Microsoft leaks details on Xbox Next

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would have just thought you’d have some code embedded somewhere.

for every title?


The DX API specification or MS approved programming practices for the XBox?

both

It kinda is a bad thing in these cases. I know, for instance, that Nintendo will absolutely not let ATI near Gamecube developers as Nintendo want to take all of this themselves – now I’m sure that if you know the right people to talk to you can get good hardware level information, however with ArtX this type of thing would have been difficult to get out – with the familiarity with NVIDIA personnel through PC developments, and the similarity of the NV2A to the desktop functionality its more likely that a number of developers will know who to quietly talk to if needs be. However, the console vendor will want to know whats going on as much as possible so they get as few of these corner case eventualities as possible should the want to make alterations / compatibility with future parts –

this has only really become an issue as 'backwards compatiability' is brought to the forefront.

I believe that we’ve seen a similar thing with the PSX and devs not following official guidelines and hardcoding the USB port etc.

that's what happens when you move the system away from it's original enviroment. Look the only Thing I can assertation from your comments is that the Console paradigm is evolving from (what I'm sure many consider to be archaic) closed and gaurunteed zero fragmentation enviroment to that of, well a PC really where customisable parts rule the day and optimisation suits to move API into further prominence.
 
If the next Xgpu is a DX compliant derivative, then it should have no problem at all running what NV2A is running now. I was actually thinking what "extras" the Rx00 in Xbox2 could add on top of the original software... like AA, AF or additional resolution. Shouldn't be too hard to implement (see: FORCE IT) would it?

I dunno if this is technically even possible. there are probably certain highly proprietary things in NV2A that will not be in Xbox2's R5XX. then again, maybe emulation is possible. I havent read the last two pages of this thread yet. maybe its been answered...

Playing PDO at 720p with LOADS of AA and AF would be sweet. Although i'm sure there will be games on Xbox2 that will make PDO look "below average" in 2 years time... I'm strictly speaking in techincal terms here! PDO will always look good because the art is good, much like other games that rely on art rather than features, which is not what PDO is, but you get my point...

Indeed, playing PDO at 720p with tons of FSAA and AF would be amazing.

there is almost no way Xbox2 can get by without a harddrive. but certainly, they can get away with not having backwards compatiblity. that's what bugs me.
 
notAFanB said:
I would have just thought you’d have some code embedded somewhere.
for every title?
The DX API specification or MS approved programming practices for the XBox?
both

Yes, so am I.

If there are elements that are evenagelised by MS that aren't necessarily part of the DX API, and more optimal towards the particular hardware then these are known quantities and can be probably be worked around at a fairly global basis (assuming, of course, the hardware is actually a complete superset in terms of capabilities).
 
Megadrive1988 said:
I dunno if this is technically even possible. there are probably certain highly proprietary things in NV2A that will not be in Xbox2's R5XX. then again, maybe emulation is possible. I havent read the last two pages of this thread yet. maybe its been answered...

Again, NVIDIA doesn't believe there to be issues with compatibility with non-NVIDIA parts as far as the graphics are concerned.
 
If there are elements that are evenagelised by MS that aren't necessarily part of the DX API, and more optimal towards the particular hardware then these are known quantities and can be probably be worked around at a fairly global basis (assuming, of course, the hardware is actually a complete superset in terms of capabilities).

There's not a part of that that I could understand.

Of course they are Known Quantities everything in computing is known at the base level. You're making it sound like that as long as X>Y in computational outputs then it should be Straightforward to throw a switch and watch the lights go on.

EDIT: fixed some typos (God Damn stubby fingers! :devilish:
 
I'm not saying its straight forward, I'm saying that the elements that are beyond the XBox DX API specification but are known to by MS are areas which they will probably be able to code around. The issues will arise when developers have not stuck to the practices evangelised by MS.
 
I'm not saying its straight forward, I'm saying that the elements that are beyond the XBox DX API specification but are known to by MS are areas which they will probably be able to code around.

so we in agreement then (since I have trouble following ) only I'd perhaps replace beyond with the word differ.

