ok there was too much to go up and read ,quote, debate, etc.
i'll just try to remember everything said.
final fantasy is coming to the 360.
metalgear solid 3 did not come to the xbox.
doubt microsoft would not bid for grand theft auto coming to the 360 before or at the same time as playstation.
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
just because nintendo tells you this new controller will revolutionize gaming doesn't mean thats true. personally i think the controller looks more complicated and seems to be a very awkward way to play, i could be wrong of course.
nintendo's lackluster 3rd party commitment is why they will never be number 1.
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
This is opinion and really not backed up by anything even close to fact. It is widely noted one of the catalysts to Sony's success is that they carried over compatibility for PS1 to PS2. Furthermore devices such as combo VCR/DVD recorders are around simply because people want to carry over compatibility. One of the parts of Nintendo's offering that has been widely applauded is the fact that old games ranging back to NES days will be available.
What you're suggesting is that every time I purchase a new computer my old software shouldn't work, it's ludicrous and since Sony has opened that kettle of fish I doubt it will ever go back. Sorry, you may not care about backward compatibility but it matters, particularly to parents who are buying a lot of these things.
As always it will be 3rd party support that makes or breaks the console though. Microsoft didn't have it the first time round, this time they still won't be on Sony's level but will they be close enough and will Sony self-destruct like they seem to enjoy doing so much? Time will tell.
ok there was too much to go up and read ,quote, debate, etc.
i'll just try to remember everything said.
final fantasy is coming to the 360.
metalgear solid 3 did not come to the xbox.
doubt microsoft would not bid for grand theft auto coming to the 360 before or at the same time as playstation.
Then why didn't they do that for Vice City or San Andreas? Why wait until the XBox360? I'm not saying they won't, but just because MS wants it doesn't mean it will happen that way. We'll have to wait for press releases to see how things play out.
Quote:
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
Backwards compatibility can be everything. It adds value to the console. People like Sony's Playstation because when they get the PS3 it can replace their PS2 next to/under/on top of their TV set. They can then play old PS2 or PS1 games as well as the new PS3 games with only one console. It's not like the days of old where you need 12 consoles to play all types of games. Since the days of carts are gone, the disc technologies are practically the same and the drives can read old formats. It's just a matter of emulation on the software end of things.
The fact the the Revolution will play GameCube games is also awesome to me. I haven't yet, but I want to pick up those Zelda collector's discs for GameCube off ebay. Why? So that I can pop them in and play Zelda classics on my GameCube. (I'm more concerned with Zelda 64/Majora's Mask/Zelda 64 Master Quest than Zeldas 1, 2, and 3 which can easily emulate on a PC/Mac/Modded XBox/etc)
Now I don't think that the compatibility will necessarily 'break' the XBox360 it can damage it sales-wise.
Quote:
just because nintendo tells you this new controller will revolutionize gaming doesn't mean thats true. personally i think the controller looks more complicated and seems to be a very awkward way to play, i could be wrong of course.
We will have to see how it plays out. Lots of people decried the touch screen on the DS when it came out. But there are lots of people who are loving the simple games that are coming out for the DS that utilize it. (Though I think that Nintendo's requirement that all DS games use the touchscreen -no matter how little the touchscreen adds to that specific game- is a little stupid)
The one thing that you have to realize is that the Revolution controller isn't aimed at hardcore gamers as much as it is aimed at your dad or grandmother (for example). It's form-factor -a remote control- is a lot less intimidating to them. And if a lot of the simple games targeted at this demographic utilize the motion-sensor correctly it could be a gold-mine for Nintendo. There are a lot more non-gamers than hardcore gamers out there. With just a small portion of the 'non-gamer market' Nintendo could make a killing.
Also bear in mind that simple games like this won't need hundreds of hours of gameplay like the games for hardcore gamers do. This means the development time and associated costs will be smaller for this type of game. It could make this type of game appealing to developers. With the smaller cost to develop they wouldn't need to worry about selling as many games at as high of a price point as the other games are.
