unreleased IMSA Racing footage for the canceled 3DO/Matsushita M2

[parallaxscroll]

Newly discovered video of a near-final version of IMSA Racing on M2 from 1997

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2ackXME-pE4
don't forget to watch in high quality


Footage from an older, alpha build from 1996:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eMa0DHtf0Sw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_24GhAwlv0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LdujBv7ZG48

IMSA Racing for M2 ran at 640x480 resolution at 30 frames per second with no popup/draw in, no fogging, a high level of geometry detail, and high image quality with trilinear filtered textures, and other graphical trickery.

Although extremely unimpressive by todays standards, or even those of last-gen (DC, PS2, GCN, Xbox) this is beyond what could be done on the original PlayStation, or Nintendo 64. It's even somewhat better than what PCs could do with 3D accelerators (3Dfx or PowerVR graphics cards) in 1996-1997. Only high-end arcade games looked better at the time (i.e. Sega's Scud Race on MODEL 3).


Next Generation magazine article on the game

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2959/ngm2worldracing1ah4.th.jpg (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2worldracing1ah4.jpg)

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9320/ngm2worldracing2ot5.th.jpg (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2worldracing2ot5.jpg)



M2 was canceled in 1997. It wasn't vaporware, it was a very real and completed console. Matsushita/Panasonic chickened out, didn't want to compete with Sony, Nintendo and even Sega, because by 1997 Matsushita reasoned that PS1 and N64 were already established, the M2 hardware although powerful, was no longer state-of-the-art, it had aged over the 2 years since it had been announced (spring 1995) and it would face the next generation consoles (Dreamcast and PlayStation2) only a few years after a 1997 release. Matsushita pulled the plug on the console. However M2 was used in a number of Konami arcade games. M2 was also used in various equipment such as highend DVD players, industrial display kiosks, ATM machines, among other things.

[Kevincal]

Looks on par with Dreamcast graphics. Daytona on the DC comes to mind.

[parallaxscroll]

Here's a bunch of M2 articles from Next Generation, for those interested:

http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngmatbuysm21ny9.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2segapx6.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngdevsworrym2hm3.jpg
http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2article11or1.jpg
http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2article21ez8.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2article22vp8.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2breaksilence1iq5.jpg
http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2breaksilence2kr9.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2breaksilence3au1.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2breaksilence4ib3.jpg
http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2getsgames1ul8.jpg
http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2getsgames2mt4.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2ironblood1cb1.jpg
http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2ironblood2kc7.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngpowercrystal01oo0.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngpowercrystal02hs6.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngpowercrystal03ii9.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngpowercrystal04pe6.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2hitormyth01sa9.jpg
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2hitormyth02eg4.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2theend01nv6.jpg
http://img240.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ngm2theend02st6.jpg

[Poofta!]

wow and all without popup. had they released this console along w/ the ps1, it wouldve been a true contender.

[parallaxscroll]

Looks on par with Dreamcast graphics. Daytona on the DC comes to mind.

M2 was not on par with Dreamcast, not even close.

Texture-mapped, gouraud shaded polygon per second performance with lighting and rendering features / effects applied:
M2: 300,000 ~ 500,000
DC: 3,000,000 ~ 5,000,000

However, there were many Dreamcast games that used only a small fraction of the performance it had, so with that in mind, it's understandable that many Dreamcast games look roughly on par with games developed for M2.

With that said Daytona USA on Dreamcast is miles ahead of IMSA Racing, Daytona DC is 60fps, uses alot more polygons, much more advanced lighting (volumetric) as well as a much higher quantity of more detailed textures.

edit: The Dreamcast game Test Drive Le Mans comes to mind, is much, much more similar to IMSA Racing than DC Daytona USA.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2A9gErwKM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=58h_tQWUTjE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4_z3hsEpzyM

Both games are 30fps. Still Dreamcast Le Mans is well beyond M2 IMSA Racing grapically, but I don't expect M2 to compete with Dreamcast anymore than I expect Dreamcast to compete with Xbox.

[Rob2600]

Cool video, thanks for posting!

In terms of frame rate and draw distance, the M2 looks about twice as powerful as the N64. The texturing is a bit clearer too, but the lighting and shadows are about the same...maybe even a little worse than what I've seen in some N64 games.

