PC Maker Considering 'Open' Game System
Acer senior VP James T. Wong said that his company has a game machine in mind that would be built upon "open standards" at a press event last week.
"If you look at most of the other game machines that are out there right now--Nintendo's, the Xbox [360]--they are 'closed' and proprietary systems," Wong said.
Unlike the current roster of consoles, an "open" platform would not require corporate oversight or management, allowing anybody to run just about anything on the hardware.
The company, which recently acquired fellow PC manufacturer Gateway, hopes to incorporate open standards into all its products envisioned for future development, including the possibility of a console or console-like game system.
-
dognose
replySuddenly I'm interested in consoles.
-
This is what the 360 should have been.
-
No thanks. This will fail for a billion different reasons. Closed console systems work because they are closed and programmers can expect the exact same hardware in all machines.
-
Closed systems are fail because they limit not only the developer but the user as well.
-
-
Yeah they are. There's like what, A billion Macs and PCs in the world compared to what a few million consoles?
-
-
Regardless, a directx type spec for video and audio hardware, minimum hard drive size & speed, minimum processor, OS, form factor etc would provide a baseline to develop games against. Such a box would quickly be much less expensive than any closed system because all components would be open to competition.
-
I could see a pimped out Windows CE 6.0 doing insanely well here.
-
-
Ok this might be a difficult concept. Not all games in a give 2-3 year period have the same spec for the "optimal experience". Having to design for a known OS version, specific chipset(s), and capacities takes the guesswork out of PC gaming. Is your machine Alpha 5 compatible? Yes? Then it can run all games with the Alpha 5 mark.
-
-
In other words a standard home PC these days. There is no need for this and it will fail. The only way a "standard" can work is a minimum and a maximum spec. Otherwise how is it any different than a PC?
-
Your saying it will fail and giving no reasons is itself fail. The difference between a box spec and a universal spec that might even call out hardware (ie DRM technology) is enormous. Couple that with running on a different platform from Vista altogether such as an embedded OS with real-time characteristics.
Box specs don't call out motherboard chipsets or case form factors. Get this through your head.
-
Because it's just a min PC spec. Nothing revolutionary. It's not good enough that it exists. There has to be a compelling reason to develop for it and I can't think of one.
-
You are equating open platform with Windows PC. Even if it uses off the shelf PC hardware, there is no reason it's going to be compatible with the Windows ecosystem except for maybe inheriting printer and mouse drivers etc.
Heck they could use a realtime Linux flavor and run OpenGL. Essentially the PS3 is 95% of the way there, except for the whole closed arch thing.-
The PS3 is less open to making homebrew games than the 360 is. Who is going to develop a decent API to support this console OS? Consoles can run games that PCs can't at the same spec because they are stripped down to what they need. PCs are general purpose. Console makers also provide development tools to speed things up. Microsoft makes great tools for the 360 and that's a big part of it's success.
-
I'm sorry? What games are you talking about? With COD4 as an example, I can run it maxed at 800x600 (at which point it looks better than the 360 version) on my old 805D + 7600gt, which was an ~ 499 USD investment. I'm sure Acer could do better. Yes my rig had 1GB of ram.
You make it sound like a games API is black magic or that there aren't freely available implementations out there. I can run Quake Wars on my Linux partition very well thank you. It even runs a little better than the Windows version. I can't speak to the difference in implementation effort between the open libraries vs Directx, but it certainly hasn't stopped the PS3 from taking off.
Yes marketing the thing would be difficult, and honestly I don't expect the idea to succeed in the near term either, but a general purpose console type device that can be used for DVR, Telephony, Games, Video-on-demand, home office, file server, image server you name definitely has a market.
Look at the success and price point of the eeePC.
-
[deleted]
-
The eeePC can actually do all the things I'm talking about, especially if you deleted the LCD, and clocked the CPU back to full speed. A console version of the eeePC could easily sport a video card capable of exceed the Wii's capabilities. Bump up the CPU and you're beating the 360's abilities.