But a lot of this is speculation. I'm just outlining a possible winning scenario for Nintendo that people tend to miss. If Nintendo plays its cards right, and things go this way it might not even be directly competing with MS and Sony... for now. With MS and Sony both trying to turn their game systems into media centers, they will eventually start targetting this market too. They will probably wait to see how Nintendo does and either follow its lead or learn from its mistakes.
Quote:
nintendo's lackluster 3rd party commitment is why they will never be number 1.
Well never... until they get better 3rd party support. (if ever)
A couple things strike me as this thread drags on.
A few posts have slammed the Cube. Console success is very much interpreted by the individual. Fact is the Gamecube was profitable whereas the Xbox 1 lost money. Nintendo knows how to run its business and be successful, we shall see if MS can make the 360 profitable as well as be a big seller.
Addtional thoughts.
The Revolution will do 480P and 16 x 9, probably support 5.1 sound as well.
While Final Fantasy is coming for the 360, its FF 11, not FF 12. FF 11 has already been on PS2 and PC for 18 months. Although the 360 should do alot better in Japan than the first Xbox did, I don't think it will challenge either Nintendo or Sony there. They might move 500 units a week as opposed to moving 200 units a week. Its kind of hard to win the next-gen console race when you have no respect in Japan. I know more japanese developers are embracing the 360, but thats so they don't lose revenue in the U.S. and Europe. If Japan was the only market, the 360 would launch dead and stay dead. On this premise, I think the PS3 will probably win, with the Revolution and 360 fighting for second. Second or third, Nintendo will make enough revenue to justify developing a new home console.
From what I've seen, backwards compatibility is a downward slope. When a new console comes out, that's when you need the most of it. Because only a few games are available, gamers are inclined to go back and play the "old" games for a while. As new games come out for the new console, the old games get stuck in a disc wallet for the rest of eternity.
Gamers play the latest and forget about the old. How many Halo 2 players still play Halo? Honestly? How many Final Fantasy X players still play IX, VIII, and all the others before it? Been there, played that, moved on.
Oh, sure, sometimes even I go back to the Super Nintendo and play Mario Kart, but I can count on one hand how many times that's happened in two years of owning an XBox.
Let's also remember that computer makers -- including our beloved Apple -- upgrade their hardware beyond the software all the time. How many times have we bought a new machine with a new OS and CRAP! My version Y.9 software doesn't work! Now I need version Z.0.
It's technology advancement. It's business. It's reality. Deal with it.
going backwards happens every once in a while. sure, sometimes i like to pick up old games and play it for fun (it lasts for like a half hour at most). still i dont know why we are debating this considering most games that you will want to play from xbox1 will be on the 360
you bought the xbox controller for use with the pc? hmm you didn't like it? gee does that mean its not a good remote for gaming?
odd, every damn article i've ever read praised the remote. i've used it,its prob the best remote out at this point.
nintendo and it's marketing is "we are aiming for non gamers"
it's only fitting that everyone repeats that when arguing for nintendo.
Even if games *CAN* benefit from multi-threading, we won't see those benefits right away. The developers will have to learn to utilize this to it's full potential. The learning curve may be steep.
This is the stock response that seems to be the de-facto answer to the question of multi-threading, when answered by people who aren't in the high-tech industry. I don't mean to insult you personally, it's just that I've heard this a lot before and in the case of game consoles, it's wrong.