Compare this video to N64 games like Wave Race, F-1 World Grand Prix, World Driver Championship, Top Gear Overdrive, Beetle Adventure Racing, or Ridge Racer 64. I think those games are as detailed as this M2 game...maybe even more...but again, the M2 game has a higher frame rate. The background geometry in the M2 game is very simple though. There are plenty of buildings, but they're all just simple boxes with the same one or two window textures repeated on them.

I realize this was an early M2 game. Had the console been released, I'm sure later games would've looked even more impressive. Based on the specs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_M2), I'd say later M2 games would've looked about two times better than N64 games, which would've been very good.

If the M2 were released in 1997, how much do you think it would've cost? Both the N64 and Dreamcast launched at $199, which I think is the perfect price. Anything more than $300 would've been unacceptable.

[Greg2600]

Great videos! As a resident self-expressed Sim Racing guru, I have to say those graphics are outstanding for 1997. The smoothness, draw distance, 3D building models, etc., are all pretty amazing. Rob, that IMSA game is head and shoulders above most racing games on the N64. Also RR64 came out in 2000, this thing was being developed in 1997!

I compared it to the PC racing games of that era:
1997's Need for Speed II on Windows: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/need-for-speed-ii/screenshots/gameShotId,28508/
1998's Test Drive 5: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/test-drive-5/screenshots/gameShotId,1392/
1999's EA Sports Car GT: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/sports-car-gt/screenshots/gameShotId,99234/
2000' s Test Drive: Le Mans: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/test-drive-le-mans/screenshots/gameShotId,160121/

Can't believe I've never heard of the M2? As for the pricing, I'm sure it would have been way too expensive, providing instant doom in the same vein as the SuperGrafx, Neo Geo, SEGACD and 32X, 3DO, CD-i, etc.

[Rob2600]

Great videos! As a resident self-expressed Sim Racing guru, I have to say those graphics are outstanding for 1997. The smoothness, draw distance, 3D building models, etc., are all pretty amazing.

Compare that to the games of that day:
1997's Need for Speed II on Windows: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/need-for-speed-ii/screenshots/gameShotId,28508/
1998's Test Drive 5: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/test-drive-5/screenshots/gameShotId,1392/
1999's EA Sports Car GT: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/sports-car-gt/screenshots/gameShotId,99234/
2000' s Test Drive: Le Mans: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/test-drive-le-mans/screenshots/gameShotId,160121/

Can't believe I've never heard of the M2?

The Panasonic M2 was a video game console design developed by 3DO and then sold to Matsushita/Panasonic for $100,000,000.

Regarding the buildings, again, they're just simple boxes with the same textures repeated. Overall, the game looks fairly impressive, though I think it's more because of the excellent frame rate than the amount of detail, which is somewhat low compared to games like Wave Race 64 and Beetle Adventure Racing.

[parallaxscroll]

M2 codenamed 'Bulldog' was in development in 1993, the first specs and existance of Bulldog were revealed in 1994. The M2 accelerator and standalone console was announced in 1995, for a Christmas release. M2 was delayed and pushed to 1996. During 1996 M2 was upgraded from 4-6 MB of RAM to 8 MB, given a 2nd PowerPC 602 CPU so that its polygon performance was boosted. The accelerator/upgrade was dropped and now it would be a new standalone console. Games including IMSA Racing were developed in 1995-1996 and into 1997. By mid 1997 the console release was canceled.

The 3DO Mark II / Bulldog / M2 upgrade was originally supposed to cost $100 and the standalone console $270 to $400. Keep in mind this was at a time when the original 3DO was selling for $699 or $799, as of 1994-1995.
By 1996-1997 the console was expected to be $300 to $400, not totally outrageous for a system with twice the graphics performance of N64,
two 66 MHz PowerPC CPUs, a 4x CD-ROM drive, 8 MB RAM.

[roushimsx]

I compared it to the PC racing games of that era:
1997's Need for Speed II on Windows: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/need-for-speed-ii/screenshots/gameShotId,28508/

Now, now. If you're going to compare it to Need For Speed II, at least compare it to Need For Speed II: Special Edition (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/need-for-speed-ii-special-edition/screenshots) as it's the one that actually uses 3d hardware. P.O.D. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/planet-of-death) was no slouch either.

