Sorry, but there's just not a polite way to put this -
Madness. Utter and complete madness.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Concur.
People, please. The market is clearly saturated. Plus, arguing that "Pippin2" would blow the doors off the XBox or PS2 ignores the fact that both MS and Sony are well into development on their next generation consoles. So Pippin2 would have to be developed to compete with next generation console offerings --- it's too late to get in on the action for this generation.
No way. Unless SJ want to spend future keynotes explaining away the "Polygons Myth".
I'm all for speculative threads, but I think we've all beaten this topic adequately to death, don't you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>M$ will drop out of the game console market for a few reasons:
1) xbox costs 500 to make, sells for 300
2) unless xbox prices are lowered, the msrp is 100 over the GC and PS2
3)theyre against big time rivals sony and nintendo nintendo's got the history, sonys got the tech
4) the ONLY good game for xbox is halo the ONLY</strong><hr></blockquote>
My responses. respectively:
<ol type="1">[*]Games sell for $48-$70. game companies get $33-$45. guess where the rest goes?[*]That's called: "I'll take the high road and you'll take the low road. and I'll get there before ye!"[*]And what did Sony have when they started?[*]Oh yeah? I think Jet Set Radio Future, Project Gotham Racing, Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee and Max Payne. amongst others. are pretty darned good too.[/list=a]
<strong>People, please. The market is clearly saturated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't that what they said about Sony?
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>Plus, arguing that "Pippin2" would blow the doors off the XBox or PS2 ignores the fact that both MS and Sony are well into development on their next generation consoles. So Pippin2 would have to be developed to compete with next generation console offerings --- it's too late to get in on the action for this generation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. just like Apple's desktop/laptop offerings. Apple. like all PC manufacturers. _always_ has SOMETHING up their sleeves(Unless Steve Jobs has gone daft). Apple will be just as up-to-date as nowadays(Hopefully more so).
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>No way. Unless SJ want to spend future keynotes explaining away the "Polygons Myth".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. Apple shouldn't sink to their level. like I said before:
[quote]Originally posted by Me:
<strong>The distinguishing feature of most consoles today is their graphics/sound hardware. getting a yet bigger GPU would be too easily one-up-able. so why not just skip it? the strong point of the GPU is it's incredible speed at certain types of math functions. the weak point of the GPU is the fact of that those particular math functions are the _only_ things it can do. period.
The CPU. while not quite as quick as the dedicated GPU at it's run-of-the-mill math. can be reprogrammed do amazing things with lesser used. and more complex styles of math.
For example. try doing voxels in a GPU. and try physical modeling simulation on audio hardware. as three G4s would cost nearly the same as a G4, a GPU and an audio chip. imagine how unique a game hardcoded in binary for a tri-G4 Mac would look, sound and feel. the sheer number of unusual techniques that could be used would totally steamroller every other game ever made.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. the Pippin 2 wouldn't even need to use polygons for the most part. this technique would have the additional advantages of:
<ol type="1">[*]Due to the heavy CPU dependancy. it would make the production of copycat titles and ports to other platforms virtually impossible. this effect would be compounded by the post-G4 PowerPC's utter dominance in vector calculations.[*]As the G4/G5 have utterly unmatched vector performance. it would be _very_ difficult for Apple's rivals to duplicate the unprecedented and wondrous feats done by the Pippin 2 in post-Pippin 2 consoles without either using AltiVec PPCs. or going through a LOT of time and effort to make a processor with a competitive VPU. this would also keep 80x86 PCs from catching up with the Pippin 2/Macintosh's games.[*]The unique advantages and incredible freedom afforded to game developers on the Pippen 2 would woo them from the other(And nearly identical) consoles. this would give the Pippin 2 and it's titles a distinctive flavor. which would in turn attract consumer and media attention.[/list=a]
So instead. Steve Jobs would simply flip down his silver wrap-arounds and say:
"Polygons? where _we're_ going. we don't needpolygons."
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>I'm all for speculative threads, but I think we've all beaten this topic adequately to death, don't you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I?m guessing a journey into making their own console would cost Apple at least 10 million dollars (design, staffing, manufacturing startup etc.) Probably much more. At the end of this, they?re still in a crowded market that makes it unlikely to be profitable anytime soon.
