... would have made if this service was out in 1999.
Granted, legal digital music has been successful, but how many people out there still hate the RIAA? To all of those who have called music downloaders thieves, all I can say is I told you so. People are basically honest, and they're willing to pay for good service.
" but to have about 4 mb of ram in a system and produce the GC's graphics,"
You're confused with the Playstation 2. It has 4mb of video RAM. (More RAM elsewhere) That's the same RAM they use for textures. It's a horrible bottleneck that's causes the graphics to be blurry on that system. What they're doing is halving the vertical resolution of the video and interpolating it back to full size to save that RAM for other stuff.
As for the "leave it to MS to make something bloated and inefficient", I hate to break it to you, but it's how the game developers use the RAM that determine bloat or inefficiency, not Microsoft. You should be happy Microsoft provided more RAM. If they had been arrogant like Sony, you'd have some needlessly bad graphics.
"How are they different. Be honest here. Name a large difference between console and PC games."
There are a few major differences, I'll list a couple that spring readily into mind:
- Interface. Game pad vs. Keyboard and Mouse. Mario/Zelda-esque games are not very popular on the PC. At the same time, FPS and RTS games on consoles aren't typically high sellers.
- Audience. Though there is a lot of people who play games on PC or console. Think about that for a moment: If a PS2 satisfies all your gaming needs, then why have a $400 video card in your PC? Simple: PC + PS2 = larger gaming library. There are people who like to pick up a game and just play it (consoles make that a no-brainer, no install no nothin) and there are some who want something more involving and complex, thus the PC becomes more effective.
It's hard to generalize about. In the simplest sense, niether the PC nor the PS2 can play every type of game ideally. Even if it could, there's still the matter that games are typically developed to run on slower machines, thus not taking full advantage of the hardware. Console games often feel like you're getting a better gaming experience because these games run consistently across all the machines.
I don't know if that satisfactorally answers your question. I tried.
"Are you kidding? I see that all the time! On slashdot, even."
It's a ridiculous statement anyway.
1.) PC Games are not like PS2 games. Comparing the two is like comparing Deep Space Nine to Babylon 5. Very distinct audiences and tastes here.
2.) Since PC games are so different from console games, people like to indulge a little here in there to make their machine a better game machine. Only they don't spend $1,000 for a game machine, they spend $1,000 on a computer and a hundred bucks here and there to make it a better game machine.
I just finished watching Hulk like half an hour ago. You can probably imagine, I didn't find this artice exciting.
My main problem with video game/comicbook/cartoon adaptions is that live-action movies are not the right medium for it. Video games and cartoons are very single-dimensional when it comes to personality. How do you adapt human depth to a character without destroying it? Spiderman comes to mind. Remember the villain in that movie? Who can imagine a guy really turning into that?
What's the solution? I wish they'd think about what this medium is strong at and focus on its strengths. Live action is great for human interaction, it stucks as a superhero medium. Wanna use live action? Okay, at least be kind enough to make the experience worthwhile. X-Men comes to mind. Don't want your movie to be like that? Okay, at LEAST consider an animated film. You have an enitrely different range of advantages with animation.
I really wish movies were made to be entertained instead of to draw money.
That is a classic multi-dimensional argument that sadly cannot be oversimplified as much.
I agree with you, it's dangerous to have a gun. I do not wish to own one, ever. But I have never ever had to deal with the fear of my family in danger. As such, I cannot reliably predict how my rationale will change.
Not saying it's the right choice, just saying events have a way of changing people's minds is all.
"They can customize and optimize the hell out of it since they know the *exact* HW platform it'll be on. All they have to do is have the boot ROM check to see whether it's an i386 game or a PPC game. "
Fair enough, but it seems like a daunting task. There are a lot of games for consoles that rely on tricks of the hardware to bost performance in problem areas. Seems forseeable that unless Microsoft does lots and lots of testing (ha!) there are going to be games that have less than ideal behaviour.
"perhaps they are trying to lure developers away from GCN by offering a similar cpu architecture?"
Away from GCN? I doubt it. But they could be after getting more ports from GCN games, that wouldn't be all that surprising.
