XBOX Port for TSE????

#41 Well, If there will be an Xbox Torque, this will sure boost up the mac development.

AFAIK ( listened from guys in activision ), The XBox2 SDK runs on G5s.

#42 XBox2 SDK does run on G5s, however it runs a modified Windows OS, not OS X, as I understand it.

The official answer is 42.

#43 @Pat: yes, but what was the question?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

#44 What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?

#45 Wow, it looks like this thread is being hitchhik... er, I mean hijacked.

#46 MS is making a big mistake imho by rushing to end the current generation cycle and doing so at the expense of backward compatibility with xbox 1. PS2 is the market leader, so when PS3 comes THEN this generation ends and the next starts.

#47 I heartily disagree, Thomas. First off, XBox 1 is built on a POS platform, the x86. In my opinion, we are quickly approaching the point where we just can't make x86 based stuff go any faster because it is holding us back. Switching to a RISC based platform is not at all a bad idea. There is no way they would be able to do what they want to do with an x86 based system. Emulation, in real time, is (perhaps) possible of the XBox 1, but consider the differences. XB1 has a hard drive, XB2 doesn't. Does it need a hard drive? Well hell no. It's a console. XBox 1 was Microsoft jumping into the console world as easily as they could and converting a bunch of people over to use XBox and get the name out there. Now that they are established, they can do the things that they wanted to do with XB1. Yes, it would be *nice* if it was backwards compatible, however no Nintendo console (except GameBoy) has ever been backwards compatible and they seem to be still around. The bottom line is that Microsoft CAN do this if they WANT to, and to hell with naysayers, they'll buy it anyway.

In this instance of that previous logic, however, I agree. I really want PC's to quit using x86 based hardware.

#48 I too think the x86 architecture archaic (sp?), and love to see alternatives. In my oppinion SGI had a lot of great architectural things going with their shared memory for all hardware entities. No need for any bus to transport data.

I did however not push my point very well in hindsight.

I dont mean that the backwards compatibility is the key point. The key point being that Sony sits on this market with MS only being a minor player. So its a matter of when PS3 comes - not when xbox2 comes.

Which studio with their sanity in place would ever ditch the gigantic playstation 2 market at this point in time (where there is still money to be made using mature technology), investing millions of dollars in a platform that has no player base and is extremely complex. Afaik the xbox 2 will have 3 G5 processors, making it a non-trivial thing to code games to it. So a game studio can decide to make 2-3 games yet in a PS2 market where there are lots of buyers, or they can release their game for xbox2 where there is no market at all (at the moment), as well as having to live with all the early problems that arise from working with brand new hardware+sdk. And MS is not known to release good first generation software, so there will be problems. I cant see any investor going for the very iffy xbox2 deal (unless Bill sends them an xmas card) instead of taking the "safe route" on the PS2 for another year or two.

Being the first mover and being the minor player in the console market is not necessarily a good thing for MS, but naturally they wants to end this generation - they are loosing money on every xbox they sell. But being a minority player they are not the trendsetters and cannot control the market as they are used to in the PC market. So their rush will have several negative impact on the studios as well as for the players.

Little trivia information: just read today somewhere that PS2 is outselling xbox by a factor of ~50:1 in Japan..... and PS2 was not the first mover in the current generation, has inferior hardware. First mover =! leader of the pack.

All in my very subjective oppinion naturally, and everyone is entitled to disagree. And now I've completely hijacked the thread. Sorry.

So back on track.

One thing that could help xbox2 immensily is having existing games running from day 1 on xbox 2. Something like TSE in an xbox2 version would be perfect for them, as it would give great games and a tested "SDK" to run on their new platform. So lets see about that. Key will be for studios not to invest their lives on the succes of xbox2.

I'm not saying that MS is dumb or stupid and the usual "I hate M$" crap. But I really think they are misjudging their position in the market, and trying to use "the standard MS way" to bully themselves into #1 spot. And I can't see that happen. But I might be proven wrong.

#49 Nice post Thomas, you sure know your stuff.

#50 Sony sits as the market leader but that still doesn't prevent Microsoft and Nintendo from making waves. Granted, being first isn't everything, but it sure doesn't hurt when you have the money and muscle to back up being first out of the gate.

Microsoft calculated and planned for there to be losses to get their foot in the door from the very beginning. The lackluster sales in Japan could be explained by a few weak points. But the main reason is that the PS2 has a multitude of games catered to the Japanese segment which the Xbox is lacking. It's all about the games.