Here's why. A good, modern game console will have a multi-threading oriented OS, and this OS's APIs will allow people to handle threads reasonably easily -- at least as easily as it would be to poll signals in a busywait loop or via hard coded pre-empt points. The fact that the new consoles have taken a very tabula-rasa (clean slate) approach to system architecure also means that, in all likelihood, developers won't be able to port much of their old code. Now, developers tend to be the bitchy type in general, but this is why you hear them bitching about the development environments for the new consoles. In a year's time they'll get used to it and will stop bitching, but the bottom line is that the methods to make multi-threading work in games do exist, and MS and Sony are forcing developers to use them (because the hardware requires it!). So is this fledgling, new generation of game consoles, we will see effective multi-threading in games, probably as soon as games come out.
i find that people in debating gaming consoles just pull things straight out of the media.
why would sony and microsoft invest millions in putting something out that cant be used? doesn't make much sense.
EDIT: as a reminder microsoft's xbox team is a completely different team from the software (windows) department. they have nothing to do with eachother.
i dont like how people associate windows with the xbox. yes, windows sucks, it doesn't mean the xbox does.
I certainly look at the XBox as a whole different monster than all the software that Mommy Microsoft puts out.
If you knew how much separation there is between the XBox group and everyone else, you'd find out that XBox is essentially its own company...and they like it that way.
Unlike other console makers, Microsoft has chosen to implement backward compatibility in software. The downloadable app converts Intel x86 processor instructions from the original Xbox into their PowerPC equivalents, in the process compensating for the different ways the two CPU types store numbers larger than 255.
Microsoft said the emulation software would be made available to Xbox Live subscribers, from the Xbox.com website - as a downloadable disk image to burn to CD - or direct from Microsoft on CD. Presumably it's then installed on the 360's hard drive, though the website doesn't make this clear.
i find that people in debating gaming consoles just pull things straight out of the media.
why would sony and microsoft invest millions in putting something out that cant be used? doesn't make much sense.
EDIT: as a reminder microsoft's xbox team is a completely different team from the software (windows) department. they have nothing to do with eachother.
i dont like how people associate windows with the xbox. yes, windows sucks, it doesn't mean the xbox does.
I've not once said that the XBox sucked. *YOU'RE* the one that started bashing all other consoles. Not only that, you're bashing them based on speculation that the media has produced. And you're accusing others of pulling crap from the media?
This is the stock response that seems to be the de-facto answer to the question of multi-threading, when answered by people who aren't in the high-tech industry. I don't mean to insult you personally, it's just that I've heard this a lot before and in the case of game consoles, it's wrong.
Here's why. A good, modern game console will have a multi-threading oriented OS, and this OS's APIs will allow people to handle threads reasonably easily -- at least as easily as it would be to poll signals in a busywait loop or via hard coded pre-empt points. The fact that the new consoles have taken a very tabula-rasa (clean slate) approach to system architecure also means that, in all likelihood, developers won't be able to port much of their old code. Now, developers tend to be the bitchy type in general, but this is why you hear them bitching about the development environments for the new consoles. In a year's time they'll get used to it and will stop bitching, but the bottom line is that the methods to make multi-threading work in games do exist, and MS and Sony are forcing developers to use them (because the hardware requires it!). So is this fledgling, new generation of game consoles, we will see effective multi-threading in games, probably as soon as games come out.
I actually *AM* in the high tech industry. I've created multi-threaded apps, and I know how the OS handles such things. Sure, they will be able to utilize threads. But whether or not they will do so EFFECTIVELY and in a manner that IMPROVES upon the gaming quality is another matter. If I really wanted to I could create a program that initialized all the functions the program uses as threads, and then each thread would wait idle until it was called by another thread (function), but that would be a waste of time. Just because there is an API for multi-threading and the game developers don't have to write round-robin routines themselves doesn't mean that moving to multi-threading won't have some growing pains. They don't just have to 'create ton-o-threads' and then the job is done. They have to plan out how to sync the threads and with what information. Some programmers have trouble with this kind of thing. I'm not saying that the developers are morons or anything, but they will have to be in a different mindset while creating these games. Now this period of adjustment could just end up being as long as the regular 'new console to program for' adjustment period or longer. We will have to wait and see.
