I guess that means we've entered Phase 2 of the Console Cycle: strategic price adjustments.
Clearly the Xbox is not doing so hot. Mindshare reigns supreme in such things. From my own (long, sordid, embarrasing) experience with console gaming, all it takes is for gamers to start with the 'ConsoleX is dead' talk. Which is infuriating from a certain point of view (just ask a DreamCast owner), but that's the way things go. The game market is like the stock market - perception is everything.
So now we have MS losing over $100 US on ever Xbox, and Sony has announced PS2 on a chip, which will significantly, drive the cost down. This has got to drive MS nuts, as they're not used to competing on these terms (i.e. brutally efficient hardware manufacturing. Really, who wants to compete with the Japanese here.) They know they need control of the living room. It's the beachhead for the next battle. And Sony is entrenched like a mntherfncker.
Didn't Microsoft's slogan used to be "a computer on every desk and in every home in America", or something to that effect? Always thought that was odd for a software company... well, before they started putting their OS into phones, consoles, and Things With Buttons.
As much as I dislike MS in general, I had hope for the Xbox. The pieces seemed to be in place for the Mac of Consoles; Seamus' renegade tactics, the corporate culture necessary for a trancendental product like this.
What bugs me is, if I may use a tired phrase, lack of vision.
It's all fine and good for Mr. Blackley to run around spouting how video games should be 'art'. I agree. He doesn't back it up. And Microsoft is not conducive to art; it is conducive, custom-engineered, for commerce. Case in point:
In a meeting with the Xbox team a few weeks after the May 5 pitch, Mr. Ballmer started out bowling them over with one of his infamous monologues. He boomed, "The Xbox is the greatest fucking thing in the world! It's going to make billions! It's the greatest thing ever!"
Mr. Ballmer then hammered the team on its naÔve business model, but he offered a lot of encouragement in his own fashion. Once, when they were standing in line at the company cafeteria, Mr. Ballmer sneaked up behind them and bellowed, "It's the Xbox guys!"
"I almost peed in my pants," Mr. Blackley says. He looked over at Mr. Bachus, whose face went white, like someone who had just been caught in a crime. Mr. Blackley adds, "But at the same time, it was so motivating that he was showing everyone else there exactly who we were." As Mr. Ballmer moved closer, he joked more quietly, "Are you making any money yet?"
Why is it the greatest fucking thing ever? Because it might be the greatest money-maker ever? There's no talk of what makes it great, other than the cushy developer tools. Which are fine, until your programmers do an end-run around your nicely doc'd methods to squeeze an extra frame or two/second out.
Sony understands this. The PS2 is difficult. The PS2 is flexible. It does not have MS-USB ports; it knows how to make a controller.
I read an interview during all the fracas over Halo & Bungie from a guy at Access Software (remember them? Links golf?)... they were also bought by MS. He described a situation where the best and brightest were basically picked apart from the inside, after being acquired. The Red Herring article also points out that there are no original team members left outside of Seamus.
No, you won't get 'art' from these guys. Art doesn't make as much money as entertainment.
Let's all take a step back and remember that the PS2 is exactly Jack Valenti's idea of an ideal 'media' computer. Locked-the-fuck-up. This may bother you on some level.
Not that I'm saying you shouldn't buy one. Go for it; I did. But I will maintain my tradition of buying the stuff I like (i.e. Ico), and disdaining the things they throw at us that are ass (i.e. paid subscriptions over up-front fees).
The first thing that strikes me about the majority of posts on here are the animus regarding the PS2. I say, the more the merrier. The console is not threatening the PC version in any way. Yet.
Those of you arguing the PS2's spec are missing the point. This is the first real big console MMORPG (exclusing Sega's efforts) effort. It will evolve. It's the reason Sony bought Verant. (Aside: the real news here is the inplication of SW:Galaxies, which is the biggest carrot yet).
The PS2 is a stealth-computer. Check out the shots of the Linux kit again. All the missing pieces. You already own the keyboard and mouse (in my case, an Apple Pro keyboard and a logitech optical mouse, 4-btn; all work flawlessly on supported games).
