Xbox 2 dated ? By the Internet!

Online reports make for interesting reading

Posted by Staff
Artist representation of Xbox 2 dev station
Artist representation of Xbox 2 dev station
According to a segment of a question and answer section on IGN, Microsoft will be launching the successor to the Xbox, currently bedraped with the moniker Xenon, in 2005.

?Microsoft will release the successor to Xbox in 2005,? writes the site. ?And by the way, if there is still any doubt about this happening, now's the time to put it to rest. I've seen some holiday 2005 plans from publishers and several of them have major Xbox 2 titles scheduled for next November. I could name specific franchises and brand new IPs. It's really happening. And from the looks of it, there are going to be some pretty impressive launch titles.?

Not really much to add to this really. If the report, which as you just read is highly assertive, is to be believed, it does make good on Microsoft?s commitment to release into the next generation before its competition.

Microsoft, of course, is refusing to comment on this: with the firm?s ?We don?t comment on rumour and/or speculation,? line coming into play once again.

Comments

Rod Todd 16 Nov 2004 11:52
1/20
But given that the Xbox 2 will be just another PC with bells and whistles, they could really release it whenever they like, couldn't they?

It's just a matter of when they decide to draw the line in the sand.
Stryfe01 16 Nov 2004 12:46
2/20
Actually it's just not another PC. It's processors are based off of the powermac architecture, but custom modified for MS by IBM. Secondly the graphics processing unit is an advanced gpu. not a current generation (at the time) nvidia geforce gpu. Lastly I take many videogame surveys monthly, and all three console manufacturers were looking at releasing 3 different versions of their next consoles. One with basic gaming features, one with some media features and one with full blown features. Since then they've all scaled back and are planning to hve most of these features out of the box, but restriced to add on software and periphals. Yup, just like this generation. If you want access to these surveys, it depends on your profile you create when you sign up. search goodle for survey's with rewards. I won't promote any here.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Joji 16 Nov 2004 12:49
3/20
Could understand them wanting to get to the market before Sony and Nintendo do, but they still have to sort the graphics card/backwards compatibility issue. I've heard of no conclusion to it yet.


Brown Force 16 Nov 2004 15:30
4/20
Well I'll definatly be picking one of these up. I can't wait to see the launch titles it has planned. I can definatly see Half Life 2 being one and perhaps Perfect Dark Zero and Project Gothem Racing 3.

As for it being a PC, doubt it. They may have version that can play PC games, but how is that bad thing? Personally if the price is right I would be definatly tempted to play some PC titles on my console. Mainly because I'm not a big fan of mouse and keyboard gaming.
Alan is my first name 16 Nov 2004 22:12
5/20
I wonder what would have happened had the Dreamcast released with three different versions...
Rod Todd 17 Nov 2004 08:38
6/20
Stryfe01 wrote:
Actually it's just not another PC. It's processors are based off of the powermac architecture,


And how does that stop it being a PC?

There is no such thing as the PowerMac architecture. The PowerMac runs on a PowerPC processor.

It was originally the plan of PowerPC partners IBM/Motorola to create a unified architecture with PowerPC, enabling many operating systems to run on the same (or similar) architecture. For a good while there was a PowerPC (and a DEC Alpha) version of Windows NT.

Secondly the graphics processing unit is an advanced gpu. not a current generation (at the time) nvidia geforce gpu.


Again. How does this stop it being a PC? I have (somewhere, in a cupboard) a PC that can only do black and white text. I have one that can only do 640x480 16 color graphics. And I have one with an ATI Radeon 9800 - which can do about a gazzillion colours at a resolution bigger than my monitor can
cope with. There all PCs. A new GPU doesn't stop it being a PC - that's what Direct X is for.
Arse McAdams 17 Nov 2004 12:18
7/20
All modern consoles are based on PC architecture.

And besides, where's the problem?
tyrion 17 Nov 2004 13:36
8/20
Arse McAdams wrote:
All modern consoles are based on PC architecture.

Not really, not to the extent of a PC motherboard, PC CPU, PC memory, PC hard drive, PC graphics chipset, etc.

The PS2 does not use anything like a PC architecture, the closest it gets is that it uses von Neumann Architecture model, but then so has every computing device since the '70s or so.
Autobot 17 Nov 2004 15:48
9/20
Most Console sare just Pc's without Operating systems. The PS2 can run linux as well as the xbox so that would make both of them a PC. As PC stands for personal computer.

