While the horizons may be different for consumer class CPUs and consumer class graphics cards, I think they are still there. Consumers are not going to care whether the image rendered in front of them is 90% like reality or 95% like reality. At the rate things are moving, that time will be here soon.
And this still doesn't address the fact that most game companies can't muster enough artists and designers to actually harness all the power they have access to now. Creating virtual realities can be very, very time consuming and unless a leap is made in the process of creation then these features will be useless.
One has to wonder how close to the "who cares?" horizon NVIDIA is getting. The PC world, as a whole, seems to be slowing down because people just don't need the power that the cutting edge tech can offer any more.
I'll use my father-in-law as an example: he bought a P166 about six years ago and after three years he bought a P2/450 because the P166 seemed slow. Now, three years later, his P2/450 is humming right along and he doesn't need an upgrade. Even if he buys Win2k, he'll probably not need anything much more spiffy. The only upgrade we could find that he wanted (and which he got this past Xmas) was a burner. Now he's set for at least another two years, by my estimate, if not longer.
What does this have to do with NVIDIA? Good question, but the answer should be obvious. Another generation or two of graphics cards and we may be at the point that AMD and Intel are at now. No matter how they try to trump up their processors, practically no one really needs one running at greater than 1.5GHz. Even marketing will fail after people start to realize that blue men dancing on their TV screens are just trying to sucker them into a needless upgrade.
Perhaps the games market can push the graphics cards another one or two generations, but I think already we're reaching the limits of what human artists can produce in a limited timeframe (i.e. to meet deadlines to get a game published). Some other revolution, besides "faster!" will be needed.
So turn the idea around a bit. Set up a private network between you and some friends doing the same idea I outlined, only you are only downloading between friends and again only things you own. It's not that hard to contrive an example that trips up these pit bull guys, I think.
Thanks for pointint out the server aspect; my example certainly didn't address it. (And I did read the article, btw.:^)
What happens if someone turns the "honeypot" idea around on the aggressors? That is, imagine that I own 1000 CDs and I set up an automatic downloader from Napster or some other p2p network of *only* mp3s of the music that I already legitimately own that I from various places on that service. Have another program which kills the MP3s as more space is needed. Make a big deal of it, by using all of my available bandwidth 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months. This would have to get attention from the pit bulls after a while.
Then, when they send a subpeona, actually take them to task, countersue on whatever grounds you can (invasion of privacy, frivilous lawsuit, emotional distress, whatever) and go to the courts knowing that you didn't download anything that *wasn't* (as far as you knew) not allowed by "fair use". Besides, you were just using the network to download things that you didn't already have rights to.
Then, once they're busted a few good times, and hopefully had the pants sued off of them and some bad media exposure, see what happens.
There are precedents for subscription-based services out there, and if the software business handles this right, they can do the same.
There is the cable service lots of Americans already use. You don't get to pick the channels that your service provides most of the time. You can purchase upgrades, like premium channels, for more money. And you can't control most aspects of the system. This is pretty close to what I can imagine a company like MS would want to do with their software.
Perhaps closer to software subscriptions is AOL. I've never used AOL, but my impression is that it takes over your desktop and network connection and presents you with lots of highly processed online content and online interaction for a monthly fee. Here, the software is probably "free" in that you don't ever see a bill for the software itself. But the line between "software" and "service" is pretty blurry already.
The extension of the cable and AOL ideas to software like MS Word and even games seems like the natural next step, from the point of view of the creators of that software.
That doesn't mean I like the 1984 and Brave New World taste of it.
What if the topic of studying the CSS algorithm were taken up by someone at a university? For example, if a class on encryption decides to include the DeCSS as part of their class notes? That seems, to me, to be a reasonable and useful role for the DeCSS code.
The next question, of course, is would the lawyers go after a university teaching a completely appropriate course on encryption?
Next, one could start to study the DeCSS and CSS in scholarly papers and try get them published in journals. Even designing a DVD player as part of research on DeCSS/CSS would be a reasonable project goal. Then the fruit of this research could potentially be freely distributed while being protected by the free spread of information law/rules/spirit that universities are built upon.
There are a whole lot of problems with Linux gaming, but things are getting better.
Main problems are:
1) Releases like UT (Win32 only, download Linux binaries) and Q3A (Win32 and Linux, but downloadable binaries allow switching between the two) are more like sitting still than getting ahead. Sure, you can play on Linux, but you're not really enticing anyone to convert.
2) When you get games like Alpha Centauri and SimCity 3000 Unlimited that _can't_ be converted from Windows versions, people get pissed off because they don't want to buy the game twice.
