Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The New Apple Pippin Gaming Console?
- Thread starter dcl007
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At the time it came out, it had the best graphics on the market.
Most people were hardly convinced the Xbox's games looked better, mainly because they didn't...
You must have had your eyes shut or something. Xbox graphics were far superior; supported higher resolutions, more video ram, better texture effects. Xbox had 3x the speed CPU, 100mhz faster GPU, double the RAM, FSAA, DirectX support, cache due to the standard HDD...
They even had to turn down the graphics from the original Gamecube Resident Evil 4 to get it running well on PS2 hardware. And they're at a much closer spec than the Xbox.
They even had to turn down the graphics from the original Gamecube Resident Evil 4 to get it running well on PS2 hardware. And they're at a much closer spec than the Xbox.
I really never noticed it in most games. Halo 2 was awesome, but then again MGS always blew me away on the PS2.
The PS2 did improve quite a bit from its early releases and they pushed out some nice looking games once developers figured it out, but it was technically inferior to the Cube and XBox on all fronts. Its popularity gave it priority over the other two consoles, so games were generally honed for it over a Xbox, which in turn ended up with PS2 level art.
raggedjimmi,
On the Cube thing, its biggest limitation was its 24 megs of VRAM, which caused a bottleneck. If it had 64 like the XBox, it would have been able to match it on most fronts. Performance wise a Cube is much closer to a Xbox than a PS2. Its TEV can do things the Xbox's shader can not and vice versa. The Cube got the shaft by developers who really didn't care to understand the TEV. It also didn't help that some spreadsheet company was dumping billions at a loss into marketing and spreading FUD to make their product look better.
RE:4 would've also been been compromised for the Xbox if they had ported it. The Cube could display more textures on a screen at one time -- even with its limited VRAM -- than the Xbox.
<]=)
raggedjimmi,
On the Cube thing, its biggest limitation was its 24 megs of VRAM, which caused a bottleneck. If it had 64 like the XBox, it would have been able to match it on most fronts. Performance wise a Cube is much closer to a Xbox than a PS2. Its TEV can do things the Xbox's shader can not and vice versa. The Cube got the shaft by developers who really didn't care to understand the TEV. It also didn't help that some spreadsheet company was dumping billions at a loss into marketing and spreading FUD to make their product look better.
RE:4 would've also been been compromised for the Xbox if they had ported it. The Cube could display more textures on a screen at one time -- even with its limited VRAM -- than the Xbox.
<]=)
Apple's QC has been terrible in the last few years. Never have I heard more stories of failed hardware and software from this side of the fence (meaning it's nothing compared to PCs, but still). I think they are spread too thin as it stands, what with the iPods, (all 57 versions), the iPhone, and their neglected Mac lineup.
They need to cleanup the messes they have going on right now, hire more people, and get back to pleasing their oldschool fans before they start making game consoles or toasters or furniture.
(though Ives can feel free to make his own line of stuff for my livingroom!)
They need to cleanup the messes they have going on right now, hire more people, and get back to pleasing their oldschool fans before they start making game consoles or toasters or furniture.
(though Ives can feel free to make his own line of stuff for my livingroom!)
I agree.
My friend's MacBook Pro which he bought end of 2006 crashes with that hardware screen every other day. My parents have had their iBook for 4 years now and rarely have they seen that screen -- which is good since they're a 13 hour drive from me -- the same goes for my Rev 3 G5. Each new Tiger update has made my comp more unreliable, which is a complete opposite of past OS updates. It took a .11 update to make things better and I'm pretty sure we'll see a .12 also.
<]=)
Due to its dreadful controller, I don't count the Dreamcast as a major competitor...
The DC controller was awesome, IMO. The Xbox pretty much ripped it completely off and I've never found the PS controller to be comfortable in my hand.
But, yes, if you don't count the DC then I'll have to agree that in the face of no competition the PS2 did have the best gfx when it was released.
Lethal
The DC controller was big and bulky, but I got used to it really fast. Sure beat the crap out of the N64 controller, now that was the worse ever.... until the gamecube controller.
My Japanese DC is still my favorite console. Hands down.
Hah, the N64 controller was something else. I never had a problem with that. I wouldn't call it the best but it was mighty fine. GC was my most comfiest though. It was just moulded to my hands.
Can't stand the Playstation ones. Not ergonomic enough.
360 has it in spades. I'm using one for developing my own game so it's in use for god knows how many hours a day. Great bit of kit!
Can't stand the Playstation ones. Not ergonomic enough.
360 has it in spades. I'm using one for developing my own game so it's in use for god knows how many hours a day. Great bit of kit!
I haven't read through all the responses. But if Apple made a new pippin then it would probably fail. Unless they open up to developers and try to add some thing to set it apart from the 360 or ps3 (the Wii's already set apart) and make it special. I just don't see them making a good console considering their past with game developers...
Isn't that iPod game Phase (developed by the guys who brought us Guitar Hero) a rhythm game that lets you play your own songs?
Nintendo and Apple should team up to make a DS2, Apple's multi-touch technology could do wonders for the little machine.
Do you think it could be made for <=$129 and still make a profit for Nintendo and Apple?
Alternatively Nintendo could trade designs with them, say Multitouch for the multisized disc loader. Or simply license the tech or iTunes.
I just really can't see Apple doing this. But I can see their services reaching a wider audience. Just look at how Safari for Windows jumped out from nowhere!
My point was mostly to show that Nintendo usually makes a profit from the consoles they make. I know Apple does as well on the stuff they make. Do we really think the two would be able to compromise and potentially not make money?
Why would Nintendo want to use iTunes? Apples stuff can reach a larger audience because it isn't games. I don't think anyone can deny that Nintendo is doing quite well considering the view that videogames have amongst the population.
Apple has had plenty of missteps along the way. The don't have a Midas touch or anything.
I just don't see the most Apple users (represented by that Mac vs. PC tool and silhouette people dancing to trendy music with iPods in commercials) as being all about games. Sure, the console itself would probably look super-sweet, but it's as it is said in here often all about the GAMES. A nice iTunes program or Safari web browser hardly indicates that Apple has any game developing skills. Bungie saved MS's rear-end with Halo. Apple would need to have some franchise-worthy game ready to roll, and those are hard to come by these days.
Apple should team with Phantom to produce a console game system. Design it so that it plays both Xbox360 and PS3 games. Then they'll have something.....
They'll have something alright...a lawsuit. Apple should stick to what it does best and thats ipods & macs and improve in these areas(because they really need to) a gaming division won't be very lucrative for apple and might take there focus off the bread & butter...I rather them stick to that.
Bless
I don't think Apple would need many exclusives; just simulaneous launch of a handful of big-name releases which they could then spend the marketing bucks on.
However, I get the feeling Jobs' interests are Apple's interests, and I get the feeling Jobs doesn't like games. At all. He's perfectly happy demoing photo and video software on stage, but if a game is to be demoed he always just hands it over.
However, I get the feeling Jobs' interests are Apple's interests, and I get the feeling Jobs doesn't like games. At all. He's perfectly happy demoing photo and video software on stage, but if a game is to be demoed he always just hands it over.
How does Apple secure those games in the first place? I mean look at the "quality" stuff Mac Gamers have gotten from EA.
This is a good point. I also thought it was interesting to see Apple basically promote 3 of the 4 computer lines they have for gaming. I mean none of EA's stuff runs on the Macbook which I had always thought was the most sold computer they have. You would have thought they would have told EA that the games they released needed to be able to run on a Macbook.