Wouldn?t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)
<strong>Wouldn?t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. what a great idea! Apple ought to try this(And making a first-party game house just for the Mac wouldn't be too shabby either).
I was mainly just using the game console as a vehicle through which to make expensive hardware at a loss(To sell to low income customers) and still make a profit off the old console stand-by of getting a commission off every title sold. as well as getting some of that "Information appliance" hype for free.
<strong>I will be vastly entertained to hear your explanation for how Sony is a video game "industry outsider".</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many game consoles and/or game titles did Sony make prior to the PlayStation? try none. Sony was more of an outsider than Microsoft was before the X-Box(Remember how Microsoft has been making games. like Flight Simulator. for years. unlike Sony. and both Microsoft and Apple have been in entrenched in the games biz practically since their respective starts. also unlike Sony).
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>While you're at it, just for fun, why not explain to us how to get a triple-G4 machine down to a video game console pricing level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure. like I said before:
[quote]Originally posted by me:
<strong>as three G4s would cost nearly the same as a G4, a GPU and an audio chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. the price of a single PowerPC. combined with the cost of a single 3D chipset and other simple processors(Dedicated audio chipset, modem circuitry, drive controllers etc.) equals. or more likely exceeds that of three PowerPCs. this affect would be compounded by the fact of that you would be using massive numbers of a single component(The CPUs) at an immense bulk discount. instead of having smaller contracts with three or more suppliers.
Another advantage that might save money is the fact of that CPUs(Heck. any bunch of identical components) are better at using shared memory, passing data between each other, divvying up tasks etc. this would possibly lower the amount of processing power and resources needed to attain the desired level of performance.
How many game consoles and/or game titles did Sony make prior to the PlayStation?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They produced a number of games for the Saturn and for the SuperNES, actually. The point is, however, that the Playstation was released in 1995. You cannot seriously believe that the console market is substantially the same as it was seven years ago.
<strong>In other words. the price of a single PowerPC. combined with the cost of a single 3D chipset and other simple processors(Dedicated audio chipset, modem circuitry, drive controllers etc.) equals. or more likely exceeds that of three PowerPCs.</strong>
Yes, that's right. G4s cost very little. That's why a dual G4 machine costs $3000.
Wait, let's be fair. Let's cut out the hard drive, etc. from that. Let's say $1500.
Oh, and 1 GHz chips are overkill for a game console. Let's say we drop the price by two-thirds.
That's $500 for a box containing just two G4s.
... not counting the significant engineering costs of developing a machine which can use three processors...
Wouldn’t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that would be a great idea. In the short run, it wouldn't be profitable for Apple, but it would establish the Apple market a more serious market for the gaming community. Let's face it, the "iapps" are great for consumers, but games are number one for the masses. This is not an original idea. It's been kicked around many times in game forums. None the less, it's a good idea.
Regarding the Pippin. Let's make something clear. Apple developed the machine, but it was never an Apple product. It was developed for Bandai. In terms of reasons for failure, Apple may deserve partial blame, mostly for being underpowered, etc. but I'd assign the lion's share to Bandai for the ill concieved concept in the first place, let alone absolutely no marketing, developer relations, etc.
Apple does many things well. However, making powerful hardware at a cheap price is not one of them. Console makers lose money on the hardware, but make it up on the software licensing, etc. In my opinion, Apple's best bet in this market would be to team up with someone like Nintendo. Apple could produce the Gamecube2 for Nintendo, and possibly make some royalties from it. In a best case scenario, this would help bring some games to the Mac.
As for the X-box, yeah, it's a bit buggy and doesn't quite live up to the hype. However, most MS version 1 products are of a similar calibre. What sets MS apart from most other competitors in this market is that they do have a few billion to lose, especially if it will force one of it's competitors out of the market in the process.
I was quite serious about the iMac being Apple's game console. No, it's not engineered particularly for games, and Apple is not (planning on) selling it at a loss, but:
It's a consumer machine.
It has a very high degree of hardware uniformity, like a console, which makes it more attractive to developers - and it has friendlier (and cheaper!) developer tools than many consoles do.