There's also the matter of how effectively the OS of the PS3 or XBox360 handles multiple threads and balances them amongst the different processors/cores. And "Microsoft wouldn't make it if it wasn't 100% effective and the best implementation on the planet right now or 1 million years into the future" isn't proof that these issues aren't there. That's just more speculation, though speculation that's a little more thought out than "OMG PS3 ROXORZ!"
going backwards happens every once in a while. sure, sometimes i like to pick up old games and play it for fun (it lasts for like a half hour at most). still i dont know why we are debating this considering most games that you will want to play from xbox1 will be on the 360
As was pointed out, AFTER you download something from Microsoft, burn it to disc (or order a disc from Microsoft, presumably with shipping and handling costs) and load it into the XBox360, and the XBox360 owners without hard drives are out of luck. (Creating an XBox360 without the hard drive was a stupid move by Microsoft, in my opinion)
Yes, the support will be there for certain games, but it won't be as easy as popping in the disc. Presumably Playstation3 will operate in this manner (just popping in the PS2/PS1 disc), seeing as the Playstation2 did so with Playstation 1 games.
Quote:
you bought the xbox controller for use with the pc? hmm you didn't like it? gee does that mean its not a good remote for gaming?
There's no need to attack him. Is it that hard to accept that he might not like the controller and might choose, based on that fact, that he doesn't want to buy an XBox360? Is your goal to force everyone to buy an XBox360 even if they don't like it? All that is besides the point though. I think that he was making a comment on the initial topic of the thread: "Who's getting an XBox360." Reading his comment in that context, it makes sense that he is saying that he just bought the controller for his computer and doesn't plan to buy a XBox360 system.
Quote:
odd, every damn article i've ever read praised the remote. i've used it,its prob the best remote out at this point.
Please don't try to attack everyone that comments here. You're just needlessly flaming someone that made a post that *MIGHT* have been suggesting something. In all likelihood, he was not suggesting anything other than what he stated in his comment. I think you're trying too hard to read between the lines that you're finding stuff that isn't there.
Not only that, but aren't you contradicting yourself here? You've stated a dislike for people pulling things from the media when arguing about consoles, but here you are using the media as proof.
Quote:
nintendo and it's marketing is "we are aiming for non gamers"
it's only fitting that everyone repeats that when arguing for nintendo.
That's a very directed comment. I love the, "If you can't win the argument attack the arguer" mentality. It's like me saying, "Microsoft says that the XBox360 is the best game platform out there, I love how all the XBox360 supporters repeat that when arguing for Microsoft." It's obvious that you are hung up on the XBox360, and if anyone says anything bad about it, or good about the opposing consoles you'll attack them instead of arguing back with facts. I think that people in this thread should ignore you until you come back with a reasonable demeanor.
Some programmers have trouble with this kind of thing.
For this reason these lower echelon folks usually stay out of embedded or otherwise complicated software. It's also unfortunate for these folks because commodity programming is evolving, and those that can't adapt will have to find new jobs. Of course, game programming isn't really commodity programming, and it's not like parallelism and lightning fast multi-threading hasn't existed for decades in hardware and in low-level software. What has happened recently is that it has proven futile to continue abstracting a superscalar VLSI CPU -- an inherently parallel beast -- into a simple Turing machine. So now-a-days wimpy programmers are whining because they have to do what real programmers have done for years. Cry me a river.
Getting back to something that really irked me, it's also true that parallelism can vastly decrease latencies if the implementation is elegant, and Carmack is just plain wrong if his sentiment is precisely how you referenced it. Since the only realistic way to improve CPU performance these days is to go multi-core, it's like it's 1900 and Carmack is endorsing steam engines over gasoline because they may be theoretically more efficient in some unsatisfiable criteria.
Just curious: what do you do in the high tech industry?
Comments
i'll just try to remember everything said.
final fantasy is coming to the 360.
metalgear solid 3 did not come to the xbox.
doubt microsoft would not bid for grand theft auto coming to the 360 before or at the same time as playstation.