Also the big debate about the next xbox being a pc in disguise. I'm sure Microsoft would tell us bluntly if that was there intention they did for the XBOX they were not afraid to say it. They countlessly say that the xbox is made with off the counter PC parts. I for one don't care if it is or if it isn't. If just the small amount of conspiracy theorists out there that find falt in all major forms of entertainment. I think , if the console is well priced and plays games that appeal to me then that is all that matters.

You all that conspire crazy ideas can sit in your basement worrying about stupid stuff, while I play Halo 3 on my Xenon system.
lex_vc 18 Nov 2004 02:26
10/20
Exactly. I don't see how the matter of the Xbox using PC parts makes any difference in this debate anyway, and it sure as hell doesn't belong in this discussion. The Xbox uses PC parts, as does the Gamecube and the PS2. Every console uses this little thing called e-l-e-c-t-r-o-n-i-c-s. They make computers and stuff work, ya know?

I think PS2 users are simply pissed because Microsoft used better PC parts than Sony did. And as for PC owners bitching about it... I don't see why. You should be proud for Christ's sake. PC hardware has always been more advanced, because the technology is constantly advancing, whereas consoles only get an update once every 4 or 5 years.

However, when you look at the graphics on the Xbox compared to the graphics on a mid-range to high-range PC, you really honestly cannot tell that big of a difference. Admittedly, graphics in Half-Life 2 are better than Halo 2 (when played on a high-end PC...), but Halo 2 is just about as good as graphics can get on this generation of consoles - and that's pretty damn good.

Once again, I don't see why it matters that the Xbox is made of PC parts... it runs just fine, it has great games, great support, and a great online service (better than PC multiplayer thats for sure), not to mention you don't have ANY of the problems that you have with PCs. Just quit complaining, go buy Half-Life 2, play it for a while. Then go buy and Xbox and Halo 2 and play it for a while. You get the best of both worlds.
fluffstardx 18 Nov 2004 10:59
11/20
Nicely put. Who gives a s**t about the internals- WHAT WILL WE BE PLAYING?!?

And i wonder if they sorted the backwards compatability, because now they've been offered 2 ways...
tyrion 18 Nov 2004 13:05
12/20
Autobot wrote:
Most Console sare just Pc's without Operating systems. The PS2 can run linux as well as the xbox so that would make both of them a PC.

Linux can run on many other electronic devices to PCs. I've got a PDA running Linux, it can run on embedded cotrollers, consoles and even on the iPod. These devices are not PCs.

Autobot wrote:
As PC stands for personal computer.

PC does stand for Personal Computer in the strictest sense of the abbreviation. However, tell a Mac owner that they own a PC, tell a PC owner that a Mac is a PC, see what sort of responses you get. These days, "PC" means an IBM PC compatible computer, probably running some version of Microsoft Windows. That is certainly the definition that everybody else in this dicussion was using.

The original point was made that since the Xenon will just be a collection of off-the-shelf PC parts, wrapped in a case with an XBox logo on it, why do we have to wait for the release? This point does leave aside the software side of developing a new console, but surely that's what XNA was all about? IBM will provide the low-level code transformation modules for the compiler that MS use. A quick re-compile of the XNA libraries and away we go!
tyrion 18 Nov 2004 13:18
13/20
lex_vc wrote:
The Xbox uses PC parts, as does the Gamecube and the PS2. Every console uses this little thing called e-l-e-c-t-r-o-n-i-c-s. They make computers and stuff work, ya know?

And so do TVs, radios, cars, aeroplanes, watches, cookers, microwave ovens, mobile phones, CD players, power supplies, oscilloscopes, shop tills and many, many other classes of electronic devices. This does not make my car a PC!

lex_vc wrote:
I think PS2 users are simply pissed because Microsoft used better PC parts than Sony did.

Even if this were true, the XBox came out over a year after the PS2. A year's worth of development in PC graphics cards makes quite a difference.

However, the PS2 uses a custom-designed graphics processor, not one derived from a PC graphics card like the XBox and Gamecube.

I think XBox users are simply pissed off because PS2 owners can point to custom CPU, custom graphics processor and custom control chips and write the XBox off as "just" a PC in a black box.

