have been a nobody in the console world. And since Xbox has come in, they've been loosing steady ground on b), the only thing they're going to try to do with the PS3 is "ride the wave" of their current userbase. I guarantee, 100% that they will loose a massive percentage of the market during this generation, while Nintendo and Microsoft will gain ground.

      Secondly, information about 'Revolution' hasn't been released yet, so OF COURSE you aren't interested in it yet.

      Damn, for a site for Nerds, you're not too smart.

    8. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, should have previewed first.

      "they life for it"

      live for it, obviously

      And I used deliver/delivered in a row, big grammar faux pas there, my apology.

    9. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by fwitness · · Score: 1

      It's great for the mod community actually. XBoxes will be cheap as dirt, and MS will care less and less what people do with them.

      Well, maybe. I know they have this 'XBox Media Center' thing going. We'll see if that's a band-aid to maintain living room presence or a core part of a better, larger strategy.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    10. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by pthisis · · Score: 1

      I'm with you, but not as strongly. Unfortunately, the PS2 is really starting to get long in the tooth...
      As for Microsoft, they may be trying to push forward a *little* bit early, but console history shows it's about time to introduce the new generation for early adopters.


      I disagree on both counts. Of course, I went from Atari 2600 (1979ish) -> Nintendo NES (1988ish) -> PS2 (2002), so my cycle might be a little longer than most.

      But in terms of the games that are actually coming out, the last year's offerings are dramatically better for the PS2 than those 2 years ago. And within titles we're still seeing great enhancements. San Andreas is a massive advance over Vice City, SSX3 blows Tricky out of the water, etc.

      So I don't think PS2 is anywhere near EOL with respect to new, better titles.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    11. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Zenki · · Score: 1

      I would. The study of the collision of two reality distortion fields is the kind of thing that makes a great PhD dissertation.

    12. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with this post!

      The ps2 is constantly doing more and more I thought it couldn't and amazes me even after 5 years or something.

      but the xbox - it seems ms is getting lazy or greedy and just want more sales - the xbox 1 has a heck of a lot more grunt still in it, there's no need for it to be upgraded for ages....

      taking to mind of course what the sony guys did for the ps2 optomisation, why can't that be done for the xb?

      easy answer

      $

    13. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by mink · · Score: 1

      I think you will find the NEC was the first to go to CD-ROM media in consoles via the Turbo-GFX CD add-on. AFAIK this pre-dates the Sega-CD. So SONY is like 3rd or 4th to go CD-ROM.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    14. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do understand that they lose money on every xbox sold? Meaning that they make money from game royalties. Which means that financially they would want to flesh out the system before comming out with a new one.

      The only reason they're comming out with a new console is because they want a small headstart before sony and nintendo not because they want to ripoff their customers.. ..as evil as microsoft is, lets go back to making fun of ms xp.

  6. Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Crusher[DV] · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love this comment.

    "Graphics on PC games such as Half Life 2 will be capable on the new consoles"

    In another 6 months, PC's will have moved on yet again to the next generation GPU's, leaving these things behind once more.

    1. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS3 will use next-generation NVidia GPU that won't be available until the end of this year.

    2. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by DeathFlame · · Score: 1

      But with the price of one console price of one high end video card...

    3. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by DeathFlame · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So apparently my less than sign didn't show up... so.. But with the price of one console less than the price of one high end video card...

    4. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Somebody should tell ATI that, as they're the ones doing the GPU for all three new consoles. IBM is doing the processors for all three too. Hooray!

    5. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Reignking · · Score: 0

      Exactly why I have never owned a console...

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    6. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Also, Half Life 2 looked damn good, but wasn't particularly heavy on GPUs - i saw it running just fine on a nVidia FX5200 at 800x600. Of all the latest graphic engines released in games, Doom 3 has the more GPU-taxing one, by far.

    7. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Going by previous consoles, HL2 would probably be considered a low-end game on those new systems. That comparison obviously comes from the lack of a better example (and some ignorance). Let's say Unreal Engine 3.0 graphics, okay?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by brkello · · Score: 1

      Your comment isn't insightful...it's more like it makes people stupider for reading it. There is always a cycle where consoles come out and have graphics that are on par or better than the PC. Then cycle for new video cards is much shorter and so then PCs surpass the consoles until the next interation comes out. So what if it leaves it behind...we all know graphics does not equal the enjoyment you get out of a game. So get over the PC/console debate...they are both great platforms for gaming.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    9. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, Resident Evil 4 looks better than Half-Life 2, and it's on THIS generation's most overlooked system.

      Funny, that.

    10. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      No, ATI is doing the GPU for the nintendo revolution and Xbox2, Nvidia is doing the GPU for the PS3.

      And yes, IBM is making all 3 processing units(lucky IBM, they probablly will sell well over 200million processors just from the consoles)

    11. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Warskull · · Score: 1

      I agree that a game should be fun first and foremost. However the sad truth is people that believe this are in the majority. With gaming popularized for many people graphics are one bigger selling point. Just look at how people complain about not enough FMVs in games. Just look at the PS and PS2, they owe great success to the "cool" image they try to sell. The people that buy this "cool" marketing are also the ones who buy a game based of advertising and graphics. They want something cool looking they can do. They could care less about replay value. Thus if you are selling your console to the masses demonstrating cool looking stuff is the way to go. Additionally what else are you going to show the masses? They don't care (or understand) about the technical specifications. Marketing like this is meant to sell things to dumb people, because there a lot of them and they aren't smart enough to weigh all the issues themselves.

    12. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      The console experience is hardly about graphics. Sega master system had superior hardware compared to NES, it still got eaten alive. Atari Jaguar at 64bit went no where.

      You can tell the difference between hardcore console gamers and hardcore PC gamers. Hardcore PC gamers think that the better game will be the one with higher FPS and resolution.

    13. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by 9Nails · · Score: 1

      The price of the console is the same as the video card needed to play the game effectivly on the PC! Here the Xbox is slowly nearing it's end of life cycle and it can play current game engines like Doom 3 engine in full detail on it's dated hardware. There is a lot to be said for optimization, and the console boxes can say it.

      I will have a next gen console before I buy an upgrade to my GeForce 6800 GT. That's for sure.

    14. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Oh, i so agree with you. I was just pointing out that HL2, while a fine game, it's hardly the state-of-the-art graphic experience to be beaten on a PC.

    15. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      My video card cost about a quarter of the amount of a PS2, and I've had it for a year. It's still a competent card suitable for just about anything except Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Sure, I can't play all games at maximum detail, but I get much better quality than a console.

    16. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      With this mentality Ferrari would have put Honda and Toyota out of business ages ago.

    17. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Moonlapse · · Score: 1

      SEGA master system had some kickass games though. Alex Kidd, Zillion, Psycho Fox....

      --
      - I got my free iPod and a free Nintendo DS....why not
    18. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Every time a game console comes out, it beats the pants off PCs graphics quality wise. PCs have caught up to the current generation and even surpassed them. The PS3 and XBox 2 will again be amazing, as evidenced by recent articles about the Cell Processor, ect... I think a lot more than Half Life 2 will be possible, think better than Doom 3 on high resolution uncompressed settings.

    19. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Kalan · · Score: 1

      Hey HL2 looks great running on my nVidia 4800TI at 1024x768 don't see any reason why a new console shouldn't be able to do the same as that.

    20. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I especially like it as anyone who has played around with the hl2 engine knows what a hack it is :). Good example - it really can't do actual dynamic lighting the likes of which you can see in doom3 (or farcry for that matter).

    21. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Except that nVidia is already doing graphics for PS/3. Someone should call ATI and tell them to stop making all those PS/3 GPUs!

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  7. PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didnt sony say the PS2 would have Toy Story graphics? heh so much for that

  8. DukeNukem may come yet. by Graemee · · Score: 0

    Maybe now the hardware is finally able to support the game. The wait is over.

    1. Re:DukeNukem may come yet. by demonbug · · Score: 2, Funny
      Maybe now the hardware is finally able to support the game. The wait is over.


      Don't be too hasty. I hear they used an advanced compression algorithm in order to minimize the space the final game will take up. Unfortunately, the decompressor for their "Zero-Space" compression system is only now entering the earliest stages of development.


      Note: The above statement, like the article, has little or no foundation in reality.

  9. Wonder how long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it'll be before it's hacked into. I still can't believe that all it took to mod my Xbox was a couple of files, a memory card, and a James Bond 007 game CD.

    1. Re:Wonder how long... by gabebear · · Score: 1

      I did something very similar, but I used mechassault instead of 007. I have been running Linux on it for almost a year now, but a month ago I decided to go further.

      I used 2 peices of wire(no solder) to flash my BIOS, It's great! I also swapped out the little 8gig HD for a 120gig. I wrote a little thing about it here

  10. Physics? by chris09876 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the article they mention that a big thing they'll be able to do with the improved processing power is more realistic physics. ??? Does anyone else find that a bit weird? I remember like 20 years ago I played a game with monkeys on buildings throwing bananas at each other. That thing had gravity you could adjust :) The screenshot does look amazing though... it's going to be really interesting to see where this technology (games) goes not only in the next 18 months, but 5-10 years down the road. Maybe we'll have holodecks after all :)

    1. Re:Physics? by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

      Physics in a low res 2d grid is different from physics in a full blown high-res 3d environment. That considered, I agree that it will take more than Half-Life 2's gravity gun to justify a brand new console generation.

    2. Re:Physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D emulation of real world physics is slightly more complicated than the gravity engine of your 2D monkey game. You're kinda slow..

    3. Re:Physics? by MaineCoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By "more realistic physics" it means collisions, physical chain reactions, complex shapes, more correct aerodynamic reactions, water simulation.

      Think Half Life 2, but with objects being more realistic in reaction (all those crates acted like they were hollow and made of balsa wood... which, if you break them open, you discover they are!).

      Consider a complex problem of an urban combat situation ala Black Hawk Down, but lets even make it more complex: a helicopter taking a hit to the tail, going into a destabilized spin, slamming at an angle against a building and sliding along, tearing things up as it goes.

      These days, the results would be: the helicopter takes the hit, which blows it up, and the dead husk falls to the ground, maybe with some forward velocity retained. The building would likely be unharmed.

      Ragdoll these days tend to look like dolls made of rubber. GOOD calculations are very CPU expensive, and multiple iterations are as well, so as few iterations of very fast low resolution calculations are used in physics these days to leave CPU time for other things, such as AI logic.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    4. Re:Physics? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but my guess is that they're intending to use the parallel capabilities of the system to provide what is basically super-cheap physics.

      Physics is mostly "local interaction." You drop a pen, it falls on the ground underneat it. Wind moves around. Hair is connected to a nearby head.

      With the exception of missiles flying across the world at super-high speed, which can gum things up, it's local interaction.

      Since it's local interaction, it's highly parallelizable. Just like graphics rendering.

      The trend is for GPUs to be more programmable. It's sort of like being able to programmatically build a factory assembly line. Perhaps the PS3 will feature these things? If the rumors about the Cell (based on actual patents,...) and apply to the PS3, then I think this is exactly what we'd see.

    5. Re:Physics? by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      Physics engines have moved generations beyond the simple demonstration you mentioned (which could be duplicated in DHTML and javascript ;)

      Imagine a game world where any object can be moved, pushed, pulled, rolled, or thrown. Each object has a specified weight and buoyancy. The typical example of this is that an empty barrel may float when pushed into the water, but if you start throwing rocks into it, it begins to sink.

      Though it may not sound like it, advanced physics engines in games are more than just a novelty and really do make the game world much more realistic. Half Life 2 is the best example of a game that utilizes and benefits from such an engine.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    6. Re:Physics? by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      I remember that game, too. Here it is: http://telcontar.net/Misc/Gorillas/

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    7. Re:Physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, realistic like managing to swim underwater while holding a 40gal sealed empty drum.

    8. Re:Physics? by DoorFrame · · Score: 1

      Maybe the drum weighed just enough to offset the bouyancy of the air? Could have been a lead drum, right?

    9. Re:Physics? by vasqzr · · Score: 1


      Games just have to look right, they don't have to 'be' right.

    10. Re:Physics? by shredwurzel · · Score: 1

      Maybe they mean each physical interaction will now be modelled on a subatomic level for that ultra-realistic feel. Watch those quarks fly....

    11. Re:Physics? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      These days, the results would be: the helicopter takes the hit, which blows it up, and the dead husk falls to the ground, maybe with some forward velocity retained. The building would likely be unharmed.

      This still shouldn't take a lot of processing power. The helicopter can be considered to be a point mass with a fairly simple aerodynamic drag model. This only requires a handful of calculations. Ragdoll these days tend to look like dolls made of rubber. GOOD calculations are very CPU expensive, and multiple iterations are as well, so as few iterations of very fast low resolution calculations are used in physics these days to leave CPU time for other things, such as AI logic.

      Ragdoll is a little more complex, but I suspect part of the problem is simply that the algorithms aren't that great. AI in most games is really quite simple, relying on a set of rules and very limited prediction.

      The real time consuming part of realsitic physics is development time. There's a lot to it, and a lot of trial and error.

    12. Re:Physics? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      By "more realistic physics" it means collisions, physical chain reactions, complex shapes, more correct aerodynamic reactions, water simulation.

      Or, more bananas!

      Seriously.

    13. Re:Physics? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In order to do the rag dolls eerily convincingly you would have to break the body up into macromolecules representing the relationships between types of tissues, and the tissues themselves, and model the interactions between them. I hope we have the processing power necessary for that kind of thing in the hands of unwealthy individuals before I die, so I can finally get a racing sim that doesn't make me say "bullshit!" all the time, let alone a convincing BOAT racing sim.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Physics? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      LOL. Reminds me of a time I was stuck in training class. It was drill-holes-in-skull boring. We were using NT workstations which the instructors had put on a subnet without internet and of course, they had removed all the games. Well, except two. Pretty soon everybody wanted to play. So I obliged. The teacher came back from lunch and was absolutely astonished to find the entire class playing with either the exploding banana game or the snake game. They were SURE they had purged the games and started demanding to know who had installed this illicit stuff. LOL. Clueless idiots. I got in a lot of trouble. Gorillas is still one of my fave games.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    15. Re:Physics? by SammyTheSnake · · Score: 1

      If you want to see what physics are already available for PC and which could easily be implemented with considerably less CPU power than the next generation of consoles is likely to have, you absolutely must have a look at Meqon whose demos incidentally run really rather well under Wine.

      Cheers & God bless
      Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny

  11. Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. by teiresias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm getting old and all but I find with better graphics I end up forgetting about the game and just watching the game. For Halo I'd walk around for awhile just admiring different things while getting shot at by Convenant ships.

    Well not really. But I'd feel like I missed something whipping around on the warthog.

    This can only be more true with movie like games.

    Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. Can't wait! Although I'll probably be too distracted to actually finish my objective ;)

    --
    -Teiresias
  12. Every system says that by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a new Playstation comes out Sony marketing types talk about how it will deliver movie-quality graphics to the masses in realtime. The truth is that it tends to perform exactly how you would expect it to perform, about the same as a high-end PC graphics card at the time it is released. Given how PC graphics cards aren't very close to rendering movies in realitime yet, I think it is safe to assume that any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Every system says that by __aailob1448 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Parent is mostly right.

      for the last couple generations (which is when consoles went fully 3D) at the launch of a console, the games looked better than pc games. It took pcs a couple of years to catch up.

      The thing is, consoles used low resolutions. 320*240 to 512*384 mostly. Even now, only a few games support 640*480. Compare this to pcs where the expected resolution is 1024x768 to 1600x1200 and you can see that consoles have been "cheating" all along.

      They got away with it because TVs weren't capable of greater resolutions and the native interpolation made things look smoother (blurrier, but smoother).

      With the advent of HDTVs, next-gen offerings will all have to support HDTV which means a significantly increased strain on the console engines. Will this mean PCs will catch up quicker? We'll see...

    2. Re:Every system says that by Raunch · · Score: 1

      I think it is safe to assume that any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit.

      Well, that would assume everything that was said about cell processors here was also untrue.

      If what was forwarded in that article was even half true, I don't know that real time redering would be that far off.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    3. Re:Every system says that by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      Most if not all xbox games support at least 480p with the hi definition a/v pack.