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
just because nintendo tells you this new controller will revolutionize gaming doesn't mean thats true. personally i think the controller looks more complicated and seems to be a very awkward way to play, i could be wrong of course.
nintendo's lackluster 3rd party commitment is why they will never be number 1.
Originally posted by Elixir
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
This is opinion and really not backed up by anything even close to fact. It is widely noted one of the catalysts to Sony's success is that they carried over compatibility for PS1 to PS2. Furthermore devices such as combo VCR/DVD recorders are around simply because people want to carry over compatibility. One of the parts of Nintendo's offering that has been widely applauded is the fact that old games ranging back to NES days will be available.
What you're suggesting is that every time I purchase a new computer my old software shouldn't work, it's ludicrous and since Sony has opened that kettle of fish I doubt it will ever go back. Sorry, you may not care about backward compatibility but it matters, particularly to parents who are buying a lot of these things.
As always it will be 3rd party support that makes or breaks the console though. Microsoft didn't have it the first time round, this time they still won't be on Sony's level but will they be close enough and will Sony self-destruct like they seem to enjoy doing so much? Time will tell.
Originally posted by Elixir
ok there was too much to go up and read ,quote, debate, etc.
i'll just try to remember everything said.
final fantasy is coming to the 360.
metalgear solid 3 did not come to the xbox.
doubt microsoft would not bid for grand theft auto coming to the 360 before or at the same time as playstation.
Then why didn't they do that for Vice City or San Andreas? Why wait until the XBox360? I'm not saying they won't, but just because MS wants it doesn't mean it will happen that way. We'll have to wait for press releases to see how things play out.
people put too much weight into backwards compatibility.
that will not make or break a console.
Backwards compatibility can be everything. It adds value to the console. People like Sony's Playstation because when they get the PS3 it can replace their PS2 next to/under/on top of their TV set. They can then play old PS2 or PS1 games as well as the new PS3 games with only one console. It's not like the days of old where you need 12 consoles to play all types of games. Since the days of carts are gone, the disc technologies are practically the same and the drives can read old formats. It's just a matter of emulation on the software end of things.
The fact the the Revolution will play GameCube games is also awesome to me. I haven't yet, but I want to pick up those Zelda collector's discs for GameCube off ebay. Why? So that I can pop them in and play Zelda classics on my GameCube. (I'm more concerned with Zelda 64/Majora's Mask/Zelda 64 Master Quest than Zeldas 1, 2, and 3 which can easily emulate on a PC/Mac/Modded XBox/etc)
Now I don't think that the compatibility will necessarily 'break' the XBox360 it can damage it sales-wise.
just because nintendo tells you this new controller will revolutionize gaming doesn't mean thats true. personally i think the controller looks more complicated and seems to be a very awkward way to play, i could be wrong of course.
We will have to see how it plays out. Lots of people decried the touch screen on the DS when it came out. But there are lots of people who are loving the simple games that are coming out for the DS that utilize it. (Though I think that Nintendo's requirement that all DS games use the touchscreen -no matter how little the touchscreen adds to that specific game- is a little stupid)
The one thing that you have to realize is that the Revolution controller isn't aimed at hardcore gamers as much as it is aimed at your dad or grandmother (for example). It's form-factor -a remote control- is a lot less intimidating to them. And if a lot of the simple games targeted at this demographic utilize the motion-sensor correctly it could be a gold-mine for Nintendo. There are a lot more non-gamers than hardcore gamers out there. With just a small portion of the 'non-gamer market' Nintendo could make a killing.
Also bear in mind that simple games like this won't need hundreds of hours of gameplay like the games for hardcore gamers do. This means the development time and associated costs will be smaller for this type of game. It could make this type of game appealing to developers. With the smaller cost to develop they wouldn't need to worry about selling as many games at as high of a price point as the other games are.