Also, most reports cite some sort of voice headset. If they've nailed this, it immediately leapfrogs the PC experience to my mind. Imagine role-playing, actually acting, in Star Wars galaxies, using (for instance) some sort of chording one-handed emoting system.. and your own voice. Much better.
I think it was Nicholas Negroponte who once said, 'Consoles are just computers in short pants.' First version won't be superior to the PC. Version 3....
The professional standard for high-resolution audio is 24-bit/96-kHz audio. Mac OS X 10.1 goes beyond this standard by managing all audio as 32-bit, floating-point data. "So your Mac not only efficiently handles today's high-resolution audio, but it's prepared for tomorrow's even higher resolution audio formats," Apple says.
Multichannel audio. The Mac operating system has historically offered two-channel stereo output only. While that may be okay for some applications, Mac OS X 10.1 is designed to handle higher-end software by delivering native multichannel audio capability scaleable to "n" channels, which enables features like 5.1 channel surround sound from your Mac. It also provides software with multichannel recording capability, which gets rid of the third-party middleware that was once needed to deliver over two channels of audio to hardware devices.
Mac OS X's HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) provides high-performance, ultra-low latency communication between apps and I/O (in/out) devices that's "measurably more efficient than in previous solutions," according to Apple. The result: there's no delay for timing sensitive audio data as it makes its way from the input device through the Mac OS X audio infrastructure to output. Apple says that Mac OS X is fast enough that musicians can play MIDI instruments through the computer in real-time. This means they could use the Mac as an effective synthesizer for live performance. Apple says "this kind of audio performance hasn't been available on any other computer platform without expensive and time-consuming system modifications" and that it "rivals the performance of specialized audio hardware."
Mac OS X also makes another break from tradition. No longer does the Mac operating system have to use third-party software to manage MIDI. Mac OS X includes MIDI services that Apple describes as "world class," providing software apps with the ability to manage MIDI and define a system wide MIDI configuration that's available to all applications. What's more, Mac OS X provides music services (the fundamental functions of MIDI sequencers, including common MIDI editing routines like cut, copy, paste and repeat) to applications.
Digital audio can also be enhanced with digital signal processing (DSP) plug-ins that process audio, such as applying reverb or distortion, and send the processed audio back through the audio system. Though DSP plug-ins for the Mac have flourished over the years, they come in a variety of formats that aren't always compatible so developers have often ended up making different versions of their plug-ins for different applications. Mac OS X is designed to make audio plug-ins more universal by offering a system-level plug-in protocol called Audio Units.
Apple says that Audio Units offer the Mac developer community a way to deliver plug-ins that will work with all the audio apps running on the Mac. Mac OS X 10.1 delivers several Audio Units, including a Velocity Engine optimized reverb and a sample rate converter.
The new audio architecture of Mac OS X will combat two problems that relate to timing, one endemic to the process of recording and the other a by-product of its new "industrial strength" OS.
A significant challenge of music recording and production is to ensure that tracks presently being recorded can be synchronized to previously recorded tracks, and also to ensure that they can be written back to disk correctly in time. (The delay between reading the previous tracks from the hard disk and routing them to the musician is called latency.)
Prior to Mac OS X, companies developed their own technologies, which included buffering, to combat latency and to allow audio tracks and MIDI channels to be routed to the artist in unison, enabling the musician to play "in sync." Digidesign's TDM (time-division multiplexing) and Steinberg's VST (Virtual Studio Technology) are two examples of this type of technology for dealing with audio. (The inclusion of folders bearing these acronyms in OS X's libraries indicates both these technologies will be accommodated in OS X.)
The preemptive multitasking and virtual memory capabilities of OS X's BSD core, where the CPU will be called upon to regulate computing time between a variety of applications and processes, would have proven too great a challenge for a third party developer to combat. (Under previous versions of Mac OS, most sequencer developers have required that virtual memory be turned off.) Moving these services inside the OS frees developers to concentrate on enhancing their interfaces and adding post-production capabilities.
And MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) timing and device control in OS X will finally move beyond the venerable OMS (Open Music System) and Mark of the Unicorn's FreeMIDI applications. The presence of Doug Wyatt (the developer of OMS) on Apple's music team shows that the company will build upon -- and presumably surpass -- the world standard in this area. The document distributed at WWDC claims that OS X will handle MIDI with a latency factor of one millisecond, almost real-time performance.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly the Xbox is not doing so hot. Mindshare reigns supreme in such things. From my own (long, sordid, embarrasing) experience with console gaming, all it takes is for gamers to start with the 'ConsoleX is dead' talk. Which is infuriating from a certain point of view (just ask a DreamCast owner), but that's the way things go. The game market is like the stock market - perception is everything.
So now we have MS losing over $100 US on ever Xbox, and Sony has announced PS2 on a chip, which will significantly, drive the cost down. This has got to drive MS nuts, as they're not used to competing on these terms (i.e. brutally efficient hardware manufacturing. Really, who wants to compete with the Japanese here.) They know they need control of the living room. It's the beachhead for the next battle. And Sony is entrenched like a mntherfncker.
Didn't Microsoft's slogan used to be "a computer on every desk and in every home in America", or something to that effect? Always thought that was odd for a software company... well, before they started putting their OS into phones, consoles, and Things With Buttons.
As much as I dislike MS in general, I had hope for the Xbox. The pieces seemed to be in place for the Mac of Consoles; Seamus' renegade tactics, the corporate culture necessary for a trancendental product like this.
What bugs me is, if I may use a tired phrase, lack of vision.
It's all fine and good for Mr. Blackley to run around spouting how video games should be 'art'. I agree. He doesn't back it up. And Microsoft is not conducive to art; it is conducive, custom-engineered, for commerce. Case in point: In a meeting with the Xbox team a few weeks after the May 5 pitch, Mr. Ballmer started out bowling them over with one of his infamous monologues. He boomed, "The Xbox is the greatest fucking thing in the world! It's going to make billions! It's the greatest thing ever!"
Mr. Ballmer then hammered the team on its naÔve business model, but he offered a lot of encouragement in his own fashion. Once, when they were standing in line at the company cafeteria, Mr. Ballmer sneaked up behind them and bellowed, "It's the Xbox guys!"
"I almost peed in my pants," Mr. Blackley says. He looked over at Mr. Bachus, whose face went white, like someone who had just been caught in a crime. Mr. Blackley adds, "But at the same time, it was so motivating that he was showing everyone else there exactly who we were." As Mr. Ballmer moved closer, he joked more quietly, "Are you making any money yet?"
Why is it the greatest fucking thing ever? Because it might be the greatest money-maker ever? There's no talk of what makes it great, other than the cushy developer tools. Which are fine, until your programmers do an end-run around your nicely doc'd methods to squeeze an extra frame or two/second out.
Sony understands this. The PS2 is difficult. The PS2 is flexible. It does not have MS-USB ports; it knows how to make a controller.
I read an interview during all the fracas over Halo & Bungie from a guy at Access Software (remember them? Links golf?)... they were also bought by MS. He described a situation where the best and brightest were basically picked apart from the inside, after being acquired. The Red Herring article also points out that there are no original team members left outside of Seamus.
No, you won't get 'art' from these guys. Art doesn't make as much money as entertainment.
Not that I'm saying you shouldn't buy one. Go for it; I did. But I will maintain my tradition of buying the stuff I like (i.e. Ico), and disdaining the things they throw at us that are ass (i.e. paid subscriptions over up-front fees).
Those of you arguing the PS2's spec are missing the point. This is the first real big console MMORPG (exclusing Sega's efforts) effort. It will evolve. It's the reason Sony bought Verant. (Aside: the real news here is the inplication of SW:Galaxies, which is the biggest carrot yet).
The PS2 is a stealth-computer. Check out the shots of the Linux kit again. All the missing pieces. You already own the keyboard and mouse (in my case, an Apple Pro keyboard and a logitech optical mouse, 4-btn; all work flawlessly on supported games).
Also, most reports cite some sort of voice headset. If they've nailed this, it immediately leapfrogs the PC experience to my mind. Imagine role-playing, actually acting, in Star Wars galaxies, using (for instance) some sort of chording one-handed emoting system.. and your own voice. Much better.
I think it was Nicholas Negroponte who once said, 'Consoles are just computers in short pants.' First version won't be superior to the PC. Version 3....