-
[deleted]
-
Clocking the CPU up in a non-portable adds nothing to the cost. The built-in video card is already a match for the wii. Deleting the LCD removes cost.
A CPU upgrade would add maybe 50 bucks, a faster video chip maybe another 50.
Still cheaper than an Xbox, with a much larger software library, and Directx10 equivalent OpenGL graphics.-
[deleted]
-
No, you don't understand man. He's got it ALL figured out.
-
The Wii has a 729 Mhz processor. This is currently the most most popular gaming console out there. Fool.
-
And like I said previously and I am sure other people will say as well. You can't compare a console which is purpose made to run games with a stripped down OS to a general purpose computer. Also, the Wii wouldn't be the success it is without the control scheme. If they had just made the box with a revamped GC controller do you really think it would be selling the way it is. That control scheme was researched and paid for by a company that would gain no benefit by releasing that scheme as an open spec.
-
Have you heard of Windows XP embedded? Or CE 6.0? Do you think the 360 is not capable of general purpose computing?
-
Yes, I have and the OS on the 360 is a derivative, but it's custom designed for gaming. XP embedded and CE are not.
-
Let's just say there's nothing technically holding back an open platform media center/console. That a purpose designed gaming OS gets you only fractional performance benefits. That the ability to buy any sort of software you want for that platform, add any peripherals without having to kowtow to anyone would benefit the consumer and small developer by lowering the barrier to entry, but hurt the large players.
Lets also agree that because the large incumbents would be hurt it's going to take a large market pressure for something like this to happen.-
As synapse said, you oversimplify. You have no idea what the performance gains in a purpose built gaming OS over a general OS like CE are. No one would be hurt by this really because it's the same model as the PC market. It's just that no one would have any reason to go to it.
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Your 800x600 looks better than my HDTV running at 1360x768? Whatever you say pal. It's not just how the games run, it's the tools to make them. Please show me a Linux equivalent to the dev tools MS provides for the 360 or Sony provides for the PS3. And what does the Eee PC have to do with anything? The best game you might be able to run on that is Quake 2 or maybe 3.
-
I want to see an Xbox or PS3 running at 1360x768. Pal.
Upscaling doesn't count.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why is it that a game made for PC and consoles sells more on the consoles?
What about the range of PC specs from those with integrated graphic cards of suck to duel high end video cards? Or those running Win95 still?
Just because there are a ton of PCs out there doesn't mean that translates into your full potential customer audience. Closed systems also help to protect the IP / product better ( not 100% ) than PC. Sorry to say that Piracy is a big factor in the gaming market, always has been, always will be, but those systems which do a better job will most likely sell more units than those that don't, given a quality product.
I highly doubt there will be many developers to even consider this open ended system, as it is both an unproven area as will as risky. Publishers hate risk ( which is why we do have a lot of stagnation of imagination of what games come out ), and what is essentially a 'new console' developed by a company with no experience in this specific area, translates into a lot of risk.-
I'm sure the open system will have hardware-based anti-pirate encryption technology. That doesnt mean you can't execute unencrypted code ala an open platform, merely that critical parts of the game could stay 100% encrypted to the video or audio (probably video) subsystem.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
There isn't really much you can say to this guy in regards to consoles:
http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=16240142#itemanchor_16240142
Check his post history.
-
-
What? No.
I enjoy PCs as much as the next guy but closed systems on consoles make perfect sense. Theres one hardware configuration to worry about. One. The developers focus and optimize for that set of hardware.
You say the developers are limited by this. You know what else limits them? Trying to develop for and test 1,000 different hardware combinations which each have 100 different possible software or driver possibilities.-
That's the point. Limit the hardware and OS configurations, but insure the platform itself remains open. That's the holy grail.
-
You are kidding yourself. There is no reason to buy into this system.
-
Are you kidding?
There's lots of reasons why an open system would be great for end-users. There's so many restrictions and crap for the Xbox 360 it's not even mildly amusing.
Example: you can't store games or XBLA-content on an external USB-connected hard-drive.
This may be in the interest of corporates but for the user it's an annoying and costly limit. You have to pay unreasonably high prices for their build-in hard-drives.