The issues will arise when developers have not stuck to the practices evangelised by MS.

and they are not supposed to be.
 
notAFanB said:
I'm not saying its straight forward, I'm saying that the elements that are beyond the XBox DX API specification but are known to by MS are areas which they will probably be able to code around.

so we in agreement then (since I have trouble following ) only I'd perhaps replace beyond with the word differ.

The phrase would become "i'm saying that the elements that are differ the Xbox DX API specification....".
Doesn't work.
(Ok bad brit humour)
 
london-boy said:
notAFanB said:
I'm not saying its straight forward, I'm saying that the elements that are beyond the XBox DX API specification but are known to by MS are areas which they will probably be able to code around.

so we in agreement then (since I have trouble following ) only I'd perhaps replace beyond with the word differ.

The phrase would become "i'm saying that the elements that are differ the Xbox DX API specification....".
Doesn't work.
(Ok bad brit humour)

you skank you :D
 
gurgi said:
I'd like to play my PS2 games on PS3 myself, I think it's just a much larger challenge than Xbox2 backwards compatibility (and eventually backwards compatibility will probably be a larger challenge than it's worth to manufacturers not to me, hehe) thanks to its API driven, PC nature.

The "PC Nature" you speak of exists only as an abstract concept which is resultant of the need for uniformity across a wide range of architectures, each with unique properties as defined by what an IHV sees as "optimal."

A Console has none of this, there is an underlying architecture and thats it. From what we can infer, it seems to be that developers on XBox have forgone the high abstration offered by a DirectX type layer and instead are making calls to the underlying architecture. While we [relativly speaking] don't know the level or 'depth' so to say of programming - I think we can make some inferences on architectural differences between the IHV's. Namely, they're nothing alike and the ideology undelrlying them are drastically different.

If we were to look at the NV3x and R3x0 as a microcosm, we'd see that there is little to no commonality at a physical level. The recent Half-life2 drama has shown that each architecture is highly unique - even at an abstract level. I question what happens when you go lower and see that there could be differential pathways, sequential operations, timings, precisions and God-knows what other differences there are in each architecture which is 'masked' by the driver in PC Ops.

Is it "solvable..." of course; but at what cost, at level of reward-benefit does it exist? This spans both the technical, economic and legal realms. I don't know and I have yet to see a person, myself included, post a responce on this topic in this thread who's qualified and knows first-hand.


As for PlayStation, I see it differently. I'd believe that the fact that all the IP is held inhouse, under legal and free use, is a dramatic benefit to any software attempt. To actually be guaranteed access to work with the SCE hardware teams is a benefit of large size. And then there is the fact that Sony can and may just use hardware vis-a-vis EE+GS@90nm. For them it's merely a question of desire, there are no barriers which are out of their control.
 
Out of curiosity, how much is a EE+GS@90nm these days? Suppose it's not exaclty the most expensive chip these days... In 2 years time it will be extremely cheap...

I think it would be more than enough to handle PS3's I/O and Sound chip, i guess... and also provide backward compatibility
 
I don't know and I have yet to see a person, myself included, post a responce on this topic in this thread who's qualified and knows first-hand.

Again, NVIDIA themselves felt it of little consquence, they mentioned that the sound may be more of an issue but that could probably be worked around by MS. I'd assume that NVIDIA would be fairly well versed with hardware and would be realively qualified to make such statements!
 
GamesIndustry.Biz puts its 2 cents in...

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=2897

Here's some juicy quotes...

GamesIndustry.Biz said:
A senior source at Microsoft has revealed that its next-generation console is set to use multiple PowerPC processors in parallel - while the hard drive may not be shipped as standard, being supplied as an optional extra instead.

GamesIndustry.Biz said:
Our sources indicate that the console will use "four or more" of the IBM PowerPC processors

GamesIndustry.Biz said:
Microsoft is known to be toying with the idea of supplying the hard drive as an add-on peripheral (not as part of an "Xbox 2 Live" kit, as some sites reported last week, since such a thing won't exist - the console will be sold fully online-enabled), while using extremely high capacity flash memory cards for data storage.