Personally I don't see the problem, the games are the most important thing in this industry, surely?
lex_vc 18 Nov 2004 22:36
14/20
Of course games are the most important, yet I fail to see where you get the idea that "XBox users are simply pissed off because PS2 owners can point to custom CPU, custom graphics processor and custom control chips". I am perfectly happy knowing that I have a PC part in my Xbox, because you know what? It's better than Sony's custom pieces. Yes, it was a year later, but I fail to see how that is an excuse. The main draw for the xbox (as well as how many of the games run so well) is the hard drive. Hard drives have existed since the early 90s. There is no reason Sony couldn't use one in the PS2 (much less a simply 5-10 GB one, God knows they have the money).

Speaking of custom processors, the CELL chip? Unproven, overprices, and in my opinion, most likely overpriced.

Yes, I am what I suppose you would call an "Xbox fanboy", but that doesn't mean that I am completely biased towards it. I still base all of my opinions on Sony on fact. The fact is, I don't agree with Sony's business principles or the amount of dedication they've given to the industry (next to none). Plus, the only game I've ever been mildly impressed with was Grand Theft Auto, and now, it simply seems that Rockstar can't think of anything original for the game, seeing as how San Andreas seems to be Vice City multiplied 5 times and turned back an era.

Ok, I'm sorry, I have rambled on enough.
lex_vc 18 Nov 2004 22:41
15/20
Perhaps you should make your points a little clearer next time. The way I read it was - "I own a PS2, the Xbox is simply a rip-off of a PC, so why both even caring about the sequel to the console."

It's funny how you never hear anything particularly good about the console on this website as well, nor its games. For every good news to come along for it, you seem to have a bad comment to make about it. Not to mention the fact that you manage to undermine every aspect of the console. The GTA: SA review has been on the front page for 3 weeks, whereas the Halo 2 review was late getting up on the page in the first place, and there is no doubt in my mind it will be gone relatively soon.

I know what you're thinking. "Like it matters, more people own PS2s, and he can't make a difference anyway". True, but you know what, that doesn't keep me from being severely disappointed with your site and the way you run it. It would just be nice if we had a more unbiased video game website. I don't mind the PS2 news, but give the Xbox some good comments for once, will ya?
kinigitt 18 Nov 2004 23:52
16/20
lex_vc wrote:
Perhaps you should make your points a little clearer next time. The way I read it was - "I own a PS2, the Xbox is simply a rip-off of a PC, so why both even caring about the sequel to the console."

It's funny how you never hear anything particularly good about the console on this website as well, nor its games. For every good news to come along for it, you seem to have a bad comment to make about it. Not to mention the fact that you manage to undermine every aspect of the console. The GTA: SA review has been on the front page for 3 weeks, whereas the Halo 2 review was late getting up on the page in the first place, and there is no doubt in my mind it will be gone relatively soon.

I know what you're thinking. "Like it matters, more people own PS2s, and he can't make a difference anyway". True, but you know what, that doesn't keep me from being severely disappointed with your site and the way you run it. It would just be nice if we had a more unbiased video game website. I don't mind the PS2 news, but give the Xbox some good comments for once, will ya?


I agree 100%. It's ridiculous when you try to read through a NEWS site (one that I frequent because it gets great scoops, often earlier than the competition) that is completely tainted by cynical, opiniated tripe instead of an unbiased view on the video game industry.

I hate the fact that I constantly have to defend myself just for owning a microsoft produced console. They're evil; so what. Corporations aren't there to give you a backrub and ask you about your day, they exist to sell you things that you like and want. So far, they've done a great job with the "things I like and want" aspect.

Anyway... we should all just shut up and play some dreamcast.
tyrion 19 Nov 2004 14:00
17/20
lex_vc wrote:
Of course games are the most important, yet I fail to see where you get the idea that "XBox users are simply pissed off because PS2 owners can point to custom CPU, custom graphics processor and custom control chips".

And I fail to see where you got the idea that "PS2 users are simply pissed because Microsoft used better PC parts than Sony did." I posed an opposing view that was just as valid in the opinion that it expressed. All the XBox owners I know are constantly defending their consoles with the "it's not just a PC" line. Given the ire stirred up on this thread by Rod Todd's initial assertion that the XBox was just a PC, I would have to imagine XBox owners are pissed off at this constant defending. That was what my point was about.

lex_vc wrote:
I am perfectly happy knowing that I have a PC part in my Xbox, because you know what? It's better than Sony's custom pieces.