Hell, even the software based games didn't look that bad. Look at Screamer 2 (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/screamer-2/screenshots) from 1996. Not like graphics matter, because we all know Big Red Racing (http://www.mobygames.com/game/big-red-racing/screenshots) destroyed everything else. :)

It is nice to see some actual M2 game footage getting uploaded to YouTube to replace those prerendered videos that have been circulating for more than a decade. Really neat stuff. Shame it'll never be emulated for people to actually play them (I'm honestly surprised that CD-I and 3DO emulation are as advanced as they are, all things considered).

[parallaxscroll]

It is nice to see some actual M2 game footage getting uploaded to YouTube to replace those prerendered videos that have been circulating for more than a decade. Really neat stuff.

Agreed. That pre-rendered racing game demo was really pretty but not indicative of what M2 could actually do. I would also like to see any demos made for the little-known MX chipset, which was basicly "M2 on steroids", with at least twice the performance of M2, and almost accepted by Nintendo for the basis of their next console in 1997 (which might have launched in late 1999) but a deal with Samsung (who had acquired the 3DO hardware team and MX tech) was killed. This happened before Nintendo commited themselves to partnering with ArtX on the Dolphin/GameCube, before they got bought by ATI.



Shame it'll never be emulated for people to actually play them (I'm honestly surprised that CD-I and 3DO emulation are as advanced as they are, all things considered).

I can only dream of getting to play M2 games via emulation some day :/

[Rob2600]

those graphics are outstanding for 1997. The smoothness, draw distance, 3D building models, etc., are all pretty amazing. Rob, that IMSA game is head and shoulders above most racing games on the N64. Also RR64 came out in 2000, this thing was being developed in 1997!

Dont get me wrong, the M2 IMSA racing game is impressive, but it's not miles ahead of what the N64 could do in games like F-1 World Grand Prix, World Driver Championship, Beetle Adventure Racing, Top Gear Overdrive, Wave Race, etc. The backgrounds in those N64 racing games are just as detailed (if not more) than IMSA, but IMSA has a higher frame rate. It looks good for a launch game though.



F-1 World Grand Prix was released in mid 1998 for the N64. Here's a video (impressive car models in the intro, skip ahead halfway for in-game footage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6oYj9tzTI



World Driver Championship was released in mid 1999 for the N64. Here are videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4pnAKS_d4 (click "high quality")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VJjrO5Ql3Y (click "high quality")



And of course, Wave Race 64, which was released in 1996:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZuzsQxDCI (click "high quality")

Remember, these games are running off of 1996 hardware (the N64) with 4 MB of RAM (no Expansion Pak). Pretty impressive! Again, based on specs, the M2 seems roughly twice as powerful as the N64. IMSA certainly doesn't max out those specs, but for a launch game, it looks good.



And you're right, as I wrote in an earlier post, I imagine later M2 games would look much more impressive than the IMSA game. In the hands of a strong development team, I'm sure the graphics in M2 games would've kicked butt in the late 1990s...until the Dreamcast. :)

I'd love to see in-game footage of other M2 games.



The 3DO Mark II / Bulldog / M2 upgrade was originally supposed to cost $100 and the standalone console $270 to $400. Keep in mind this was at a time when the original 3DO was selling for $699 or $799, as of 1994-1995.
By 1996-1997 the console was expected to be $300 to $400, not totally outrageous for a system with twice the graphics performance of N64

If the M2 launched at $399, very few people would've bought it. $299 would've been much better...although I don't think the console would've been successful at any price, to be honest. Competing with Sony, Nintendo, and Sega in 1997-2000 would've been financial suicide.

[Poofta!]

although I don't think the console would've been successful at any price, to be honest. Competing with Sony, Nintendo, and Sega in 1997-2000 would've been financial suicide.

i would have to agree, and Panasonic did not have the budget as microsoft did to be able to ram its way in.

[Leo_A]

I wish this had been ported to the Dreamcast. Impressive looking game, if the gameplay was on par with the graphics (Hard to judge since he's using a digital controller that apparantly makes the game impossible to control), I'd of loved this.

I hope someday this gets emulated.