    4. Re:Every system says that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this time EA says that, not Sony. (BTW, the 'Toy Story comment' regarding PS2 was not by Sony themselves either though now it's a very common urban legend apparently, IIRC)

    5. Re:Every system says that by joelpt · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I think in general the parent is right but in the specific case of PS3/Cell he may end up eating his words. Read "Cell Explained" and you will understand that, technologically, this is *not* merely the next iteration of PS2 technology. We're really talking about a fundamental revolution in processor/computer design, not just an iterative jump in processing speed. If Sony can deliver on Cell, expect your current PC to be replaced by a Cell or copycat product in the very near term.

      That being said, remember that movie-quality graphics require not just hardware, but a lot of human effort to produce. So though PS3 hardware may be up to the challenge in theory, it could take years before the first game comes out which rivals big-screen CG.

    6. Re:Every system says that by shawnce · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear for folks that don't know... 480p is 640 x 480 progressively scanned (not interlaced) which is still far below what PC games are generally played at.

      For related info on HDTV resolutions... wikipedia

    7. Re:Every system says that by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      True, but they also support 720p in a lot of cases, though none that I know of support 1080i.

    8. Re:Every system says that by tc · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, that would assume everything that was said about cell processors here was also untrue.


      Heh. Looking at your first link, I think you should consider the source a little bit. This is the same guy who believes he knows how to counteract gravity and travel faster than light. So if it's all the same to you, I'll consider his "analysis" of the cell processor with a large dose of salt.

    9. Re:Every system says that by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      You also have to remember that while most people are no more than 1-2 feet from their PC monitor when playing, many/most people sit 6-10 feet back from their TV. Higher resolutions get smaller and details can get harder to pick out.

    10. Re:Every system says that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. You misunderstood them. By "movie-quality" they just meant that it could put out graphics at 24 frames per second. Don't you speak marketing?

    11. Re:Every system says that by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Actually, no.

      Consoles were (at launch) massivly superior to the PC until the current generation. I remember all the weak attempts to get parallax scrolling (I think that's what it was called. Having more than one background scrolling at different speeds to achieve a pseudo-3D effect is what I mean) or smooth scrolling on the PC. And the original Playstation was a mean piece of hardware when it was released in 1994. Most of that was due to the fact that PCs had no 3D graphics cards at that time and the cpu had to do all the work.

      Now PCs have catched up with the launch of the Voodoo and everything that's followed and the PS2 and especially the X-Box were actually rather underwhelming at launch. Not bad but not mindblowing cool either

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    12. Re:Every system says that by jandrese · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to stop drinking the Sony Kool-Aid. "Fundimental revolution in processor/computer design" is the sort of BS phrasing Sony has been putting out about the Cell for ages. It's the exact sort of thing I was talking about. Sony promises the moon, and delivers a processor that is pretty decent at vector calculations.

      The PS2 was supposed to be a mindblowing revolution in hardware design too as I recall. The chances that the Cell processor is actually a disruptive technology seem very small at the moment.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:Every system says that by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the PS2 does deliver real-time movie*-quality graphics.


      * - see "Tron"

    14. Re:Every system says that by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

      XBox games that support 1080i:

      Dragon Lair 3d
      Enter the Matrix
      MX Unleashed
      Syberia
      Atari Anthology

      So, basically.. nothing worth playing. :P

      PS2 actually has more games that 'support' 1080i, but I don't know how well they actually run. Check that link above for more info..

    15. Re:Every system says that by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      I've played Enter the Matrix in 1080i, and the only reason it even runs in 1080i is obviously because the graphics are very, very simple. I think the XBox is too underpowered for 3D 1920x1080 rendering.

      On the other hand, I watch xvid on my xbox in 1920x1080 and it looks _amazing_.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    16. Re:Every system says that by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

      Using XBMC? I haven't tried much HDTV material. I didn't know that it had the oomph to really do HD-quality? Or is the xvid codec just less intensive?

    17. Re:Every system says that by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      Yes, using XBMC.

      Assuming the DivX/XviD source material is around 624 x 352, it is upsampled and filtered to perfection by the xbox, then output at 1920x1080 to my 57" Toshiba HDTV. Plus, you can tweak the zoom and pixel ratio in the menus to make it fit your screen, no matter what the aspect ratio.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    18. Re:Every system says that by drewmca · · Score: 1

      That's actually not true about the xbox. At the time of xbox launch, the xbox sported an nvidia chipset that was a generation ahead of their most powerful PC card at the time. Although the processor was a mid-to-low range processor compared to PCs at the time, it was the graphics chip that was to handle most of the heavy lifting. Sure, given the memory and the processor, the xbox couldn't pump out frame rates in the 3 figures, but it didn't have to because of the resolution it was targeting. But it could do a lot of really nifty things that were just starting to come into the PC world, like pixel shading. Also, the audio chip in the xbox was far and away better than anything on the market at the time. No PC audio card at the time could do real-time Dolby Digital processing. Xbox could. Of course, that's changed in the interim, but at the time, it really was a good bit ahead of PCs, at the targeted resolutions.

    19. Re:Every system says that by Raunch · · Score: 1

      lol

      I hadn't read anything else ther, just the articel that was linked to yesterday about the cell processor.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    20. Re:Every system says that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats just what I was thinking! Stop thinking, so I can call my thoughts unique.

      I think the PS1 was pretty close, with some of those cutscense from "FF[7-9]"

  13. Porn industry better have devel kits! by garcia · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mr Dunn said he expected the introduction of real-world physics to be a major part of the new consoles.

    "We want to increase that level of immersion and realism in gaming to people can lose themselves in a game."


    Microsoft has apparently delivered devel kits to some of the game makers but Sony has not. I really hope that with these "real-world physics" and "more immersion" that the Adult Industry has development kits from all parties RIGHT NOW.

    1. Re:Porn industry better have devel kits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, just imagine DOA with better physics, with a pro-porn devel team behind it.

      mmm...

    2. Re:Porn industry better have devel kits! by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      "Mr Dunn said he expected the introduction of real-world physics to be a major part of the new consoles.

      "We want to increase that level of immersion and realism in gaming to people can lose themselves in a game." "

      That really means that they are just going to be using a new version of the Havok physics engine.

  14. deja vu? by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    Didn't they say nearly the same thing about the PS2 in the months leading up to its release?

    1. Re:deja vu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My PS2 renders Pixar movies in real time!

    2. Re:deja vu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Didn't they say nearly the same thing about the PS2 in the months leading up to its release?"

      Pfft. PS2 torpedoed the Dreamcast with these claims like a year and a half befor PS2 release.

      DAMN YOU PS2!!! I WILL SEE MY DREAMCAST AVENGED!

    3. Re:deja vu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope... they didn't. time to remove the iPod from your iAnus i think.

    4. Re:deja vu? by pan0k · · Score: 1

      Yes they did, but I think this is due to the tiny 32MB of RAM that the PS2 has.

      I wonder what the memory for the next gen console like? I would prefer a minimum of 1GB. But of course, I am the king of wishful thinking.

  15. Wash, rinse, repeat. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    That's what they said about the PS2; movie-level graphics.

    The Emotion Engine, they said, could render very subtle faces, expressions, emotions.

    Well, go take a look at, say, Final Fantasy X. Yes, the faces are very nice. But the belt on the guy? It's a damn texture. Floor length hair? It's four solid bars joined end-to-end. Nasty, nasty stuff.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:Wash, rinse, repeat. by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      dunno about you but i still think ffx and ffx-2 ( which use the same engine i believe ) still look bloody fantastic :).

      Faces are a very very hard thing to do right. the human brain is very adept at recognising features and seeing if they`re right/wrong. at least on faces.

      Animals are easier to do in my view as they arent as 'familiar' to us. for instance, in the final fantasy movie, you could tell for the most part, aside from one or two fast moving parts that the characters were artificial. However the flying bird at the end i couldnt distinguish from the real thing. Machines are another area where its possible to create a very VERY realistic looking object.

    2. Re:Wash, rinse, repeat. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Go rent yourself an Xbox and, say, Dead or Alive 3, Dead or Alive Ultimate, Ninja Gaiden, for wonderful examples on how to do faces, AND bodies, AND hair, AND cloth. It's bloody incredible.

      Hell, look at the difference between Final Fantasy X and X-2; huge strides are made.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Wash, rinse, repeat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I should put down games with content and pretty damn good graphics to pick up a couple games with little content(if any except ninja gaiden).

    4. Re:Wash, rinse, repeat. by Phil246 · · Score: 1

      the xbox doesnt have either ffx or ffx-2 so im not interested in it ;)
      a bit of a FF buff, i am :D

      and just to fit in with the /. crowd - "eew microsoft" etc

  16. Lalah! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth. The new consoles can't do much new because no one is risking it, they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over. That's just how the market is these days.

    Tell me when we're seeing Virtual reality, because untill then "inovation" is a word Microsoft like to throw infront of their patents.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Lalah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about... Halo 3 will be out for XBox, not XBox 2. Have you played Halo 2? There is no way that there won't be a Halo 3 before these new consoles come out in '18 months'.

      I can't wait that long, and I doubt they can wait that long to make the money.

    2. Re:Lalah! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      I've heard rumours that Halo 3 is a launch title and infact Halo 2 was cut short just so they could use the "real ending" for the third part and get a head start.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Lalah! by Raunch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over.

      I think that's a little unfair to Nintendo. Mario sunshine was a very different game from all previous marios, not different to the level of others but a signifigant difference. Metroid went from platformer to first person and Zelda was cell shaded and set at sea. I mean, a Zelda that involves a ton of sailing? Then there's Pikmin. I mean, if that is more of the same to you, then you need a new interface, not a different game.

      Maybe xbox, maybe PS3. But I'll eagerly await anything that comes out of Nintendo.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    4. Re:Lalah! by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      You'll see a new mario and a new zelda probably sometime late this year. Well before the new consoles.

  17. Did... by blueorder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...anyone else read that article like a Sony love-fest?... Just wondering...

    --
    blueorder
    1. Re:Did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      How dare you bash Sony!

      Nobody mentions that the PSX was about equal to a 486DX4-100MHz and VGA graphics.

      Nobody mentions the PS2 can't even run Quake III like a 500MHz PC with a TNT2 video card.

    2. Re:Did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's EA. They've taken so many loads in the face from Sony, they don't even have to close their eyes anymore. Seriously, they're Sony's bitches.

    3. Re:Did... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...No, i just printed it out and stuffed it into my iAnus.

  18. Watch Nintendo, not Apple by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

    Last time Apple tried to make a game console, the result was the Pippin. It flopped. But by the time the Nintendo Revolution comes out, we'll probably have a half-height GameCube SP to match Sony's new thin PS2.

    1. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Pippin, like the Performa and the Newton, was a product of the Dark Times, between when Jobs had control of the company stolen from him, and when he stole it back.

      Let us not speak of the Pippin any further.

      If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by ProppaT · · Score: 2

      At one point it was speculated that half the reason Nintendo decided to go with the smaller discs was so their was potential in the future to make a portable Gamecube. It's a nice thought, although I doubt it would ever happen. But if the next gen GameBoy (the DS is not the next gen Gameboy) just happened to be a miniture, handheld version of the Gamecube with a screen that played Gamecube games, that would be nice.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    3. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I hope your right, but I think we're both overly optimistic. Macs have been notorious for having the smallest selection of crappiest games. The only decent ones are games that are ported from PC. I'm not sure the mac mini will become popular for a seriously talented game devel team to try and build a product around.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by jubei · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking recently of why the cube is as tall as it is now, anyway. Does anyone have internal pictures?

      I mean it should be tiny. What is in there? A motherboard, optical drive, cable ports, and a fan. Right?

    5. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Moonlapse · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it wasnt as tall, then it wouldn't be a cube anymore, now would it? =]

      --
      - I got my free iPod and a free Nintendo DS....why not
    6. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      GameCube dimensions, courtesy of a Google search: 4.3"(H) x 5.9"(W) x 6.3"(D)

      It's no cube. It's not even square. They should have called it the GameRectangularSolid.

      GTRacer
      - Seriously, that's always bothered me about the 'Cube...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    7. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, this is the most insightful thing I've read on /. all day.

    8. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by tepples · · Score: 1

      It's no cube. It's not even square. They should have called it the GameRectangularSolid.

      What is the height of the GameCube with the Game Boy Player accessory?

    9. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      Macs have been notorious for having the smallest selection of crappiest games. The only decent ones are games that are ported from PC.

      I'll give you that the selection of games on the Mac is not wonderful, but you're a little off here. There have been a number of great games that started on the Mac and then moved to the PC, or in some cases never did.

      Wolfenstein 3d was a mac game before there was a Windows port, and one of the first FPS games, it ruled at the time. The Marathon series were some of the best FPS ever made and were the predecessors to Halo. Marathon 2 had voice chat with your team (and teams for that matter) ages before any PC game. The plots were also way, way better than any current FPS that I have played. I know people who installed mac emulators just to play Realmz which was a RPG that let the user create their own campaigns. How about Myth? It was at one time mac only and the most popular game ever sold (overtaken by the sims). Escape Velocity is a simple, but very fun space shoot em up that was on the mac for years before a pc port arrived. I'm sure there are plenty more.

      The Mac is not the best gaming platform in the world, but most of the good titles make it to the Mac and it has some gems all it's own. Characterizing the games as crappy is way off base.

    10. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Halo was orignally a Mac game, meant to showcase OSX, before Microsoft bought Bungie.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    11. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      >> If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.

      Funny, instead of a PC-based video capture system I was quoting out, now I'm thinking about an Mac Mini instead. It will look much nicer for the cost, and (unlike the muck I've run into with WDM versus VFW) it will just all work.

      So yes, some PC Windows/Linux people might end up with a Mac Mini in their TV room.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    12. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by pthisis · · Score: 1

      It's no cube. It's not even square. They should have called it the GameRectangularSolid

      Or the GameRectangularParallelepiped.

      Or I suppose that GameCuboid would be acceptable...

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    13. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Myth was a terrible game. but that's beside the point.

      My latest problem is I have two copies of Neverwinter Nights for windows/linux, with all the expansions. But according to macsoftgames, atari and bioware there is no way I can move my licenses to the mac version. Atari has a $40 version with all the expansions now, but macsoftgames basically wants me to buy them all seperately and pay the same price as when the game was released (which adds up to $100).

      Game publishing seems to be dramatically different between Mac and PC. With PC the publisher can lower the prices to be competitive, and the retailers just accept that. With Mac it seems that every mac store has a 3 year old box of a game that they still want $50 for. And publishers (like macsoftgames) worry about losing business to a valuable channel as those small little apple reseller shops.

      If a publisher can figure out how to convince best buy, compusa, wal-mart, etc. to carry Mac games and other mac related items. then maybe we can expect to see more mac games. But as long as the main channel are stores that consider 3 year old software as a "new release", we're going to have to live with the handful of gems and a lot of expensive junk.

      There are a few exceptions to this. For example, starcraft was released with one CD containing both the PC and Mac version. It was a pretty good deal for everyone, and I don't know why it's not done more often. (I can understand companies not releasing a mac version at all, but companies that do release a mac version make it a completely different distribution. perhaps they hire a 3rd party to do a "port"?)

      (it's a bad enough situation that I've been considering starting a mac shareware game company and over charging mac users for games, because apparently they are willing to pay for it. also I only do linux/solaris and mac programming, and have never had the need to do anything with windows).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    14. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by syates21 · · Score: 1

      instead of a PC-based video capture system...it will just all work.

      Um, yes, all except the *video capture* part. The Mini has no intrinsic video capture capability and a small hard drive. In my book that makes it a pretty poor video capture system.

    15. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mini has no intrinsic video capture capability

      ..except for that whole Firewire thing.

      and a small hard drive

      Guilty, as charged. If nothing else hurts the MM, it will be the fact that hard drives and RAM cannot be upgraded by the end-user at a low cost.

      Lets be honest, a lot of Mac fans (like me) buy our Macs with the least RAM/HD and upgrade ourselves.

    16. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      That same "firewire thing" allows for easy disk space upgrades. And I heard there was even a company that was going to produce external firewire drives that match the Mac Mini's look and can stack right under/over it. }:)

      You can have a nice high stack of 7TB worth of chained firewire disk on your Mac Mini if you want (and can afford) it...

      -Z

    17. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      If a publisher can figure out how to convince best buy, compusa, wal-mart, etc. to carry Mac games and other mac related items. then maybe we can expect to see more mac games.

      The compusa near me does carry mac games, computers, other software, etc. I prefer to buy everything online, however. Brick and mortar shops are far too slow to lower their prices. I've seen several year old games at full price.

      For example, starcraft was released with one CD containing both the PC and Mac version.

      Blizzard does this with all their games. Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, etc.

