Gamecube in 2d

[tommy]

I wish nintendo would go back to making some games in 2d , i think it would be awsome if they would make a new zelda in 2d with the gamecubes power, it would look excelent with so much more detail then 3d games. or even a new gc tecmo bowl

[Stingray]

I wish nintendo would go back to making some games in 2d

That's what the GBA is for.

-S

[tommy]

You cant compare gba graphics to gamecube.

[Stingray]

I'm not trying to. You said that you wished Nintendo still made 2D games. They do, but on the GBA. You don't need Cube level hardware for 2D graphics. I do agree that the Cube could create some very expansive 2D worlds.

-S

[Trimoor]

Nintendo hasn't made a new 2D game in years.  Every GBA title I see is a port of SNES or NES.

[Hoagie_one]

Metroi fusion
Metroid Zero mission
Zelda minish cap

All new quality 2d games for the GBA, granted, zelda was made my capcom

[Stingray]

Found this list of GBA titles that have been released in 2005 and published by Nintendo:

Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones
Legend of Zelda, The: The Minish Cap
Mario Party Advance
Pok

[tommy]

I'm not trying to. You said that you wished Nintendo still made 2D games. They do, but on the GBA. You don't need Cube level hardware for 2D graphics. I do agree that the Cube could create some very expansive 2D worlds.

-S

I understand the gc hardware is more advanced for 2d but , if they made 2d games again the graphics would be amazing

[Daniel270]

There IS an adapter that fits the Gamecube that plays GBA games....

[tommy]

I thought i made it clear i didnt want to play gba , i wanted some gamecube 2d games with superb graphics , so somebody get on the horn to nintendo and get it in the works 

[MrTroy]

I dunno dude. Zelda: Four Swords is pretty 2d, and a Nintendo game. I think its hot!

[shmokes]

Yeah, Zelda 4 Swords, Alien Hominid, Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2, Ikaruga,  Paper Mario 

Not a lot, but there are some high quality 2d games made specifically for current generation hardware (read: not gameboy advance ports)

[rohan]

I totally understand what you're talkin' 'bout.  I play GGXXreloaded more than my other PS2 fighting games...More 2d games that take advantage of the new console systems would be awesome.

[tommy]

One of my favorite games was the legend of zelda for the snes, if they could make a new game just like that with the gamecube it would great, i dont  think we are capable of makeing great 3d games yet ,were getting there but , most games are crap, theres a few good games but hopefully the next generation console will be better.

[shmokes]

You, sir, haven't played Resident Evil 4, or the Splinter Cell series, or the new Prince of Persia series, or Legend of Zelda: Windwaker (not to mention TOoT and Majora's Mask), or Half-life, or Halo, or Metroid Prime, or GTA, or Rome: Total War, or World of Warcraft, or Metal Gear Solid, or Burnout 2 &3, or Farcry, or TopSpin (tennis), or ........um, the list is WAY too long. 

In short, if you think there are a shortage of GREAT, not just good, but absofreakinglutely GREAT games in 3D, you need to do yourself a favor and get your butt down to your local gamestore and pick up any of the games listed above.  If you want further suggestions feel free to ask.  Even if you believe that all of those games only reach the status of being "good", but not "great", there are more than just a few of them.

[tommy]

I have played most of those games, there good games re4 was one of the best , but i think they could put out better...   im very hard on games and i expect more , we all thought N64 was good till the gamecube came out.. now we see the graphics were horrible compared to the gc, there stringing us along with these consoles just barely better then the next so we have to buy them all, i wouldnt buy anymore games for these systems that are out now the next gen consoles are comming.

[shmokes]

I don't think they're exactly stringing us along.  Microsoft, for example, was taking a $170 loss on every Xbox sold for a really long time.  That's a $170 million dollar loss for every million sold.  It's not like they can put a supercomputer in everyone's home and still sell it for $250 or $300.  And it takes a great deal of research and development (not to mention game development) to get a new console ready for market.  Remember when the PS2 was released?  Massive shortages.  People who were lucky enough to get one at launch were turning around and selling them for $800-$1000 on Ebay.  Developing and manufacturing a new console takes a lot of time.  It's not like Sony can just say, "Time for a PS4," and then release it the following week.