[kedawa]

i would have to agree, and Panasonic did not have the budget as microsoft did to be able to ram its way in.Panasonic didn't have the budget?
Matsushita was the biggest consumer electronics company in the world at that time.

[Scawt]

I think Panasonic had the money, but maybe not the foresight or know-how. Microsoft had dealt with PC gaming for years before they released the Xbox. What has Panasonic done?

Also, those graphics are PS1-esque at best. Dreamcast? Come on.

[Kevincal]

M2 was not on par with Dreamcast, not even close.

Texture-mapped, gouraud shaded polygon per second performance with lighting and rendering features / effects applied:
M2: 300,000 ~ 500,000
DC: 3,000,000 ~ 5,000,000

However, there were many Dreamcast games that used only a small fraction of the performance it had, so with that in mind, it's understandable that many Dreamcast games look roughly on par with games developed for M2.

With that said Daytona USA on Dreamcast is miles ahead of IMSA Racing, Daytona DC is 60fps, uses alot more polygons, much more advanced lighting (volumetric) as well as a much higher quantity of more detailed textures.

edit: The Dreamcast game Test Drive Le Mans comes to mind, is much, much more similar to IMSA Racing than DC Daytona USA.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nC2A9gErwKM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=58h_tQWUTjE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4_z3hsEpzyM

Both games are 30fps. Still Dreamcast Le Mans is well beyond M2 IMSA Racing grapically, but I don't expect M2 to compete with Dreamcast anymore than I expect Dreamcast to compete with Xbox.

Tech specs aside... Just looking at this M2 racing game, and having played Daytona on the DC extensively...there really is not THAT much difference in graphic quality. Both look and run really smoothly. Hell, this game doesn't even look much worse than GT3 on the PS2.. But ya, I guess it would be closer to Le Mans.

The M2 would have been released sometime in 1997 or 1998 had it been released, correct? The DC was released in late 1998 in Japan right? So, it seems to me the DC would have been its closest rival. Just looking at this racing game, the graphic quality seems closer to the DC than the N64, throwing tech specs out the window...


I think Panasonic had the money, but maybe not the foresight or know-how. Microsoft had dealt with PC gaming for years before they released the Xbox. What has Panasonic done?

Also, those graphics are PS1-esque at best. Dreamcast? Come on.

:o You need some glasses if you think PS racing games look anywhere near as good as this M2 game... And I'm a big PS fan... I'm also a big N64 fan and my favorite genre is racing games... This M2 game is easily better looking than any racing game on the N64 that I've seen, and that's many. It's smoother, more realistic looking, and has a higher resolution than anything I've seen on the N64. Like I said, this looks more like a DC game than anything if you ask me...

[R.Sakai]

That racing video screams "Overclocked Nuon" :)

[Kevincal]

NUON games are rather blurry though... Kinda like N64 games. This M2 racing game looks very crisp.

[parallaxscroll]

That racing video screams "Overclocked Nuon" :)



It's funny you say that. Project X / NUON was supposed to be a generation beyond systems like PS1, N64 and M2. It ended up being barely on par with N64 and easily weaker than M2.

[parallaxscroll]

Tech specs aside... Just looking at this M2 racing game, and having played Daytona on the DC extensively...there really is not THAT much difference in graphic quality. Both look and run really smoothly. Hell, this game doesn't even look much worse than GT3 on the PS2.. But ya, I guess it would be closer to Le Mans.

I have Daytona USA on DC also, it looks alot better than IMSA Racing to be honest. The graphic/image quality is not the biggest difference (although DC Daytona's IQ is better) the big difference is the framerate and amount of geometry being pushed on screen. There are a ton of cars on screen at any given time in Daytona (as you know) but only a few in IMSA racing. Le Mans closer because of the racing style and framerate.



The M2 would have been released sometime in 1997 or 1998 had it been released, correct? The DC was released in late 1998 in Japan right? So, it seems to me the DC would have been its closest rival. Just looking at this racing game, the graphic quality seems closer to the DC than the N64, throwing tech specs out the window...