      I've been considering starting a mac shareware game company and over charging mac users for games, because apparently they are willing to pay for it.

      This is true, or very nearly so. Their are several very successful shareware game companies for the mac. Some produce very good software. The reason why so few games come out for the Mac at the same time as the PC is simple. DirectX. Yup, that is it. Most game developers only know DirectX, so that is what they develop with. It takes at least a few months to port a game that relies upon this MS proprietary, Windows only technology. All the games that have simultaneous, or near simultaneous releases are OpenGL, like Blizzard games and Doom from ID. It is a sad fact, and one that keeps many games out of the Mac market.

    18. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      "Wolfenstein 3d was a mac game before there was a Windows port"

      Say what? I think you might want to double check that particular piece of history. The Bungie stuff is true but id did not start on the Mac. On the other hand the first really mass market successful game was originally and exclusively for the Mac for a significant period. That game was Myst. It was Hypercard based with a color capable plugin hack and a lot of production values.

      From what I can google about Wolf3D the Mac version was based on the Atari Jaguar version which was ported from SNES. The PC version was written for DOS before there was a Windows.

    19. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by vashathastampedo · · Score: 1

      http://www.garagegames.com/

      Since the Torque engine compiles and runs on the Mac already, this could definately be a possibility.

    20. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Nirvelli · · Score: 1

      Myst, not Myth.
      And most developers don't like to port to Mac because it doesn't make alot of profit for them, because there's a smaller user-base or whatever. Also, I have heard that Bungie was making Halo on the Mac before Microsoft came in with the big $$$. And the graphics cards always take a while to port to Mac, too.

    21. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Golias · · Score: 1

      You mean like how I bought a mini (ordered on announcement day, arrived before release date), and loaded a GB of memory into myself in under five minutes.

      Anybody who says it's hard, dangerous, or delicate to open is a damn liar. The "putty knife" trick works like a charm.

      Getting it back together is trickier. You gotta line up this row of flat springs along the back face-plate just right. Even so, it hardly takes any time at all to do the entire operation.

      Plus, the "PC2700 DDR 333" 256 MB stick they claimed they put into it turned out to be PC3200 DDR 400, so I was able to slap it right into the Athlon box, making my old Linux server much more attractive when I sell it off.

      The drive they chose for it is laptop-sized, but it's just about the best laptop-sized drive Seagate has ever offered to the general consumer. I'm going to get by with it just fine for some time to come... and if I ever need more space (or lower latency), I'll probably go with an external firewire drive.

      Small, silent, relatively cheap, and waaaay more expandable than some of the FUD you have heard. No wonder Apple's having so much trouble keeping up with demand on them.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    22. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Myst, not Myth.

      Whoops, that was a typo, my bad.

      Also, I have heard that Bungie was making Halo on the Mac before Microsoft came in with the big $$$.

      Steve Jobs demoed it on OS X a full year before it came out. What happened was Bungie was a mac company that had started doing some Windows ports of their titles as well. MS bought them, and told them that Halo was to be X-box first, and held up the release of the mac version until long after both the X-box and PC versions were shipping.

      and the graphics cards always take a while to port to Mac, too.

      Most mac users either use the graphics card that shipped with their machine or a high-end workstation card. Several new graphics cards in the last few years have come out in macs before they were shipping for pcs. It is not something mac users worry about though. Drivers are all nicely integrated. I don't recall ever downloading one.

      You assertion about why developers do not develop for the mac is correct from one perspective. Many developers do not see that market (even if it is there). Many more consider it, and only then discover that they are using so many Windows only technologies owned by MS that they are basically trapped. In any case, take a look at the developers who do ship mac versions right away, or with only a very short delay. You'll notice that it is the cream of the crop. If there is no business case why are the successful and profitable companies doing it? (Blizzard and ID come to mind.)

    23. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      "But by the time the Nintendo Revolution comes out, we'll probably have a half-height GameCube SP to match Sony's new thin PS2."

      Doubtful if you ask me, though they did quietly release a small SNES. I want one.

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    24. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by MegaHyster · · Score: 1
      and loaded a GB of memory into myself in under five minutes.

      Did it hurt?

      --
      All good things...
    25. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wolfenstein 3d came out for the PC in 1992 and for the mac in 1994. Perhaps I'm confused on how time works, but it seems that the PC version came out first followed by a mac port.

      http://www.mac-archive.com/wolfenstein/history.h tm l

    26. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wasnt stolen from him. he did a piss poor job and the stock holders gave him the boot.

      thats business. when you answer to stock holders, YOU ANSWER TO STOCKHOLDERS. it is not "YOUR" company anymore.

    27. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was a boardroom coup which was arranged by the very president Jobs himself recruited. This is all well-documented, so there's no need for you to make shit up.

    28. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by king-manic · · Score: 1

      If a publisher can figure out how to convince best buy, compusa, wal-mart, etc. to carry Mac games and other mac related items. then maybe we can expect to see more mac games. But as long as the main channel are stores that consider 3 year old software as a "new release", we're going to have to live with the handful of gems and a lot of expensive junk.


      Hi there Mr Walton, I want you to put these games in your stores. Admitidly all the potential market for these games are long hairded hippies dressed in prada gear that'd make your other customers uncomfortable and there really is only 12 of them in each city, but I'm sure you make some money selling these games.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    29. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by king-manic · · Score: 1

      It is a sad fact, and one that keeps many games out of the Mac market.

      And the fact that there is a miniscule install base for macs has nothign to do with the lack of mac games? or mac software? It's just evil bill making it too easy for the dumb programmers to makes software and games for windows thats doing it.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    30. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      That's essentially it. A smaller base means you cannot justify the cost of porting a DirectX game to OpenGL so you can run it on Mac or Linux. A business isn't a charity, it's not really anyone's "fault" that there are few Mac games. Although you could perhaps argue that Microsoft's lock-in technology does contribute to this.

      If you do a cost analysis of porting an OpenGL PC game to OpenGL on Mac, you usually realize that you can make a lot more money than the tiny amount you spend. You can often port a game to Mac for under $100k, that's what like 4 people spending tweaking makefiles, changing some simple code for loading datafiles, and having a couple of good QA guys to test it all. And it's not hard to sell 100,000 games in a niche market where games are in demand and there is little competition.

      If you have to do directx->opengl, then the cost balloons in terms of development and testing. Basically many mac games piggy-back on PC devel, and many companies delay the mac version rather than holding the PC version off for the mac version to be ported.

      The size of the entire market does not really matter that much, what actually matters is that you scale your business to the number of products you actually sell.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    31. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      It is simply good business to port any OpenGL game to the mac. The porting cost is small and the rewards are large. That is why you will be hard pressed to find many commercial games that are OpenGL and don't have a mac version. At the same time, DirectX games require a lot of work to port from that technology. DirectX games are ported, but usually only when the product is already a success and there is a good expectation that it will not flop. The added time and expense of porting makes the business case much weaker unless the developers are very confident.

      You may note that several very big game developers use OpenGL exclusively. This is because they are confident in their games, and have the experience to know that it is easier to start with a cross-platform system, then to try to write everything twice.

      Your implication that a couple million computers (3-4 actually) sold a year makes for too small of a customer base for developers is weak. Especially given that it is the cream of the market, people willing to pay for high-end gear.

    32. Re:Watch Nintendo, not Apple by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Well I assumed you wouldn't sell your game to 100% of the computers in the market. And the 100,000 number shows you that even luke warm sales of a mac port can make a profit.

      Blizzard's games are huge sellers in the Mac market. Mostly I've just been injecting from frustration at Bioware/Atari/Macsoftgames for not letting me move my legal windows/linux copies of Neverwinter nights to the Mac.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. Great news for PS2 owners by nizo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I look forward to the price drop in PS2 games and consoles, particularly in the used market. Granted the games won't have all the eye candy appeal that the PS3 games will, but I figure the new influx of games will keep me happy until the PS3 price drops (probably around xmas of 2006).

    1. Re:Great news for PS2 owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A price drop on used PS2 consoles is good news for PS2 wanters now PS2 owners.

      But even then, the only game X-Box owners wish they could play is GTA:SA, and that will probably reach the X-Box long before the PS2 gets cheap enough to warrant buying a second console for the sake of one game.

    2. Re:Great news for PS2 owners by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      And if the PS3 has backwards compatibility?

    3. Re:Great news for PS2 owners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Price drop for 2006? PS3 arrives 2006, there should be no price drop at all at that time.

    4. Re:Great news for PS2 owners by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

      Too late I already got a PS2 for GTA:SA, only disapointment is I really don't think the PS2 is up to the game, ick frame rates and slow downs etc.

      Ah well.

      --
      +----------------- | What is the question!
  20. PS3 uses CELL processors by pavkb · · Score: 1

    http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.htm l

    1. Re:PS3 uses CELL processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So will XBox NeXt.

    2. Re:PS3 uses CELL processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trout thee good sir. That is widely known already.

  21. Yep, this comment sums it up... by Gruneun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We can thrown more polygons around and have better AI but if it doesn't make for a better game then that's not very useful."

  22. PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from.. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...movies.

    Yes. I've talked to people at EA. They really have no clue what it takes to get a movie made. When it takes 100 CPU hours to render a typical frame (not unusual) and hours of work by human compositors to achieve subtle 2D effects for which no algorithms as yet exist (such as touching up the lighting because what is aesthetically pleasing isn't geometrically correct) I wonder how they're going to do this stuff at 60fps even if the hardware renders 1000 times faster than is possible on the current crop of PCs.

    On the other hand, if by movies they mean the likes of Episode II then Half Life 2 is already better.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  23. Nope by Uber+Banker · · Score: 0

    See here

    1. Re:Nope by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Nope what?

      The only question needs an explanation not a yes or no.

      Also the link to your other post ezplains nothing. Are you saying the cell is powerful enough to render spiderman quality graphics in real time?

      The PS2 was supposed to allow 3,000,000 polygons/sec . Even developers were tricked into thinking it was more then it was (the Metal Gear guy in an interview said they had a lot less options then he wanted, but it could have been learning curve, because I don't know if he still was disapointed in the hardware for the newest title).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:Nope by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Actually, from what I heard: Sony promised 75 million polygons per second, but it takes the best coders to squeeze a tenth of that out of the PS2.

      Just to compare: Sega promised 3 million polygons per second, but the Dreamcast could actually do more than that. Melbourne House (Infogrames' aussie studio) claims to have achieved 5 million polygons per second with "Test Drive Le Mans".

    3. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope what? Nope, sir?

      Seriously, FOAD, sir.

      This sounds like hype to me... Nope.

    4. Re:Nope by truesaer · · Score: 1

      The cell chip is your explanation? While it sounds wicked cool, it is not going to replace clusters of hundreds of multiprocessor workstations. Cell may be the most irrationably hyped product in years...

    5. Re:Nope by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Also the link to your other post ezplains nothing. Are you saying the cell is powerful enough to render spiderman quality graphics in real time?

      Actually, it will do this, while finding a cure for cancer, finding an end to war, and turning lead into gold. Plus it will allow any device its connected to to defy gravity and exceed the speed of light.

      Please keep up with the Sony press releases.

  24. Re:Great! Now to ask the important question... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    Custer's Next Revenge!

  25. more impressive games by zobi · · Score: 1
    probably more impressive games... but not necessarily better ones.

    With those new consoles, gaming industry will continue to follow the same trend as motion pictures industry: incredible CGI, more marketing... less innovations.

  26. Realism? by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like everyone's goal is graphics realism and immersion. Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos. While Sony and Micsrosoft are trying to improve their graphics, Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.

    1. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everything you just mentioned they did over 10 years ago.

      Where's the innovation?

    2. Re:Realism? by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1
      Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.

      I'm not the world's most experienced gamer, but I'd have to respectfully disagree. From what I've seen a lot more innovation can go into the actual "storytelling" of the game. The article says it best towards the end:

      Mr Armes warned that developers still had to learn how to tell stories effectively in the medium.

      "In some ways we are trying to forget about the hardware, go in the opposite direction. We have been very bad at letting technology design our creativity.

      "What we have to do as a company is start ignoring the technology and learning our craft in telling stories."

      Mr Gardner agreed: "We can thrown more polygons around and have better AI but if it doesn't make for a better game then that's not very useful."
      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    3. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the coolest Nintendo Product. R.O.B.

    4. Re:Realism? by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      err. donkey konga just came out

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    5. Re:Realism? by leperkuhn · · Score: 1

      The super scope was sick. (SNES). Battleclash and Metal Combat (the sequel) are 2 of my favorite games of all time. I wish there was a gamecube superscope and games to go with it. Terminator 2 was also fun. Yoshi's safari was pretty weak though.

      --
      http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
    6. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and no one cared about any of those add-ons. Okay, the light gun did well on the NES (but not the SNES), but the dance (power) pad didn't take off until the Dance Dance Revolution games, which, if I'm not mistaken, are primarily on PS1s and PS2s. If you want to talk about the power glove, then don't forget the Sega Interactor (or whatever that thing was), the ring that sat on the floor and you waved your hands and feet over it. It could've revolutionized fighting games... had it worked or ever gone on sale. :/

      Oh yeah, and Sony also has the eye toy, which, oddly enough, is doing much better than novelty controllers usually do. The eye toy has a lot of potential in my opinion, since it has the ability to scale very nicely with the PS3 and recognize much more subtlety. There's going to be a dating sim (Japanese only, naturally) that will react to your facial expressions, mark my words.

      And you forgot about the robot that played NES games with you. Now there was a case of too much innovation for too little purpose... reminds me of the DS. ;)

      But other than your wild Nintendo gushing, I agree. Doom 3, Gran Turismo 4 and some others look good enough to start seriously thinking about new input methods. The controller has already hit it's limit, with the PS2 simply using the previous generation's controller (I don't expect much new for the PS3 or X-box 2 controller either). I'd like a pair of power gloves, ones with accurate tracking while pointed in any direction... a pair of trackers for your feet would be nice too. Although, a few eye toys and the processing power of, say, a PS3, and you wouldn't need any of that. You'd have a full motion capture studio (brightly colored ping-pong balls could be included free!). But then, the problem with controllers that allow more realistic inputs is they start to beg for a head-mounted display. I still wonder if the DS is some first step in that direction, even if only to get LCD volumes up enough to make cost-effective HMDs possible.

    7. Re:Realism? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want to punch...they gave you the power glove.

      Nintendo (that is, Nintendo of America, the corporation) didn't give us the Power Glove. It was designed by Abrams Gentile Entertainment, Inc., and developed and marketed by Mattel.

    8. Re:Realism? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I'm really getting tired of people who whine about companies focusing on graphics. Not everybody can focus on every aspect of immersion. Sony and MS are hedging their bets that the biggest payoff will come in the form of visual immersion, whereas Nintendo is basing it off of tactile and other forms of immersion.

      In the future, in order for us to have full virtual reality like in the Matrix, we will need ALL of these elements. ESPECIALLY graphics. You do realize that humans are entirely visual creatures right? I realize that its only part of the equation, but what I'm saying is that its a large enough part that I don't see any reason why they SHOULDN'T tackle it first.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    9. Re:Realism? by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      Hardware is expensive though, so the way to maximize innovation, profit, and entertainment value all at the same time is to improve storytelling, as the article says.

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

    10. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sounds like everyone's goal is graphics realism and immersion. Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos. While Sony and Micsrosoft are trying to improve their graphics, Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.

      I want to fuck!

    11. Re:Realism? by TooMuchEspressoGuy · · Score: 1
      I couldn't agree more, though for different reasons. It seems as though Nintendo continues to cater to old-school gamers, through both their hardware and software, whereas the PS2 and XBOX crowd are mostly more "mainstream" gamers.

      The way I like to compare the two is that most PS2 and XBOX games are more like interactive movies than anything else. The emphasis is on the graphics and cutscenes rather than gameplay and innovation. They go for the "flashy" factor rather than genuinely trying to do something that no one has ever done before.

      However, Nintendo continues to host games like Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Paper Mario (both), and the various WarioWare games, all of which, while not really pushing the graphics department, do something *new* and genuinely immerse the player in their gameplay without having to rely on cutscenes and a trite storyline appealing mostly to the adolescent MTV generation. They also continue to take chances in terms of hardware (think of all the strange things they jam-packed into the DS.)

      Yes, if anything, I'll probably be buying the next-gen Nintendo console. Everyone else can keep their interactive movies; give me something that challenges my brain, and not just dazzles my eyes.

