Sunday, August 14, 2005

Console Wars: The Next Generation

In case you couldn't tell, I've had alot of stuff bubbling around inside my cavernous head that I've been meaning to rant about. :D Enter the next generation console wars!

The systems:

Ok, first things first: let's talk hardware. Both Sony and MS have officially released the specs of their next gen systems; Nintendo has not, but Han Solo, the same guy who leaked the specs of the XBox 360 a month before they were released, posted some fairly realistic specs (realistic meaning they aren't godly, but they aren't shameful either). He actually posted two prototypes Nintendo is still deciding between, so for the purpose of comparison, I'll lowball it and assume the wimpier one takes the cake.

XBox 360:
CPU: A custom IBM PowerPC with 3 independent cores, each running at 3.2 GHz
GPU: A custom ATI GPU, running at 500 MHz
RAM: 512 Megs of UMA RAM, shared between the CPU and GPU.
Memory Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/sec.
Audio: Software driven multichannel output
Outputs: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i
Networking: Built in ethernet, optional Wifi
Media: Dual layer DVD-ROM
Harddrive: 20 MB removeable HD
Other cool stuff: supports 4 2.4 GHz wireless controllers

PS3:
CPU: 3.2 GHz cell processor
GPU: 550 MHz custom GPU with 256 Megs dedicated video RAM
RAM: 256 Megs XDR RAM
Memory Bandwidth: 25.6 GB/sec main system, 22.4 GB/sec video memory bandwidth
Audio: Software driven multichannel output
Outputs: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
Networking: Built in Wifi (802.11 B/G)
Media: Blue ray BD-ROM
Harddrive: Optional 2.5 inch removeable HD
Other cool stuff: supports 7 bluetooth wireless controllers, buttloads of USB connections

Revolution:*
CPU: IBM custom PowerPC at 2.5 GHz + 2 G5 dual-threaded cores, each at 2.5 GHz
GPU: Two ATI custom GPUs at 400 MHz and 28 shader pipes per GPU
RAM: 512 Megs of 1T RAM
Memory Bandwidth: Unknown
Audio: A separate hardware sound chip with 16 Megs dedicated ram
Outputs: 480i, 480p
Networking: Built in Wifi
Media: Dual-layer DVD
Harddrive: 512 Meg flash drive
Other cool stuff: Ability to download NES/SNES/N64 games, controller rumored to cure cancer

*Note: These are based on unofficial leaks. The source has been good in the past, but that's no guarantee that he's right now. I have no way of verifying their accuracy. Don't come bitching to me if the Revolution turns out to be a gopher in a tupperware container, k?

Specs are nice, but what the FUCK do they mean?

I'm glad you asked! I can summarize each of the spec sheets in one sentence (and I don't even need to discuss the difference between NPR ram and JCD ram!): all of the next gen consoles are going to kick major ass. Seriously. We're talking systems that are on par with the hottest pc you could possibly build (in fact, the PS3's GPU clocks faster than any pc video card on the market). Big wonking numbers, all of them.

But when people go the their local gamestop, they're not going to think "hm, do I want an XBox 360 for its 3 PowerPC 3.2 GHz cores, or do I want a PS3 for its breakthrough cell processor?" They're going to think "the games on that one look cool, and its not too expensive; guess I'll get it."

Price:

Anyone who doesn't think price matters is a retard. OF COURSE it matters. If I can buy one console, or a competitor console and a few games, I'll probably go with the competitor. This is where the real console war begins.

The PS3 is going to be fucking expensive. We're talking somewhere between $400 and $500 clams (hell, they're selling the PSP for $250--damn expensive for a handheld). Why so pricy? Well, Blu-ray is slick, and it can store a metric fuckload of data, but its brand-spanking new. That means more bucks. The same goes for the cell processor: it's really really really slick technology, but its also brand new, and that means expensive.

The XBox 360 and the Revolution will probably be around the same price: I'm guessing somewhere between $250 and $350. Neither uses anything particularly new or untried: PowerPC chips have been around for years, as have dual-layer DVD-ROMs, etc. The big difference between Sony and MS/Nintendo in this console war is that Sony is pioneering big, shiny new technologies, while Microsoft and Nintendo are using older technologies to their maximum potentials.

What is Sony's gameplan with all this?

Aha, now we come to it: the marketing plans! Of the three systems, the PS3 will most likely be the most powerful. PowerPC CPUs are nothing compared to cell CPUs, there are no other 550 MHz GPUs in existence (yet), and Blu-Ray discs can hold vast quantities of data in comparison with dual-layer DVDs. And 1080p output? Well, let's just say I haven't seen a TV at Bestbuy that can handle that yet.

So why does Sony need such a powerful system? Because they intend for the PS3 to last 10 years, as compared to the standard console life-cycle of 5! Sony is betting that in 10 years, HD televisions will have penetrated enough households worldwide that people will want a console that supports the highest levels of HD output. Sony is betting that Blu-ray will become the standard format for HD movies. Sony is, in short, trying to build an all-in-one set top box for the next 10 years, complete with a potent gaming console, HD movie player, and memory-stick and VCD support to play home movies.