The point being made is that you don't just have one piece of PC hardware in your XBox - your XBox is a PC. It has PC architecture, a PC CPU, PC memory, PC controller chips and PC graphics. The only non-PC bit about the whole thing is the controllers, and even these use a version of USB.

lex_vc wrote:
The main draw for the xbox (as well as how many of the games run so well) is the hard drive. Hard drives have existed since the early 90s. There is no reason Sony couldn't use one in the PS2 (much less a simply 5-10 GB one, God knows they have the money).

I think the main draw of the XBox at the moment is Live! and the opportunities offered by an online service that actually seems to work well.

The main reason that Microsoft lose money on every XBox sold (or have done so far) is the inclusion of the hard drive. The hard drive is not confirmed for Xenon, so maybe Microsoft are having second thoughts.

lex_vc wrote:
Speaking of custom processors, the CELL chip? Unproven, overprices, and in my opinion, most likely overpriced.

The PSX and PS2 had custom processors, the GameCube has a custom processor. Custom processors aren't anything new in the console market. Not many people outside of Sony or IBM knows what the Cell chip will do. Certainly, we don't know how much it will cost.

The fact is, I don't agree with Sony's business principles or the amount of dedication they've given to the industry (next to none).

Yet you do agree with Microsoft's business principles? Sony haven't got up to half the tricks that Microsoft have done in the past. Nor have they been ruled to have acted in an illegal manner, like Microsoft have.

And Sony have plenty of dedication to the industry. They have expanded the size of the market, almost single-handedly, since the release of the PSX.

lex_vc wrote:
Ok, I'm sorry, I have rambled on enough.

Hey, that's what these boards are for.
Master Chef 19 Nov 2004 14:35
18/20
Stryfe01 wrote:
the graphics processing unit is an advanced gpu. not a current generation (at the time) nvidia geforce gpu.


I think there will be a R500-level (R520?) GPU card out for PCs before Xenon is released (early 2005 is my guess).

Anyway Nvidia's cards are currently the best imo.

My point being that it might be 'tweaked' to deal with Xenon's quirks and limitations, but it's still going to be essentially the same beast as a stock PC GPU card.

Rod Todd 19 Nov 2004 15:00
19/20
lex_vc wrote:
Unproven, overprices, and in my opinion, most likely overpriced.


Now, that looks like English. It smells like English.. but it shure ans sugar don't sound like English.

lex_vc wrote:
Yes, I am what I suppose you would call an "Xbox fanboy"


Oh, you're quite wrong there. I'd never call you that.

lex_vc wrote:
but that doesn't mean that I am completely biased towards it.


No, it's everything you're written that means that.

lex_vc wrote:
I still base all of my opinions on Sony on fact.


Is what you say. And we're all mighty impressed by your level headed bi-partisan attitude.

But then you go and blow it all by talking out of your rectum thus:

lex_vc wrote:
The fact is, I don't agree with Sony's business principles or the amount of dedication they've given to the industry (next to none).


Of course. Because next to Microsoft, Sony's "business principles" are horrific.

And Microsoft have done so much for the industry (I assume you are talking about the gaming indiustry)...

lex_vc wrote:
Ok, I'm sorry, I have rambled on enough.


More than enough. But you were spot on with the rambling part.
Rod Todd 19 Nov 2004 15:08
20/20
kinigitt wrote:
I agree 100%. It's ridiculous when you try to read through a NEWS site (one that I frequent because it gets great scoops, often earlier than the competition) that is completely tainted by cynical, opiniated tripe instead of an unbiased view on the video game industry.


Oh, don't be a doormat. Are you so used to being fed corporate approved, unquestioning tripe by Fox News that you can;t cope with a world where people hold real opinions?

Have you spent so much time reading the unquestioningly re-written press releases on GameSpot that actual opinions scare you, make you feel inadequate because you got yours of the back of a cereal packet.

kinigitt wrote:
I hate the fact that I constantly have to defend myself just for owning a microsoft produced console.


You are not defending yourself for owning the console, you are defending for suporting an organisation that has held back computing for years, and will spoil the games indistry. Who don't give a damn about games or gaming, just about profits.

kinigitt wrote:
Corporations aren't there to give you a backrub and ask you about your day, they exist to sell you things that you like and want.


Really, That's what corporations are for? To sell you what you want? WRONG! They are there to make money for their shareholders. In a compeitive market, the only way they can do that is to sell you things you want... but as they achieve market dominance, they can (and increasingly do) sell you what THEY want. And because you let them get dominance, you can't do jack about it.

kinigitt wrote:
Anyway... we should all just shut up and play some dreamcast.


Agreed.
Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.