      --
      Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
    12. Re:Realism? by fwitness · · Score: 1

      The biggest reason that companies don't 'innovate' anything but graphics is more subtle. Advertising. It's very easy to show a screenshot of console 'X' vs console 'Y' and see a increase in graphics. If you look at most advertising today, that's about as complex a message you can send in an ad.

      Showing your console has 'gyro-support' or whatever you've done that's not graphics, is extremely difficult. See most of Nintendo's marketing on the DS. Most of it showcases the dual-screens, while simultaneously emphasizing the 'touching is good' message. Their ads are good, but you can see how difficult anything but eye-candy is to market.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    13. Re:Realism? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah! I loved my super scope. Even my dad, who generally had very little interest in video games, he loved using the super scope. Although he refused to hold it like a bazooka, instead preferring to "shoot from the hip". His aim generally sucked, but he had fun.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    14. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos.

      You want to look like a total dork...they gave you the Power Glove. Oh wait you already mentioned that.

    15. Re:Realism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, can't wait for Super Mario 73. I heard it'll be innovative.

  27. Help me out here... by pnice · · Score: 1


    'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem.'

    I'm having a hard time finding that quote in this article. Could someone help me find it. Saying that a video game will look just as good as Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2 is a very bold statement. It makes my mouth water.....I just can't find it in the article provided.

    1. Re:Help me out here... by netsfr · · Score: 1

      yea, I was looking for the same thing.. What's up with the ./ editors adding to the quote!

    2. Re:Help me out here... by DeeFresh · · Score: 1

      I could be way off base with this, but I read that last line as a joke from the editor. Perhaps it would have been clearer if the sentence read:
      "Will the graphics be indistinguishable from Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2? That's the question that will decide whether or not thats a good thing for the PS3."

    3. Re:Help me out here... by erasmus_ · · Score: 1

      The single quotes help you determine where the quote begins and ends. So, in this example, the actual quote ends with the word "movies." It sounds like you were searching for the whole sentence, perhaps? From the article:

      Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, said gamers should expect titles that blur the line between films and video games.
      Many will be sceptical - gamers were given similar predictions during the last transition of console hardware - but this time it would seem to be more likely.
      "PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies," said Mr Florin.

      --
      Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
    4. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was michael once again editing the submission to fit with his own personal opinions. Way to keep that intergrity intact!

    5. Re:Help me out here... by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Was the quote in the article. The 'Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2' part was from the submitter, wondering if the "movie-quality grapics" will be realistic like Spider-Man or cartoony like Toy Story.

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

    6. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iwas thinking "Full Motion Video with slightly less robust compression" and "built on a foundation of impressive state of the art picture in picture technology"

  28. distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go"

    that scares me a bit you could end up paying hundreds of dollars for one game

  29. Yeah, right,?? by Jarlsberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And Playstation 2 can presumably render the original Toy Story in real time, right? Just like Sony claimed before PS2 was released ( http://www.dvdfuture.com/features.php?id=2)?

    1. Re:Yeah, right,?? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Actually, I would assume a PlayStation 2 or a Gamecube could produce something really close if someone decided to put that much into quality. Main difference being, as posted, that a lot of lighting has to be tweaked by hand. It's a lot of processing power to program into anything the reflective value of every surface (i.e. porous objects reflect less light than nonporous objects). Movies only play at 24 fps, so if you were targeting that framerate, you could pump up the quality.

      Games like Final Fantasy X and Windwaker spring to mind when I think of visual quality. Storylines to these games also make a huge difference, just like Toy Story is every bit as enjoyable as Incredibles because of the story.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    2. Re:Yeah, right,?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... sure and where is the actual "quote" from Sony? Don't see it... put your head back up your iAnus.

  30. Toshiba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last one is Toshiba, not Panasonic

  31. We are going in the WRONG direction for desktops by zymano · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.primidi.com/2003/12/01.html

    We need more parallel processing applications. We need to drop the intel isa architecture(heat,effectiveness).

    The reason why we use AMD and Intel is because of applications are all intel isa based. We need effective parallel processing compilers . Who cares about word processing software that might get slowed down . Graphics,mathematics and sciences,and supercomputing will get a BIG BOOST.

  32. Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    So, what's left for the PS4 then?

    1. Re:Marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So, what's left for the PS4 then?"

      The PS4 will have graphics indistinguishable from the PS3 =)

    2. Re:Marketing... by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      >PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

      So, what's left for the PS4 then?


      Seriously, improvement in graphics does not interest me as much as genuine improvement in the AI of the computer controlled characters. What's the point of having opponents with "graphics indistinguishable from movies" when they still are as stupid as in the original Quake? I'm really waiting for a first person shooter where your opponents could actually launch some coordinated action against you - and you could also have some small talk with the NPC's, not limited to just a few random prerecorded lines. These random lines were a real mood breaker in "Half-Life" or "Max Payne". All those "Ah, Gordon, good to see you" in the most inappropriate situations...

    3. Re:Marketing... by Metapsyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

      So, what's left for the PS4 then?

      Quote from the PS4 press release: "PS4 will provide graphics indistinguishable from reality."

      What about the PS9? Come on, you saw those commercials that aired when the PS2 was release. Best. Commercial. Evar.

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
  33. Re:Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gamin by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 5, Funny

    The illusion of total immersion is the first step in building the Matrix. Thank you for your feedback.

    -Agent Smith

  34. Re:Great! Now to ask the important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check your email...there's plenty of porn there

  35. And in between? by hyu · · Score: 1
    You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos.

    Those first three were from the NES era. Only the bongos were recent, and they really weren't all that innovative or immersive. It was essentially Drum Mania. Your point is kind of moot given the fifteen year time lag.

    1. Re:And in between? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's see. Nintendo also made rumble paks, analog sticks, 4 controller ports, hard drive in a console (64DD), and the touchscreen in the DS. There are other things, but they haven't ended up being so popular, like the e-reader.

      Hell Sony has been leaning on Nintendo's old SNES controller design for a decade now, only adding rumble and analog sticks after Nintendo introduces them.

      Say what you want about Nintendo, but without their constant effort, console gaming would not be anything close to what it is today.

      Maybe, just maybe, the poster was picking out three simple examples, and not attempting to be exhaustive. An illustrative sample if you will.

    2. Re:And in between? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      64DD was not a hard drive, nor was it even as popular as the GBA e-Reader.

    3. Re:And in between? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

  36. Heh, offtopic but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Am I the only one who noticed this? (emphasis mine)
    Graphics on PC games such as Half Life 2 will be capable on the new consoles
    First time i've caught something like this from the BBC.
  37. A lot more under the hood.... by Chillybott · · Score: 1

    Well there's an understatement. What with the wish list that Sony has put into this thing's development - being the center of your home entertainment universe with the cell technology....I'd certainly expect nothing less than a screaming V-12 under the PS3's hood.

    What I wish they would let on about is the prospects of the PS3 having a DVD burner and/or a DVR type of device in it like the PSX, or whether the PS3 will have different "models"

    Base: "Mecha high polygons (MHP)" for gaming only
    LS: "MHP with DVR" for gaming, recording your gameplay and television shows, and being able to transfer those recordings to other devices on your home network
    SS: "MHP, DVR, DVD writer" for all those techie "musclehead" equivalents ;)

    --
    You gotta make something explode to really understand it...examine all those tiny particles while they're still on fire.
    1. Re:A lot more under the hood.... by dark_requiem · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Sony has stated that the PS3 will use a blue ray drive. Whether or not it will burn remains to be seen, but I'm predicting no.

    2. Re:A lot more under the hood.... by SunFan · · Score: 1


      Oh, it'll burn. I'm sure of it...(eyes gas can).

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    3. Re:A lot more under the hood.... by micknz · · Score: 1

      what's a blue ray drive?

    4. Re:A lot more under the hood.... by bbkingadrock · · Score: 1

      Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD) is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), a group of leading consumer electronics and PC companies (including Dell, Hitachi, HP, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK and Thomson). The format was developed to enable recording, rewriting and playback of high-definition video (HD), as well as storing large amounts of data. A single-layer Blu-ray Disc can hold 25GB, which can be used to record over 2 hours of HDTV or more than 13 hours of standard-definition TV. There are also dual-layer versions of the discs that can hold 50GB.

      http://www.blu-ray.com/info/

  38. Indistinguishable from movies? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It seems every generation is going to give us "Latest Pixar flick" quality graphics. Curious thta pixar haven't caught onto this trend. I mean, Luxo Jr. took about 3 hours to render each frame. With all of the improvements in graphics technology, they're still rendering at the same rate. But perhaps Sony have a revolutionary graphics technology that's 40000 times faster than whatever Pixar use.

    1. Re:Indistinguishable from movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to your math it would take 48 years to render that movie, if it was 90 mins long.

    2. Re:Indistinguishable from movies? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      Need I even need to say this. As we all know, Pixar is using a beowulf cluster of C64's. Get with the times, man. Why can't Sony just tell us the truth? The PS3 will be > PS2 and PS4. Nothing new to see here, just a Sony love fest. Move along.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
    3. Re:Indistinguishable from movies? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I hear that Pixar have bought a couple of other computers to help speed things along.

  39. Its simple by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nintendo is not an American company. It is not traded on the American exchanges like Sony and Microsoft are. Press about Nintendo is not as useful to the people who actually get "gaming" news from the MSM, except to give perspective compared to Sony and Microsoft, and yes in the American market it is relatively doom and gloom for Nintendo. This is all logical and matter-of-course.

    And for a little perspective on rushing things... The GBA and Xbox both came out in 2001. The NDS is already out. Nintendo is the one complaining about the pace of the console cycle. This does not make sense. I'm just saying.

    1. Re:Its simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GBA and Xbox both came out in 2001. The NDS is already out. Nintendo is the one complaining about the pace of the console cycle. This does not make sense. I'm just saying.

      The Nintendo DS isn't supposed to be replace the Gameboy. It's supposed to be a third addition to their console line-up.

    2. Re:Its simple by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1

      The fact that Sony is traded at NASDAQ does not make it an American company... I remember an anecdote about how over a third of Honda buyers in the US thought that it was an American brand. Could be (and probably is) just an urban legend, though.

    3. Re:Its simple by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      "Nintendo is not an American company. It is not traded on the American exchanges like Sony and Microsoft are."

      Periods often indicate a break between discreet statements. My words were chosen carefully and are 100% accurate. I did not say "Nintendo is not an American company like Sony and Microsoft are." In the future, please ensure you have something to contribute before you respond to my posts.

  40. Who really wants to buy three consoles anyway by 5killz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Unless Nintendo pulls some real magic with their next console, I can only see them going the way of Sega, and becoming a software exclusive company. They've just dug their hole too deep, and though their first party games are amazing, most people over 18 or so don't take the 'cube seriously.

    I don't necessarily want to see nintendo losing their foot in the market (Gotta love those guys), but imagine a world where you have your Mario Sunshine right next to your GTA: Vice City on a next gen console. That, and if Nintendo decided to start making games for exclusively microsoft or sony platforms, they could effectively muscle out the other.

    In truth though, I see nintendo coming out with another amazing, but underrated system, which doesn't take hold.

    1. Re:Who really wants to buy three consoles anyway by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      I hate to agree but it's true. Nintendo is making too many games for kids and not making new series. Mario, Link, Samus, etc all need to retire and make new characters and series. Frsh blood and depart from the wore out series of games.

    2. Re:Who really wants to buy three consoles anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off...please drop the "games for kids only" crap. It's become incredibly irritating. If you are too mature to play a fun and interesting game simply because it looks like a cartoon, then I guess that's your loss. Personally, I've gotten sick of the trend towards increasing realistic graphics. It adds nothing, and in fact, I say it detracts from it. I think a wonderful rendering of a cartoon presents a better feeling of quality than a poorly rendered imitation of reality, which continually reminds me of how incapable game systems are at achieving their goals.

      Or, to play along with you and the other people whining like broken records....yes Nintendo games are for kids. And who do you think spends more on video game. Nonparent gamers and parents buying games for themselves, or do you think it's kids with money and parents buying the games for their kids? Now who's dug themself into a hole?

    3. Re:Who really wants to buy three consoles anyway by mink · · Score: 1

      I dont know an adult gamer who does not enjoy (and most own) gamecube games.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  41. Like the Emotion Engine! by InferiorFloater · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new PS3 has a "Realism System" guaranteed to render realism more realistically than ever before! Criminal simulators such as GTA are further enhanced by the special "Gritty" subprocessor!

    --

    ---------
    Get back to me when my brain starts working.
    1. Re:Like the Emotion Engine! by hobbesx · · Score: 1
      render realism more realistically than ever before!


      Don't you mean render realism more realistically than really realized?

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
  42. OMGOSH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Final Fantasy XXVIII is going to look amazing! It'll be just like the movie!

    On a more serious note... this meaningless hype really really works. PS2 sold how many units before it comes out thanks to the hype? Fable sold how many units before it came out thanks to they hype?

  43. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)

  44. What I wnat to know is... by Raunch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where the hell did that beautiful picture come from?
    It's definately rendered - but from what?

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40753000/jpg /_40753511_ea_screenshot203.jpg

    --
    George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    1. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably the current EA football title. Plus it's tough to call it beatufully rendered with such a small image and only two players dominating the scene. Good looking, sure. But nothing previously unheard of.

      And it's not like that's an angle you'll use in-game much anyways.

    2. Re:What I wnat to know is... by matth1jd · · Score: 1

      Could just be a cut scene, if it is real time then damn....

      Madden 2007 perhaps (I can already pre-order 06)...

    3. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Raunch · · Score: 2

      > It's probably the current EA football title.

      If it is, then it's a movie from the game.
      This is the page that has all of EA's football on it:
      http://www.easports.com/games/madden2005/home.jsp

      Click on screenshots and take a look. There is no way that picture from the article came out of the EA game engine

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
    4. Re:What I wnat to know is... by captwheeler · · Score: 1

      The grandparents picture has the strings:
      JFIF
      Ducky
      Adobe
      Looks like it just came from photoshop, but I don't really know.

      --

      Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.

    5. Re:What I wnat to know is... by jimmyCarter · · Score: 1

      You know it's a video game when the Giants are getting pressure on McNabb..

      --

      -- jimmycarter
    6. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Bagels · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's one of two "concept shots" that EA released a while back showing the estimated capabilities of next-gen systems. They also showed a fairly nice racer screenshot with a very high-poly car and trees with good-looking autumn leaves... quite impressive, assuming that they really do approximate next-gen graphics. The folks over at The Magic Box had both of them a while back, but you'll have to dig around to find them.

      --
      --- Bwah?
    7. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like humping men eh? ;)

    8. Re:What I wnat to know is... by hollismb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the Febuary issue of XBN magazine (the last one):

      Speaking in December at a Financial Conference, Electronics Arts Cheif Financial Officer Warren Jensen displayed two screenshots purporting to represent the graphical capabilities of both Xenon (Xbox 2) and Playstation 3, claiming that the audience-wait for it-should "imagine the characters in a football game expressing real emotions. That's the kind of thing that's going to be possible with the next generation of technology."

      So that's where that shot came from, BS aside.

    9. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The pics were posted on the CNN story. http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/06/commentary/game_ov er/column_gaming/index.htm (hope that link worked) It has the pic of the racing game there also. MoH (AC)

    10. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here: http://www.ps3portal.com/?view=article&article=68& PHPSESSID=b5f69f43a688ce7ff097b7ac91e96f40

    11. Re:What I wnat to know is... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Many people use photoshop to output web-optimized graphics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  45. Have You Played Resident Evil 4 Yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll often switch between cutscenes and regular gameplay without realizing it. The lines are VERY blurred.

  46. In related news... by funny-jack · · Score: 4, Funny
    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    In related news, the PS3 will also be packed with the following features:
    • Built-in AI indistinguishable from humans
    • Integrated 10 MP digital camera
    • 10 Gigabit ethernet & wireless
    • Controllers will interface directly with the human brain--wirelessly!
    • Processor will run at 42 GHz
    All these and more, in the Next Sony Platform(TM)!

    ...is there anyone here who still believes pre-release/development crap like this? Anyone? I mean, anyone other than Michael.

    And now, it is time for a shameless plug.
    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
    1. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! You go to all that trouble to hype the features and leave a perfectly achievable 10 Megapixel resolution for the digital camera? Surely 10 Terapixels was your goal ;)

    2. Re:In related news... by DougJohnson · · Score: 1

      I won't buy one unless they put in a HD.

    3. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love when Sony refactors my paradigm!