It's a cool idea, but the price tag is going to hurt them big, at least in the beginning of the console's life. Perhaps once there are actually Blu-ray movies on shelves the price will look more appealing, but its a rough way to start (I'm reminded of lackluster PSP sales despite its impressive hardware and multimedia support).

What is Microsoft going after?

Well, no big surprise here, but Microsoft also wants to make an all-in-one set top box. Their strategy is a little different from Sony's, though. Microsoft wants their console to integrate itself with your computer. On your set top, then, you'd have a powerful gaming machine, movie playback (albeit without HD), VCD support for home movies, and ethernet connectivity to both their online gaming service (XBox Live, for those living under a shoe box) and to your computer.

Microsoft has been trying to get onto your TV for years. Does anyone remember those old set-top box internet browsers? Yeah, that was Microsoft. Does anyone actually own Windows XP: Media Center? Same thing, MS wants onto your TV.

With the XBox 360, they've actually got a shot. With XP: Media Center, I need to buy a computer whose video card has HD output, an expensive OS, and find someplace next to my TV to set up my PC (little big to fit on top of the tube). But with an X360, I plug the console into my TV, it can talk with my computer in the office wirelessly, all at the price of a video game console. Bam! Just by making a decent video game console, MS has accomplished what they've wanted for years.

. . . And Nintendo?

Ah Nintendo, the red-headed step-child in the coming console war! Nintendo is behind the times because they just want to make a system that plays video games--psh, it's all about mega-ultra media players!

Seriously, Nintendo does have a shot with their strategy. HD has performed fairly well in the states (largely because the FCC has decided that HD will be the US television standard format in the future), but overseas where they don't have to listen to the FCC, it's not doing all that hot. In Japan (where Nintendo has its strongest playerbase), HD has performed abysmally. And these days, just about everyone has a DVD player. If their customers don't need media playback, why charge them for it?

Instead of focusing on media playback, Nintendo has decided to 'revolutionize' the video game world itself with their ultra-secret new controller. No one knows what it does, but its been so hyped that Nintendo has put Don King to shame. Maybe it's a gyroscope! Maybe it's got pressure sensitive handles! Perhaps it's a ball of yarn! All I know for sure is that there's no way the damned thing can live up to hype, unless it either wins the Nobel Peace Prize, ends world hunger, or cures cancer.

Nintendo does have a good track record of innovating gameplay, mind you. The SNES gamepad was the basis for just about every successful controller that followed, the N64 was the first 3d accelerated console, pokemon (of all things) is a fantastic success, and the DS with its dual screen design and touch screen input has been a huge success in the handheld market. But how long will their creativity win out? Time will tell.

So who is teh best?

Who knows? Visually, all 3 will probably perform comparably. The Revolution won't support HD output, so those with HD televisions will see improved performance on the XBox 360 or PS3, but those with standard definition TVs won't. All three will have games, including a few exclusives that fanbois will swear put their system at the top. The MS and Sony systems will have lots of media playback options that might take off (or might not).

Only time will tell.

Emulation and the DMCA

Yeah, so I decided that editing HTML and uploading it every time I want to whine about something was a PITA, so enter teh blog!

Anyhow, after a heated discussion concerning reverse engineering and the Digital Millenium Copywrite Act (DMCA) , I started thinking about how we in the emulation scene could use the law to our advantage. And whoa nelly, could this work for us!

What does the DMCA say?

In the DMCA, there is a clause called the 'fair use clause' (or sometimes it's referred to as the 'interoperability clause;' it's section f of the law). Basically, the law gives programmers permission to reverse engineer a program, so long as they are doing so in order to maintain interoperability with the program they're writing.

The interoperability clause was written basically to level the playing field when competeing with Microsoft. Let's say I want to write an email client. Microsoft Outlook has built in interoperability with Windows and Word; it can have a little email notification thingy pop up in the task bar when you get an email, it can call Word's spell check and font system as desired, etc. Well I'm at a helluva disadvantage with my email client, aren't I?

Enter interoperability. I can disassemble Windows and Word, find the functions that Outlook is calling, and hook them in my own email client. The DMCA says its 'fair use,' my email client is now on an even keel with Outlook, God's in His heaven and all's right with the world. Right?

But it doesn't have to stop there. Let's say I decided to write a PSx emulator (I know, we already have dozens of the damned things already). If I took a game (couldn't touch the console for this) and decompiled it, mapped the system calls it makes to pc hardware, and released my emulator--I could even charge money for it if I wanted--I'd be ok. Why? Because I disassembled the game for the purpose of its interoperability with my emulator.

But why do I need to stop there? What if I thought "golly, Sony sure sells a helluva lot of consoles," and decided to make a PS2 clone? Well, if I went at it the same way I went at my emulator--reverse engineering the game, not the console--I'd be well within my rights under the DMCA. Sony'd crap themselves of course, but in the end, they'd have to let me sell the JCD2 because I didn't infringe on anyone's copywrites: I simply reverse engineered a game for the sole purpose of maintaining interoperability.

And that's cool.