I have to disagree. M2 is of the same generation as N64, and its definitelly closer to N64 than Dreamcast. Yeah M2 is easily superior to N64, but not by enough to bring it close to DC. Whether we throw tech-specs out the window or not, it doesn't matter, the tech-specs determine what you can see overall on-screen. Tech-specs are what make M2 better than say, the PS1. M2 was supposed to have been released in 1995, then 1996, and after the delays if it was EVER to launch, it would've had to have been no later than fall 1997. So while Dreamcast did come out in Japan in November 1998, that does not mean M2 and DC would've been rivals. The N64 would've still been M2's closest rival, both in terms of technology and marketing. They would've fought for the '64-bit' market. PS1 was dominating that gen, N64 and M2 would've fought for what was left over.

If anything was to take on the Dreamcast in 1998-1999, it would've been MX, the next console beyond M2. The MX was going to be anywhere from 2 to 10 times more powerful than M2, have DVD. It would've taken on Dreamcast and PS2. The MX is a whole 'nother story. Nintendo almost bought the former 3DO hardware team who was owned by Samsung and called Cagent in 1997. Nintendo wanted to replace the N64 quickly, as soon as the end of 1999 in Japan. MX was the console/chipset they were most interested in, as it was the only one that was ready to go. The deal fell apart between Samsung and Nintendo, over Cagent's MX. After that Nintendo turned to ArtX who helped develop the Dolphin (GameCube).


As for N64, There was a very very impressive racing game released for it, SF Rush 2049. It's very crisp, little to no popup, lots of geometry, etc. It's not quite as good as IMSA Racing, but it shows M2 is not a generation beyond N64, only about twice as powerful. I'm sure the M2 could've done it even better had developers pushed the hardware, but what I'm saying is,





:o You need some glasses if you think PS racing games look anywhere near as good as this M2 game... And I'm a big PS fan... I'm also a big N64 fan and my favorite genre is racing games... This M2 game is easily better looking than any racing game on the N64 that I've seen, and that's many. It's smoother, more realistic looking, and has a higher resolution than anything I've seen on the N64. Like I said, this looks more like a DC game than anything if you ask me...

I agree M2 is well beyond anything the PS1 could ever do, and better than N64, but I wouldn't go so far as to compare with it with Dreamcast, which is an order of magnitude more powerful than M2, and like 20 N64s put together.
While many games did not push DC hardware very far, some did. Clearly games like Shenmue show DC to be a generation beyond M2. So while IMSA racing might look somewhat like a low-end DC game, it doesn't mean M2 was anywhere near DC's capabilities.

[WindowsKiller]

Haha, funny discussion. :-)

I wouldn't compare the M2 with the DC either. Keep in mind that the M2 hardware was designed already in 1993/1994, whereas the DC hardware as we know it today was designed in early 1997. The M2 was later enhanced with more memory and a second PPC, but the core of the system, the BDA consisting of 10 custom chips (which also included the triangle engine) never changed, and even the dual-PPC revision was final in mid-1996. So there's quite a technological gap between the M2 and the DC, and comparing them would be unfair at least. We never saw what the M2 was really capable of anyway. (think about the PS1's launch title, Ridge Racer, and compare it with Gran Turismo, and then imagine the same with the M2's launch title, IMSA Racing...)

On the other hand, IMSA Racing looks way better than what you see on YouTube. The game runs in 640x480 and has many textures with fine details. You can't see any of that in the YouTube videos. For example, the road seems to have no texture in the video, but it has a very realistic-looking one. YouTube's video compression kills such fine details, sadly.

[roushimsx]

On the other hand, IMSA Racing looks way better than what you see on YouTube. The game runs in 640x480 and has many textures with fine details. You can't see any of that in the YouTube videos. For example, the road seems to have no texture in the video, but it has a very realistic-looking one. YouTube's video compression kills such fine details, sadly.

Well, it doesn't help that the video was recorded with a camera instead of a direct capture, either. Totally kills the audio and washes out the video. When it comes to M2 videos though, beggers can't be choosers.

(p.s. I'll gladly pay for a cheap Leadtek capture card if it means higher quality videos :) )

[WindowsKiller]

Very true, but recording with a camera is still the only option I have. If someone has an old capture card that supports NTSC composite video input lying around and wants to donate it to me, I'll gladly capture better footage. And I promise to drive better, too. ;)

[roushimsx]

Very true, but recording with a camera is still the only option I have. If someone has an old capture card that supports NTSC composite video input lying around and wants to donate it to me, I'll gladly capture better footage. And I promise to drive better, too. ;)

PM me a mailing address and I'll order one of these (http://www.leadtek.com/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?lineid=6&pronameid=136) for you. It's balls cheap (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122221) and should work like a champ with DScaler (http://deinterlace.sourceforge.net/) (especially considering it's just a slightly toned down version of what I use (http://www.leadtek.com/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?pronameid=94&lineid=6&act=1)).