    4. Re:In related news... by PenGun · · Score: 0

      Actually the PS3 will be revolutionary.Here is some detail eh'. PenGun Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

    5. Re:In related news... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Ah....but does it play my mp3s?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    6. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh boy, you're just so funny... so clever, you make my iAnus wet and greasy.

    7. Re:In related news... by I'mJVC · · Score: 1

      Who cares? does it play ogg?????

      --
      Will add sig later...
  47. Arent they just becoming PC's? by GatesGhost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both MS and PS want to have an "entertainment center", basically a machine that plays games, movies, music. pc's already do this, but they are much more upgrade friendly.

    1. Re:Arent they just becoming PC's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And much less user friendly.

    2. Re:Arent they just becoming PC's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but John and Jane Consumer could care less about "upgradability" when they are buying little Timmy the hottest Christmas gift since the iPod.

  48. Sure, the PS3 might be faster and more powerful... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but I have no doubt that the Xbox2 will be larger, louder, and hotter!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  49. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what? I actually work at EA and we really do have a clue as to what it takes to get a movie made. Did you know that the art director on Madden was also the art director on Mulan and Lilo and Stitch? We have George Borshukov of the Matrix and Glenn Entis of PDI. And we're not trying to make film, we're trying to make better than film.

  50. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by dim5 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Now watching other people play games will be as exciting as watching a movie!

    This is the second thread today that is a direct throwback to The Wizard.

    --

    Is something burning?
    Oh, it's my karma.

  51. distribution method of games by zornorph · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go. It's much smarter if you can get levels as you go."

    Sounds like another subscription service, which is definitely smarter for the manufacturers. Smarter for us? While it does mean that we can constantly get new levels, it also means that the game may not work without being able to go online to download the levels, or will be sold with crappy levels to encourage you to sign up.

    --
    http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
    1. Re:distribution method of games by payndz · · Score: 1
      Very good point. If the next generation consoles are designed around a subscription model, then it's highly unlikely I'd bother getting one, because:

      1: I'm no longer a 'hardcore' gamer, as I have other things going on in my life (so what the hell am I doing on /.? Yeah, yeah...), so paying a regular subscription fee for something I might only use intermittently doesn't appeal.
      2: Sturgeon's Law applies just as much to games, which is why I get most of mine second-hand apart from the occasional GTA or whatever. Don't like it? Only a few quid lost. But if every game requires the equivalent of Steam to play, what happens to the second-hand market?

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    2. Re:distribution method of games by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      No kidding. I'm disgusted to see things go this way. It used to be you got everything, for about 50 bucks. Then, you could download updates for free. Then you could buy "expansion packs" (glorified patches) with a little new content for about half the full games retail price, but the mods for the games were still free. Now the expansion packs are being sold as entirely new games, and the companies are starting to buy up the mods and sell them.

      In the future, look forward to just buying the engine and having to pay for every little bit of content you want. The games industry is going to nickel and dime us out of everything they can, and that just means charging more for an increasing number of things. In the retail world, this strategy is commonly known as selling your main product cheaply, and making your fortune off of accessories.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    3. Re:distribution method of games by octal666 · · Score: 1

      If this has worked with the phones as long as didn't have bluetooth or a way of linking it to the computer, why do they think people will connect to them instead of cheating the console to think the home computer is the server and download levels from the Emule?

      I mean, all three major consoles are hacked by now (hail to the Cube, the last man standing), people buys the game because want to have the box, because wants everything working just out of the box, etc.

      We want cheaper games, not shitty pay per service so kids (and not so kids) don't know what they are spending, specially a difference by price between good games and bad games, I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Spain, I can go to the major distributors and see the Universal Theme Park (worst game for Cube ever) next to the Donkey Konga (full with the bongos) for the same price.

      --
      DON'T PANIC
    4. Re:distribution method of games by hattig · · Score: 1

      It's brilliant for me, I'm crap at games and never get that far before giving up. This way, instead of paying £30 for a game that I will never see 50% of, I can pay £10 for the 50% that I will see before failing/getting bored/getting something else.

    5. Re:distribution method of games by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Rigth. Reads like dreams of the accounting-department for some game-developer.

      Recurring revenue, in addition to up-front revenue. Perhaps also the possibility of controlling (read destroying) the second-hand market aswell as "turning off" old games that are no longer profitable.

      Most people I know are simply not interested in any model where they're supposed to continue being nickeled and dimed after having bougth a game. It's just bad value.

      You can buy a new game for like $50, and if you get tired of it after a while simply resell it. If you don't absolutely *have* to have the game the very first month it's out, (Actually, what is a fun game in say january 2004 is very likely to provide you with the same amount of fun if you choose to play it 6 months later) you can buy it used for maybe $25.

      It's not that bad for game-companies either. Knowing that I can always resell a game if it doesn't appeal to me makes me much more likely to impulse-buy a unknown game. And the money I occasinaolly regain by selling older games are mostly reinvested in newer ones.

  52. Lots of console hype... by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm positive the next generation of consoles will be very nice to behold, but I also remember all of the hype surrounding the PS2 launch and how the PS2 was such a super computer that they had to ban exports to Iraq, and how it was "movie quality" and such... And then it came out, and it was a clear step up, but not nearly the giant leap the hype suggested.

    I suspect we'll see the same thing here.

    The other thing to worry about is that the increasing reliance of highly detailed art means games are going to take much longer to produce, cost a lot more to make, and those costs will certainly be transfered to the consumer. Not to mention that when you're making games that require 100s of artists and with artists being a limited resource, you'll be seeing less projects spread among less game developer/publishers, with less competition and thus less gameplay innovation...

    So things aren't *all* rosy...

    Still, I'm sure I'll buy the Xbox2 on release day... I'm a sucker for new things.

    1. Re:Lots of console hype... by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      In the great tradition of /., you didn't RTFA.Maybe if you had you'd have seen that your concern is addressed in the Xbox2. They are going to have the unique textures that normally consume a lot of artist time be generated by the GPU with random elements, eliminating the need for nearly as many artist.

    2. Re:Lots of console hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Still, I'm sure I'll buy the Xbox2 on release day... I'm a sucker for new things.

      I'll bet you're buying it to stick it to Microsoft because you know they'll lose money on each Xbox2 sales.

    3. Re:Lots of console hype... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u would by an xbox2... clearly, your a stupid fuck i think. it's obvious.

  53. PowerPc..... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    Hey - why bother working with another established console maker when you can just attempt to pilfer the competition's titles?

    The new XBox will be using a PowerPC cpu instead of another x86 type cpu. In this field, Apple has plenty of experience.

    They could release a slick looking console, and have games easily ported by the game companies themselves - or make it even capable of playing the XBox 2 games as well.

    Another side benefit of the overall increase of PowerPC cpu sales would hopefully include decreased per unit costs and an increase in compatible software.

    I had never even considered Apple making a console until mentioned in these comments. I think Apple making a video console would be awesome - hell - there's many things I don't like what Apple does, but I can see myself buying a console made by them. Especially if they make it very hackable - that always adds bonus points.

    Hell - they could even include iTunes with the box and a docking station or connection for an iPod. Have it display an interface on the TV that would control the iPod, even while you play a game - this would allow custom control over game soundtracks .... :-) Actually, Apple making a video game console would be similiar in strategy to the iPod/iTunes being available on Windows...

    1. Re:PowerPc..... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Hey - why bother working with another established console maker when you can just attempt to pilfer the competition's titles?

      I think Apple would do better to play nice in this arena. Who knows what DRM schemes Sony, MS, or Nintendo could add to the hardware. Also the margins on the hardware are very small, sometimes negative. That is not a good way for Apple to make money. If their console runs another companies games, then that other company will be the one pulling in the licensing profit. Console makers get paid by game developers, which get paid by the users.

      they could even include iTunes with the box and a docking station or connection for an iPod.

      That is actually not too bad of an idea, and it is something Nintendo would probably kill for to help combat music playing features from Sony and MS.

      I still think it would be a money losing proposition unless they partner, or somehow sign up a pile of game developers.

    2. Re:PowerPc..... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Making it play Xbox 2 games would be totally unfeasible because Xbox 2 will be a moving target just as PS and PS2 both were. All Microsoft has to do is mandate that to get your new game licensed you must add additional, previously unused tests to ensure that the game is running in the proper environment. It would also require a graphics chipset superior to the one in Xbox 2, because to be inferior in any area is to break compatibility, at least in the realm of video quality.

      Apple gave console making a shot and they failed to take it seriously enough to see it through. They are better off joining forces with one of the current console makers and making an Apple version of an existing console. Sony would probably be the most likely candidate since they actually have a history of working with other companies.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  54. Well by mcc · · Score: 1

    One thing to consider as significant here is that Nintendo's been rediculously secretive about their not-formally-announced consoles of late. They're almost approaching Steve Jobs-like proportions. Dev kits for the DS were in the hands of some developers since if I'm not mistaken like the November or December before E3, but Nintendo was able to keep the DS totally under wraps until the moment they chose to start giving out information-- heck, it wasn't even that long before E3 before the rumor that Nintendo was even going to announce anything at E3 started to surface in a serious way.

    So in this particular case very likely the MSM is not going to report on the N5 because at this point, there's nothing known to report.

    Meanwhile enough solid information is known about the XBox 2 to make speculation worth the bother, and Sony's been fairly cheerful about talking about the PS3, or at least the Cell. Whereas with the N5, what are they going to say? "Nintendo's doing... something!" So while Nintendo's getting the shaft from the MSM in a lot of ways, I don't know if we can chalk this particular case up to MSM idiocy unless E3 comes and goes and the MSM is still ignoring the N5.

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be secretive too in a market full of copy-cats. Or more specifically, Sony. (Microsoft at least knows how to kinda go their own way on this.)

      Nintendo plans out the DS, what does Sony do? Oh look! They're rushing a product out the door to try and grab market share!

  55. Are graphics really the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will more/better graphics make better games?

    When I look at most games, I thought lack of creativity was the major problem.

    I think we should draw and quarter the guy who comes out with the next FPS. Its old. Drop them. Get over it already.

    Another MMORPG? Holy crap, they all suck as it is. We don't need to go $50 for another sucky "wander around level up".

    Promise me no more SIM titles.

    Billions of dollars at stake and nobody can come up with an original concept.

    But lack of graphics prowness doesn't seem to be the problem.

  56. "graphics indistinguishable from movies" by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we'll FINALLY get some quality game-porn?!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  57. PS3 is BS-3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit


    They should call it the "B.S.-3" then!
  58. Detail vs. Gameplay by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that all this technology just increases the effort necessary to produce a given quantity of satisfying gameplay.

    Once you add physics into the mix, every object needs to be broken down into more parts, represented in more ways, its possible impact on the game logic dealt with. (No point putting in a maze puzzle if you can bash through walls.)

    So now you need hyper-detailed models with hyper-detailed textures and somewhat-detailed physics representations to produce something that looks as good as a second-tier film from ten years ago.

    And the state of the art is, say, Half Life 2, a game which provides gorgeous graphics but runs you around on rails -- because providing that level of detail in a more open-ended game is simply prohibitively expensive. Indeed, by all accounts, Half Life 2's game play is unusually restrictive, even by the standards of First Person Shooters.

    The key to me is choosing a level of design detail that suits the game you plan to make and then hiring an art director who can make the game look fabulous at that level of detail -- rather than maxing out the level of detail for the hardware currently available, and then producing the best game you can given the budget constraints you're stuck with.

    The way things are trending we'll have games where you only get to visit one room because it costs millions of dollars to texture the pillows, insects, cracks in the wall, navel fluff, etc.

    1. Re:Detail vs. Gameplay by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      Your comment made me think of something that I'm sure game developers have already thought about: ads, especially for things like cars and airplanes and the like. Physics-intensive products like these are already modeled extensively by their manufacturers. I doubt we'll see it in this generation, but future consoles might see MS taking Ford's body models straight from their impact-analysis programs and porting them straight into the game. They don't have to waste time developing the models, AND they get ad revenue from Ford. Seems like a win-win situation for the game manufacturers.

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

    2. Re:Detail vs. Gameplay by Metapsyborg · · Score: 1
      The way things are trending we'll have games where you only get to visit one room because it costs millions of dollars to texture the pillows, insects, cracks in the wall, navel fluff, etc

      Hey now! That game sounds pretty cool. What can I do in the room? Can I invite girls? Friends? Can I relax on the luxurious cushions and smoke opium with said girls and friends? Ooh, we could play video games in the game! Can I change lightbulbs (and lighting), furniture arrangement, room shape, can I peep out the keyhole to see what a portion of the rest of the world looks like, how 'bout being able to look at any item in the room in as close of detail as humanly possible and it still looks realistic, etc? To be honest, this game sounds better than Tony Hawk, Halo, Star Wars game #23423, FF XXXVIII, etc...

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^) INFECTED
      (")")
  59. WTF? by trezor · · Score: 1

    The reason I play games on my PS2 is not because it's cool. If I was in for being cool I'd buy, mod and seriously hack a Xbox just to show off what my cool console could do.

    I bought into that cool image I'd mention pirate every Xbox game there was, and show of all those cool new games and show them off the week before they'd hit the stores.

    If I was in for awesome, cool graphics, I'd buy anything but the PS2, as it seems most consoles have a more capable GPU.

    I play the SP2 because of the games and their replay value. My main reason for not playing games, or investing money in PC-gaming at all, is because I think all the PS2 games I've played have a higher entertainment value and especially replay value. This goes for anyone I know with a PS2.

    You, mister, are way off.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, mister, are way off.


      actually, reading your post, i think you've just proven the grandparent's point. you just don't get it...

  60. Re:Yes it's called the iProduct by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Not to be confused with I, Product, the next hollywood blockbuster movie featuring Will Smith and an assortment of popular rappers du jour.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  61. Re-release Rescue on Fractalus or Star Raiders by tarpitcod · · Score: 1

    If only they would re-release this. Or Star-Raiders. (Not Star-Raiders 2). Star Raiders was amazing at the time it came out.
    Then I would think about buying one.

    I don't care about movie quality football.

    I want to hear the sound of Zylon ships attacking, crank the engines to full power and scream thru space to save another space-station

  62. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    Hiring one or two CG supes from visual effects comapnies does not suddenly make you know how to make movies.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  63. xbox 2 ? yikes by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

    XBox was such as dismal flop considering how much money Microsoft has put into R&D, as well as Microsoft's marketing power.

    For those who argue that first-generation products suffer from lack of name recognition, take a cue from Sony Playstation 1, which came out of nowhere, ruined Sega, and created a severe dent on Nintendo.

    And for those trying to compare XBox's flop to Itanium, it's completely different. A brand-new CPU architecture requires an ENTIRE infracstructure to support it, from OS to hardware drivers to sofware and to vendor support, and people tend to suffer from lost-cost syndrome by continuing pouring more money to support their great ol' platform that's been crunching their mission-critical data for years before, and probably years ahead. There's no "prior" investment for a consumer to buy a new console. PS2 claims backward compatability with PS, but honestly, who seriously plays PS games these days (other than the utterly nostalgic). Nintendo Gamecube didn't have backward compatability, but didn't flop.

    1. Re:xbox 2 ? yikes by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      a buddy of mine still plays ffVII nearly every day. Its hard to get him to come over and play tiger woods when he's "walking in squares"

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    2. Re:xbox 2 ? yikes by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I would hardly call Xbox a flop. Even if it didn't sell as well as Microsoft expected, it's still leading the way for seamless online multiplayer both for consoles and the PC, it's still decent hardware for the price, and it's clear that Microsoft is dedicated to supporting it for at least another 3-4 years.

      Less successful than expected, perhaps, but "flop?" Not even close.

    3. Re:xbox 2 ? yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What R&D? They took off-the-self PC parts and crammed it into a crappy ugly box. If you mean all the R&D that went into the controller, then I understand.

    4. Re:xbox 2 ? yikes by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

      a flop is defined by poor ROI - profit / R&D costs, not by price, future years of support, or simply a "leader" for online multi-player games. if the number of players doesn't mean the financial hurdle, it's a flop. that just simply means that the online-edition of all 3 consoles are way poorly performing, but unlike PS2 or NGC, Microsoft relies heavily on their online revenue. NGC can make a profit just on Mario and Pokemon.

      Intel makes a profit on each Itanium chip it makes, but it's a flop because it's profit is too weak for the amount of R&D dumped in by Intel and HP combined.

    5. Re:xbox 2 ? yikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XBox leading the way for seamless online multiplayer? Really. Cuz I was playing great online multiplayer games years before XBox existed.