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/05.audio. php
---snippage---
The professional standard for high-resolution audio is 24-bit/96-kHz audio. Mac OS X 10.1 goes beyond this standard by managing all audio as 32-bit, floating-point data. "So your Mac not only efficiently handles today's high-resolution audio, but it's prepared for tomorrow's even higher resolution audio formats," Apple says.
Multichannel audio. The Mac operating system has historically offered two-channel stereo output only. While that may be okay for some applications, Mac OS X 10.1 is designed to handle higher-end software by delivering native multichannel audio capability scaleable to "n" channels, which enables features like 5.1 channel surround sound from your Mac. It also provides software with multichannel recording capability, which gets rid of the third-party middleware that was once needed to deliver over two channels of audio to hardware devices.
Mac OS X's HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) provides high-performance, ultra-low latency communication between apps and I/O (in/out) devices that's "measurably more efficient than in previous solutions," according to Apple. The result: there's no delay for timing sensitive audio data as it makes its way from the input device through the Mac OS X audio infrastructure to output. Apple says that Mac OS X is fast enough that musicians can play MIDI instruments through the computer in real-time. This means they could use the Mac as an effective synthesizer for live performance. Apple says "this kind of audio performance hasn't been available on any other computer platform without expensive and time-consuming system modifications" and that it "rivals the performance of specialized audio hardware."
Mac OS X also makes another break from tradition. No longer does the Mac operating system have to use third-party software to manage MIDI. Mac OS X includes MIDI services that Apple describes as "world class," providing software apps with the ability to manage MIDI and define a system wide MIDI configuration that's available to all applications. What's more, Mac OS X provides music services (the fundamental functions of MIDI sequencers, including common MIDI editing routines like cut, copy, paste and repeat) to applications.
Digital audio can also be enhanced with digital signal processing (DSP) plug-ins that process audio, such as applying reverb or distortion, and send the processed audio back through the audio system. Though DSP plug-ins for the Mac have flourished over the years, they come in a variety of formats that aren't always compatible so developers have often ended up making different versions of their plug-ins for different applications. Mac OS X is designed to make audio plug-ins more universal by offering a system-level plug-in protocol called Audio Units.
Apple says that Audio Units offer the Mac developer community a way to deliver plug-ins that will work with all the audio apps running on the Mac. Mac OS X 10.1 delivers several Audio Units, including a Velocity Engine optimized reverb and a sample rate converter.
The new audio architecture of Mac OS X will combat two problems that relate to timing, one endemic to the process of recording and the other a by-product of its new "industrial strength" OS.
A significant challenge of music recording and production is to ensure that tracks presently being recorded can be synchronized to previously recorded tracks, and also to ensure that they can be written back to disk correctly in time. (The delay between reading the previous tracks from the hard disk and routing them to the musician is called latency.)
Prior to Mac OS X, companies developed their own technologies, which included buffering, to combat latency and to allow audio tracks and MIDI channels to be routed to the artist in unison, enabling the musician to play "in sync." Digidesign's TDM (time-division multiplexing) and Steinberg's VST (Virtual Studio Technology) are two examples of this type of technology for dealing with audio. (The inclusion of folders bearing these acronyms in OS X's libraries indicates both these technologies will be accommodated in OS X.)
The preemptive multitasking and virtual memory capabilities of OS X's BSD core, where the CPU will be called upon to regulate computing time between a variety of applications and processes, would have proven too great a challenge for a third party developer to combat. (Under previous versions of Mac OS, most sequencer developers have required that virtual memory be turned off.) Moving these services inside the OS frees developers to concentrate on enhancing their interfaces and adding post-production capabilities.
And MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) timing and device control in OS X will finally move beyond the venerable OMS (Open Music System) and Mark of the Unicorn's FreeMIDI applications. The presence of Doug Wyatt (the developer of OMS) on Apple's music team shows that the company will build upon -- and presumably surpass -- the world standard in this area. The document distributed at WWDC claims that OS X will handle MIDI with a latency factor of one millisecond, almost real-time performance.
---snippage---
A good vote for a Powerbook/iBook, no?
.. while I agree with the poster's opinion, the fact is, l33t hackers (or whatever) don't know anything about video. That's why they use WiMP.