You may need to foot the bill on a cheap adaptor (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103225) for the audio...not sure if it comes with the required item in the box (doesn't show it in the photos, anyway).

edit - damn, Germany? Hrm. Shipping might be an issue. We'll see!

[Iron Draggon]

WOW... I would've bought an M2 for this game... it's a shame it was never ported to the Dreamcast... but at least the DC did get Test Drive LeMans!

[j_factor]

Dont get me wrong, the M2 IMSA racing game is impressive, but it's not miles ahead of what the N64 could do in games like F-1 World Grand Prix, World Driver Championship, Beetle Adventure Racing, Top Gear Overdrive, Wave Race, etc. The backgrounds in those N64 racing games are just as detailed (if not more) than IMSA, but IMSA has a higher frame rate. It looks good for a launch game though.



F-1 World Grand Prix was released in mid 1998 for the N64. Here's a video (impressive car models in the intro, skip ahead halfway for in-game footage):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6oYj9tzTI

That doesn't come close to the IMSA video. F-1 World Grand Prix features the generic "wall of flat trees" that I saw in so many games of that time period. Not to mention a noticeably closer draw distance, lower resolution textures, and (what appears to be) a lower framerate.

I definitely wouldn't put this at "Dreamcast quality" either, though. It doesn't have the textures, lighting, or detail of a Dreamcast game. Even an early Dreamcast racer like TXR is pretty solidly above this game.

[WindowsKiller]

PM me a mailing address and I'll order one of these (http://www.leadtek.com/eng/tv_tuner/overview.asp?lineid=6&pronameid=136) for you.

Thanks, that's a very nice offer! :) However, it wouldn't feel right if someone would BUY a capture card for me. I would rather like to get one donated that someone has lying around and which would stay unused or even get trashed otherwise.

[Borman]

You had said it runs on a Kiosk unit, right? Just curious for video output, since that had VGA if I remember correctly.

[WindowsKiller]

Yes. VGA output is great, apart from that it is limited to 60 Hz.

[hydr0x]

edit - damn, Germany? Hrm. Shipping might be an issue. We'll see!

one of the most reliable German online retailers has it for less than 20€

http://www.alternate.de/html/product/TV-Karten_analog/Leadtek/TV_2000_XP_Global/196366/

[Xian042]

another opinion,

Perhaps the M2 looks like PS1 games as they appear when played on a DC through a Bleemcast! disk. <-- happy medium

[Xian042]

double post

[parallaxscroll]

I wouldn't compare the M2 with the DC either. Keep in mind that the M2 hardware was designed already in 1993/1994, whereas the DC hardware as we know it today was designed in early 1997.

True. Dreamcast was designed primarily in '97, The SH4 CPU had been completed at that time, and the PowerVR2DC graphics chip was deep into development in '97 not being finished until '98.



The M2 was later enhanced with more memory and a second PPC, but the core of the system, the BDA consisting of 10 custom chips (which also included the triangle engine) never changed, and even the dual-PPC revision was final in mid-1996.

Yep, a gap of 2 years would be right. There was probably a 3 year gap between N64 and DC, given that N64 was completed in 1995, and DC in 1998.



So there's quite a technological gap between the M2 and the DC, and comparing them would be unfair at least.

True.



We never saw what the M2 was really capable of anyway. (think about the PS1's launch title, Ridge Racer, and compare it with Gran Turismo, and then imagine the same with the M2's launch title, IMSA Racing...)

Exactly. Look at the difference between the first PS1 Ridge Racer made in 1994 and Ridge Racer High Spec (60fps, high res) of 1998. I'm sure the M2 could've done much more impressive games than IMSA Racing. It would've been interesting to see how M2 handled arcade games such as Daytona USA and Rave Racer (arcade-only Ridge sequel).