      And flop, is probably accurate. When you have to sell the hardware at a large loss, you qualify as a flop. See the whole point of business, is to make profits from the items you produce. When you sell a product for less than the cost to make it, you have failed. Of course with a company like MicroShaft, who can sell at a loss for as long as it takes to kill the competition, maybe they have a different definition of flop.

  64. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half-Life 2 was a game? I thought it was a movie made to advertise the engine behind Counter-Strike Source...

  65. Re:Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gamin by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1

    I did this in the first unreal, second level, when you walk outside the ship onto the beautiful planet complete with birds, waterfalls, grass, and even a sort of bunny/deer sorta thing. I spend about 15 minutes just wandering around going "OMG this is beautiful". This was 1998 on the Voodoo 2.

    PS: Same thing happened with Unreal 2. Epic sure knows how to make beautiful games. Oh, and more recently Crytek with their Far Cry game. I spent most of the demo swimming with the fish, checking out the birds.

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
  66. Leave Distribution the Hell Alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    He said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.

    This sounds like a stillborn idea if I've every heard one.

    Digital distribution was already a major irritant with Steam, on a platform where users have grown used to having to download hundreds of megabytes of patches over the lifetime of a game. Console gamers don't expect to have to put up with this kind of crap. Not to mention that parents like to feel secure that they they plop their kid down in front of a console, that kid's not going to be costing them 10 bucks a pop to download new levels.

    Why, oh why, must we always hear about the wonderful benefits of digital distribution for games? Who's asking for this great advancement exactly? Besides the game companies, who see it as the first step toward squeezing the consumer beyond the already exorbitant 50 bucks they charge now, that is?

    The whole paradigm just strikes me as an excuse for game companies to maximize profits while doing less and less work. A lofty goal in itself, but if it means that when I spend good money on a game I don't really own anything, I ain't down with that.

    1. Re:Leave Distribution the Hell Alone by Bluesy21 · · Score: 1

      Yeah this type of thing is getting absolutely ridiculous. I for one would refuse to pay for a game and then have to pay for the content beyond a particular point.

      It's bad enough that game companies are releasing sequels that are barely an improvement on the original; not to mention sports games that are just as expensive and are vitually just a new GUI with updated rosters. But, this must be great for the game companies because instead of having to make new video's and story lines...they don't even have to make a sequel! They can just have you buy new levels and continue the game that way. Shoot, they could even sell the cheats for the game.

      I am not down with this either except maybe in the area of sports games. I'd pay $10 a year for roster updates and maybe some new features on essentially the same game, rather than the $50 they want now. For some reason though, I don't think the game publishers would find that scenario very convienent.

    2. Re:Leave Distribution the Hell Alone by BumBiscuit · · Score: 1
      I am not down with this either except maybe in the area of sports games. I'd pay $10 a year for roster updates and maybe some new features on essentially the same game, rather than the $50 they want now. For some reason though, I don't think the game publishers would find that scenario very convienent.

      Indeed, EA and Take Two have just put the kibosh on that very thing by entering into exclusive agreements with the NFL and the MLBPA respectively. I can't speak to Take Two's reasoning, but EA undoubtedly penned their contract because Sega was eating into their market share by charging an unprecedentedly reasonable $20 for their sports titles.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  67. Actually... by temojen · · Score: 1

    A DVD is 720x480 (NTSC), which is ~0.3 megapixels. Most of the next generation consoles will probably be similar (they plug in to a TV). Movies are usually 35mm frames at 3200 DPI, which works out to about 4400x2800 (the numbers elude me at the moment; my (still image) film scanner at home is the same quality); this is ~25 megapixels.

    At any rate, a slightly out of date stand alone console will never be able to produce in real time what a massive bleeding-edge renderfarm can produce in non-real time.

    Fortunately, it won't have to.

  68. Re:We are going in the WRONG direction for desktop by htmlboy · · Score: 1
    We need more parallel processing applications. We need to drop the intel isa architecture(heat,effectiveness).

    The reason why we use AMD and Intel is because of applications are all intel isa based. We need effective parallel processing compilers . Who cares about word processing software that might get slowed down . Graphics,mathematics and sciences,and supercomputing will get a BIG BOOST.

    i think slashdot linked to this article on the ps3's cell processor a few days ago, and i found it to be good light reading on this topic.

    i disagree with the author on the general use pc-killing potential of the cell because it's hard to parallelize most operations. most people want one thing to run really quickly at a time, and for those people, x86 is serving them very well. a compiler won't be able to do much to split something like X or a media player into lots of parallel threads, so the only applications that'll benefit from such a radical change are those expressly written to use that. so while a cluster of playstation 3's has huge potential for stream processing, it wouldn't really be relevant to the average user running the applications that such average users put on their average computers.

    it's more likely that a cell processor may be used to complement an x86 cpu in future pc's to accelerate things along the lines of the gpu-accelerated video editor mentioned on slashdot earlier today.
  69. Leave Distribution the Hell Alone by BumBiscuit · · Score: 1
    He said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.

    This sounds like a stillborn idea if I've every heard one.

    Digital distribution was already a major irritant with Steam, on a platform where users have grown used to having to download hundreds of megabytes of patches over the lifetime of a game. Console gamers don't expect to have to put up with this kind of crap. Not to mention that parents like to feel secure that they they plop their kid down in front of a console, that kid's not going to be costing them 10 bucks a pop to download new levels.

    Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing about the wonderful benefits of digital distribution for games? Who's asking for this great advancement exactly? Besides the game companies, who see it as the first step toward squeezing the consumer beyond the already exorbitant 50 bucks they charge now, that is?

    The whole paradigm just strikes me as an excuse for game companies to maximize profits while doing less and less work. A lofty goal in itself, but if it means that when I spend good money on a game I don't really own anything, I ain't down with that.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  70. The Uncanny Valley by JojoLinkyBob · · Score: 1

    Why it's not good for games to approach too much realism:

    Uncanny Valley

    --
    -jc
  71. It's sad by ShawnMcCool42 · · Score: 1

    how unforgiving you are.

  72. WHat about innovation on the PS2? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if you can exactly credit Sony for this, but what about the EyeToy, and headsets with non-traditional uses (i.e. Karioke Revolution instead of just voice chat in multiplayer games).

    I would say these are far better examples of innovation, becuase they hve both been wildly successful (something like over 10 million EyeToys sold now!) unlike the examples you provided.

    Microsoft has not done much, but even there one comapny had a very cool full custom control for a mech game (that really was more the game maker than Microsoft at work).

    Also, the PS2 has had some really original titles like Rez or Katamari Damacy. Nintendo has had some different stuff out, but nothing quite that edgy. Not even aything as wierd as Seaman on the Dreamcast!

    I am a big fan of Nintendo, the hardware and games they create. But I do think Sony deserves a lot of credit for a really diverse library.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Xbox Live might not be revolutionary-- it's not the first system with voicechat, or emails, or buddy lists or download, but it sure has done a good job of integrating all those features into a tight package. If not revolutionary, it's certainly evolutionary.

    2. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the PS2 has had some really original titles like Rez or Katamari Damacy. Nintendo has had some different stuff out, but nothing quite that edgy. Not even aything as wierd as Seaman on the Dreamcast!

      I find the SCE development development group that made ICO is proving to make quite original games.

      Not only ICO, but Wanda & Colossus (google is your friend) look specially different to current tendencies in videogames. Being playable and artistically rendered, while on that.

      Could they become the biggest Nintendo development rival?

    3. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by drxray · · Score: 1

      Rez was originally a Dreamcast game, it only got ported to PS2 after the DC died. The graphics are allegedly better on Dreamcast...

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    4. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      Sony deserves no credit for it. The developers do. Sony is primarily a platform company that has the library they do because of sheer inertia.

      99% of the good games that came out on the PS2 could've easily gone to the XBox... or the Gamecube. And they probably would've been better for it. The point is that Sony doesn't, by and large, make them or even have an interest in the companies that do.

      Sony has made a few good games. Gran Turismo(not my cup of tea, but it's good) and ICO to name two. Nintendo pretty much LIVES on their first and second parties alone, while if it weren't for third parties, what would Sony be left with?

      A handful of games, and a console that breaks at the drop of a hat. I don't understand platform loyalty. Developer loyalty, yea.

      Oh and Rez was originally a DC game, and Katamari Damacy is made by Namco.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    5. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Nintendo pretty much LIVES on their first and second parties alone, while if it weren't for third parties, what would Sony be left with?

      The first party is the manufacturer; the second party is the user. How many GameCube users write their own games?

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    6. Re:WHat about innovation on the PS2? by mink · · Score: 1

      As a PS2 and DCowner the DC version IMO is better, but lacks trance vibe ;)

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  73. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By indistinguishable from movies, they mean that they'll be pegged to a fixed 24 frames/sec.

    OK, maybe 29.97 frames/sec.

  74. New slogan for the PS3 by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "As powerful as we said the PS2 would be!"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. Xbox 2 & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It be cool if Microsoft outsourcced the design of the Xbox 2 to Apple, while the first xbox is a great console, it's a big as a house and looks like crap.

    1. Re:Xbox 2 & Apple by necrodeep · · Score: 1

      Considering the development workstations reportedly shipped by Microsoft are reportedly Apple G5's running a tweaked, slimmed down version of Windows XP - that doesn't sound so far fetched....

      I still don't think it will ever happen...

    2. Re:Xbox 2 & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm almost positive that the G5s microsoft is shipping for dev unites are running OS X. They may have some win XP derivative for emulating the OS to be used on the XBOX2, but not as the actual OS for the machine

  76. They did. Nine years ago. by solios · · Score: 1

    The Pippin was an Apple-developed gaming console / set top box, circa 1996.

    They hit the gaming market (and failed) long before Microsoft even thought about it. :P

  77. Nice try. Thanks for playing! by beldraen · · Score: 1

    If there is anything that I have learned is: the latest generation of children have be trained to have attention spans measured in nanoseconds. Game play is next to non-existent and is not much farther than pushing the right button in the right order, and half of the game play (or more) is done automatically by the computer.

    If a kid today cannot figure out something that goes "wizzzz! Bang!" within 20 seconds of picking up the joystick, it's a dead game. I was playing a game a while back a friend of mine's teenage boy and some of his friends. I had never played the game before and yet promptly started to beat the crap out of them. The concept of feints, parries, timed response, and multiple-attack strategy was simply beyond them. I feigned lack of interest and join the rest of the adults because I felt bad about trying not to show them up. They thought it was cool to mash the buttons.

    --
    Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
  78. Let's dream by octal666 · · Score: 1

    SEGA-Sammy on the software, Apple on the Hardware

    --
    DON'T PANIC
  79. 2.5 years ago by dargon · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it about 2.5 years ago when nVidia released the GeForce2 and their press release included the statement "Achieving Pixar-level animation in real-time has been an industry dream for years," explains Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO at NVIDIA. "With twice the performance of the GeForce 256 and per-pixel shading technology, the GeForce2 GTS is a major step toward achieving that goal."

    This statement was later refuted by various partisans of high-end animations tools, such as Tom Duff of Pixar, who said;

    ---------------------

    `Pixar-level animation' runs about 8 hundred thousand times slower than real-time on our renderfarm cpus. (I'm guessing. There's about 1000 cpus in the renderfarm and I guess we could produce all the frames in TS2 in about 50 days of renderfarm time. That comes to 1.2 million cpu hours for a 1.5 hour movie. That lags real time by a factor of 800,000.)

    Do you really believe that their toy is a million times faster than one of the cpus on our Ultra Sparc servers? What's the chance that we wouldn't put one of these babies on every desk in the building? They cost a couple of hundred bucks, right? Why hasn't NVIDIA tried to give us a carton of these things? -- think of the publicity milage [sic] they could get out of it!

    ---------------------

    So when is Pixar due to refute this new statement, that the PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

  80. PC vs. PS2 game replay value by Pulzar · · Score: 1

    My main reason for not playing games, or investing money in PC-gaming at all, is because I think all the PS2 games I've played have a higher entertainment value and especially replay value.

    I'm not sure how you can say that PC games don't have as good of a replay value -- a lot of PC-only games (like Civ-type strategies, and RTS games) are famous for exactly that, the replay value. Other replay-value games like sports titles are all available on pretty much every console and PC.

    What type of games are you referring to when you say that PS2 has replay value that PC doesn't?

    --
    Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    1. Re:PC vs. PS2 game replay value by trezor · · Score: 1

      Well, there are games like Grand Turismo (most enjoyable driving somiulator I've played), Tekken (beat em up), Devil May Cry (action adventure), Dark Chronicle (adventure), not to mention the very famous GTA series, which for some period was a PS2-exclusive.

      I guess you could list a lot of games for the PC that has decent replay value, like Civ. I really liked Civ, but I played that ages ago on my Amiga. In the end, I couldn't be bothered anymore. As much as it's a good example, I think it's to old to be valid one.

      But you may be right. Maybe in fact times have changed, and that the PC now has tons of games worth playing again and again. However when I bought my PS2, and for some years after, PC games seemed to exclusively focus on good graphics, but had lousy gameplay.

      While the PS2 hardware now is more or less obsolete, it still doesn't take the fun out of the games. Now I realize fun is a highly subjective quality, but I was merely replying to someone claiming anyone with a PS2 was moron trying to be cool.

      But fact of the matter is most PS2 games I've played have had a feel to it that just makes them (in my eyes) so much better than any PC game I've ever played, regardless of graphics and what not a common PC today can easily beat. I even played GTA Vice City on a PC, and quite frankly iy sucked. I don't know how they did it, but all the fun was somehow taken out of it compared to the PS2-version. Better graphics as usual, though.

      Anyway, sitting in my couch in front of my 29" telly with multiple controllers playing games on my PS2 with my friends is a considerable more social event than staring at your computer typing "fragfest!" in a chatwindow.

      For all I know, the consoles are about having a jolly good time with your friends, while PC games seem to focus on just being good games.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    2. Re:PC vs. PS2 game replay value by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the fun of sitting in front of a large TV and playing with friends is a big plus for consoles. The ease of use, i.e. putting in a CD/DVD and turning the thing on lets you play it while sitting on the couch, it a big plus for me, too.

      But, almost all decent PCs these days have TV out capabilities, and even PS2/XBOX controller -> USB converters available for very little $$$, so PCs can be set up to play just like the consoles -- in your living room, on a big TV, with a bunch of friends.

      For all I know, the consoles are about having a jolly good time with your friends, while PC games seem to focus on just being good games.

      That's an argument I've heard a lot, and it sounds reasonable. But, I'm not sure if it's a good one -- just look at the list of games you've made as the good PS2 games. Most of them are single-player games!

      BTW, Civ has come a long way from the Amiga days, and Civ 3 : Conquests is only a year or so old, and they're still, arguably, making great improvements to the franchise. If you enjoyed the old Civ, you should really give the latest incarnation a shot.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
  81. Its all about online by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

    Unless Sony delivers an online experience on par or exceeding XBox Live, they're going to get a drumming come XBox2. Halo2 is one of the nicest and easiest to use online expereinces I've had on any game platform, and unless Sony can match it they're going to fall behind in that arena.

    1. Re:Its all about online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Sony might do alright. Some people like to own consoles that have more than 7 titles available. Remember XBox was going to kill the PS2. That didn't go so well. So they droped the price. That didn't work. So they dropped it some more. Still didn't work.

      When you can't beat your competition selling your products at a loss, then there is some other factor that you are ignoring.

      Does Sony need to develop a great online service, probably. Can they do that, of course. So they have market share, loyal customers, and a huge number of companies publishing games for them. I don't see XBox in any version in the near future knocking them out of the top spot.

  82. This is all bullshit! Perhaps next time in 4 yrs?! by guilhermesa · · Score: 1

    Too bad none of these video games will make me go WOW, like things back 6-8 years ago. Those days, we went from primitive, cool and some what still simple things, to revolutionary complex environments -- basically a revolution in realism. Nowadays, we have been progressing smoothly, with no real breakthroughs. The competition is holding steady, and they insist in releasing all these damn machines at the same time, just to hold back time and guide us slowly through this revolution, that way perhaps they will gain one more of us as an audience. Fuck this! I hate waiting!! I want a damn space machine!!!

  83. Er.. those are called peripherals my friend. by AzraelKans · · Score: 1
    Peripherals does not equal "innovation" it basically means they want you to expend more money (on devices) to play the same games .

    Innovation is when a game is created and that breaks with the schemes set by other games before or when a possibility in a genere never explored before is used. There are TONS of innovative games (REZ, ico, pimkin, katamari damacy etc) but they are overweighted by the flashy hyped games that fit in a more commercial criteria. (innovation does not guarantee success) thats why most companies aim at standard games BUT try to set records in realism, or "shock value" .