But a lot of this is speculation. I'm just outlining a possible winning scenario for Nintendo that people tend to miss. If Nintendo plays its cards right, and things go this way it might not even be directly competing with MS and Sony... for now. With MS and Sony both trying to turn their game systems into media centers, they will eventually start targetting this market too. They will probably wait to see how Nintendo does and either follow its lead or learn from its mistakes.
nintendo's lackluster 3rd party commitment is why they will never be number 1.
Well never... until they get better 3rd party support. (if ever)
A few posts have slammed the Cube. Console success is very much interpreted by the individual. Fact is the Gamecube was profitable whereas the Xbox 1 lost money. Nintendo knows how to run its business and be successful, we shall see if MS can make the 360 profitable as well as be a big seller.
Addtional thoughts.
The Revolution will do 480P and 16 x 9, probably support 5.1 sound as well.
While Final Fantasy is coming for the 360, its FF 11, not FF 12. FF 11 has already been on PS2 and PC for 18 months. Although the 360 should do alot better in Japan than the first Xbox did, I don't think it will challenge either Nintendo or Sony there. They might move 500 units a week as opposed to moving 200 units a week. Its kind of hard to win the next-gen console race when you have no respect in Japan. I know more japanese developers are embracing the 360, but thats so they don't lose revenue in the U.S. and Europe. If Japan was the only market, the 360 would launch dead and stay dead. On this premise, I think the PS3 will probably win, with the Revolution and 360 fighting for second. Second or third, Nintendo will make enough revenue to justify developing a new home console.
Gamers play the latest and forget about the old. How many Halo 2 players still play Halo? Honestly? How many Final Fantasy X players still play IX, VIII, and all the others before it? Been there, played that, moved on.
Oh, sure, sometimes even I go back to the Super Nintendo and play Mario Kart, but I can count on one hand how many times that's happened in two years of owning an XBox.
Let's also remember that computer makers -- including our beloved Apple -- upgrade their hardware beyond the software all the time. How many times have we bought a new machine with a new OS and CRAP! My version Y.9 software doesn't work! Now I need version Z.0.
It's technology advancement. It's business. It's reality. Deal with it.
going backwards happens every once in a while. sure, sometimes i like to pick up old games and play it for fun (it lasts for like a half hour at most). still i dont know why we are debating this considering most games that you will want to play from xbox1 will be on the 360
you bought the xbox controller for use with the pc? hmm you didn't like it? gee does that mean its not a good remote for gaming?
odd, every damn article i've ever read praised the remote. i've used it,its prob the best remote out at this point.
nintendo and it's marketing is "we are aiming for non gamers"
it's only fitting that everyone repeats that when arguing for nintendo.
thats all i'll say about that
Originally posted by pyr3
Even if games *CAN* benefit from multi-threading, we won't see those benefits right away. The developers will have to learn to utilize this to it's full potential. The learning curve may be steep.
This is the stock response that seems to be the de-facto answer to the question of multi-threading, when answered by people who aren't in the high-tech industry. I don't mean to insult you personally, it's just that I've heard this a lot before and in the case of game consoles, it's wrong.
Here's why. A good, modern game console will have a multi-threading oriented OS, and this OS's APIs will allow people to handle threads reasonably easily -- at least as easily as it would be to poll signals in a busywait loop or via hard coded pre-empt points. The fact that the new consoles have taken a very tabula-rasa (clean slate) approach to system architecure also means that, in all likelihood, developers won't be able to port much of their old code. Now, developers tend to be the bitchy type in general, but this is why you hear them bitching about the development environments for the new consoles. In a year's time they'll get used to it and will stop bitching, but the bottom line is that the methods to make multi-threading work in games do exist, and MS and Sony are forcing developers to use them (because the hardware requires it!). So is this fledgling, new generation of game consoles, we will see effective multi-threading in games, probably as soon as games come out.
i find that people in debating gaming consoles just pull things straight out of the media.
why would sony and microsoft invest millions in putting something out that cant be used? doesn't make much sense.