GamesIndustry.Biz said:
It's also unlikely that it has escaped Microsoft's notice that both Nintendo and Sony make significant profits from the sale of memory cards for their consoles.

GamesIndustry.Biz said:
A special Microsoft conference event is thought to be pencilled in alongside the GDC event itself.

IMHO, I would be more upset if Microsoft didn't provide a hard drive versus backward compatibility. I would love to have both, but if they have an adverse effect on the cost to manufacturer the Xbox Next, then I'd rather loose backward compatibility first(provided they at least offer a hard drive add-on). In other words, I don't blame Microsoft for being very cost conscious, but like my old boss said in the Mercury News article...

Jon Peddie said:
I can't imagine that Microsoft would be so insanely stupid as to make it incompatible.

:LOL:

Tommy McClain
 
...

A better written version at gameindustries

Xbox 2 set to go multiprocessor; hard drive may not be built-in

Rob Fahey 09:47 02/02/2004
Microsoft's plans for next-generation machine include some major surprises

A senior source at Microsoft has revealed that its next-generation console is set to use multiple PowerPC processors in parallel - while the hard drive may not be shipped as standard, being supplied as an optional extra instead.

This information confirms reports received from developers over the past weeks, with the first solid facts about the Xbox 2 slipping out after Microsoft briefed a number of its key development partners on the current state of the system.

Our sources indicate that the console will use "four or more" of the IBM PowerPC processors, an architecture which will force game developers to significantly rethink the way that games are programmed in order to take full advantage of it.

It seems likely now that all three next generation consoles will utilise multiple powerful processors - with Sony's PS3 expected to use up to eight of its new Cell microprocessors, the Xbox 2 now known to be a multi-processor architecture, and Nintendo's "N5" (about which, admittedly, little is known) also likely to follow down the multiple PowerPC route, as Nintendo also has a deal with IBM and will almost certainly end up using very similar chips to Microsoft.

The real surprise in this leaked information, however, is that rumours which circulated last week claiming that the Xbox 2 was not guaranteed to have a hard drive installed as standard are, in fact, completely true.

Although all aspects of the specification are subject to change at this early stage (bear in mind that at this point in the lifespan of the original Xbox, almost none of the specifications as announced made it into the final product unchanged), our source confirmed that developers have been told "not to bank on" having a hard drive as a standard component of the system.

Although a final decision on whether to cull the hard drive from the specification is thought to be still under discussion, Microsoft is known to be toying with the idea of supplying the hard drive as an add-on peripheral (not as part of an "Xbox 2 Live" kit, as some sites reported last week, since such a thing won't exist - the console will be sold fully online-enabled), while using extremely high capacity flash memory cards for data storage.

If the company does go ahead with a basic specification that doesn't include a hard drive, it's likely to be seen as a backwards step by developers and consumers alike - especially since it's widely assumed that the PlayStation 3 will include an internal hard drive, and may even incorporate digital video recording functionality similar to the recently released PSX.

Crucially, the removal of the hard drive will also make the provision of backwards compatibility with Xbox games even harder - already a major difficulty for the system, since the architecture is so radically different to its older sibling. Many games use the Xbox hard drive as a kind of "scratch disc" to improve load times and overall performance, which means that it may not be possible to play a significant number of Xbox titles on Xbox 2 without first investing in the hard drive peripheral - if at all.

The decision to remove the hard disc is thought to be based at least partially on the cost of the component, which has added significantly to the overall cost of manufacturing the Xbox - a console which has made major losses on each unit sold since its original launch. It's also unlikely that it has escaped Microsoft's notice that both Nintendo and Sony make significant profits from the sale of memory cards for their consoles.

In terms of other specifications, much is still up in the air. It's thought that a firm decision has not yet been reached regarding the amount of RAM the system will have, while the graphics chipset, which is being supplied by ATI, is expected to be "nothing revolutionary" according to our source, but a significant leap in power over existing PC graphics cards.