3) The previous two points scream for simultaneous releases, but there are roadblocks here as well. Some are easy to see, like getting someone to port it for you if you don't want to do it in-house and the potentially higher price of a Linux port at the retail stores. But there are even some "hidden" political blocks as well that end up keeping Linux back by having the Win32 version of a game released first.
Good things happening:
1) Better hardware support across the board. I think that 3D hardware problems will be over in a year, maybe sooner.
2) More Linux-aware developers. There is the possibility of more in-house development going on, especially with games based on the UT and Q3A engines. And don't forget Terminus, which was three platforms in one box...including Linux.
3) Wider array of games available. Loki and others are working to provide more than just Quake-ish games.
I took the plunge back in October of 1999 to go Linux completely. I still have Windows on my machine (for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that my wife uses Windows when she works from home) but all my gaming gets done in Linux. There are enough games out there that, along with my normal life outside my computer, I can't play them all as much as I'd like to. I'm not going back to Windows gaming unless Linux and Loki completely fall apart.
There are some fairly big movements in Linux gaming that haven't been made public yet...look for some announcements very soon.;^)
matt
PS. Yes, I know that I'm talking mainly x86 machines here. Yes, I know Linux runs on various other hardware. Yes, I know you can play some of Loki's ports on PPC. Thanks.
Seriously, though, despite what I wrote in the title, there are some pretty strong reasons to think that the X-Box will be fighting a battle that even MS can't solve with their mighty reserves of cash.
1) The lesson of VHS VCRs - Most people keep the same components of their home entertainment systems for years. Just look at how long people hold on to the same VCR (at least 2 years, probably many more). I doubt that people will want to replace their brand spanking new DVD-playing PSX2 with an X-box. Nor will they be very likely to buy it to supplement their primary home entertainment system with a X-box (just as not many people buy several VCRs for their main home entertainment system). The thinking may very well go "Sure, I could play games and watch DVDs and access the internet with an X-box...but I can already do that with my PSX2!"
Sony has reportedly sold a million PSX2s in the first week of their launch, just in Japan. The US and European markets, huge compared to Japan, will get hit with the PSX2 a good 8-12 months before the X-box. That translates into many millions of units of software and hardware sold and once a PSX2 has been bought, the likelihood of an X-box being bought in the next year will be much less.
2) Name recognition - Microsoft will face a very large uphill battle to position themselves to compete against Sony in the living room. Most people associate Microsoft with those computers they use at work or in their homes, not with a system that sits next to their TV and VCR. On the other hand, tens of millions of Playstations have been sold, giving them a clear brand name for games in the living room, and adding a DVD player and possible internet access can only make that position stronger.
3) Timing with DVD - A PSX2 launch this year will probably hit when DVDs suddenly become the "must have" item for most Americans. (I don't know how well DVDs are doing in Europe.) Just looking around me, only a few of my friends (college graduates, grad school, tech work force, 20-35 year olds) have DVD players but most are looking to buy one by the end of this year. Several, having seen the the rise of the PSX, are talking specifically about getting a PSX2 for its dual use (games and DVDs). That's not proof, I understand, since it is anecdotal, but I think it seems reasonable.
4) Capturing the console game makers - Microsoft has listed some big names (Konami, Capcom) as having "signed on" to the X-box developer list. While they need those developers, I'm curious how many will really jump in with both feet. Those developers would be foolish to not say "we're considering the system" but are probably not actually under any contract to really develop for the system. Several of these companies (Capcom with Resident Evil and Konami with Metal Gear Solid) know that begin associated with Sony and the Playstation has been a fantastic partnership for them. With indications that Sony's machine will do extremely well out of the gate, they'd be giving up a lot if they started making exclusive deals with Microsoft.
5) Icon appeal - Sony has Crash Bandicoot and several other recognized properties (like Spyro, Gameday, Twisted Metal, or Jet Moto) that they can leverage in marketing to pull in the gamers with games and related advertising. Nintendo, as another example, can release Pokemon or Mario anything and make several million in sales. Microsoft will probably have to come up with a comparable set of icons to market their machine and the software it runs and to this point, the PC market has been a tad anemic in that department. If MS can pull in the big companies (as mentioned in 4) this may not be such a big deal.
Anyway, that's the stuff I've been thinking about...should be an interesting play to watch it unfold.
This is a good move by Loki and Creative, although Creatives involvement might put off other audio companies from wanting to use it - I bet the API is particularly suited towards Creative chipsets.
From what I can tell from talking to Michael Vance, the standard is as neutral as, say, OpenGL. That is to say, we're not in a position to say that OpenGL is geared more towards NVIDIA cards than towards 3dfx or ATI cards. OpenAL has been designed in the same spirit and should favor no hardware over another, in principle.
