Think Playstation 2 has power? If so then you have got to read this article by our very own Ken Pierce. Ken sheds some light on some things Microsoft has up it's sleeve.
--Ken
Does X Mark the Spot?
Does X Mark The Spot?
On March 10th Microsoft made an announcement which surprised very few people in the videogame industry. By the fall of 2001, a Microsoft branded videogame console will be available to the general public. The announcement was not much of a surprise, because X-Box (as the console is currently titled) was one of the worst kept secrets in Microsoft's history. In fact, probably the biggest reason the announcement wasn't made sooner was simply because the specifications hadn't been finalized (and in fact have changed since the initial announcement).
The specifications for the X-Box are impressive, to say the least. The initial announcement had the machine powered by a 600MHz Intel "x86" processor, but that has since been increased to 733MHz. The processor is based on the Intel Pentium III, but is not the same as the processor currently being offered in desktop configurations. The graphics duties are being handled by Nvidia and utilize a modified version of their GEForce 2 chipset. A custom 3-D audio processor that is capable of generating a real-time digital surround sound experience (i.e. Dolby Digital) handles sound. The system uses, of course, a DVD-ROM drive (4X) and is capable of playing back DVD movies. The system also has two unusual features for a game console, a hard drive (8GB) and a 100MBps ethernet adaptor.
To put these specifications into real-world terms, consider the following: The Playstation 2 can, according to Sony, handle 75 million polygons per second. The X-Box, according to Microsoft and Nvidia, can process 300 million. When you add lighting, texturing and other real-time effects, the Playstation 2's number drops to 20 million polygons. The X-Box can reportedly handle 100 million. This means that in raw graphics processing power, the X-Box is theoretically five times more powerful than the Playstation 2. As much of a quantum leap above the Playstation 2 as the PS2 is above the Sega Dreamcast.
Of course, all the power in the world means nothing without some games to play on the thing. On that front, Microsoft has signed on a number of big-name developers to make X-Box titles, but currently has nothing in terms of exclusive titles. That isn't too much of a concern yet because the machine is still more than a year away from launch, but Microsoft does need to lock up some exclusive "killer apps" if they hope to conquer the videogame world. After all, what would Nintendo have been without Mario? Or Sega without Sonic?
One interesting possibility is that Microsoft could either buy out or invest heavily in cash-starved Sega. By doing so, they could easily lock up Sega's arcade franchises for use on the X-Box. A Sega/Microsoft merger would result in one of the best game development companies having their A-list titles on the most powerful hardware currently available. The possibility of Sonic, Crazy Taxi, Virtua Fighter and a plethora of other titles on such a powerful unit would bode well for the X-Box' future.
There are other concerns with game content as well. With the X-Box being so close to high-end computer systems in specifications, there are concerns that all the games will be "shovelware". Cheaply made ports of PC games. While this is certainly an attractive process from a software developer's point of view, people prefer to play a different type of game on their consoles than on their PCs. As much as game developers don't want this to be true, it is. PC games tend to be deeper, more cerebrally inclined, while console games tend to be more action oriented. This is why a game like Interstate 76 on the PC is an action-adventure story-based game, while the Playstation port of it (Vigilante 8) is an arcade style shoot-em-up. It's also worth noting that Microsoft has pretty much no experience in the videogame industry. The limit of their contact has been in developing a special version of Windows CE for the Sega Dreamcast, and in creating some
PC games. It's also worth noting, however, that Sony was in the same unenviable position prior to the launch of original Playstation. The Playstation is now the best-selling console in videogame history (over 70 million units globally).
For Sony, the challenge is now to maintain that leadership position into the next generation of consoles. History has proven that it's not the most powerful contendor that has won the war in the past, but the system with the best games. Sony is well aware of this, and has a huge selection of games coming for the Playstation 2 launch later this year (they claim fifty before the end of the year). Make no mistake, Microsoft is also very aware of this, but it's just too early for them to announce a launch lineup. I'll get to Sega and Nintendo's place in the grand scheme of things later on.