Although it's already briefed key development partners on the new architecture, Microsoft is waiting until the Game Developers Conference in San Jose at the end of March to raise the curtains on Xbox 2 in front of the development community as a whole. A special Microsoft conference event is thought to be pencilled in alongside the GDC event itself.

However, comments from other sources close to Microsoft in the last few days have suggested that what the company actually reveals at GDC will depend largely on Sony, with the giant software company thought to be prepared to change the Xbox 2 specification in order to avoid losing ground to the PlayStation 3. It's likely, then, that if Sony does not reveal more of its next-generation hand before GDC (and the company has played its cards remarkably close to its chest so far, with only broad details of the Cell processor being mentioned to date), Microsoft may choose to reveal only broad outlines of Xbox 2 in San Jose - leaving final decisions on matters such as the hard drive and the RAM capacity of the system until after Sony has announced equivalent details of the PS3.
 
Not really a comparable situation. For most people buying a Windows license is not a conscious decision - it is something that is forced on them when they buy a new computer. For others it's simply a matter of practicality - it's a familiar interface, it's compatible with their existing software, it has the widest software selection including games, it's easier to get pirated software for, it's what everybody else has and so forth. Few people actually have a real desire to go out and buy the newest version of Windows. Additionally you don't have any real alternatives. There's OS X but it requires the purchase of relatively expensive hardware. Or Linux which has a crappy software selection and lacks overall direction.
I don't know if you realize, but what you described here is a close reflection of the situation I have described regarding the consoles. Playstation is the synonimous for games the same way Nintendo once meant 'Videogame console'. It's forced on an unsuspected buyer when he walks in the Wallmart asking for 'something for my kids to play' - 'there you go sir, this one has all the games you'll ever need, and at a low price of $20', it's compatible with the existing games everyone owns (PS3 will be I mean, and so is PS2 when you come from the PS1). Xbox and GC are just about as good alternatives as Mac OS is to the PC world. Sure you get most of the software eventually, but you have to wait, it's more difficult to find cheap deals for software, you can't just borrow that game you like because your best friends all have the PS2, etc. etc.

The way I see it, Sony is way too much up there right now, just like Microsoft is with their Windows, or Nintendo once was with NES (or is now with GBA) and unless they screw something up majorly (like Nintendo did with N64) there's no way they are moving from that top.
 
What exactly happened to Nintendo after the huge success that was SNES? Really, i'm getting different stories and views from different people.

I'm more towards a "they got stuck in the 80s" way of thinking myself... But this is off-topic..
 
What exactly happened to Nintendo after the huge success that was SNES? Really, i'm getting different stories and views from different people.

They stuck with catridge, expensive format for its time compare to CD. Developers practically dump them for Sony. Delays of N64 didn't help either. Even then N64 was still a successful console. As for NGC, it was just too late, and then there is Xbox.

Or maybe they never had any challenger to begin with, their biggest rival was fruitcake Sega.
 
london-boy said:
What exactly happened to Nintendo after the huge success that was SNES? Really, i'm getting different stories and views from different people.

I'm more towards a "they got stuck in the 80s" way of thinking myself... But this is off-topic..

The same thing that happened to the dinosaurs. They didn't realize that times had changed in the N64 era. When it began to dawn upon them, they did change too little too late.
 
Guden Oden said:
There's nothing NV2A can do that a future DX9 or whatever chip cannot...

Actually that's not quite true NV2A has a lot of Z/W formats, which have never made it to the DX API, but I would imagine that this is still a soluble problem aslong as pixel perfect rendering isn't an issue.
 
Actually that's not quite true NV2A has a lot of Z/W formats, which have never made it to the DX API, but I would imagine that this is still a soluble problem aslong as pixel perfect rendering isn't an issue.

When you say Z/W formats, are you talking buffering? We've had discussions along the lines one W-buffering being done via shaders.

However, we are talking about something that is still in design here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top