Now, if one company has hardware support for more features than another, it may seem as though the API is geared more towards the former hardware than the latter, but that's not the fault of the API.
Here are the questions I'd like to hear some responses to:
1. Couldn't porting actually hurt Linux gaming in the end? That is, if you really want to see Linux succeed as a gaming platform, shouldn't you push parallel development on the target platforms, not publish on one platform and then port to others? Assuming that original development on the Linux platform (as opposed to porting) is the ultimate goal, doesn't that mean that you're essentially working towards your own obsolescence? That is, if you succeed in making Linux a successful platform for gaming, doesn't that mean that Loki writes themselves right out of the picture? How would Loki deal with a market where parallel development suddenly became the norm rather than the exception?
2. There have been various reports that the PC is actually declining as a gaming platform. Since Linux gaming is a small niche in that market, doesn't it stand to hurt you more when and if such a decline takes place? Do you see any strengths that Linux has (over say Windows and MacOS) that would help it weather a declining market more easily?
3. Consoles are hugely successful and the PC has yet to take a huge bite out of their market, despite the presence of such juggernauts as Microsoft and id Software. Can Linux actually hope to do better against consoles, where Windows has failed? If you really think that Linux can do better, could you please outline how?
4. Is Loki dedicated to just Linux? There could be a potentially profitable market with Macintosh hardware and the impending release of MacOS X. Seemingly, the BSD quality of OS X would make it a great target for games already ported to Linux. Are you considering MacOS X as a future platform?
Thanks for considering (and possibly even answering) these questions.
I'm using a Celeron 300A @ 450MHz with 128Mb of RAM and a Voodoo3-3000. With the visual quality settings that I like, the game runs acceptably fast under RH 6.1 at 1024x768. It isn't quite as smooth as Unreal Tournament, IMHO, but it's quite good.
Having Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Ultima Online, Kingpin, and Unreal Tournament all running under Linux was the primary reason I switched from Win95. I've preordered (and hope to receive) the tin box version of Quake 3 Arena (which contains the Windows version) just to have the tin box. I won't be opening that one at all and will be ordering a Linux version that will actually get played.
I emailed someone that I should know and I'll paraphrase the responses:
Q: I hear a rumour that XiG has bought away several of the XF86 developers. A: A totally erroneous rumor.
Q: Why no new snapshots? A: Because the developer in charge of snapshots hasn't uploaded any, probably due to having a life outside of XF86 development.
Q: Has the CVS been shut down? A: No, in fact an update was made last week.
Q: When will XF86 4.0 be released? A: Unknown, but it has not been terminated. There are still issues to be resolved and, as with all development, they want to avoid releasing a bad version.
Slashdot Mirror
And this still doesn't address the fact that most game companies can't muster enough artists and designers to actually harness all the power they have access to now. Creating virtual realities can be very, very time consuming and unless a leap is made in the process of creation then these features will be useless.
I'll use my father-in-law as an example: he bought a P166 about six years ago and after three years he bought a P2/450 because the P166 seemed slow. Now, three years later, his P2/450 is humming right along and he doesn't need an upgrade. Even if he buys Win2k, he'll probably not need anything much more spiffy. The only upgrade we could find that he wanted (and which he got this past Xmas) was a burner. Now he's set for at least another two years, by my estimate, if not longer.
What does this have to do with NVIDIA? Good question, but the answer should be obvious. Another generation or two of graphics cards and we may be at the point that AMD and Intel are at now. No matter how they try to trump up their processors, practically no one really needs one running at greater than 1.5GHz. Even marketing will fail after people start to realize that blue men dancing on their TV screens are just trying to sucker them into a needless upgrade.
Perhaps the games market can push the graphics cards another one or two generations, but I think already we're reaching the limits of what human artists can produce in a limited timeframe (i.e. to meet deadlines to get a game published). Some other revolution, besides "faster!" will be needed.
Like Citizen Kane. What is that? CRAP!
Or The Maltese Falcon. That's crap too.
Or the original Gameboy. Shades of black on the screen. Ergo crap.
Or even that asshole M. C. Escher. Lots of shades of black there. And it was craptacular.
sigh
Thanks for pointint out the server aspect; my example certainly didn't address it. (And I did read the article, btw. :^)
Then, when they send a subpeona, actually take them to task, countersue on whatever grounds you can (invasion of privacy, frivilous lawsuit, emotional distress, whatever) and go to the courts knowing that you didn't download anything that *wasn't* (as far as you knew) not allowed by "fair use". Besides, you were just using the network to download things that you didn't already have rights to.
