21 replies to this topic

[raindog]

I threw together an article on my site that's like a brief history of game console and computer manufacturers' attempts at making consoles out of existing computers, starting with the Commodore Ultimax and ending with the Phantom. It isn't a rosy picture

http://www.kudla.org...=more&wl_eid=45

Anyway, I don't have a comment facility on my blog thingy so I was wondering if anyone knew of any even more obscure computer to console conversions that I've missed.

[SteveW]

I just want to know why companies like to release consoles based on computers. I know that research & development can cost a lot of money, but repackaging a modified computer to sell at a home console price seems pointless. Why not just lower the price of the computer and instead throw that R&D money into marketing that low end computer as a gaming computer?

In this day and age however, there are no other computers on the market to be modified into consoles. Just Macs and PCs. There's still SGI and Sun machines, but those are high end machines filling niche markets. Nowadays, it's about the lowest common denominator, which is unfortunately the PC. So consoles are coming out based on the PC, like Indrema, Xbox, Phantom, and APEXstreme. These console makers haven't figured out that limiting a computer to just playing games is a waste of time. Why go through the expense of designing and manufacturing a console when millions of people already have the exact same hardware at home already?

[Ze_ro]

SteveW said:

I just want to know why companies like to release consoles based on computers.

Well, in the case of the ApeXtreme and Phantom, you're relying on the huge amount of available software (whereas Nintendo and Sony have to worry about having launch titles). In the case of the X-Box, you can provide developers with the exact same tools they've been using to program PC's for ages now, and they know how to use them. Perfect ports should be possible (although the hardware in these PC-in-a-box machines gradually ages compared to PC's).

Although it's not really an issues these days, back in the 80's there was the hope that you could "upgrade" the console to be a full-fledged PC (ie, the ColecoVision and Intellivision advertised this). These days everyone already has a computer, so what's the point?

--Zero

[SteveW]

Most videogame players also have access to a computer anyway. Having a computer and a computer based console are completely redundant. People will just figure out how to hack the set up so they can use the ApeXtreme software on their PCs.

[Vic George 2K3]

Ze_ro said:

These days everyone already has a computer, so what's the point?

The only point I can see is if you want to play a PC game without having to fire up the PC, or if your PC isn't currently useable, or you just want to play them on a big screen or something. But I'd rather have that as a choice for possible consumer purchase than not having such available at all. If you're fine with gaming straight on your PC or game console, then don't worry.

[Ze_ro]

SteveW said:

People will just figure out how to hack the set up so they can use the ApeXtreme software on their PCs.

As far as I can tell, they won't have to. Aren't the ApeXtreme and Phantom both based on the idea of hacking PC software to work under their systems?

I certainly haven't heard of any exclusive releases for either system.

--Zero

[Ze_ro]

I think I'll just post this pic every time someone talks about the ApeXtreme:



He's keepin' it real... to the MAX!!

--Zero

[raindog]

SteveW said:

I just want to know why companies like to release consoles based on computers. I know that research & development can cost a lot of money, but repackaging a modified computer to sell at a home console price seems pointless. Why not just lower the price of the computer and instead throw that R&D money into marketing that low end computer as a gaming computer?

I think there were two schools of thought. The 80's line of thinking went, "Hey, people perceive a computer as being more powerful than a game console. So let's market this computer as a game console that's as powerful as a computer!"

Never really worked, except I suppose for the 5200, which wasn't really marketed as a 400 without a keyboard (you couldn't even play 400/800 games on it or use normal controllers.)

In the 90's it was "We have all this hardware ready to slap into a box and sell as a game console, so it'll be cheap AND powerful!"

Once again, never really worked.... okay, it's sort of worked for Microsoft but only because they have decided it WILL work at any cost, but the concept certainly hasn't made anyone any money.

I'm actually kind of looking forward to the Ape Xtreme though, just because it looks like it'll be just what I need for a living room PC in a box that will fit into my living room

[Dones]

SteveW said:

I just want to know why companies like to release consoles based on computers....  

When read out of context, it seems to imply videogame consoles are not computers. Of course that's not Steve's point, but interestingly enough I know a few people who think of consoles as toys and would never classify them as computers.

[Ze_ro]

Dones said:

I know a few people who think of consoles as toys and would never classify them as computers.

Until someone releases a word processor and a printer for a console system, I'd generally share that opinion.

Gameboy printer doesn't count.

--Zero

[MegaManFan]

Even if computers can do what consoles do and vice versa, I can give you three good reasons I'd rather game on a console:

* controllers (optimized for gameplay)
* seperation (I like that consoles are just FOR gaming and that's it)
* standardized hardware (no new video card every 3 months)

[Dones]

Ze_ro said:

Dones said:

I know a few people who think of consoles as toys and would never classify them as computers.

Until someone releases a word processor and a printer for a console system, I'd generally share that opinion.

Gameboy printer doesn't count.

Like the way the mouse and keyboard are intrinsically associated with today's computers.

IMO videogame consoles are computers. They have a central processing unit. They have a finite amount of memory for storing data and a set of sequential instructions that tells it what to do. Users interact with it via input and output devices. How is that different from a computer used for word processing?