And consider that the hardware set to be inside PS3 and Xbox 2 is equivalent or superior to what you would currently find in a $3000 PC.  When the N64 was released hardware that would run Gamecube level graphics hadn't even been invented yet.  It's not like Nintendo is has a working Holodeck right now, but they're holding off on releasing it so they can incrementally nickle-and-dime us to death by releasing a new console every four years.  We didn't just think N64 had good graphics.  N64 DID have good graphics.  Obviously Nintendo's revolution will have amazing graphics compared to Gamecube, but that doesn't mean we won't look back in twenty years and say, "Man, those graphics sucked compared with what we have now."

By your standards it will not be possible for you to be satisfied with a game until we have reached some sort of technological brick wall where it is not possible to progress any further, which, of course, will never happen.

[paigeoliver]

And actually, to be more specific, console capabilities tend to match what the GOOD computers are capable of when the console development begins, the suckers are completely outclassed by gaming PCs before they are ever released, even more so 5 years later. The Ps2 and X-Box specs are a joke compared to the new PCs even back when they came out.

The PS3 and X-Box 2 will also be a joke compared to the new PCs on the shelf the day of their release. And I'll bet the suckers will STILL have long load times and junk, they will put hard drives in them, but they will treat the hard drives like they were plastic memory cards and write 32K save files on them, rather than installing the freaking game to the hard drive so you aren't watching an idiot loading screen half the time.

The only thing the consoles have going for them is the fact that they hook up to old standard res TV screens, which does a pretty decent job in hiding how incredibly low res they all are.

[shmokes]

The PS3 and X-Box 2 will also be a joke compared to the new PCs on the shelf the day of their release.

I disagree.  That's like saying that a Honda Civic is a joke compared to a Ferrari.  Xbox 2 and PS3 will play games far better than a $1000.  You'll need a $2,000 machine to match what these systems can provide for $250-300.  I believe, also, that there are secondary benefits of this.  Because the systems are so affordable and accessible, games are able to reach a critical mass that allows more game devolopers to spend 30 million dollars on game development to bring us huge games like Halo and so on. 

If PCs were the sole avenue for videogames I really don't believe they would have become so accepted as a mainstream passtime.

[Hoagie_one]

I think Ninjas are greater than Pirates

[tommy]

The gamecube uses the same graphic chips as home pc (ATI) but for some reason the pc can out perform the gamecube at the same point in time the same chip is avaliable, are they really trying to make the best system they can?

[AmericanDemon]

Graphics chips and the remainder of the hardware are very different Beasts.

I have a GEForce 6800GT in my Athlon 64 3200+ , with 1 gig of DDR RAm.  That machine is capable of playing any game on the market right now at 1600 x 1200 without a hitch.

Now I stick that same Video Card in my P4 850 w/ 128 meg of ram, and I cant play crap.  The same games look worse because of lower resolution and amounts of special effects that the slower cpu and lower ram cannot even get close to handling.

Not to mention that on consoles each game is written in different coding structures to squeeze every bit of power of the machines.  Different code for different systems equals different effects on each system.

Now they could in fact make stronger game systems, but the problem is that they have to keep it in a logical price range to be effective.  I know I wouldnt pay 1500 bucks for a barebones console with a demo disk and a single controller. 

[paigeoliver]

The PS3 and X-Box 2 will also be a joke compared to the new PCs on the shelf the day of their release.

I disagree.  That's like saying that a Honda Civic is a joke compared to a Ferrari.  Xbox 2 and PS3 will play games far better than a $1000.  You'll need a $2,000 machine to match what these systems can provide for $250-300.  I believe, also, that there are secondary benefits of this.  Because the systems are so affordable and accessible, games are able to reach a critical mass that allows more game devolopers to spend 30 million dollars on game development to bring us huge games like Halo and so on. 

If PCs were the sole avenue for videogames I really don't believe they would have become so accepted as a mainstream passtime.

Affordable and accessable? The MAIN reason I do PC gaming rather than console gaming is because the console stuff is so incredibly pricey.

Sure, if you are starting from NOTHING than a console IS cheaper than a usable gaming PC. And ASSUMING you don't want to own a computer, and all you want is a playstation then it will be cheaper, provided you don't buy many games. New computer games are usually 60 percent of the cost of new console games, used it gets even worse, you can often by top titles used for the computer for $1 on ebay. I can go to the computer store and pick out all sorts of titles (usually 3 or 4 years old) for $5 each. I have yet to ever see the $5 section for console games.

You DO NOT need a $2000 gaming computer. The people that own those are a tiny minority, even amongst computer gamers. That 1600x1200 with 4xFSAA is a completely different experience (that some people pay a premium for), the playstation and X-box experience is 640x480 INTERLACED. MOST modern games will play 640x480 on even a 4 year old card (that was $100 4 YEARS ago).

