Microsoft Not Interested In Xbox 720.... For Now

[PharmaceuticalCowboy]

...systems are expensive except for retro ones.

Which is exactly why I want the current generation to end! If a PS3 or Wii is really, really cheap, then I would be happy to pick one up. Heck, I'm still debating whether I want a PS2 or Xbox. The longer someone develops for a console, the longer the prices will stay high. I am all for inexpensive retro-gaming.

[UBERTRON777]

Which is exactly why I want the current generation to end! If a PS3 or Wii is really, really cheap, then I would be happy to pick one up. Heck, I'm still debating whether I want a PS2 or Xbox. The longer someone develops for a console, the longer the prices will stay high. I am all for inexpensive retro-gaming.

Then wouldn't it be cool if there was another video game crash? Prices would hit rock bottom. That would be so sweet dude.

[BananaXX]

Why are they trying to make add-ons? It didn't work in the early 90's and it wont work now.

[elvis]

FFS why is the whole gamer community obsessed with new consoles? This and every other forum seems to be filled with threads about "next next-gen" consoles. We haven't even tapped 1% the potential of these new consoles yet.

The PS3 and XBox360 are multi-core (and then some, with the Cell design). They haven't even scratched the surface of what these things are capable of delivering. It's like looking at any console's games at beginning and end of life, and comparing the technical leaps taken as people squeezed the most out of the hardware.

I personally blame upgrade-a-holic PC gamers. The whole reason I gave up gaming was I got sick of spending a grand on my PC every 12 months. That's money I'd rather give to game developers, and not blow on hardware.

[MrPopo]

You're right on the fact that there is a huge improvement between early and late games for a given console. However, the multi-core nature of modern consoles really doesn't buy you much. Multi-core has some really wicked diminishing returns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

[vash23n]

I know this isn't X-Box related, but in the same vein, I can't imagine a new Nintendo console coming out anytime soon as I feel they are only JUST starting to come out with real games for the Wii. Games not related to interactive sports or things like that - not talking about the traditional sports games like EA's NHL or Madden. I think it is a great idea if consoles are around a little longer. There is no need to rush things just because companies feel they have too or because it is the best way to make a buck. Technology and graphics are good enough at this point to let things be for a bit.

[elvis]

You're right on the fact that there is a huge improvement between early and late games for a given console. However, the multi-core nature of modern consoles really doesn't buy you much. Multi-core has some really wicked diminishing returns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

Amdahl's law is very specific to certain types of workflows, based on today's method of coding.

Take a look at the research Microsoft are doing into multi-kernel operating systems and new message passing techniques. All experimental today, but pushing forwards it will turn the modern OS totally on it's head, making each major component it's own small virtual machine of sorts.

http://www.barrelfish.org/

That's long term ("long" in computer science isn't so "long" in the real world either). Shorter term DX10 is going multi-threaded, and designs from that can go back into the console core.

I'll be the first to admit current console software design tools are embarrassingly serial, but it's also worth considering that the things we are doing today in computing were mere theory a decade ago.

Beyond that, there are obvious gains that can be made now. Look at Natal. There's a lot of intensive calc there that can sit in a different thread/process to the main game engine. All we've seen of that are a few cute tech demos, but it'll be really exciting to see what's coming in 2-3 years from now (first-gen design), and 5-6 years from now (second-gen design) on current hardware.

It's been shown time and time again that CPU designers can't keep scaling clock-speed forever (not on silicon, at least). We've been dealing with single-threaded concepts for a long time now (with the biggest single-threaded bottleneck being the actual kernel of any major OS), and to feverishly upgrade every couple of years for an extra few hundred lines of resolution and a new shader effect (at the cost of hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of console hardware each time) is short sighted at best.

Microsoft research are doing good things (and I say this totally unbiased, as I'm an unabashed Linux fanboi and generally a total Microsoft hater), and I'm looking forward to what they can and will produce when it comes to concepts in parallel programming for once-serial tasks.

[MrPopo]

Amdahl's law always applies; there is going to be something seriel that sets a hard limit on how much extra threads/processes can help you. At the very least at some point the disparate processes need to sync up the data they're working on. I agree, though, that we'll move from our current standards of maybe 50% parallel to a much nicer 95%+ parallel. But we still currently only have 4-8 cores. That just cannot achieve a ton of speedup even when things get quite parallel.

I agree, though, down the road when we have a good grasp on how to properly program to take advantage of core scaling we'll start seeing the hardware match up and scale up the number of cores instead of the clock speed.

[elvis]

Amdahl's law always applies; there is going to be something seriel that sets a hard limit on how much extra threads/processes can help you.

Over the course of an entire system, yes, there are always serial problems (otherwise you could theoretically finish a game the instant you start it).

But as above, you need to understand what Barrelfish and similar projects are attempting to do. Today's highly-serial problems are highly-serial because of the systems they sit on top of. When you start looking at paradigms like multi-kernel OSes, a lot of your once-serial problems disappear.

No, it won't fix all serial problems (see sentence 1), but don't think for a moment the confinements of today's software will apply in 5 years.

[Mod_Man_Extreme]

Sigh, my singularity sense is tingling......