[George Gray]

I think the point of the ApeXtreme may have been missed by the article. It's more than just a gaming 'console.' It falls into the category of 'set top box'-something that just makes me cringe. Don't get me wrong, I think the ApeXtreme is a great design, I just hate the category. The 'console' is built on one of VIA Systems Mini ITX motherboards and features a mpeg 2 decoding...meaning DVD playback will be smooth. The machine, at least from what I've read, is not geared toward the hardcore gamer. Rather, it's aimed at those who want to play things like the Sims on their big tv and also browse the internet and use email. With built in features like photo slide show and the possibility of tivo like functionality being added, the little box suddenly becomes alot more useful. Add in the ability to play quite a few pc games (which, in my opinion, are much better than the majority of current console releases) without the hassle of installing the game makes it more attractive to it's target audience. It's somewhat stylish and QUIET. I'd get one for my living room. I built something similar for office, but I tailored mine toward tivo like functionality than playing games. In fact, the most recent game on it is probably Burgertime---for the Intellivision.
All of that said, I do agree with the over all sentiment being expressed: slimmed down computers being marketed SOLELY as a 'console' are doomed to failure and rather pointless. Make them more useful-like ApeXtreme-and you have a better chance at success. With DVD playback, 5.1 surround and the possibility of Tivo like functionality makes it decent addition to a home theater as well.
I suddenly feel like I'm babbling...

[Ze_ro]

Dones said:

IMO videogame consoles are computers.

This is a very old (and mostly pointless) arguement. I don't intent to start this again.

--Zero

[Dones]

Ze_ro said:

Dones said:

IMO videogame consoles are computers.

This is a very old (and mostly pointless) arguement. I don't intent to start this again.

--Zero

Chill out man, no one is trying to pick up a fight with you. If you think having a CPU with memory, software and input/output devices doesn't qualify videogame consoles as computers then that's fine, but actually it does.

MegaManFan said:

Even if computers can do what consoles do and vice versa, I can give you three good reasons I'd rather game on a console:  

* controllers (optimized for gameplay)  
* seperation (I like that consoles are just FOR gaming and that's it)  
* standardized hardware (no new video card every 3 months)

All the previous companies who have tried to sell set top boxes that do everything have failed. Sony might get away with it but it seems a long way for that.

[Gabriel]

The real question:

Would the Apextreme make a nice, inexpensive box for emulators without all the hassle of the goddamn POS Dreamcast?

Could I literally burn a plain CD of the MAME folder on my computer and pop it into the Apextreme and play?

But to tell the truth, it looks like the Emerson Arcadia for the oughties.

[Ze_ro]

Gabriel said:

Would the Apextreme make a nice, inexpensive box for emulators without all the hassle of the goddamn POS Dreamcast?

The Dreamcast is likely the only console system you'll ever find that you don't have to hack to actually get it to play emulators. The only problem with emulators on the Dreamcast is that you can only do the fairly simple systems like NES, Master System, and earlier arcade games.

If you want a box for emulators, I hear the X-Box does them fairly well.

--Zero

[Cootster]

There will undoubtedly be exclusive Ape and Phantom games, and they'll probably be derivative or just plain suck . . . But either way, there'd be an emu out there approximately a week after someone buys the first one . . .

And since (AFAIK) PS3, XBox-Next, and the upcoming Nintendo deck will all use some variant of an IBM PowerPC chip, how long will it be before some hacker makes them all intercompatible and it's just a choice between controllers (which Sony would likely win)?

[Ze_ro]

Cootster said:

And since (AFAIK) PS3, XBox-Next, and the upcoming Nintendo deck will all use some variant of an IBM PowerPC chip, how long will it be before some hacker makes them all intercompatible?

There's a lot more to a console than just it's processor. The Atari 2600, C-64, and NES all use variants of the 6502 processor, and you don't see any of them playing each other's games.

--Zero

[Cootster]

Ze_ro said:

Cootster said:

And since (AFAIK) PS3, XBox-Next, and the upcoming Nintendo deck will all use some variant of an IBM PowerPC chip, how long will it be before some hacker makes them all intercompatible?

There's a lot more to a console than just it's processor. The Atari 2600, C-64, and NES all use variants of the 6502 processor, and you don't see any of them playing each other's games.

--Zero

Well, it would be kind of hard to do with the different types of media. All three of these will run DVDs, apparently. They'll be a lot more like each other than the 2600, C-64, and NES, because they've all just about stopped trying "different". Now, except for the first party titles, the rest of the games are on all three anyway.

And as for the Ape Xtreme as an set-top box: I'd get one if Dish or Direct offered it as a receiver. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother . . .

[raindog]

Actually, now that I think about it, all three next-gen boxes are supposed to be using ATI for video as well. But I think that just bodes well for their eventual emulation (once you emulate one, you're halfway to emulating all three) which given their CPU could very well take place on a Mac first

[Ze_ro]

Sorry guys, but processor type really doesn't help much with emulation. The X-Box runs on an x86 processor, but you don't see people emulating the X-Box on PC's yet. In reality, the hardest part of emulating is usually the video chips, and it's very likely that the video chips in the next generation of systems will be sufficiently different that you will never be able to run X-Box Next games on a PS3 (and of course, the N5 will likely keep using mini-DVD's anyways, so...)

Just because two cars happen to have the same size engine doesn't mean you can swap the pistons or valves or whatnot.

--Zero