My LAPTOP (yes laptop), kicks the living crap out of every console on the market, it even plugs into the TV, and it wasn't $2000.

Then there is the issue that the PC is the platform with the largest available gaming library, something the consoles can never match because PCs have backward compatibility and low cost of development that the consoles can never match.

Of course there is the issue that you usually get A LOT MORE with a PC title. Usable (key word is USABLE) level editors, downloads, add ons, and other goodies are the norm for PC games (except for the console ports, with those you get the EXACT same game as the console, except at a much higher resolution, and if you are lucky they will remember to take out all the playstation references).

Also, console games are not nearly as optimized as they used to be. They used to write the suckers in assembly. Now they write them in C. C is C on the computer, C is C on the PS2. Sure they can write the game around the specifics of the hardware to take full advantage of the hardware. It SEEMS like an advantage, until you realize how far the computer hardware is ahead of the console hardware. Console game is written to take full advantage of that paltry 32MB shared memory and 300 MHZ processor. While the computer game at the same time is written to take advantage of hardware that at MINIMUM will likely have 4 times the specs, and having better hardware gives you even more.

[shmokes]

Paige, this argument is retarded.  I'm not against PC gaming.  I've got kick-ass gaming computer that 99% of the hardest of the hardcore PC gamers would envy.  It's not like you have to be in one camp or the other.  You've already conceded one of my points, which is all it takes.  For people who just want to play games and are starting from scratch, consoles are better.  You talk like consoles are useless, yet there is a use. 

And yes, affordable and accessible.  I wasn't exaggerating when I said a $2000 machine.  You're just misrepresenting (or misread) what I said.  I said Xbox 2 and PS3 perform at the level of a $2,000.  Obviously I don't think that a 4-year old console (PS2 or Xbox) can compete with a brand new $2000 machine.  But when those two systems were released 4 years ago, yes, you needed a $2000 machine to match their gameplaying power.  Your $1000 system may outperform the Xbox today, but then the Xbox doesn't cost $300 anymore; it costs $150.

Your suggestion that they aren't significantly optimizing games for the systems is just blind ranting from a PC fanboy.  Halflife 2 and Doom 3 are going to be released soon for the Xbox.  The Xbox has a 733 Mhz pentium processor and 64 MB of shared memory for both system RAM and Video RAM (that's from memory, so those specs may be off, but not by much).  The minimum requirements to play Doom on a PC are a 1.5 Ghz Pentium, 384 MB RAM and a DirectX 9.0b compatible videocard with 64 MB of its own memory.  And you know as well as I know that if you just barely meet the minimum requirements listed on the box, even if you turn off all the visual and audio special effects and crank down the resolution you will almost always still have an unacceptable framerate, especially in a FPS.  Doom 3 will not even run.  It won't even load, if you don't have a system that is at least twice as powerful as the Xbox in every aspect.  And when it does run with that bare minimum it is only by turning off every extra feature, while the game running on the Xbox actually has most of the effects enabled and running well.  All this on a 4-year old xbox.  4 years ago a $3000 PC would get you a bleeding edge system with the just barely released 1 Ghz pentium and 512 MB RD-RAM.  4 years ago a PC capable of even running Doom 3 did not even exist.  How exactly to they accomplish this feat on the Xbox without optimization???

And yes, accessible.  You put in a disc, push a button and 10 seconds later you're playing the game.  Many people don't want to install games.  They don't want to figure out why the game crashes to the desktop every as soon as they beat the first level.  They don't want to figure out why they are getting 3 FPS even though they own a top-of-the-line system.  They don't want to buy, or are unable to afford, a machine that will cost more than $1000 (more than $2000 if you are comparing to a newly released console).

And for what it's worth, virtually every game for Xbox and Gamecube run in progressive scan if you've got a tv that supports it.  Also, for what it's worth, Resident Evil 4, Metroid and Metroid Prime 2 all have no discernible load times. 

Here are a few good reasons for you (and the average person) to own a console:

1- They are cheap, allowing even very poor people, and people who already invested in a gaming PC to buy one.
2- They are incredibly easy to use.
3- They will play cutting edge games for 4-5 years, and they will play them well.
4-  You can rent the entire library of games for them (unlike the PC, for which you can rent no games for)
5-  They are made to be played on a TV (a bigscreen TV even).
6- They lend themselves to a real social experience with real friends (not the ones merely represented by 1's and 0's over the internet.
7- They are fun.
8- There are MANY MANY MANY extremely fun, must-have games released for them that are never released for the PC.
9- So many people own them that there are lots of people to borrow games from.