    And by the way. Nintendo DID NOT invented any of those devices they simply "ported" them to their systems.

    • Stylus screen->palm pc's
    • Touch screen? ->PC
    • Dance Pad-> Konami Japan/Andamiro Corea(nobody knows which one was first)
    • Rumble pack-> sony (ps1)
    • Power Glove-> PC early VR designs
    • Motion Controller-> PC (3d motion pro)
    • Hand helds(gameboy)-> Japanese LCD games.
    • Konga bonga->sega dreamcast (Samba de Amigo).
    • Lightgun->Early arcade games


    Oh yeah and they did not invented: Pokemon, Wario, Metroid (which is basically a clone of castlevania) either. They were made by small indie companies and sold to Nintendo afterwards. Their only original and succesful franchises are Mario and Zelda.

    Go ahead MOD my day!
    --
    Go ahead MOD my day!
    More opinions here
    1. Re:Er.. those are called peripherals my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metroid (which is basically a clone of castlevania)

      Which just means you don't know why Metroid is so special. It's fun for the large, non-linear world which you can explore in almost any order (well, barring some items you need to get). Castlevania is linear--its appeal is something else.

      Especially since Metroid came out a month earlier (8/86 vs. 9/86), at least according to gamefaqs.com.

    2. Re:Er.. those are called peripherals my friend. by drxray · · Score: 1

      Donkey Konga isn't really comparable to Samba de Amigo. SdA is basically DDR with your arms, DK is more like Beatmania games that give you a small piano keyboard. Indeed I think there were drummania games. Konami arcade games, originally, though I think there was a (PS1?) home console adaptation.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    3. Re:Er.. those are called peripherals my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those japanese lcd games were made by nintendo, see game and watch.

      rumble pack, starfox 64, the dual shock came out after that.

      analog first control, thank nintendo for that as well.

      oh and don't forget the D-Pad.

      real 3-d gaming...

      nintendo invents and perfects, everyone else goes ctrl-c/ctrl-v

    4. Re:Er.. those are called peripherals my friend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE get your facts straight...

      "japanese lcd games" = made by nintendo.

      metroid predates castlevania. not only did it come first, it did exploratory adventury so well that konami blatantly ripped off super metroid and made it into "castlevania: symphony of the night" (and i have nothing against that game... it was a great game because it WAS super metroid!)

      dance pad = POWER PAD, (don't worry about konami or andamiro, NINTENDO was first, as usual!)

      nintendo rumble pack predates the sony borrowing of the concept.

      nintendo's analog control stick was the first implementation of analog "on-controller" in a console (besides joysticks, jeez, don't jump on me!)

      nintendo invented the d-pad, which everything after has used.

      right now, nintendo is reinventing the interface for revolution.

      trust history: nintendo is consumed with a need to innovate, which sometimes works to their detriment, as it is often monomanic.

      you have some decent points as well, but notice that the implementation of the vast majority of these concepts in a MAJOR console is always done first by nintendo.

  84. maybe you misread it? by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

    it says "graphics indistinguishable from movies" not "graphics indistinguishable from boobies" like you'd know either way. just kidding, just kidding, oh, who am i kidding... anti-flame armor on

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  85. I'll grant that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'll say they have done an excellent job of showing what an online service can do really well, and have had more buy-in than I thought. I think that counts as well.

    I'd be really surprised in Sony or anyone else does not try to duplicate that soon... After a while I think the possibility of having a user linked to multiple services like Live will surface, and you'll be able to keep a handle across them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  86. Re:Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gamin by octal666 · · Score: 1

    This remainds me a mini-game in the Star Fox, where you had to dominate your fear, in the screen, Fox was assaulted by monsters and nightmares, and there was a line up in the screen with a line that must remain in the central region. When monsters appear, the line moved to one part or the other, the game was old like a NES, and I didn't paid attention to the graphics (if you did, you were lost), don't take me bad, it was time since a game had made me more nervous and stressed.

    --
    DON'T PANIC
  87. New slogan for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You'll almost laugh!"

  88. (revision) by jfisherwa · · Score: 1

    Whoops. What I meant is, the PS2 actually has more games _worth playing_ that support 1080i. ;)

  89. Nintendo is almost irrelavent except for portables by xswl0931 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's face it, except for the Super NES days, Nintendo is largely irrelavent. The Gamecube has not been a huge success outside of Japan (and even then, it's dominated by PS2). Nintendo is known for innovations, but not necessarily leading edge hardware. Nintendo's biggest problem is getting 3rd party support. They were so protective in the past (and also their younger audience stigma) that it's going to be hard for them to get 3rd parties to develop on the Nintendo. It seems like 90% of the games on the Gamecube are by Nintendo, and 80% of those games are sequels. I currently own all 3 systems, and I have the fewest games for the Gamecube. I would prefer if Nintendo became a developer for PS3 or XBox rather than try and introduce yet another machine as it's getting harder and harder to buy a console just for 3 games.

  90. Re:Sure, the PS3 might be faster and more powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll probably look (and sound) something like a refrigerator because it will actually be a refrigerator. Only differerence is the door won't open and it will say Microsoft instead of Kenmore.

  91. Re:Great! Now to ask the important question... by shredluc · · Score: 0

    Great instead of Funny, i get modded 50% redundant, and 50% off-topic. Whoever did that needs to get a PS3 and a couple of porn games and release some of that modding tension...

  92. Re:Great! Now to ask the important question... by shredluc · · Score: 0

    Hey.... Your right.....

  93. Did anyone see this part...? by Sarcastic+Assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Was I the only one who caught this little blurb:
    [Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe,] said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.
    Most of the other posts (at least the ones modded +5) seem to focus on the hardware/marketing BS. Yeah, yeah, that's all well and good, marketing BS is as it always has been: BS. But if something actually similiar to this "starter disc" system were to be released with the next generation of consoles, it would be Very Bad. Think Infinium's Phantom: a system where you download the game, and you never really have a physical copy of the game. I don't know about you, but I despise the idea of some gaming-on-demand system. All the obvious problems people pointed out with the Phantom immediately resurface in my mind: what if you pay for the game, and the server goes down? What if you want to play the game, and the content provider decides to go under maintainence? We've already seen this in thousands upon thousands of disgruntled WoW gamers (though I know that Blizzard is committed to fixing the problems, and that wasn't meant to be an insult of Blizzard at all). For the sake of sane people everywhere, I sincerely hope this newfangled "content delivery system" isn't put into place.

    Also, am I the only one who just wants his consoles to play games? Granted, if I had the cash, I'd build a media center PC in a second, but that'd be dedicated to media. I'm really not feeling good about this whole convergence thing. The convergence thing, along with Bill Gates' push for "trusted computing" really make me trust my computer less.
    1. Re:Did anyone see this part...? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Nah, demo discs or 'sample levels' can be great. My first PlayStation came with an awesome demo disc. I did not have the money to go out and buy a lot of new games but I did have that freebie and let me tell you, it got played over and over and over and I got a HELL of a lot out of it. Most of those games were titles I would not have normally thought of playing but hey, free is free. The demos really sold me on the system.

      Some of those demo titles were at the top of my list when I went game buying later on.

      My Xbox came with no demo disc. I had to get my own games to get started, and I got used games so we're not talking about a lot of money, but I still would have liked to try a bunch of different things via an official Xbox demo disc. You know, maybe I might see some games I'd never think of buying or something.

      --
      Sig for hire.
  94. "Graphics comparable to movies" by AzraelKans · · Score: 1

    I just want to play devils advocate for a while here (goes out to the pinball machine ) when developers say "movie quality" they are actually telling the truth, the catch is that they do not mention the date of the movie they are using for reference...

    Games today,(some at least) are pretty much the same quality than CGI movies of the early 80-90's, Take tron 2.0 per example, the game looks much better than the original CGI in the early 80's movie.
    Actually in the famous presentation of the geforce 3 (where Doom3 was presented by Carmack) nVidia had a realtime presentation of "Flexo Jr" the first movie pixar made (and which is shown in their logo). If you dont think thats impressive, dont worry, the audience didnt get it either.

    So when they say "movie quality" today they are probably referring to Tin toy or maybe toy story 1 (tops) not Shreck or the Lord of the rings.

    Sad as it may be, games CGI versus movie CGI is like trying to catch up your older brother age. No matter how old you get, he will always be older than you. Games need fast processors (and several tricks) to make images more realistic and each generation processors get faster and developers learn new tricks, BUT movies can use the very same tricks millions of times and take hours per frame without anyone complaining for the shot being slower than 1/60 of a second.

    Sometimes though, the tricks get so authentic is hard to surpass them with anything else, take GT4 (or forza motorsport) per example. While some shots still look like CGI from a mile. Some of them are good enough to trick any eye. (specially if caught at movement and a decent distance) will some day the baby brother catch up? Well... theres an actual limit for photo realism and that is well.. reality. and once film and games reach that point, theres nowhere else to go, But we are still a really,really far way from there. (and only then we can worry about people actually confusing reality with games and not only saying so to get media attention and out of law problems)

    --
    Go ahead MOD my day!
    More opinions here
    1. Re:"Graphics comparable to movies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Luxo Jr. and it was not the first animation that Pixar made.

  95. ...Same equipment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know what I want from next-gen consoles? I want them to continue to use the same controllers, hook-ups, and extras. I don't want to go out spend $$$ on a new system only to discover I need to spend another $100+ just to get additional controllers and HDTV hookups.
    Sony repeated themselves with the PS2, I hope Xbox 2 does the same., but ya never know.

  96. Graphics indistinguishable from the movies... by *s.panzer* · · Score: 1

    ... I've heard that somewhere beforee.... (cough) nintendo 64 (cough)

    1. Re:Graphics indistinguishable from the movies... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Nintendo said that?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Graphics indistinguishable from the movies... by *s.panzer* · · Score: 1

      Yeah... it was like in 94 way before it actually came out. Obiously that wasn't their marketing campeign (sp), but they said something along the lines of "We will be featuring a new product with graphics that will look like movies!!" Little did they know that the 32 bit PSone could pump out things like FF9 that put the N64 to shame...

    3. Re:Graphics indistinguishable from the movies... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      FMV never was a big draw for me.

      I further hated (and still hate for the PS2) the lack of texture filtering. Fugly.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  97. Re:Nintendo is almost irrelavent except for portab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it may be your perception that nintendo is "irrelavent" (sic), but your point about the hardware is ridiculous.

    ask anyone who really knows, and you will soon discover that nintendo hardware (most pointedly, the gamecube) is a technological marvel... especially compared side to side with sony's machines.

    the way their engineers eliminated the memory bottleneck in the gamecube is a feat yet to be 'paralleled' in console computer engineering.

  98. Re:Nintendo is almost irrelavent except for portab by pthisis · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, except for the Super NES days, Nintendo is largely irrelavent

    Are you kidding? NES was far more dominant than the SNES. I'd argue that N64 was more important, too. When you think Nintendo, Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, Mario Kart, and Goldeneye have got to come to mind as some of the top titles. I can't think of a single SNES title that had the same social impact (or expanded the console market in the same way), and SNES had the misfortune of coming out at the same time Sonic came out for the Sega.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  99. Re:Nice try. Thanks for playing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, tah heck with teaching them...

  100. Hold your horses. by AzraelKans · · Score: 1

    Is called "modding" and "expansion packs" PC has been doing it for years and nobody has yet shed a tear over it, not even once (well there was the nude pack for Larry but that was a different history). They are just trying to bring the "pc experience" to the non-geek... and failing miserably at it since only geeks care for those. (have you ever meet a non-geek with the ninja gaiden, kotor, halo 2, socom or splinter cell downloadable content installed? )

    --
    Go ahead MOD my day!
    More opinions here
  101. Re:Nintendo is almost irrelavent except for portab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. Goldeneye for the N64 outgrossed the worldwide box office of the movie by heaps. (The movie made around $350 million US and at the time was the biggest Bond Box Office ever).

    How is that irrelevant?

  102. Re:We are going in the WRONG direction for desktop by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

    Not all programming problems are inherently parallel, and some things actually degrade by making them parallel.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  103. I think you give Nintendo too much credit by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

    First, I own all three games you mentioned and enjoyed all of them, but I didn't find them particularly innovative. Mario Sunshine wasn't much different from Mario64 except for the water gun. Metroid was a direct translation from 2D to 3D. With essentially the same gameplay elements if you ignore the fancy graphics. Even the annoying backtracking in levels. Zelda was an evolution of Zelda64. The puzzles reminded me of exactly the same puzzles on the Gameboy version. The sailing was a nice twist, but is it really that different from riding a horse? And fishing out treasure than digging for it? There have been some exceptions like Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion, but most of the stuff from the house of Mario were minor updates to existing franchises. How many Mario Party's do we need? For 1st party releases, I find the stuff coming from Sony the most interesting. Ico and Kri were excellent games.

    1. Re:I think you give Nintendo too much credit by Raunch · · Score: 1

      Ico was incredible.(played the whole thing in an afternoon-evening cause I couldn't stop) But so was (IMHO) Prince of Persia Sands of Time.

      It's fine to say that Metroid , Sunshine, and Zelda were "more of the same humdrum", but I remeber clearly in each case an entire cadre of console fans that were planning on hating all of those games because they deviated so signifigantly from their predecessors.

      Sure there were aspects that remained contstant, for instance all Mario games have had gravity. C'mon, there are certain things that will stay consistant. Maybe it's because I just wait for Zelda, Mario and Metroid but I would say that Nintendo's ratio of games to games that were special was really good. Just because it's a sequel doesn't mean it has to be bad.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
  104. Re:iGame: Microsoft buys an apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Microsoft buys Apple, bases the x-box2 on the mac mini, or maybe the mac mini2 == xbox2, freedom from x86 architecture. Major market penetration. "Macs" are popular again, have all the games. The people are happy, but far away in his island fortress, Bill Gates smiles and a die hard fanboy's head explodes.

  105. But they do help push some things by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Sure Sony has not been the primary developer of these things. But through licencing practises being lienient, and Sony pushing some things (they did help promote the EyeToy to some extent) they are giving direction to developers saying that they welcome and encourage diversity of games. The image Sony has projected for the PS2 has encouraged things like the EyeToy, just as the "edgier" image Microsoft has used for the XBox has brought them more games that fit with that image.

    Sure any other console could have these games. But then the question is, why don't they? And Sony is part of the answer. I don't think marketshare alone accounts for it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  106. Poor documentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, then those Mac developers must be extra smart.

    But seriously. The documentation is amazingly thorough from my perspective, and nicely integrated with XCode. You're basing your opinion of hearsay, methinks.

  107. blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hate sony their so mainstream and microsoft is the same way they just want to make money, ever ps2 and xbox game is just a cutscene and graphics there is no good gameplay for reall innovation u need to go to nintendo and get mario party 1,2,3,4,5, all the mario tennis games,all of the mario platformers. all of the zelda games, all of the pokemon games. oh yeah and u should all the gba games that are all the old NES games except they're on a gameboy and they are so new and so fresh! go nintendo die sony and xbox graphics suck

  108. It's marketshare by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

    and it accounts for a LOT. The liscensing practises aren't that different anymore(that's how Sony gained marketshare in the first place though), and the only thing I can think of that they pushed at all is the EyeToy. Which you mentioned, and which is also fairly recent.

    It's also easier to make a high graphical quality XBox game or Gamecube game than it is to make a PS2 game, but that's kind of tangenital.

    Do you think the Capcom 5 are getting ported to the PS2 because Capcom likes the platform(the general manager at least HATES it and Sony)? They're not. They're being ported because shareholders and management look at the sales on the distantly behind the PS2 Gamecube and think... how much better could we do if we had 4 times the userbase? 4 times the userbase means 4 times the sales! Tada... the game goes to the PS2.

    Niche games also tend to start on the PS2 because of the userbase. Which would you rather develop on, the platform with 100 million people, or one of the platforms with 40 million? Be sure to run your answer through the happy fun business filter. Where does the game go? The PS2.

    --
    The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
  109. Re:Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gamin by sowdog81 · · Score: 1

    My best memory of this isn't some new fangled game but of Metal Gear solid 1 on the ps1. The cut scenes didn't have the greatest graphics but it was rendered by the game engine(i think) and most importantly it was nice to watch. It actually served a purpose of moving the game forward.