It has built-in networking, and a decent selection of gamepads and controls.
It has a number of games available, some bundled.
It's a PC with a few of the more necessary attributes of a game console, essentially. And that's the most you'll see from Apple into the future. Apple is having a fair amount of difficulty getting game publishers to write for the platform it already offers - what logic is there in fragmenting the platform and offering two? It doesn't matter if it has the most incredible potential of any console hardware to date. A lot of technologically pretty machines have died on the vine for lack of games - remember the Intellivision? (oops, I'm dating myself).
People get worked up about processing power, but it's all about games. Pangea can produce gorgeous 3D landscapes without needing zillions of polygons , multitexturing or per-pixel shading. Ambrosia can, at the outset of the 21st century, publish a game (EV:Nova) with 2D sprite graphics rendered in 16-bit color and cause a sensation. On a much larger scale, Nintendo has made a fortune on simple but maddeningly addictive games, many of them side-scrollers, despite infuriating developer tools and support, draconian licensing, and lagging hardware. Better hardware offers greater potential, but in the end what matters is how good your stable of game designers is. If Nintendo ported its suite of games to the iMac tomorrow for whatever reason, they'd start flying off the shelves, bus speed and 2MX graphics be damned.
As for the XBox, it's not just a console either. Ballmer has come right out and said that MS had - and has - much bigger plans for it than that. It's (hoped to be) the first post-PC platform for Microsoft.
One of the most incisive arguments on these boards in a while.
And typical of Amorph.
A valid point about 'power'.
'Superior' graphics didn't stop the 'Ultra' Nintendo getting rolled over by the upstart kid Sony 'Playstation'. And 'superior' games didn't save the Nintendo from a 2nd place hammering either!
Still. I'd say it was a 'moral' victory for them. They have their 'quality out' policy. Fair does.
As Apple's current products are.
I think the current imac is the ultimate Apple game machine.
(In terms of power, just keep upping the specs over time. How long before a Geforce 4mx is included in the mix and a 1 gig plus G4 Apollo?)
Pricey? I remember the Amiga being launched in the UK at over a thousand pounds!!! About £1,500?
Yeesh. I remember us Commodore 64 owners (C64 and tape deck set with joystick...set us back £250ish pounds. Ouch.) thinking, 'Oh-my-god, how are we gonna afford to upgrade to this ultimate Commodore games machine. Still, as time proved, the Amiga never surpassed the C64 when it came to games.
There's nothing the present imac couldn't do better than the Nintendo 64.
Take Marathon Infinity. I rate the Marathon games as better than Crap, sorry, Quake III any day of the week.
Amorph's right.
It is all about the games.
I still play the old Commodore 64 games in emulation.
It was, and still is for me, the best ever games computer...with a diversity and breadth of concept and playability that Nintendo will never match.
For the imac. It's the coolest looking 'console' out there. Look ma, 'monitor included'!!!
Sell another six million imacs and there'll be plenty of games.
Apple already gets the cream of the best PC games anyway. Sooner than they used to. And on 'Ten'. They keep coming and more so.
Sure, maybe the Geforce Mx2 is a tad underpowered by todays standards...but it seemed to play Deux Ex okay on my Athlon 800mhz Thunderbird not too many moons ago.
Can todays imac do less?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. It is with the Raycer rumours flying about that I smile. What with memories of C64 and Amiga having 'specialised' chips...that set them apart from the PC drones.
<strong>I was quite serious about the iMac being Apple's game console. No, it's not engineered particularly for games, and Apple is not (planning on) selling it at a loss, but:
It's a consumer machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales. If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.
To attract gamers, you need to engineer a gaming machine. I realize profit margins are relatively tight on the iMac, but Apple could make a few very small changes to make a good gaming machine. For starters, look at the X-Box. It's basically a P3 700mhz with a Geforce3+ on it. A low end iMac with a 700mhz G4 beats the X-Box processor wise, but Apple needs to put a good graphics chip on it. The Geforce2MX is barely acceptable by todays standards. A Geforce 4MX would be a considerable improvement at an affordable cost. Of course, if Apple really wanted to build a good gaming machine, it would through in a Geforce 4 Ti.
Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.
Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.
Steve
Edit:
One final note - I do agree with the notion that Apple needs to make sure unique A list games come to the Mac. I'll also agree that as long as the hardware is adequate, this may be the single most important factor.
Until then, Mac gamers will always be 6 months behind what everyone else is doing.
"To attract gamers, you need to engineer a gaming machine. I realize profit margins are relatively tight on the iMac, but Apple could make a few very small changes to make a good gaming machine. For starters, look at the X-Box. It's basically a P3 700mhz with a Geforce3+ on it. A low end iMac with a 700mhz G4 beats the X-Box processor wise, but Apple needs to put a good graphics chip on it. The Geforce2MX is barely acceptable by todays standards. A Geforce 4MX would be a considerable improvement at an affordable cost. Of course, if Apple really wanted to build a good gaming machine, it would through in a Geforce 4 Ti.
Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console."
'The Dome'. What would we call it? 'Ground Zero'? The 'Snow Ball'? The 'half a baseball'?
Good post.
I often wonder why they don't just still in cheap hard drive etc and sell cheap...but you just answered that...
[quote]It is NOT the same thing. That chip is the size of a paint chip. It's like saying a Cisco router is a Mac because it uses a PowerPC. <hr></blockquote>
Note the key words:kinda, sorta
Anyway, I wasn't implying that a gamecube was a MAC or even a MAC product. But if you wanna get all technical, feel free? I'm going to layout some ads with my Cisco router. I
<strong>It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What definition of "game" are you using? If it doesn't include casual gamers, it's not relevant. I know there aren't many people interested in playing the "hard-core" games on iMacs - or Macs, for that matter. There's not much Apple can do to change that, except to grab enough marketshare that it makes sense to (co)develop for their hardware platform. Also, the hard-core gamers are now a minority, and a diminishing one.
The games that tend to do really well don't necessarily have hardware requirements that rule out an iMac.
[quote]<strong>If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they were happy with the games that shipped on the iMac? Who knows. At any rate, the iMac is not going to cut into the PC gaming market very much - that crowd is looking for an entirely different sort of machine.
As for the GeForce 4mx, it didn't exist (publicly) when the iMac was launched. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears before long. Especially if it's pin-compatible.
Apple also needs to get their long-rumored revision to OpenGL out, so that there's a consistent API for the more advanced capabilities of the RADEON/GeForce3/etc. The current iMac's capabilities will improve simply with that. Ditto a finished CoreAudio layer, etc.
[quote]<strong>Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For... how much? Why not just bump the graphics chip up to a 4mx, and keep it as a PC that functions as a sort of game console? It'll be a simple enough option by MWNY, when Apple will have had months to work the inefficiencies out of their production lines.
[quote]<strong>Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that the iMac uses a motherboard chipset for graphics, and the PowerMacs get the full card and higher-end options, and have faster busses and processors, etc., I don't think this is why the iMac shipped with a 2mx. They used it because it's what there was.
But, again: Finally, it's about the games. Not Max Payne, or HALO, or any of the big, showy games, but the simpler games that are popular with a much larger audience. Most of those can run comfortably on a CRT iMac. A good game is a good game; nethack still blows away most CRPGs in terms of actual play, once you get past the primitive "graphics." That's why it's had such uncommon longevity.
Comments
1) xbox costs 500 to make, sells for 300
2) unless xbox prices are lowered, the msrp is 100 over the GC and PS2
3)theyre against big time rivals sony and nintendo nintendo's got the history, sonys got the tech
4) the ONLY good game for xbox is halo the ONLY
<strong>
Sorry, but there's just not a polite way to put this -
Madness. Utter and complete madness.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Concur.
People, please. The market is clearly saturated. Plus, arguing that "Pippin2" would blow the doors off the XBox or PS2 ignores the fact that both MS and Sony are well into development on their next generation consoles. So Pippin2 would have to be developed to compete with next generation console offerings --- it's too late to get in on the action for this generation.
No way. Unless SJ want to spend future keynotes explaining away the "Polygons Myth".
