Gamecube in 2d

[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.]