Then, once they're busted a few good times, and hopefully had the pants sued off of them and some bad media exposure, see what happens.
Then again, I need another Mountain Dew...
There is the cable service lots of Americans already use. You don't get to pick the channels that your service provides most of the time. You can purchase upgrades, like premium channels, for more money. And you can't control most aspects of the system. This is pretty close to what I can imagine a company like MS would want to do with their software.
Perhaps closer to software subscriptions is AOL. I've never used AOL, but my impression is that it takes over your desktop and network connection and presents you with lots of highly processed online content and online interaction for a monthly fee. Here, the software is probably "free" in that you don't ever see a bill for the software itself. But the line between "software" and "service" is pretty blurry already.
The extension of the cable and AOL ideas to software like MS Word and even games seems like the natural next step, from the point of view of the creators of that software.
That doesn't mean I like the 1984 and Brave New World taste of it.
The next question, of course, is would the lawyers go after a university teaching a completely appropriate course on encryption?
Next, one could start to study the DeCSS and CSS in scholarly papers and try get them published in journals. Even designing a DVD player as part of research on DeCSS/CSS would be a reasonable project goal. Then the fruit of this research could potentially be freely distributed while being protected by the free spread of information law/rules/spirit that universities are built upon.
Just a thought.
matt
_xp__t to h_ar from my lawy_r_.
matt
Th_ Unit__ _tat__ wa_ on__ a fr__ _ountry, but not anymor_.
matt
[This message edited by the MPAA.]
There are a whole lot of problems with Linux gaming, but things are getting better.
;^)
Main problems are:
1) Releases like UT (Win32 only, download Linux binaries) and Q3A (Win32 and Linux, but downloadable binaries allow switching between the two) are more like sitting still than getting ahead. Sure, you can play on Linux, but you're not really enticing anyone to convert.
2) When you get games like Alpha Centauri and SimCity 3000 Unlimited that _can't_ be converted from Windows versions, people get pissed off because they don't want to buy the game twice.
3) The previous two points scream for simultaneous releases, but there are roadblocks here as well. Some are easy to see, like getting someone to port it for you if you don't want to do it in-house and the potentially higher price of a Linux port at the retail stores. But there are even some "hidden" political blocks as well that end up keeping Linux back by having the Win32 version of a game released first.
Good things happening:
1) Better hardware support across the board. I think that 3D hardware problems will be over in a year, maybe sooner.
2) More Linux-aware developers. There is the possibility of more in-house development going on, especially with games based on the UT and Q3A engines. And don't forget Terminus, which was three platforms in one box...including Linux.
3) Wider array of games available. Loki and others are working to provide more than just Quake-ish games.
I took the plunge back in October of 1999 to go Linux completely. I still have Windows on my machine (for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that my wife uses Windows when she works from home) but all my gaming gets done in Linux. There are enough games out there that, along with my normal life outside my computer, I can't play them all as much as I'd like to. I'm not going back to Windows gaming unless Linux and Loki completely fall apart.
There are some fairly big movements in Linux gaming that haven't been made public yet...look for some announcements very soon.
matt
PS. Yes, I know that I'm talking mainly x86 machines here. Yes, I know Linux runs on various other hardware. Yes, I know you can play some of Loki's ports on PPC. Thanks.
1) The lesson of VHS VCRs - Most people keep the same components of their home entertainment systems for years. Just look at how long people hold on to the same VCR (at least 2 years, probably many more). I doubt that people will want to replace their brand spanking new DVD-playing PSX2 with an X-box. Nor will they be very likely to buy it to supplement their primary home entertainment system with a X-box (just as not many people buy several VCRs for their main home entertainment system). The thinking may very well go "Sure, I could play games and watch DVDs and access the internet with an X-box...but I can already do that with my PSX2!"
Sony has reportedly sold a million PSX2s in the first week of their launch, just in Japan. The US and European markets, huge compared to Japan, will get hit with the PSX2 a good 8-12 months before the X-box. That translates into many millions of units of software and hardware sold and once a PSX2 has been bought, the likelihood of an X-box being bought in the next year will be much less.
2) Name recognition - Microsoft will face a very large uphill battle to position themselves to compete against Sony in the living room. Most people associate Microsoft with those computers they use at work or in their homes, not with a system that sits next to their TV and VCR. On the other hand, tens of millions of Playstations have been sold, giving them a clear brand name for games in the living room, and adding a DVD player and possible internet access can only make that position stronger.