I'm all for speculative threads, but I think we've all beaten this topic adequately to death, don't you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
-mithral
<strong>Sorry, but there's just not a polite way to put this -
Madness. Utter and complete madness.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sony and Microsoft(Both industry outsiders) don't think so
Eric,
<strong>M$ will drop out of the game console market for a few reasons:
1) xbox costs 500 to make, sells for 300
2) unless xbox prices are lowered, the msrp is 100 over the GC and PS2
3)theyre against big time rivals sony and nintendo nintendo's got the history, sonys got the tech
4) the ONLY good game for xbox is halo the ONLY</strong><hr></blockquote>
My responses. respectively:
<ol type="1">[*]Games sell for $48-$70. game companies get $33-$45. guess where the rest goes?[*]That's called: "I'll take the high road and you'll take the low road. and I'll get there before ye!"[*]And what did Sony have when they started?[*]Oh yeah? I think Jet Set Radio Future, Project Gotham Racing, Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee and Max Payne. amongst others. are pretty darned good too.[/list=a]
Eric,
<strong>People, please. The market is clearly saturated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't that what they said about Sony?
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>Plus, arguing that "Pippin2" would blow the doors off the XBox or PS2 ignores the fact that both MS and Sony are well into development on their next generation consoles. So Pippin2 would have to be developed to compete with next generation console offerings --- it's too late to get in on the action for this generation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup. just like Apple's desktop/laptop offerings. Apple. like all PC manufacturers. _always_ has SOMETHING up their sleeves(Unless Steve Jobs has gone daft). Apple will be just as up-to-date as nowadays(Hopefully more so).
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>No way. Unless SJ want to spend future keynotes explaining away the "Polygons Myth".
Nah. Apple shouldn't sink to their level. like I said before:
[quote]Originally posted by Me:
<strong>The distinguishing feature of most consoles today is their graphics/sound hardware. getting a yet bigger GPU would be too easily one-up-able. so why not just skip it? the strong point of the GPU is it's incredible speed at certain types of math functions. the weak point of the GPU is the fact of that those particular math functions are the _only_ things it can do. period.
The CPU. while not quite as quick as the dedicated GPU at it's run-of-the-mill math. can be reprogrammed do amazing things with lesser used. and more complex styles of math.
For example. try doing voxels in a GPU. and try physical modeling simulation on audio hardware. as three G4s would cost nearly the same as a G4, a GPU and an audio chip. imagine how unique a game hardcoded in binary for a tri-G4 Mac would look, sound and feel. the sheer number of unusual techniques that could be used would totally steamroller every other game ever made.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. the Pippin 2 wouldn't even need to use polygons for the most part. this technique would have the additional advantages of:
<ol type="1">[*]Due to the heavy CPU dependancy. it would make the production of copycat titles and ports to other platforms virtually impossible. this effect would be compounded by the post-G4 PowerPC's utter dominance in vector calculations.[*]As the G4/G5 have utterly unmatched vector performance. it would be _very_ difficult for Apple's rivals to duplicate the unprecedented and wondrous feats done by the Pippin 2 in post-Pippin 2 consoles without either using AltiVec PPCs. or going through a LOT of time and effort to make a processor with a competitive VPU. this would also keep 80x86 PCs from catching up with the Pippin 2/Macintosh's games.[*]The unique advantages and incredible freedom afforded to game developers on the Pippen 2 would woo them from the other(And nearly identical) consoles. this would give the Pippin 2 and it's titles a distinctive flavor. which would in turn attract consumer and media attention.[/list=a]
So instead. Steve Jobs would simply flip down his silver wrap-arounds and say:
"Polygons? where _we're_ going. we don't need polygons."
[quote]Originally posted by Mithral:
<strong>I'm all for speculative threads, but I think we've all beaten this topic adequately to death, don't you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
But isn't that the point of this forum
Eric,
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
I?m guessing a journey into making their own console would cost Apple at least 10 million dollars (design, staffing, manufacturing startup etc.) Probably much more. At the end of this, they?re still in a crowded market that makes it unlikely to be profitable anytime soon.
Wouldn?t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)
<strong>
Sony and Microsoft(Both industry outsiders) don't think so
I will be vastly entertained to hear your explanation for how Sony is a video game "industry outsider".