There's probably better examples too. This is just one of the most recent that've put me a bit off buying a Xbox 360.-
If the cost of storage is the best example you can come up with then that's pretty bad and the PS3 overcomes this by allowing any standard drive.
-
-
-
-
-
How so? It's a commercial product. If you don't like the nature of it, or the games don't buy it.
-
Yes, and people are saying just that...they don't like the nature of it and they like the nature of this...so they're moving toward this.
-
Who is saying they want to move to this "open console" concept? This is the first I have heard of it. If there is some groundswell it's pretty damn quiet.
-
Dognose jus tsaid it and I get the impression that SovietOrchestra is showing interest and since you replied in this conversation I would say thats pertinent.
-
Well maybe I wasn't clear in my first reply rereading this subthread...I meant to say that people in this thread you were replying to were saying just that (quite literally in dognose's case).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Um, if you had a mass produced console-like PC in which you'd have the same components, you'd have exactly the same kind of PC game development as you have now, except it'd be assured that the games would run 100% perfectly on the mass produced hardware. Basically nothing would be changed and I am not seeing your logic here. At all.
-
Because PC makers might stick to the minimum, but what's stopping them from going higher or doing something different that might break that 100% compatibility? I just don't see the attraction. The whole point of a closed system like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo has is that the hardware is identical and the software goes through cert. Who does the cert on an open system?
-
Self-cert. Most of the products with a CE mark are either self-certified or a third party does the certification according to the CE spec.
-
Nothing! That's exactly the point! See, the mass produced PC makers will most likely stick to the base, leaving the games working guaranteed-since that configuration is exactly what most of the testing and optimization will be done for, while the enthusiasts can run them on their custom PCs with a slightly higher risk of instability.
You are confusing "fixed hardware" and "closed platform", I think.
I am not saying that this particular initiative is a great idea, and it might fail easily, however the idea of making mass market fixed spec gaming PCs for which the developers can QA their games first, still remaining compatible with the custom PCs there would be relatively less QA for is a good one.-
The biggest problem with the idea, and strangely the one the naysayers haven't touched on is the lack of a single big interest pushing the marketing side. Acer isn't small, but it's no Microsoft or Sony. I suppose some sort of consortium could do this, but I don't think consortiums have a great history of pushing open platforms.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
If they dont allow any hardware upgrades then it could certainly work like that.
-
-
And they're limited by their nature...its a double edged sword on both ends. Consoles are a better way to make money but they limit developers...want to make a hardcore fast paced FPS game ala QW...well maybe you can't because you aren't permited to use a control scheme ideal for that (and before you say "work around that and use what you have"...that by its definition is LIMITING the developer). The nice thing about the PC is that you can make anything so long as the user is willing to get the equipment...and if they aren't; fuck 'em. Thats certainly not the best way to make the biggest profit...but the one size fits all McDonalds style system of the consoles is at the other extreme end of the spectrum...both have serious flaw...one just is more conducive to making money. The problem is that developers are deciding on the limitations...PR/marketing people, bean counters, and all kinds of folks with agendas are. I'm not saying that you don't have a very valid point...but I sometimes think that we lose sight of the difference between whats best for developing games and what makes for the best business/marketing model...those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...but they aren't necessarily identical either. To be honest I think the PC already fills the role ACER is trying to fill with this...but with all the talk about "the death of PC gaming" (and in all honesty I'd rather see the world end than PC gaming die).
-
Why would you say "no thanks" so quickly? It'll cost you no effort nor any money - those are both Acer's liability should they go through with this.
The concept doesn't refer to the system having a certain set of hardware or not, just that the system isn't locked down, by any corporate DRM or other means. I don't see this meaning that they'll not be able to maintain control over a certain hardware standard.
I for one wouldn't mind at least seeing how it works.
-
-
-
Would this even work? By the time the various interested parties have settled on a standard, they are 6 generations behind.
-
Considering the consoles are already 2 generations behind it's not a big deal if they lag the cutting edge a little.
-
-