On the manufacturing side, Microsoft seems aware of the pitfalls in trying to make profitable hardware. In the videogame industry, profit is always made off the licensing fees from game sales. As such, rather than following a 3DO or CD-I marketing approach, and licensing the hardware manufacturing to outside vendors, Microsoft has opted to manufacture the hardware themselves. This means they will most likely follow the typical videogame industry approach, and sell the hardware at a loss with the hopes of recouping the losses with game sales later on. Microsoft has already stated that they intend to be price competitive with the Playstation 2 when the X-Box launches.
One area where Microsoft probably faces a little more difficulty than either Sony or Nintendo is in the manufacturing side. Sony, of course, is quite accustomed to the necessities of hardware manufacturing. Nintendo has always manufactured their own hardware as well, so they should have little or no difficulty getting things in line for the Dolphin. Microsoft has taken a different approach, and taken on partners to help with their manufacturing cycle. The processor in the unit is manufactured by Intel, the graphics chipset by Nvidia, and various other components by outside manufacturers. This essentially means that Microsoft simply has to put the unit together, not unlike the way most PCs are manufactured. The advantage of this is that Microsoft doesn't have to build huge chip manufacturing facilities (like Sony has had to do for the Playstation 2), and they don't need a huge engineering department to design their graphics chip. The disadvantage is that the costs will be higher in the long run. Nvidia didn't design the X-Box's graphics chip so they could lose money on it, and ditto for the rest of the component manufacturers. Because of this reliance on outside companies, Microsoft's manufacturing cost for the X-Box will not drop as quickly as Sony's manufacturing cost for the Playstation 2. Where the X-Box leaps ahead (aside from technical superiority) is in ease of development. Because the operating system for the X-Box is based around
Microsoft's Windows 2000 kernal (without the interface), software developers can use their existing Windows development tools to create X-Box games. Also, because the hardware is so close to the PC in terms of configuration, porting games from the PC should be a breeze (Unreal Tournament and various other high-end PC games are already confirmed for the X-Box). Because of this ease of development, the X-Box's game development cycle should be shorter than that for the Playstation 2 (which is notoriously difficult to develop for), and this means that Microsoft will probably have a very large selection of games at launch. The quality of those games is the major concern (seeing games like "V.I.P." - based on Pamela Anderson's television show - as launch titles does little to instill confidence in the system). Of course, the two factors very few people are considering in the X-Box launch cycle are Sega and Nintendo. Nintendo has officially pushed back the Dolphin's launch date to the fall of 2001. Assuming that Nintendo makes this launch date, it changes the market significantly. If Nintendo is able to produce a high-powered, low-cost console and launch it around the same time as the X-Box, it would mean the format war just became that much more interesting.
Come fall of 2001, Sony will undoubtedly be in a very good position. They should have at least three million Playstation 2s in homes in North America, and their game library will be in good shape with the second generation of games coming down the pipe. If the X-Box and Dolphin launch simultaneously (or close to it), and both have decent launch libraries, they could divide the early-adopter market, leaving Sony to clean up in the casual buyer market. A simultaneous X-Box and Dolphin launch could also be good for Sega, as the Dreamcast should be cheap enough by then that it could be an impulse buy - especially if there's a good library of games on the shelves.
On the flip side, if X-Box and Dolphin generate a lot of noise around their launches, then Sega could be in a very bad position. With the least powerful (albeit least expensive) console on the market, the games on the Dreamcast could look quite dated by that point. If it isn't perceived as a winning system, the retailers will give the Dreamcast's shelf space to the other competitors in the marketplace, and that could be the final nail in Sega's coffin (Sega is still bleeding money due to a huge debt). The one thing that everyone agrees on is the winner in all of this. Gamers. If the marketplace is crowded by four highly competitive, completely viable systems, the games will be fantastic, and the prices will be low. At the very least, the next few years should be very interesting.
--Ken Pierce
Contributing Editor: www.dvdfuture.com