While you're at it, just for fun, why not explain to us how to get a triple-G4 machine down to a video game console pricing level.
<strong>true, but it would have command line
but just talking theoretically
Too late, Sony already beat that to the punch with Linux for the PS2
<strong>Wouldn?t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. what a great idea! Apple ought to try this(And making a first-party game house just for the Mac wouldn't be too shabby either).
I was mainly just using the game console as a vehicle through which to make expensive hardware at a loss(To sell to low income customers) and still make a profit off the old console stand-by of getting a commission off every title sold. as well as getting some of that "Information appliance" hype for free.
Eric,
<strong>I will be vastly entertained to hear your explanation for how Sony is a video game "industry outsider".</strong><hr></blockquote>
How many game consoles and/or game titles did Sony make prior to the PlayStation? try none. Sony was more of an outsider than Microsoft was before the X-Box(Remember how Microsoft has been making games. like Flight Simulator. for years. unlike Sony. and both Microsoft and Apple have been in entrenched in the games biz practically since their respective starts. also unlike Sony).
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>While you're at it, just for fun, why not explain to us how to get a triple-G4 machine down to a video game console pricing level.
Sure. like I said before:
[quote]Originally posted by me:
<strong>as three G4s would cost nearly the same as a G4, a GPU and an audio chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words. the price of a single PowerPC. combined with the cost of a single 3D chipset and other simple processors(Dedicated audio chipset, modem circuitry, drive controllers etc.) equals. or more likely exceeds that of three PowerPCs. this affect would be compounded by the fact of that you would be using massive numbers of a single component(The CPUs) at an immense bulk discount. instead of having smaller contracts with three or more suppliers.
Another advantage that might save money is the fact of that CPUs(Heck. any bunch of identical components) are better at using shared memory, passing data between each other, divvying up tasks etc. this would possibly lower the amount of processing power and resources needed to attain the desired level of performance.
How's that
Eric,
<strong>
How many game consoles and/or game titles did Sony make prior to the PlayStation?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They produced a number of games for the Saturn and for the SuperNES, actually. The point is, however, that the Playstation was released in 1995. You cannot seriously believe that the console market is substantially the same as it was seven years ago.
<strong>In other words. the price of a single PowerPC. combined with the cost of a single 3D chipset and other simple processors(Dedicated audio chipset, modem circuitry, drive controllers etc.) equals. or more likely exceeds that of three PowerPCs.</strong>
Yes, that's right. G4s cost very little. That's why a dual G4 machine costs $3000.
Wait, let's be fair. Let's cut out the hard drive, etc. from that. Let's say $1500.
Oh, and 1 GHz chips are overkill for a game console. Let's say we drop the price by two-thirds.
That's $500 for a box containing just two G4s.
... not counting the significant engineering costs of developing a machine which can use three processors...
<strong>
Wouldn’t it be a better use of scarce resources for Apple to give ten game companies a one million dollar grant each to make a killer Mac OS X only game for the iMac?
We have our own MAC-ONLY Flight Sim, Car Racing, FIFA Soccer and more! And Apple sells twice as many iMacs (assuming they can make enough of them.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, that would be a great idea. In the short run, it wouldn't be profitable for Apple, but it would establish the Apple market a more serious market for the gaming community. Let's face it, the "iapps" are great for consumers, but games are number one for the masses. This is not an original idea. It's been kicked around many times in game forums. None the less, it's a good idea.
Regarding the Pippin. Let's make something clear. Apple developed the machine, but it was never an Apple product. It was developed for Bandai. In terms of reasons for failure, Apple may deserve partial blame, mostly for being underpowered, etc. but I'd assign the lion's share to Bandai for the ill concieved concept in the first place, let alone absolutely no marketing, developer relations, etc.
Apple does many things well. However, making powerful hardware at a cheap price is not one of them. Console makers lose money on the hardware, but make it up on the software licensing, etc. In my opinion, Apple's best bet in this market would be to team up with someone like Nintendo. Apple could produce the Gamecube2 for Nintendo, and possibly make some royalties from it. In a best case scenario, this would help bring some games to the Mac.