  110. Re:iGame - moderating issues by owlstead · · Score: 1

    Though I can see your points about moderation (+5 for something that is not true - according to you) I do have two minds about it. The problem is that to get something up to +5 within the short timeframe provided by slashdot, it's impossible to rely on experts only, or to double-check every story submitted. So people tend to look at layout, low /. subscription numbers, etc. In a perfect world this would not be happening, but sometimes such things are unavoidable. Please keep reading /. and post informative replies if you are thinking something is out of order. That will keep us on the right track. It did for this article...

  111. The easy thing to do... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
    Why wouldn't this work:

    IBM/Sony shares with Apple the details of the cell processor, a modified Power5 with lots of extra vector units. Once these things get good, the start appearing in the mini iMacs with OSX support. We already had an article about how they will speed up ordinary computing a lot with the right software support. The only commercial OS widely in use that has any chance of running on them is OSX or OSXI. But if we're there, why couldn't a future iMac mini just play PS3 games? Well, Sony would need to cooperate, but why wouldn't they? They make little or no money on the conoles themselves, so if Apple is happy to build compatible consoles, why should Sony get upset? Apple has a lot of good vibe to it, and Sony could sell more games/PS3's if they can run the argument that the same disk will work in a Mac as well as the PS3. MS will not be able to duplicate anything like this, because everyone who runs windows has X86 chips and Xbox2 will have PowerPCs.

    So with the help of Sony and IBM, Apple really could make a living room video game console. I wonder what they would want in return... maybe for Sony, a license to run a modified version of OSX? IBM would just have the satisfaction that another company that buys their processors is prospering, and at the same time is hindering MS/Intel's growth in the living room.

    I don't know, did you read the Cringley about the mysterious appearance of Sony people at Jobs's keynote? These companies are ready to be seen together, and maybe even substantially work together.

  112. Is this a joke? by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    If a critical mass of Mac mini systems end up in TV rooms across America, a few game developpers will probably gravitate towards exploiting that market, and Apple may find themselves selling a popular game console entirely by accident.

    Everyone agrees that the Mac mini is not a 3d powerhouse. It has a very weak integrated graphics card with a minimum amount of memory. There is no way that it would become a popular game console. I don't have the exact specs of its graphics hardware on hand, but I'm sure the graphics capabilities of the Xbox and PS2 exceed it (because that's all they do) and don't cost $500.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by Golias · · Score: 1

      I don't have the exact specs of its graphics hardware on hand, but I'm sure the graphics capabilities of the Xbox and PS2 exceed it

      The X-Box is a 700 MHz Celeron with 64 MB of system memory and a slightly-modified GeForce 3 card.

      The PS2 has a proprietary 300 MHz CPU with 32 MB of memory and a proprietary video card with vastly inferior specs to the X-Box. (See this page for the specs if you like.)

      The Mac mini has a 1.25 (or 1.4) GHz G4 PowerPC with at least 256 MB of memory, and an ATI Raedon 9200 video card. It might not stack up well against a high-end "1337" game PC, but compared to the X-Box and PS2, it's a graphics powerhouse!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Is this a joke? by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to look at the overhead, too. I can't speak for Mac OSs, but at least windows takes up a goodly chunk of the available power just to run. I assume it's similar for macs. The Xbox (or even the PS2), on the other hand, has only the bare minimum running, so nearly all of that 700 megahertz is pumping just for Halo 2. While this sort of set up could happen on the Mac (or even, if you were crafty, the PC) the shear number of different hardware configurations makes it a daunting task.

      Also, it should be noted, that due to every Xbox being basicly the same, the developers know how to REALLY squeze every drop out of it.

      Of course, perhaps the Mini Mac is also a massed produced, single configuration item, in which case only half of my argument holds.

      Of course, what do I know anyway? :D

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    3. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The graphics processor in the Mac Mini is integrated on the mobo, sure, but it uses discrete RAM. It is not shared with system RAM as in "integrated" graphics on PCs from the likes of Intel and SiS, et al.

      PS2 and Xbox do not come close to Mac Mini (or any OTHER modern Mac or PC, frankly) in terms of raw 3D processing power. If you work only with the low resolutions that are available on any console (even 1080i is low-res when it comes to PC games nowadays), any modern Mac or PC spanks them in terms of 3D capabilities. And I say this as a long-time console gamer who doesn't have any kind of bias towards PC games - I tend to detest them (and therefore, pretty much all of the Xbox lineup as well).

      But I do agree that standardized Macs/PCs do not stand a chance of becoming popular as standalone game platforms. What they ARE good for is setting a good low water mark for game developers. When the first iMac came out, game pubs worked very hard to make sure that their games played well on it, just because the systems were immensely popular. In fact, you'll still see it in the Mac publisher scene: If there is some breakthrough Mac model, publishers will push very hard to make sure that their software runs well on that model at the very least (meaning that they aim for lower specs too, if possible), and scales up from there. You don't really see that in the PC world, just because it's rare to see a breakthrough standardized PC spec that is identifiable as the Mac equivalent, which tends to come in the form of a brand new model and/or form factor.

    4. Re:Is this a joke? by Golias · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to look at the overhead, too. I can't speak for Mac OSs, but at least windows takes up a goodly chunk of the available power just to run. I assume it's similar for macs.

      And what does OS overhead have to do with the fact that the X-Box and PS2 are loaded with video cards which are vastly inferior to the one in the Mac mini?

      The mini runs World of Warcraft smoothly at 1080p. If it was released for the console, the X-Box would struggle greatly to even do so at 1080i or 720p, and the PS2 would have to dial all the way down to NTSC resolutions.

      I'm certain that the mini would have no trouble at all running a ported version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  113. Yes. PCs from 3 years AGO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move along, asswipe.

  114. You are mistaken about the video capabilities. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    It has a Radeon 9200 (better than the gForce 3 in the XBox)

    The Radeon 9200 is slower than the Geforce 3. It's even slower than the Radeon 9000, and THAT was slower than the GF3.

    In addition, the Xbox doesn't really have a Geforce 3 in it, it has a variant that was never released in the PC world. It's the NV2A, and it's partly between the Geforce3 and Geforce4. It has 2 vertex pipelines instead of one and is faster than the PF3.

    1. Re:You are mistaken about the video capabilities. by Herbmaster · · Score: 1

      This is true. However, the Mac Mini's Radeon 9200 has 32MB of DDR memory - as in, dedicated to video. The XBox, as I recall, has no dedicated video memory and shares the system's DDR memory for video. I don't think there's any question, the system taken as a whole, the Mac Mini is faster than an XBox. Of course, without DirectX on the Mac, there is no way to make any reasonable benchmark comparison between the two for purposes of this discussion (gaming).

      --
      I'm not a smorgasbord.
  115. PS3 Developers Kits by Kaldaien · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that SONY hasn't yet sent out any developer's kits. As I understand "Cell", it sounds remarkably similar to the concept of separating video/audio processing from "central" processing.

    Of course recently (on the grand scheme of real-time computer graphics), developers have had to adapt to a separation of processing at the GPU level. With vertex processors and fragment (pixel) processors. When this came to pass, it was a radically different way of thinking about your graphics workload. Now that the work of the graphics pipeline is split between several different processor units, implementing something like tangent space normal mapping requires a close coupling between two completely separate processors.

    Of course tangent space lighting's a simple example. It's possible to immitate the holy grail of computer graphics now with vertex/fragment programs, using math kernels and treating textures as arrays, fragment programs as loops, etc... But it's rather clunky and still far from a general purpose graphics processor.

    It's not completely unmanagable this way, but it gives a general idea. And it even seems the hardware manufacturers are beginning to doubt the solution of having specialized vertex/fragment processors (ATI saying they want to unify the shader units, and the Shader Model 3.0 specs, allowing vertex ops to be done in fragment progs and fragment ops (i.e. texture lookups) in vertex progs).

    Multiply the situation times 5 and you've got the PS3 Cell... SONY better start handing PS3 Developer Kits out fast, because the architecture looks to 5 times more complicated than when real-time hardware graphics introduced Vertex/Fragment separation.

    I'm not saying it's going to be impossible or even difficult to write games for the PS3. But "Cell" won't be a selling point of the console unless they thoroughly drill their licensed developers how to utilize it by console launch...

    Microsoft on the other hand, is said to be using something similar to DirectX 9.0c (with Shader Model 3.0). Developers have had access to Shader Model 3.0 hardware for over a year now, and the XDK2's already out.

    Microsoft has the clear advantage there... Especially since launch titles could potentially include ports of highly successful DirectX 9 PC titles.

    And Nintendo's, well Nintendo :P
    The only time they had a stationary console that was the most capable and had the largest library of games was the Famicom (NES) during the 80s.

    It's clear Nintendo will release a new console, and it WILL have a sizable library of 1st party games featuring the Nintendo characters we've all known and loved for the past 20 years. But the rest is shaky...

    It's always been that way. SEGA was the same way (developer relations and hardware design wise) with their 32X (SEGA's version of the Virtual Boy disaster =P) Saturn and Dreamcast and now they're software only.

    In summary, no big surprise that Microsoft has developers kits available already... They're adapting the DirectX architecture, working with a Shader Model 3.0 spec. But SONY is a bit of a surprise. And Nintendo's just being Nintendo :)

  116. Sounds just like the PS2 hype! by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    How soon we forget...

    When the PS2 was about to come out, they claimed that it could render "Toy Story-like" graphics in realtime. When the PS2 came out, it could not.

    Now they say the same thing about the PS3. I'm getting tired of being fed the same lines.

    How long do they think a horse will keep on walking if you dangle a carrot in front of it?

    1. Re:Sounds just like the PS2 hype! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long have people been buying Microsoft Products?

  117. DDR Ultramix 2 for Xbox... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

    ... is the worst of both worlds.

    You pay a full $40 for the game, and then you have to pay $5 each to download "song packs" from Xbox Live if you want the old songs that are included in every other version of the game for free.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  118. Halo for Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please quote your source.

    1. Re:Halo for Mac? by Golias · · Score: 1

      Some of us were there, son. We don't need sources to talk about history we lived through. I remember well the days of Bungie revealing their plans for Halo. It was to be a Mac game for sure, and probably a cross-platform networked game allowing PC's to play on the same network. (When they ported Marathon 2 to Windows, they failed to make it network-compatible with Macs and learned it was a huge mistake. When they released Myth, it was specifically cross-platform compatible.)

      Yes, Halo was meant to be the ultimate Mac game, but Microsoft wanted a showcase piece to compliment the X-Box, so they bought Bungie specifically for HALO, which they adapted to be an exclusive X-Box release, later to be ported to Windows and Mac.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Halo for Mac? by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

      Not entirely correct. Halo was planned to be a cross-platform title from the start, but the PC version was the first one developed because at the time PCs had better 3D hardware than Macs (this was back when the Voodoo 2 and Rage 128 roamed the earth). It was only ported to the Mac right before Macworld.

  119. Rednecks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >XBox was such as dismal flop considering how >much money Microsoft has put into R&D, as well >as Microsoft's marketing power.

    Okay, who let the redneck on this forum?

  120. So how long? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    How long before Nintendo partners with MS and bails out of the console wars?

    How long before Samsung buys a stake in Xbox?

    How long before Apple teams up with Sony on the PS3? (yeah, I know that one has already been chattered about)

    How long before EA tries to buy Nintendo and/or Xbox?

    There are many mergers coming. Bet on it

    --
    Sig for hire.
  121. Nintendo doesn't really innovate... by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

    Analog sticks were more of a Sega thing actually. Mario64 was initially prototyped using the Saturn analog gamepad! IIRC there was also a console back in the 80s that had analog controllers, but the name escapes me (it was obscure, and the analog tech was different than modern console usage). And of course this is all ignoring that analog controls have been in arcades for decades...

    Touchscreen in a portable isn't new either. Ignoring all of the PDAs that have featured it for years (including their games), the dedicated gaming handheld Game.com had a touchscreen.

    64DD was just a fancy disk drive that no one purchased (in fact, you could only get it by renting it essentially!). Hell, Nintendo had a disk drive back for the original Famicom/NES! (The Legend of Zelda was originally released only for that peripheral, actually.)

    Rumble packs were probably a Nintendo innovation (though it was kind of obvious, being basic arcade technology again). But nobody actually uses that specific technology anymore really (I guess some GBA games do maybe)...

    Not sure if they had the first console with 4 controller ports. Most earlier systems at least had add-on hardware that allowed the same (or better). But they certainly popularized it!

    All that said, innovation is overrated in comparison to taking an existing idea and making it work really well. Nintendo has done plenty of that...

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  122. Since we are all being nice and pedantic... by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

    Though the bongos are similar to Samba de Amigo, it's really more of a clone of Namco's insanely successful taiko drum arcade games (that were also ported to the PS2). That's why Nintendo had Namco make the game, too.

    Metroid wasn't a clone of Castlevania, it is the other way around. The first Castlevania (coming out roughly the same time as Metroid back in 1986) was a side-scrolling action game, vaguely similar to something like Contra. And all of the early Metroid games were developed by Nintendo's R&D1 group - hardly a small indie company! (Gunpei Yokoi was the primary creator of the series - he also created the D-pad and the original Gameboy, among lots of other things.)

    Pretty sure that Nintendo created Wario, too. He is just a twisted Mario clone, so I don't see how other companies could have created him... and his first appearance was in Super Mario Land 2. Unless you have some interesting evidence for this claim, you are completely wrong here...

    Nintendo has also created Kirby (done by HAL Laboratories, a Nintendo sub-group), Fire Emblem, Star Fox (with the assistence of Argonaut), the Wars series (starting back with Famicom Wars by Intelligent Systems, also a Nintendo sub-group), and probably plenty of other stuff I am forgetting (Kid Icarus by Gunpei, Battleclash series by Intelligent Systems, etc.).

    I don't disagree that Nintendo's tendency to "innovate" is massively overrated by its fanboy community, but let's at least criticize them for the right things (like recycling the same insipid and vaguely racist character designs for decades just because they have built-in marketing appeal, as an obvious example).

    --
    There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  123. The Multimedia Swiss Army Knife by beyond_the_blue · · Score: 1

    Quoted from the article:
    "It is also likely that they will contain convergence technologies to make the machines more of an entertainment hub."

    I already have a DVD/MP3/CD player, web browser, and one of whatever else they're going to cram into these things. I can understand WHY they're doing it, but it's slightly annoying to think that the retail cost of new gaming systems is being driven up because the devs have to add every shiny feature that current technology will allow.

    I can just imagine the R&D labs at M-Soft:
    "Does it have a WMA player yet? Make sure it has a WMA player. Hell why not two. Oh, and can I check my stocks on it? What about balancing my checkbook?"

    --
    "Sometimes you have fun, and sometimes the fun has you"
  124. Maybe I can clarify... by koi88 · · Score: 1


    I think the original Wolfenstein 3D as well as Quake and Quake II were developed on NeXT hardware running NextStep, OS X's direct predecessor.
    ID said, PCs simply crashed too often to be used for game development. At that time, at least.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
    1. Re:Maybe I can clarify... by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware of Carmack's early affininty for NeXT hardware and software. But my point would be that id did not release Wolfenstein 3D for NeXT or Mac OS. They produced a version for DOS. Similarly Gates and Allen developed their original Basic interpreter on a VAX but it was for release on whatever affordable computer kit that was being sold (Imsai?).

      Making the claim that Wolfenstein 3D was ported to the PC from a Mac version is quite inaccurate. Any PC gamer knows that and it casts doubt on the other real cases like Bungie products and Myst where the Mac did have an edge.

      I think the clarification is well worth noting since so few probably understand how early in the game OS X (then known as NextStep) was a terrific platform. It coexisted with DOS before there was a Windows. We are remarkably fortunate that Apple evolved in such a way that Jobs was first cast out where he could lead (in a business sense) the development of NextStep and then brought back years later with something much better than either Mac OS or Windows.

      What others have missed is that Apple doesn't need to release a game console. The Mac Mini is already capable of playing great games. It is also pre-hacked to uncripple any ham handed attempts to limit it (like the XBox which requires hacking to unleash more or its potential). Just think of a Mac Mini as a pre-hacked console that is already able to hook directly to your HDTV screen (DVI) and use those nifty Bluetooth keyboards, mice, etc. Other than no built in AC3 audio, what's not to like?

  125. Re:PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable fro by obeythefist · · Score: 1

    But haven't you read the marketing blurb from Sony about the Cell? It *is* 1000 times faster!

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  126. Finally enough power by mink · · Score: 1

    in the PS3 to play PS2 games.
    Maybe if we are lucky Sky Gunner will be playable without all the slowdowns.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.