I dunno if the processor matters as much as it used to anymore. I mean, you've got your time developing the engine etc, but a good deal of time spent making a game involves creating the assets. Building maps, creating 3D models and textures, sound effects, etc. Those formats are pretty much portable now. I don't think it's like it was in the olden 16-bit days where the machines were just so vastly different in how they behaved.
"Does this mean that the modified Windows 2000 kernel used with the current XBox will be upgraded and ported to G5, or that we might see a completely different and new kernel? "
Probably a little bit of both. First a recompile followed by some hand-tweaking in the slower areas of the code. Microsoft has operated with other processors before, so I doubt this'd catch their dev teams completely off-guard.
... that backwards compatibility isn't part of Microsoft's game here? I suppose they could do like the PS2 did and use the original Intel processor to act as a controller or something, but somehow I doubt that'd be cost effective enough.
Emulator? Eck I hope not. Well.. maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Maybe they could do a combination emulator and wrapper. The emulator would be for the processor instructions, and the wrapper would be to send the graphics commands to the new GPU. Presumably, the difference between the two GPUs wouldn't be big enough as to prevent that from working.
Eh I dunno. Personally, I'm hoping Microsoft does something a little more interesting than just throwing next-gen hardware into a box as an upgrade. Pushing polygons around is nice, but I really like how small and cheap my GameCube is. *Hint hint*
Slashdot Mirror
... would have made if this service was out in 1999.
Granted, legal digital music has been successful, but how many people out there still hate the RIAA?
To all of those who have called music downloaders thieves, all I can say is I told you so. People are basically honest, and they're willing to pay for good service.
Lol. I just haven't used this feature. Guess I can add AnonV.
Gotcha, thank you.
Just never heard that term before.
"The market has been gradually improving since then and I would have hated myself for selling out."
Yes, it was intended as a joke. I do respect your decision, though.
" but to have about 4 mb of ram in a system and produce the GC's graphics,"
You're confused with the Playstation 2. It has 4mb of video RAM. (More RAM elsewhere) That's the same RAM they use for textures. It's a horrible bottleneck that's causes the graphics to be blurry on that system. What they're doing is halving the vertical resolution of the video and interpolating it back to full size to save that RAM for other stuff.
As for the "leave it to MS to make something bloated and inefficient", I hate to break it to you, but it's how the game developers use the RAM that determine bloat or inefficiency, not Microsoft. You should be happy Microsoft provided more RAM. If they had been arrogant like Sony, you'd have some needlessly bad graphics.
"You appear to neeed a spellchecker. Would you like to"
/.
You also appear to need a spellchecker. Would you like to
- Repeatedly hit head against wall
- Remember to preview before posting
- Log Off
"I told them to bugger off myself because I wouldn't want to work for Microsoft and I don't think they would want me there either"
So... are you still unemployed?
"Come on folks, RTFA. The article is just a bunch of rumors carefully worded to sound believable."
What about that disqualifies it as a Slashdot story?
I use Altavista for translation and Yahoo for maps.
Google's still got competition, more or less.
"actually, its 2 coils with antiparallel b-fields:"
Antiparallel == perpindicular?
"and who knows what *limits* DirectX imposes on hardware tricks?"
Where'd that come from?
Neither. It'll be a drama made to get people to watch commercials.
"How are they different. Be honest here. Name a large difference between console and PC games."
There are a few major differences, I'll list a couple that spring readily into mind:
- Interface. Game pad vs. Keyboard and Mouse. Mario/Zelda-esque games are not very popular on the PC. At the same time, FPS and RTS games on consoles aren't typically high sellers.
- Audience. Though there is a lot of people who play games on PC or console. Think about that for a moment: If a PS2 satisfies all your gaming needs, then why have a $400 video card in your PC? Simple: PC + PS2 = larger gaming library. There are people who like to pick up a game and just play it (consoles make that a no-brainer, no install no nothin) and there are some who want something more involving and complex, thus the PC becomes more effective.
It's hard to generalize about. In the simplest sense, niether the PC nor the PS2 can play every type of game ideally. Even if it could, there's still the matter that games are typically developed to run on slower machines, thus not taking full advantage of the hardware. Console games often feel like you're getting a better gaming experience because these games run consistently across all the machines.
I don't know if that satisfactorally answers your question. I tried.