As for the X-box, yeah, it's a bit buggy and doesn't quite live up to the hype. However, most MS version 1 products are of a similar calibre. What sets MS apart from most other competitors in this market is that they do have a few billion to lose, especially if it will force one of it's competitors out of the market in the process.
Steve
It's a consumer machine.
It has a very high degree of hardware uniformity, like a console, which makes it more attractive to developers - and it has friendlier (and cheaper!) developer tools than many consoles do.
It has built-in networking, and a decent selection of gamepads and controls.
It has a number of games available, some bundled.
It's a PC with a few of the more necessary attributes of a game console, essentially. And that's the most you'll see from Apple into the future. Apple is having a fair amount of difficulty getting game publishers to write for the platform it already offers - what logic is there in fragmenting the platform and offering two? It doesn't matter if it has the most incredible potential of any console hardware to date. A lot of technologically pretty machines have died on the vine for lack of games - remember the Intellivision? (oops, I'm dating myself).
People get worked up about processing power, but it's all about games. Pangea can produce gorgeous 3D landscapes without needing zillions of polygons , multitexturing or per-pixel shading. Ambrosia can, at the outset of the 21st century, publish a game (EV:Nova) with 2D sprite graphics rendered in 16-bit color and cause a sensation. On a much larger scale, Nintendo has made a fortune on simple but maddeningly addictive games, many of them side-scrollers, despite infuriating developer tools and support, draconian licensing, and lagging hardware. Better hardware offers greater potential, but in the end what matters is how good your stable of game designers is. If Nintendo ported its suite of games to the iMac tomorrow for whatever reason, they'd start flying off the shelves, bus speed and 2MX graphics be damned.
As for the XBox, it's not just a console either. Ballmer has come right out and said that MS had - and has - much bigger plans for it than that. It's (hoped to be) the first post-PC platform for Microsoft.
[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
And typical of Amorph.
A valid point about 'power'.
'Superior' graphics didn't stop the 'Ultra' Nintendo getting rolled over by the upstart kid Sony 'Playstation'. And 'superior' games didn't save the Nintendo from a 2nd place hammering either!
Still. I'd say it was a 'moral' victory for them.
As Apple's current products are.
I think the current imac is the ultimate Apple game machine.
(In terms of power, just keep upping the specs over time. How long before a Geforce 4mx is included in the mix and a 1 gig plus G4 Apollo?)
Pricey? I remember the Amiga being launched in the UK at over a thousand pounds!!! About £1,500?
Yeesh. I remember us Commodore 64 owners (C64 and tape deck set with joystick...set us back £250ish pounds. Ouch.) thinking, 'Oh-my-god, how are we gonna afford to upgrade to this ultimate Commodore games machine. Still, as time proved, the Amiga never surpassed the C64 when it came to games.
There's nothing the present imac couldn't do better than the Nintendo 64.
Take Marathon Infinity. I rate the Marathon games as better than Crap, sorry, Quake III any day of the week.
Amorph's right.
It is all about the games.
I still play the old Commodore 64 games in emulation.
It was, and still is for me, the best ever games computer...with a diversity and breadth of concept and playability that Nintendo will never match.
For the imac. It's the coolest looking 'console' out there. Look ma, 'monitor included'!!!
Sell another six million imacs and there'll be plenty of games.
Apple already gets the cream of the best PC games anyway. Sooner than they used to. And on 'Ten'. They keep coming and more so.
Sure, maybe the Geforce Mx2 is a tad underpowered by todays standards...but it seemed to play Deux Ex okay on my Athlon 800mhz Thunderbird not too many moons ago.
Can todays imac do less?
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. It is with the Raycer rumours flying about that I smile. What with memories of C64 and Amiga having 'specialised' chips...that set them apart from the PC drones.
<strong>I was quite serious about the iMac being Apple's game console. No, it's not engineered particularly for games, and Apple is not (planning on) selling it at a loss, but:
It's a consumer machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales. If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.
To attract gamers, you need to engineer a gaming machine. I realize profit margins are relatively tight on the iMac, but Apple could make a few very small changes to make a good gaming machine. For starters, look at the X-Box. It's basically a P3 700mhz with a Geforce3+ on it. A low end iMac with a 700mhz G4 beats the X-Box processor wise, but Apple needs to put a good graphics chip on it. The Geforce2MX is barely acceptable by todays standards. A Geforce 4MX would be a considerable improvement at an affordable cost. Of course, if Apple really wanted to build a good gaming machine, it would through in a Geforce 4 Ti.
Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.
Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.
Steve
Edit:
One final note - I do agree with the notion that Apple needs to make sure unique A list games come to the Mac. I'll also agree that as long as the hardware is adequate, this may be the single most important factor.
Until then, Mac gamers will always be 6 months behind what everyone else is doing.
[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: SteveS ]</p>
Apple does kinda, sorta have a console, we call it the Nintendo Gamecube.
The MPU is a Custom IBM Power PC "Gekko"
Check the specs yourself if you don't believe me.
<a href="http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp"; target="_blank">http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp</a>;
[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: skaione ]</p>
<strong>I'm a littel late to the discussion but I skimmed it pretty well. So if someone said this forgive me.
Apple does kinda a console, we call it the Nintendo Gamecube.
The MPU is a Custom IBM Power PC "Gekko"
Check the specs yourself if you don't believe me.
<a href="http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp"; target="_blank">http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
It is NOT the same thing. That chip is the size of a paint chip. It's like saying a Cisco router is a Mac because it uses a PowerPC.
Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console."
'The Dome'. What would we call it? 'Ground Zero'? The 'Snow Ball'? The 'half a baseball'?
Good post.
I often wonder why they don't just still in cheap hard drive etc and sell cheap...but you just answered that...
Lemon Bon Bon
Note the key words:kinda, sorta
Anyway, I wasn't implying that a gamecube was a MAC or even a MAC product. But if you wanna get all technical, feel free? I'm going to layout some ads with my Cisco router. I
<strong>It's a consumer machine, yes. It's not a game machine. It's not marketed as a gaming machine. Only the latest iMac is just now barely competant as a gaming machine. Mac gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine, PC gamers don't consider the iMac a gaming machine. Most importantly, the huge surge in sales for consumer level machines (i.e. iMac) resulted in ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE in game sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What definition of "game" are you using? If it doesn't include casual gamers, it's not relevant. I know there aren't many people interested in playing the "hard-core" games on iMacs - or Macs, for that matter. There's not much Apple can do to change that, except to grab enough marketshare that it makes sense to (co)develop for their hardware platform. Also, the hard-core gamers are now a minority, and a diminishing one.
The games that tend to do really well don't necessarily have hardware requirements that rule out an iMac.
[quote]<strong>If you followed the Mac gaming market, you'd recall the disappointment from Mac gaming companies (such as interviews with Westlake, etc.) on the lack of change to Mac gaming sales. In short, iMac customers were consumers, yes. Gamers, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they were happy with the games that shipped on the iMac?
As for the GeForce 4mx, it didn't exist (publicly) when the iMac was launched. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears before long. Especially if it's pin-compatible.
Apple also needs to get their long-rumored revision to OpenGL out, so that there's a consistent API for the more advanced capabilities of the RADEON/GeForce3/etc. The current iMac's capabilities will improve simply with that. Ditto a finished CoreAudio layer, etc.
[quote]<strong>Now, remove the LCD display, put in the smallest, cheapest hard drive, don't ship with keyboard or mouse, but do add a game controller and you have a decent console.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For... how much? Why not just bump the graphics chip up to a 4mx, and keep it as a PC that functions as a sort of game console? It'll be a simple enough option by MWNY, when Apple will have had months to work the inefficiencies out of their production lines.
[quote]<strong>Instead, Apple is more concerned about differentiating it's product lines and will always keep the iMac below the Tower for gaming performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Given that the iMac uses a motherboard chipset for graphics, and the PowerMacs get the full card and higher-end options, and have faster busses and processors, etc., I don't think this is why the iMac shipped with a 2mx. They used it because it's what there was.
But, again: Finally, it's about the games. Not Max Payne, or HALO, or any of the big, showy games, but the simpler games that are popular with a much larger audience. Most of those can run comfortably on a CRT iMac. A good game is a good game; nethack still blows away most CRPGs in terms of actual play, once you get past the primitive "graphics."
[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>