I don't see any studio ditching any console by next year. There are many games being developed for all the current generation consoles, just because the PS2 is the sales leader doesn't mean the others don't exist. Most projects in the pipe right now for current consoles won't magically pop onto the Xbox2, but that doesn't stop developers from starting projects set for the Xbox2 launch. Publishers like to get in on the ground floor to flash some of that new hardware muscle with some eye candy games; we all know how much eye candy sells.

Many studios and many publishers already have Xbox2 games under development set to be finished at launch, so the games will not be a problem.

The multi core CPU Microsoft is going for is non-trivial, I agree, but we don't know what their SDK consists of. Microsoft could be using a framework like the late BeOS had for easily handling threading and multi CPU systems. BeOS was designed so that every class was a thread so you didn't have to specifically design your application for multi CPU environments. Programs gained automatic benefits if a system had more than one CPU. After all, Microsoft is all about software at its core, I just don't seem them dropping the ball on the SDK.

TSE or something similar for current and/or next generation consoles would be a nice option. I bet GarageGame prices would be very competitive next to other cross platform, cross console engines and development studios.

#51 I think what it comes down to is that I've discounted Microsoft before to my own folly. In one marketplace after another. And every single time they have utterly crushed the competition. When you have more money on hand than the eigth richest country in the world, 'competition' is not quite the same word as it is for other people.
Microsoft won all the business users over to Office by upgrading their software while Corel was still sitting on DOS, and regardless of being a minor player at the time they still won out. Microsoft has made an existance of doing what other people have already done, only slightly better in execution even if not in concept, and wins every time.
Even the not-yet-successful areas of their business always bring development and outside business attention, because their track record is that it may not be dominant now...but it will be.
I think ignoring the xbox 2 and the potential of its market would be a large mistake. Let the publisher houses that do nothing but machine cookie-cutter games stick with the playstation all they like...leaves more market space for me.

#52 @Thomas: Ah. I see what you are saying more now.

I agree, unfortunatly, with David. Microsoft will do something if they want to. They can take loss after loss. The whole XBox 1 was to get their nose in the door and build up steam for XBox 2. I read somewhere a few days ago that MS is planning Japanese targeted games, which is a step in the right direction for marketing over there.

Having the ability to do multi-threaded games is going to be wierd, I really am not sure what I am going to do with 3 CPUs. To avoid slowdowns, it will have to be isolated things so nobody is waiting for anyone else. So it may be like 1 CPU worries about graphics stuff, 1 CPU can do AI stuff, 1 CPU works on SETI or something I don't know. I haven't given it much thought. Maybe we could do full-frame post processing on one CPU, that would be pretty sweet. It will be interesting.

#53 Oh -I agree fully with you and David that MS will learn from their past. They always have, and the next rpoduct has (mostly) always been better. Just look at the directx API where they finally got it "right" after 7-8-9 iterations. So I dont discount them at all - would be a major mistake when they have 50 billion in the bank.

But imagine the (for me) real situation: MS releases xbox2 for xmas season 2005. Sony announces PS3 for summer 2006 at the same time. If I were to go out and invest in the next gen console, then I would definitely wait until summer to see what the PS3 has to offer before deciding which one to buy. Unless you buy both, naturally. Especially since console gaming has been synonymous with "PlayStation" for the last 6-7-8 years due to their huge share of the market.

So does it matter if MS releases 6 month before? I dont really think so. A few tech nerds and fan boys will buy system X or Y due to the technical specs alone, but I think the majority will do what they have done always - stay with what they have, and that is PS.

But yes - there is always room for some more in the market, and competition is a good thing. Even minority players can make money - look at Nintendo.

BTW - I'm the happy owner of a GameCube, because I think Nintendo makes way better polished games that are more fun. For me I would rather have 5 games that are very good, than 500 that are mediocre (exagerated example). So I dont support either of the above 2 contestants for the #1 spot :-)


But naturally - only time will tell. None of us are fortune tellers, so its all pure speculations from us all.

#54 True enough...though I think the 6 months will be more a difference than you realize. At least for those six months...after that, who knows. A couple hundred bucks on an entertainment center, as it were, is not that big.
The console market is rather fickle regardless, though...speaking of nintendo, what happened to them being the only best? And where is Sega? Anybody buy an Atari lately?
I for one don't think the game consumer gives a hoot about what they've had before...they get enough money in their procket for once to buy a console, they get whatever is best then. And christmas is christmas...course, the christmas after will no doubt level all that out. But I don't believe that many game consumers are as careful with their buying decisions as it takes to wait SIX MONTHS to get something new...especially when you are only 'cool' and 'hip' enough to be worth the game store clerk's speaking time if you have the latest and greatest.