Paige, repeat after me:  You don't have to give up PC gaming in order to play Nintendo. 

PC gaming is a good thing.  Me no wants to give it up. 

[tommy]

Is it not possible for console makers to make there console upgradeable , you could just buy one and out of the box it could perform well   but if you want more you can add mem and a new graphics chip etc, more home pc like would make a great game system, you wouldnt buy a pc that is not upgradeable so why have to get rid of your console every time new hardware is developed. They dont want to sell you just one system they want you to buy all the consoles and 50 games for each , then when that console is dead time to start all over again , thats my only beef with the consoles  it dosent have to be a super console worth millions same price range as now but i could upgrade my console.

We are at a stage in gaming that we need an inprovement in the way games consoles are being made, i think its a great idea.

[shmokes]

Okay...so you can upgrade a PC.  Lets see, mid-range graphics card: $250.  Hmmm....that's a whole, brand new console isn't it?

It just doesn't wash.  Even if you somehow paid only $1000 for your PC, you could "upgrade" your console 4 times for that amount of money.  For the cost of a single, low-end PC you can have 16-20 years worth of consoles (assuming a 4-5 year life-cycle for consoles and assuming your wages keep up with inflation).

Think of it like free upgrades.  If a console could be opened up and upgraded by the user, developers wouldn't be able to develop a game to take advantage of one specific set of hardware.  So when you're able to play Doom 3 on a $150 computer think to yourself, "Wow!  They upgraded my computer to a 2 Ghz with 512 MB or RAM with a nice videocard so I could play this cutting edge game and didn't even charge me anything for it." 

[tommy]

I didnt say you would have to upgrade your console if you dont have the money thats fine   play as is,you would buy a certain game cd based on what youve done to your console , if you have a stock gamecube , and by stock i mean how the cube is now, you buy the game cd that would work with a stock system

 Then if youve added some hardware you would buy a different game cd with better graphics and frame rate to go along with your upgrade. Another way to go is to just have a second teir of new games just for an upgraded console that can handle better software , that way you have some options and your not stuck with an old system and have to rebuild your game library every few years.

It could get to the point where by the time the next console is out your original cube is at the same perfomance level as the new one ,so if your not into fiddeling with the inardes of your system you would just buy it at some point already upgraded . they could make the upgrades at a minimal charge   as much as a new game $50.00.

This is just a thought on how to cut down on the amount of times i have to change what system im useing.   Ok now somebody tear this idea down for me, why wouldnt this work.

[shmokes]

Well....your saying computers are better for allowing you to do this, but considering that upgrading JUST your videocard will cost you up to twice as much as the price of the Gamecube on the day it was released I don't see what your big beef is. 

But here's the real reason your idea won't work.  Upgrades to consoles almost always fail.  They are not unheard of.  64DD for N64.  32X for Sega Genesis.  Broadband adapter for Gamecube.  The thing is, lets say Gamecube has sold, say 10 million consoles in North America.  Now, lets say Nintendo makes available a new processor you can upgrade your Gamecube with.  If a console add-on sells-through to 10% of the installed base it is considered a success.  Add-ons traditionally sell very badly.  So let's say the device is released and 200,000 people buy it initially.

Now imagine that you are Electronic Arts and you're making a new game.  Is it really worth it to you to spend extra money to recode your game to take advantage of the new processor just to reach those extra 200,000 people, who would likely buy your game anyway, since their Gamecube is still capable of playing games made for the stock Gamecube?  So, since so few people own the device, developers don't make games that take advantage of it.  And since developers don't make games that take advantage of it, gamers quit buying it because it's useless, and the ones who did buy it feel ripped off, because no developers have made any games for it, and the developers develop an even greater aversion to it because now its not selling at all, and after time goes buy more and more gamers begin to realize that no developers are EVER going to make games for this upgrade, etc. etc. etc.  It's a vicious cycle.  I own a Gamecube Broadband Adapter.  That IS an upgrade.  There is, three or four years after its release, a grand total of ONE game that takes advantage of it.  And that's the game that was released simultaneously with it, Phatasy Star Online.

That's it in a nutshell.  There are a few exceptions, such as the N64 memory expansion pak.  That actually was successful, mainly because it was very inexpensive and it was bundled with popular games at almost no additional cost.  Once there was a large installed base of the thing it was worth it for other developers to take advantage of it.  That's the exception, though.  The Sega 32X is the rule. 