3) Timing with DVD - A PSX2 launch this year will probably hit when DVDs suddenly become the "must have" item for most Americans. (I don't know how well DVDs are doing in Europe.) Just looking around me, only a few of my friends (college graduates, grad school, tech work force, 20-35 year olds) have DVD players but most are looking to buy one by the end of this year. Several, having seen the the rise of the PSX, are talking specifically about getting a PSX2 for its dual use (games and DVDs). That's not proof, I understand, since it is anecdotal, but I think it seems reasonable.
4) Capturing the console game makers - Microsoft has listed some big names (Konami, Capcom) as having "signed on" to the X-box developer list. While they need those developers, I'm curious how many will really jump in with both feet. Those developers would be foolish to not say "we're considering the system" but are probably not actually under any contract to really develop for the system. Several of these companies (Capcom with Resident Evil and Konami with Metal Gear Solid) know that begin associated with Sony and the Playstation has been a fantastic partnership for them. With indications that Sony's machine will do extremely well out of the gate, they'd be giving up a lot if they started making exclusive deals with Microsoft.
5) Icon appeal - Sony has Crash Bandicoot and several other recognized properties (like Spyro, Gameday, Twisted Metal, or Jet Moto) that they can leverage in marketing to pull in the gamers with games and related advertising. Nintendo, as another example, can release Pokemon or Mario anything and make several million in sales. Microsoft will probably have to come up with a comparable set of icons to market their machine and the software it runs and to this point, the PC market has been a tad anemic in that department. If MS can pull in the big companies (as mentioned in 4) this may not be such a big deal.
Anyway, that's the stuff I've been thinking about...should be an interesting play to watch it unfold.
matt
From what I can tell from talking to Michael Vance, the standard is as neutral as, say, OpenGL. That is to say, we're not in a position to say that OpenGL is geared more towards NVIDIA cards than towards 3dfx or ATI cards. OpenAL has been designed in the same spirit and should favor no hardware over another, in principle.
Now, if one company has hardware support for more features than another, it may seem as though the API is geared more towards the former hardware than the latter, but that's not the fault of the API.
matt
Writer, Linux Games
Here are the questions I'd like to hear some responses to:
1. Couldn't porting actually hurt Linux gaming in the end? That is, if you really want to see Linux succeed as a gaming platform, shouldn't you push parallel development on the target platforms, not publish on one platform and then port to others? Assuming that original development on the Linux platform (as opposed to porting) is the ultimate goal, doesn't that mean that you're essentially working towards your own obsolescence? That is, if you succeed in making Linux a successful platform for gaming, doesn't that mean that Loki writes themselves right out of the picture? How would Loki deal with a market where parallel development suddenly became the norm rather than the exception?
2. There have been various reports that the PC is actually declining as a gaming platform. Since Linux gaming is a small niche in that market, doesn't it stand to hurt you more when and if such a decline takes place? Do you see any strengths that Linux has (over say Windows and MacOS) that would help it weather a declining market more easily?
3. Consoles are hugely successful and the PC has yet to take a huge bite out of their market, despite the presence of such juggernauts as Microsoft and id Software. Can Linux actually hope to do better against consoles, where Windows has failed? If you really think that Linux can do better, could you please outline how?
4. Is Loki dedicated to just Linux? There could be a potentially profitable market with Macintosh hardware and the impending release of MacOS X. Seemingly, the BSD quality of OS X would make it a great target for games already ported to Linux. Are you considering MacOS X as a future platform?
Thanks for considering (and possibly even answering) these questions.
Regards,
matt
Regards,
matt
I'm using a Celeron 300A @ 450MHz with 128Mb of RAM and a Voodoo3-3000. With the visual quality settings that I like, the game runs acceptably fast under RH 6.1 at 1024x768. It isn't quite as smooth as Unreal Tournament, IMHO, but it's quite good.
Having Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Ultima Online, Kingpin, and Unreal Tournament all running under Linux was the primary reason I switched from Win95. I've preordered (and hope to receive) the tin box version of Quake 3 Arena (which contains the Windows version) just to have the tin box. I won't be opening that one at all and will be ordering a Linux version that will actually get played.
Regards,
matt
That, of course, should read "I emailed someone _WHO SHOULD KNOW_..." Sorry.
*sigh*
matt
I emailed someone that I should know and I'll paraphrase the responses:
Q: I hear a rumour that XiG has bought away several of the XF86 developers.
A: A totally erroneous rumor.
Q: Why no new snapshots?
A: Because the developer in charge of snapshots hasn't uploaded any, probably due to having a life outside of XF86 development.
Q: Has the CVS been shut down?
A: No, in fact an update was made last week.
Q: When will XF86 4.0 be released?
A: Unknown, but it has not been terminated. There are still issues to be resolved and, as with all development, they want to avoid releasing a bad version.