EDIT: as a reminder microsoft's xbox team is a completely different team from the software (windows) department. they have nothing to do with eachother.
i dont like how people associate windows with the xbox. yes, windows sucks, it doesn't mean the xbox does.
If you knew how much separation there is between the XBox group and everyone else, you'd find out that XBox is essentially its own company...and they like it that way.
i'll wait till after i get my new intel powerbook to get a 360
Originally posted by the cool gut
Whats the argument about?
Just a bunch of playa hatin'.
Originally posted by Elixir
microsoft just released a list of 200 plus games that are already backwards compatible with hundreds more to come.
Did you read what backwards compatibility *really means?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...compatibility/
Xbox 360 old-game support needs hard drive
Unlike other console makers, Microsoft has chosen to implement backward compatibility in software. The downloadable app converts Intel x86 processor instructions from the original Xbox into their PowerPC equivalents, in the process compensating for the different ways the two CPU types store numbers larger than 255.
Microsoft said the emulation software would be made available to Xbox Live subscribers, from the Xbox.com website - as a downloadable disk image to burn to CD - or direct from Microsoft on CD. Presumably it's then installed on the 360's hard drive, though the website doesn't make this clear.
Originally posted by Elixir
thank you spline.
i find that people in debating gaming consoles just pull things straight out of the media.
why would sony and microsoft invest millions in putting something out that cant be used? doesn't make much sense.
EDIT: as a reminder microsoft's xbox team is a completely different team from the software (windows) department. they have nothing to do with eachother.
i dont like how people associate windows with the xbox. yes, windows sucks, it doesn't mean the xbox does.
I've not once said that the XBox sucked. *YOU'RE* the one that started bashing all other consoles. Not only that, you're bashing them based on speculation that the media has produced. And you're accusing others of pulling crap from the media?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
This is the stock response that seems to be the de-facto answer to the question of multi-threading, when answered by people who aren't in the high-tech industry. I don't mean to insult you personally, it's just that I've heard this a lot before and in the case of game consoles, it's wrong.
Here's why. A good, modern game console will have a multi-threading oriented OS, and this OS's APIs will allow people to handle threads reasonably easily -- at least as easily as it would be to poll signals in a busywait loop or via hard coded pre-empt points. The fact that the new consoles have taken a very tabula-rasa (clean slate) approach to system architecure also means that, in all likelihood, developers won't be able to port much of their old code. Now, developers tend to be the bitchy type in general, but this is why you hear them bitching about the development environments for the new consoles. In a year's time they'll get used to it and will stop bitching, but the bottom line is that the methods to make multi-threading work in games do exist, and MS and Sony are forcing developers to use them (because the hardware requires it!). So is this fledgling, new generation of game consoles, we will see effective multi-threading in games, probably as soon as games come out.
I actually *AM* in the high tech industry. I've created multi-threaded apps, and I know how the OS handles such things. Sure, they will be able to utilize threads. But whether or not they will do so EFFECTIVELY and in a manner that IMPROVES upon the gaming quality is another matter. If I really wanted to I could create a program that initialized all the functions the program uses as threads, and then each thread would wait idle until it was called by another thread (function), but that would be a waste of time. Just because there is an API for multi-threading and the game developers don't have to write round-robin routines themselves doesn't mean that moving to multi-threading won't have some growing pains. They don't just have to 'create ton-o-threads' and then the job is done. They have to plan out how to sync the threads and with what information. Some programmers have trouble with this kind of thing. I'm not saying that the developers are morons or anything, but they will have to be in a different mindset while creating these games. Now this period of adjustment could just end up being as long as the regular 'new console to program for' adjustment period or longer. We will have to wait and see.