[Stingray]

...why have to get rid of your console every time new hardware is developed.

I've owned at least one or two consoles from every generation since the Atari 2600. I've never gotten rid of one. Your old games and consoles don't suddenly become unplayable just because a new system is out.

-S

[tommy]

The game makers would have to comply with the new change if they wanted to sell there games, so thats the whole idea they wont make games to support upgrades.

EA makes a new madden game every year with nothing more then updated rosters , surely they can offer more then that.

[shmokes]

Yeah...and EA can simply choose not to develop for your system, as they did with Dreamcast.  Nintendo can't afford to require game developers to spend extra money on developing a game that may not turn a profit for EA.  EA will just say, "screw this" and they'll just make games for Sony.  Console manufacturers need game developers at least as much as game developers need console manufacturers.  It's a risky business for a console manufacturer trying to force game developers to do things that are not profitable for them.  Nintendo already tried it when they tried to stick to cartridges, which were bad for everyone EXCEPT Nintendo.  It knocked their asses off their lofty perch in a heartbeat.  They have been trying to recover from that blow for a very long time.

[tommy]

I was trying to say that all the consoles would work this way ,so the game makers couldnt say screw this or that console.

[shmokes]

I think you're in the minority, though.  If customers really wanted this (I don't, for example) it would be happening.  Console manufacturers would love it if their customers were willing to constantly purchase new upgrades for their machines throughout their lifespan.  But the sad (for you) fact is, whenever anybody tries this the general public all but ignores upgrades, even when those upgrades actually promise a significant improvement.

I think game consoles are so cheap as it is that the trade-off in complexity would not be worth it to the customers.  I don't think the average person wants to keep track of which "version" of the playstation 2 they have and what upgrades are available for it.

Hey...maybe in a perfect world everyone would be enthusiasts, but consoles are practically a commodity now.  Everybody has them, including the type of people who couldn't set the clock on their VCR back in the day.

But don't worry.  There is a product for you.  It's the PC.  Consoles and PCs target two different markets (albeit with a lot of overlap with people like me).  Consoles serve the fire-and-forget crowd, while PCs target the hard core gamers who demand more depth and complexity from their games and are willing (and, importantly, able) to tinker more with their systems and put up with more instability for the ability to do things like upgrade their systems and customize their games with user-created maps and other content. 

Games aren't just for geeks anymore.  It is the simplicity, affordability and accessibilty of game consoles that has driven this hobby from the basements of pasty complexioned social outcasts into the living room of average Americans.  Game companies are not going to sacrifice these gains in overall userbase (and revenue) to cater to hardcores. 

Just get an xbox.  Once you get into the mod scene, you'll realize that there are TONS AND TONS of amazing upgrades to keep you happy.  They're not authorized by Microsoft, mind you, but let's not strain at gnats.

[tommy]

Its a shame they dont have upgradeable options on consoles, i would be willing to pay an extra hundred or so for a cube with removable hardware , atleast have it possible for certain users who would like to customize there machine, but like you said they wouldnt make options like that just for me.   

[paigeoliver]

I am not a PC gaming fanboy, I have just walked away unsatisfied from every console ever since I got a Voodoo2 card back in the old days.

No load times is always a good thing.

A few improvements I would love to see in consoles.

#1. Hard drives, they should ALL have them and ALL use them.

#2. And if you are going to have a hard drive, then how about a basic functional operating system on it with a few utilities, web browser, email,  a basic word processor, media player and so on. The systems these days are more than powerful enough to provide this, and it would really be a boon to the younger people who might have to choose between a computer and a console. Word processer, email, web browser and media player is all most people REALLY ever use on their computer anyway. This would add NOTHING to the cost per unit.

#3. If you are going to have a hard drive then USE it. At the very minimum frequently accessed data (such as menu screens and such) should be installed to the hard drive. I played one X-Box car game and navigating through the screens to buy car parts and such was murder, in a single parts buying session you might have to endure 20+ "loading" screens, each being a good 10 seconds.

4. Ditch the whole "memory card" system. Swap it out for something that is already industry standard (USB pen drives, compact flash, etc). Its not like these are making the console makers a lot of cash, not when most users buy the off-brand ones at half the price of the offical ones.

5. Basic USB keyboard, mouse and printer support. To go along with those built in apps, and to make things like level editors actually usable.

[tommy]

I agree consoles should have some sort of upgradabilty but paige thats sounding too much like a pc, i just want a complete upgradable game system not all the functions of a pc, we have pc's.