"This is how it ends, not with a bang, But a whimper" :(
Who said that?
George W. Bush.
"Are you kidding? I see that all the time! On slashdot, even."
It's a ridiculous statement anyway.
1.) PC Games are not like PS2 games. Comparing the two is like comparing Deep Space Nine to Babylon 5. Very distinct audiences and tastes here.
2.) Since PC games are so different from console games, people like to indulge a little here in there to make their machine a better game machine. Only they don't spend $1,000 for a game machine, they spend $1,000 on a computer and a hundred bucks here and there to make it a better game machine.
"What a bizarre statement. Isn't that like saying RedHat has a monopoly on RedHat Linux servers? Or Debian has monopoly on Debian GNU/Linux servers?"
It was a joke, dude. Often jokes involve bizarre statements.
" But it would seem to \me that IIS could be a dying horse.."
Just remember that Microsoft has profits to make. Apache has no such fire lit under them.
I just finished watching Hulk like half an hour ago. You can probably imagine, I didn't find this artice exciting.
My main problem with video game/comicbook/cartoon adaptions is that live-action movies are not the right medium for it. Video games and cartoons are very single-dimensional when it comes to personality. How do you adapt human depth to a character without destroying it? Spiderman comes to mind. Remember the villain in that movie? Who can imagine a guy really turning into that?
What's the solution? I wish they'd think about what this medium is strong at and focus on its strengths. Live action is great for human interaction, it stucks as a superhero medium. Wanna use live action? Okay, at least be kind enough to make the experience worthwhile. X-Men comes to mind. Don't want your movie to be like that? Okay, at LEAST consider an animated film. You have an enitrely different range of advantages with animation.
I really wish movies were made to be entertained instead of to draw money.
...until Tetris comes out.
That is a classic multi-dimensional argument that sadly cannot be oversimplified as much.
I agree with you, it's dangerous to have a gun. I do not wish to own one, ever. But I have never ever had to deal with the fear of my family in danger. As such, I cannot reliably predict how my rationale will change.
Not saying it's the right choice, just saying events have a way of changing people's minds is all.
"They can customize and optimize the hell out of it since they know the *exact* HW platform it'll be on. All they have to do is have the boot ROM check to see whether it's an i386 game or a PPC game. "
Fair enough, but it seems like a daunting task. There are a lot of games for consoles that rely on tricks of the hardware to bost performance in problem areas. Seems forseeable that unless Microsoft does lots and lots of testing (ha!) there are going to be games that have less than ideal behaviour.
Think they'll be able to solve that?
"perhaps they are trying to lure developers away from GCN by offering a similar cpu architecture?"
Away from GCN? I doubt it. But they could be after getting more ports from GCN games, that wouldn't be all that surprising.
I dunno if the processor matters as much as it used to anymore. I mean, you've got your time developing the engine etc, but a good deal of time spent making a game involves creating the assets. Building maps, creating 3D models and textures, sound effects, etc. Those formats are pretty much portable now. I don't think it's like it was in the olden 16-bit days where the machines were just so vastly different in how they behaved.
"Does this mean that the modified Windows 2000 kernel used with the current XBox will be upgraded and ported to G5, or that we might see a completely different and new kernel? "
Probably a little bit of both. First a recompile followed by some hand-tweaking in the slower areas of the code. Microsoft has operated with other processors before, so I doubt this'd catch their dev teams completely off-guard.
... that backwards compatibility isn't part of Microsoft's game here? I suppose they could do like the PS2 did and use the original Intel processor to act as a controller or something, but somehow I doubt that'd be cost effective enough.
Emulator? Eck I hope not. Well.. maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Maybe they could do a combination emulator and wrapper. The emulator would be for the processor instructions, and the wrapper would be to send the graphics commands to the new GPU. Presumably, the difference between the two GPUs wouldn't be big enough as to prevent that from working.
Eh I dunno. Personally, I'm hoping Microsoft does something a little more interesting than just throwing next-gen hardware into a box as an upgrade. Pushing polygons around is nice, but I really like how small and cheap my GameCube is. *Hint hint*
... now they'll claim the XBOX 2 is a Mac because it is based on Mac hardware. "Those bastards won't let us put YellowDog on it!"