There's also the matter of how effectively the OS of the PS3 or XBox360 handles multiple threads and balances them amongst the different processors/cores. And "Microsoft wouldn't make it if it wasn't 100% effective and the best implementation on the planet right now or 1 million years into the future" isn't proof that these issues aren't there. That's just more speculation, though speculation that's a little more thought out than "OMG PS3 ROXORZ!"
Edit: Elixir, find *that* string in the media.
Originally posted by Elixir
exactly, cosmo is right.
going backwards happens every once in a while. sure, sometimes i like to pick up old games and play it for fun (it lasts for like a half hour at most). still i dont know why we are debating this considering most games that you will want to play from xbox1 will be on the 360
As was pointed out, AFTER you download something from Microsoft, burn it to disc (or order a disc from Microsoft, presumably with shipping and handling costs) and load it into the XBox360, and the XBox360 owners without hard drives are out of luck. (Creating an XBox360 without the hard drive was a stupid move by Microsoft, in my opinion)
Yes, the support will be there for certain games, but it won't be as easy as popping in the disc. Presumably Playstation3 will operate in this manner (just popping in the PS2/PS1 disc), seeing as the Playstation2 did so with Playstation 1 games.
you bought the xbox controller for use with the pc? hmm you didn't like it? gee does that mean its not a good remote for gaming?
There's no need to attack him. Is it that hard to accept that he might not like the controller and might choose, based on that fact, that he doesn't want to buy an XBox360? Is your goal to force everyone to buy an XBox360 even if they don't like it? All that is besides the point though. I think that he was making a comment on the initial topic of the thread: "Who's getting an XBox360." Reading his comment in that context, it makes sense that he is saying that he just bought the controller for his computer and doesn't plan to buy a XBox360 system.
odd, every damn article i've ever read praised the remote. i've used it,its prob the best remote out at this point.
Please don't try to attack everyone that comments here. You're just needlessly flaming someone that made a post that *MIGHT* have been suggesting something. In all likelihood, he was not suggesting anything other than what he stated in his comment. I think you're trying too hard to read between the lines that you're finding stuff that isn't there.
Not only that, but aren't you contradicting yourself here? You've stated a dislike for people pulling things from the media when arguing about consoles, but here you are using the media as proof.
nintendo and it's marketing is "we are aiming for non gamers"
it's only fitting that everyone repeats that when arguing for nintendo.
That's a very directed comment. I love the, "If you can't win the argument attack the arguer" mentality. It's like me saying, "Microsoft says that the XBox360 is the best game platform out there, I love how all the XBox360 supporters repeat that when arguing for Microsoft." It's obvious that you are hung up on the XBox360, and if anyone says anything bad about it, or good about the opposing consoles you'll attack them instead of arguing back with facts. I think that people in this thread should ignore you until you come back with a reasonable demeanor.
thats all i'll say about that
Ok, Forest. ( Sorry, couldn't resist.
Originally posted by pyr3
Some programmers have trouble with this kind of thing.
For this reason these lower echelon folks usually stay out of embedded or otherwise complicated software. It's also unfortunate for these folks because commodity programming is evolving, and those that can't adapt will have to find new jobs. Of course, game programming isn't really commodity programming, and it's not like parallelism and lightning fast multi-threading hasn't existed for decades in hardware and in low-level software. What has happened recently is that it has proven futile to continue abstracting a superscalar VLSI CPU -- an inherently parallel beast -- into a simple Turing machine. So now-a-days wimpy programmers are whining because they have to do what real programmers have done for years. Cry me a river.
Getting back to something that really irked me, it's also true that parallelism can vastly decrease latencies if the implementation is elegant, and Carmack is just plain wrong if his sentiment is precisely how you referenced it. Since the only realistic way to improve CPU performance these days is to go multi-core, it's like it's 1900 and Carmack is endorsing steam engines over gasoline because they may be theoretically more efficient in some unsatisfiable criteria.
Just curious: what do you do in the high tech industry?