[paigeoliver]

Well the things I am talking about vastly expand the usability and capability of the system, while adding essentially NOTHING to the cost of the darn things.

Believe me, build the BASIC pc capabilities into the consoles and they will actually start to cut into the PC market. A lot of people don't really need a PC. Heck, MOST people don't need a PC. The average PC owner does absolutely nothing other than those couple apps I mentioned.

I am a big believer in not crippling things, and providing value in your product. You know why I hate those bootleg 39 in 1 Jamma boards so much? Not because they are bootleg, but because the $650 "39 in 1" is the SAME board as the $300 "9 in 1" boards. It cost the same thing to produce, but they charge double for the 39 in 1 because they jammed more bootleg games on it? The 9 in 1 actually costs more to produce because they have to be made to order.

Those consoles are essentially capable of providing the amount of PC functionality needed by the average PC user, why not provide it. If anything it would be a BETTER experience for the average user. Far too many people are not REALLY technically astute enough to deal with a PC and the assorted maintenance and saftey actually involved in owning one. I KNOW, I have been to their house and seen their computers. Far better for them to have a Playstation with 5 or 6 built in apps that just WORK.

[RayB]

This is lame. Keep playing the good games as they come out regardless what system it's for. I'd rather keep buying PS2 and GameCube games even if the next gen systems are out, while the library for the new console increases and makes it worth it. By the time a new system has a good solid library built up, that system's price is usually around $199.

Tommy are you saying you'd rather be spending money every year upgrading a console rather than just keeping your money and paying LESS for a new console? (yeah LESS cuz think about it, if you spend just $75 every year on for 5 years on upgrades, that's $375. Why not just save that cash and plunk it down on the new console when it comes out? They usually retail for $249 when released!)

And why besides, consoles ARE upgradable. Gamecube has wireless controllers, a GameBoy player, a network adaptor... The PS2 has the eyeToy, a Harddrive, a network adaptor, specialized controllers... What more can you ask for? Upgrades that increase a consoles graphics power NEVER work out. Dismal failures each and every time, just like Shmokes said.

The best way to handle console "upgrades" is the way Nintendo did it with the NES and SNES. They added chips to cartridges that extended some of the system capabilities. But guess what? That added about $5 to $10 to the price of the cartridge. So even THAT didn't work out, cuz people complained about high game prices!

[spiffyshoes]

As for software DreamCast used to have a web browser and Linux.

[paigeoliver]

As for software DreamCast used to have a web browser and Linux.  And you could have bought linux for PS2 from sony's website.  With linux on your PS2 you then pretty much can use any sort of USB device you can think of.  People have used Printers, CD Burners, Scanners, etc; on their PS2s.  You also get word processing, web browsing, etc;.  I'm not sure about software for X-Box but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get linux for it too.

That is good stuff, now they should just ship it with the system.

Or maybe they purposely don't want to do that, because then they would get people buying them to use them as computers and not buying any games.

[spiffyshoes]

I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of consoles such as Playstation 3 shipped with software for doing basic computer stuff.  Sony has been trying to market their systems as something more than just a game machine for some time now.  The PS2 was originally marketed as a home entertainment center not a console.  It was meant for doing more than just playing games.  It had a DVD player built in so you could watch movies.  The Linux kit was available to give it more PC capabilities.  They even made a version that was supposed to work as a TIVO too.  Look at their new PSP.  It also has built in movie and music capabilities.  Trying to make their systems an all-in-one entertainment center has been a really good marketing strategy for them so far and so it probably will continue allong that road in the future.

[shmokes]

Dreamcast shipped with a web browser.  Where's Sega today?   

If all this was truly something that consumers wanted, yet it added virtually no cost to the developer, we would have it.

[Chris]

This is hardly a new concept.  Remember the Colecovision ADAM?  Even the Atari 2600 had a module that converted it to a computer....

If more companies would make more console-like games for the PC, where games don't need to be installed and configured, just drop in the disc and play, who would even need a console?

[shmokes]

People who don't have $1000+ to spend...

[slycrel]

  Actually (if what I know is correct), the xbox kernel isn't all THAT shaved down.  I believe that when you install windows (at least from 98 and above) the lame ascii blue installer that you have to go through is actually powered by the windows kernel.  All the boot time crap is 75% drivers and some UI initialization.  To test this make a PC with no peripherals (no sound card, network, CD drive, etc).  My old 733 Mhz machine booted in something like 20 seconds into win98 with no additional cards installed.  Granted that's still not as fast as an xbox, but comparing the two is somewhat apples and oranges...  Anyhow, I'm rambling.

