[PeteL999]

Nope, I'm goin for the gamecube -- m$ will probably screw up the xbox by only letting you start up a game 50 times or messages will say -- "this program has performed an illegal action and will be shut down"

[wumeng]

The XBox is very tempting, but I think I'll wait till they release Halo for the Mac -- I just hope M$ doesn't deliberately cripple the non-XBox versions of Halo!

[Mediaman_12]

M$'s problem with the Xbox is that it's busy signing up loads of PC developers. PC developers allways develop for the latest and greatest PC (try running the latest PC games on an ageing PC and you will know what I mean) Console developers on the other hand know that the system they are working on isn't getting any better, so they have to stretch the hardware to it's limits and learn new 'tricks' to make the games look better, but the latest games will always work on any of the consoles to the same quality.
(example GT2 was loads better than RageRacer1 but the hardware was the same)
What this means is that while PC are developers running to the platform now will they still be running (and producing better looking games 4 or 5 years from now (the usual lifespan for a console) or will they go back to the PC which will keep evolving beyond the Xbox's performance.

------------------

[Ken_F2]

Mediaman,

M$'s problem with the Xbox is that it's busy signing up loads of PC developers. PC developers allways develop for the latest and greatest PC (try running the latest PC games on an ageing PC and you will know what I mean)

As long as the games meet high standards, I see nothing wrong with this. Most popular console titles, on the Playstation at least, were indeed written by so-called "PC developers." Nintendo is the only one of the three consoles whose most popular titles are not available on the PC (Zelda, Super Mario.., etc).

Indeed, this could be said to be another advantage of the X-box. With nearly all of the 3D genre PC games coming to the X-box, Macintosh users can attain most of the gaming benefits of the PC (the X-box supports output to monitors at high resolutions, as well as integrated support for ADSL/cable gaming over the Internet--albeit no web browser), without the Windows OS.

Console developers on the other hand know that the system they are working on isn't getting any better, so they have to stretch the hardware to it's limits and learn new 'tricks' to make the games look better, but the latest games will always work on any of the consoles to the same quality.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

The new standard for performance on the PC and the Macintosh is the nVidia GeForce3. The X-box uses a GeForce3, albeit a "Ultra"-type version that is clocked 50MHz higher [than available for PC or Mac], plus a memory bus that has twice the bandwidth of current PCs, and three to four times the memory bandwith of current Macs.

nVidia will likely remain the dominant graphics vendor for the next few years, and all their chips--including the next-generation NV30--maintain a backward compatible architecture. With the release of the low-cost GeForce3 MX this fall (about time of X-box's release), this technology should find its way into most PCs and Macs. Developers will be able to develop exclusively for this architecture, given the significant installed base of these systems. And even as developers learn new techniques when developing for the PC or the Mac using a GeForce4 in 18 months, they will be able to apply those techniques to the X-box.

What this means is that while PC are developers running to the platform now will they still be running (and producing better looking games 4 or 5 years from now (the usual lifespan for a console) or will they go back to the PC which will keep evolving beyond the Xbox's performance.

It will be another year before the PC roughly matches the X-box for performance (GeForce3 Ultras + new PCs based on the same chipset used in the X-box). Fall of 2002, with the release of the GeForce4, the PC (and maybe Mac) will surpass the X-box for performance. At that time, games on the PC will begin to look better than their console counterparts. That is nothing new, anyone who owns a Playstation console and a recent-generation PC knows that the PC versons of most popular titles are a vast improvement. The Dreamcast was the first console to bring PC-comparable 3D to a console, but even that is no longer the case. Technology in the chipset industry is evolving at a considerable pace; in the current environment, one cannot expect any console platform to have the best-looking games for any sustained period of time. That doesn't mean, however, that X-box/Gamecube/Playstation2 games won't look great, nor does it mean that they won't improve as developers become more experienced with the technology.

[This message has been edited by Ken_F2 (edited 05-18-2001).]

[Nimisys]

i personally won't buy the Xbox simply becaus i am not a console preson (my little borther is the only thing that keeps the N64 from being throne through a window).

i think MS will do a go job on it. if they can make windows work as well as it does on the insane number of hardware configs it has to deal with (even with hardware that comes out 3yrs after it), i got no doubts that they could put together a solid OS for a single config. you haven't heard of any wild problem with crashing on their ultamite TV product have you?

they got proven mfg doing the hardware... the P3 isn't a bad chip, nVidia makes good graphix and they already now it will work because of PCs. it also has one more advantage, especially over PS2 and possibly the GameCube; it will be easier to code for, since the platform is already well known, unlike that of the PS2. Ps2 developers are having a hell of a time figuring it out, because of the vast differences between it and more conventional platforms. read this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/397313.asp

the Xbox won't have those problems since the platform is already known and the tricks of the trade have already been established. and thats something neither the PS2 or Gamecubne has going for them.