  If someone knows more specifically feel free to correct me.  =)

[paigeoliver]

Applications need no security updates if designed correctly in the first place. Think like a Palm Pilot, or one of those fancy laptop style word processors that had 5 built in apps that were popular back in the early 90s before EVERYONE had PCs.

If the web browser has no capabilities besides print, save, and view then it doesn't NEED security updates. The fact that Microsoft's browser has the ability to do EVERYTHING and the kitchen sink (and this includes core operating system functions), is the reason that it needs security updates.

Did the Dreamcast Web Browser need security updates? Does the built in browser on my cell phone need security updates? Nope, the sucker isn't capable of doing anything bad in the first place.

As for virii, that is easy, just remember you are making a console with the ability to do common computer tasks, but it is still a console. The sucker shouldn't be ABLE to execute anything other than the built in APPS and software in the disc format the console uses. Also, the file system should be designed in a manner that makes all system data completely invisible and unaccessable.

Lets imagine the console has 256 or 512 Ram (not out of line for next generation). Ok, got that part, good. Now the hard drive has two partitions, Fubu and BooBoo. Fubu is the only bootable partition, consists COMPLETELY of a memory image. The bootstrapper exists in ROM, we will call it Rubu.

Console boots, the bootstrapper Rubu loads loads the contents of the Fubu partition into memory. The Fubu partition contains a complete "booted" system image. With a few basic apps this should exist in under 64MB.

The Fubu image IS the system once it is loaded into memory, but it won't even be capable of reading the data format that it is contained in on it's partition. Matter of fact it won't even be able to see that partition, it won't even SUPPORT multiple partitions. It will only support the primary partition, while the Rubu bootstrapper can only load from the secondary partition.

The primary partition is the BooBoo partition, which consists completely of the user's own files, MY DOCUMENTS and such.

Did I lose anyone there? It isn't complicated to write a system that does what it is supposed to do and does not need updates. My proposed system would boot to a clean system each and every time, and it would have no way of breaking itself.

Also, build the Computer mode as a single monlithic application, OS and apps all rolled into one (like games are now). Then you would no more have to worry about people messing up the system than you would have to worry about people somehow making a virus run on your Galaga "operating system".

[shmokes]

Actually I believe that there ARE viruses that spread onto cell phones over insecure web applications.

And no, the Dreamcast browser never needed a security update that I know of.  But then, the Dreamcast is nothing like the console that you are describing.  It doesn't have any place to write information.  I suppose the most someone could do is gain access to someone's memory cards.  The dreamcast also didn't have a very large userbase -- part of what makes Apple computers and Firefox so secure.

Also, the Xbox IS a computer that practically uses off-the-shelf PC parts.  As you've pointed out, there's no technological hurdle that would have to be overcome to build in all these features.  There is no significant financial outlay that would be needed to add these features.  Most people just don't want their Xbox to be a PC.  If people wanted it....if it was something that could have pushed MS to be the product leader over Sony, it would have been done.  It's that simple.  You are simply projecting your unusual tastes onto the population as a whole.  The vast majority of Xbox owners already own a PC, and yet they bought an Xbox anyway.  They bought an Xbox because they wanted a console.

Anyway...whatever.  Frankly, you're right in some ways.  Many PC capabilities are making their way into consoles.  But only those capabilities that make the thing more entertaining.  Xbox has the hard drive.  The next consoles, at least Xbox 2 and Nintendo's next, have built in wireless, probably some flavor of 802.11.  Both the Xbox and the PS2 can be used with a keyboard and mouse for first person shooters.  Almost certainly the next consoles will have media streaming capabilities and possibly TIVO-like functionality.  Customers don't want to hook productivity tools to their family-room TV.  No game-console company with a not-retarded marketing department wants their new game console to be associated with productivity in the minds of consumers. 

[Stingray]

You are simply projecting your unusual tastes onto the population as a whole.  The vast majority of Xbox owners already own a PC, and yet they bought an Xbox anyway.  They bought an Xbox because they wanted a console.

This is exactly correct. I own a desktop computer and a laptop computer. I do not want my console to be a bloated PC wannabee. I want a system I can sticka disk in and play with a controller. If I want to browse the web, write an email, print, burn a CD or whatever, I'll use one of my real computers. My PS2 already has more features than I want. If I want to watch a DVD I have a DVD player in the living room. Adding all this extra crap that most people don't want or need is just going to bloat the system. Consoles are game machines. All they need to do is be able to play games, and do so in as quick and simple manner as possible.

**handing soap box off to someone else**

-S

[ChadTower]

Also, console games are not nearly as optimized as they used to be. They used to write the suckers in assembly. Now they write them in C. C is C on the computer, C is C on the PS2.

As a professional software developer, I would like to point out that this is incorrect.  You can take C code and get very different results on the same platform just by changing compiler, or even simple compiler settings.  Then you figure you are talking about two different processors... the same C code, even with the same compiler and settings on both processors, will run differently on each processor type because of the instruction sets involved.

Assembly is compiled too, it's just closer to the actual processor instruction set than C is.  Assembly can give drastically different results on the same processor with different compilers or compiler settings the same way.

[paigeoliver]

My core idea there was the fact that the games simply aren't as optomized as they used to be. The older the consoles the more optomized they were. I certainly agree that compiler settings, compilers and differing instruction sets will have massive differences between them, but what I was driving at is that assembly is faster and smaller. They wrote in assembly back then, now they don't.  Every bit, bite and instruction mattered to them back then, that simply isn't true anymore.

I would also love to wring the neck of the person who thought the best use of the massive storage available on CDROM and larger consoles is GIGANTIC movie files that the users are going to be pressing the buttons to skip. Although PC developers are just as guilty of that (game takes up 89 MB, intro movie are 420 MB!)

[shmokes]

Yeah, I'll give you that.  FMV was a real problem, especially back in the PS1 days.  It seems like most of the developers nowdays seem to realize that fancy FMV alone simply won't sell a game.  And with the advent of DVD there seems to be more than enough storage space for all the game content, plus tons of full-motion-video for any current-generation games.

One trend that I am happy to see is more and more developers using the game engine for cut-scenes, rather than prerendered stuff.  I think switching to pre-rendered FMV can be a little jarring, like the whole time you are playing you are supposed to imagine that the characters look different than what you are actually looking at on screen.  It probably helps that 3D engines are becoming so detailed.   Before long we'll have 3D engines that can render Toy Story-quality graphics on the fly and it won't even make sense to prerender cut-scenes.  That'll be nice.

[Grasshopper]

I'm inclined to agree with Paige.

I own a Dreamcast which I've been very happy with. There is nothing on my (at least on paper) far more powerful PC which can match Soul Calibur. However, I'd be reluctant to buy a current console even though they superficially appear to provide good value for money.

Here are some of the things I don't like about consoles.

*  Regional encoding.

*  The fact that you can only buy licenced (i.e. grossly overpriced) games.

*  The fact that you have to jump through hoops and risk invalidating your warranty (i.e. fit modchips etc) if you want to run things like homebrew games and Linux.

*  X-Box controllers are based on USB technology but Microsoft deliberately deviated slightly form the USB standard so you cannot use standard USB HID devices.

*  X-Boxes cannot output to VGA even though they are based on PC technology (not sure whether Playstations can output to VGA or not). Microsoft has gone to great lengths to try and disguise the X-Box's PC origins.

It's the first three items I find particularly odious. These are all blatantly anti-competitive, monopolistic practices which ought to be illegal. But instead we have laws which protect companies right to do these things.

I learnt the hard way many years ago, when I owned an Amiga, that if you allow yourself to be locked into proprietary hardware then eventually you'll be jerked around.

Another thing that annoys me about the whole console/PC divide is how artificial it is.

There is no reason why Microsoft couldn't produce a cut down (and therefore hopefully less buggy and more efficient) version of Windows for PCs designed simply for running games. If fact such a thing already exists - Windows CE. But they've never released a consumer version. I've also noticed a trend in recent years for arcade style games not to be released on the PC (for instance, when's the last time a decent fighter appeared on the PC?).

 The cynic in me wonders whether these are deliberate policies designed to encourage people to buy an X-Box and a PC.

[Grasshopper]

This is hardly a new concept.  Remember the Colecovision ADAM?  Even the Atari 2600 had a module that converted it to a computer....

Actually if you think about it, most 80s home computers (Commodore 64, Amiga etc) had a lot in common with consoles today. They had simple (and therefore difficult to crash) operating systems in ROM and they plugged into a TV.

I'd like to see a return to consoles that can also be used as home PCs.

[OK I know you can run Linux etc on consoles today but it requires a fair degree of technical knowledge and it's not something that the manufacturers encourage.]