[parallaxscroll]

another opinion,

Perhaps the M2 looks like PS1 games as they appear when played on a DC through a Bleemcast! disk. <-- happy medium



No not really. The amount of geometry in M2 games is more than any PS1 game, and Bleemcast doesn't add detail to PS1 games.



That doesn't come close to the IMSA video. F-1 World Grand Prix features the generic "wall of flat trees" that I saw in so many games of that time period. Not to mention a noticeably closer draw distance, lower resolution textures, and (what appears to be) a lower framerate.

Agreed.



I definitely wouldn't put this at "Dreamcast quality" either, though. It doesn't have the textures, lighting, or detail of a Dreamcast game. Even an early Dreamcast racer like TXR is pretty solidly above this game.

True. People need to remember that Dreamcast was a generation beyond
both N64 and M2.

Dreamcast is like 20x N64's graphical performance and about 10x that of M2.
Even if many DC games don't show *that* much of a difference over N64 games and what we've seen of M2. Some DC games certainly did.

[parallaxscroll]

As I said in an earlier post, I was very curious to know what MX could do. MX was at first said to be "M2 on steroids". The MX was basicly either M3, or 'M2.5', depending on what version of MX we're talking about. At minimum, MX had twice the polygon performance of M2 and had anti-aliasing in hardware, which M2 lacked.

Another version of MX was supposed to have put embedded memory into the framebuffer of the graphics chip--Part of the MX version of BDA I assume--Thus speeding up delay between graphics silicon and RAM. This would later be done with PS2's Graphics Synthesizer rasterizer/graphics chip and GameCube's Flipper GPU. I read about this version of MX in a 1996 issue of Intelligent Gamer Fusion magazine. They reported that such an MX might be capable of 15-20 million polygons. That kind of performance would seemingly put MX beyond Dreamcast and into the class of PS2 and GameCube (non of those consoles existed at the time obviously, and MX would've been targeted for the late 90s). Maybe that's why Nintendo was very interested in the MX tech.

Here's the quote from IG Fusion



As for MX (see IG's Fusion issue 10), the current concept being tossed around is the idea of actually including the video RAM frame buffer within
the actual MX chipset rather than externally -- as transferring data
from separate RAM chips to the math processors is one of the most vital time delays in any computer or game console, having the RAM bundled with the fast MX chipset would mean incredible speedups in processing. Developers claim that such an MX chipset could deliver -- believe it or not -- 15-20 million
polygon per second performance.

The drawback? The failure rate of such combined chips could be prohibitively high -- between the RAM and the high-intensity math processor, the chips could fail in production at a rate of 20% or greater depending on how much RAM was included on a chip. Additionally, the heat generated by such a configuration would mandate special cooling measures. Regardless, the premise is food for thought and some additional RAM may well wind up in the final MX design.

A more conservative MX would've had 1-4M polygon/sec performance. Still several times more than M2 and still somewhat below that of Dreamcast which can do 3M conservatively, 7M peak, and 4-5M realworld when all system bottlenecks are taken into account.

If the 3DO team (Cagent) had kept going beyond M2, to MX/M3 and M4, I'll bet they would've been able to achieve graphics like this in realtime:

http://zappenduster.7sky.de/3do-m2/software/demo/3do-dungeon-demo/3do-dungeon-demo-006.jpg

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/2324/m2monstercrop9yw.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8646/m2cardemo37cr.jpg

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3590/m2cardemo49ki.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/541/m2cardemo67yh.jpg

(pre-rendered stuff used to hype M2 in 1995)

[Borman]

Yes. VGA output is great, apart from that it is limited to 60 Hz.

VGA -> Component then record that...:)

[Kevincal]

No not really. The amount of geometry in M2 games is more than any PS1 game, and Bleemcast doesn't add detail to PS1 games.




Agreed.



True. People need to remember that Dreamcast was a generation beyond
both N64 and M2.

Dreamcast is like 20x N64's graphical performance and about 10x that of M2.
Even if many DC games don't show *that* much of a difference over N64 games and what we've seen of M2. Some DC games certainly did.

You are FAR too caught up on "tech specs"... :) Ok, maybe the DC is "technically" 20 times as powerfull as the N64... But you can't tell me that any DC game(s) look 20 times better than the best looking N64 games... I still stand my ground that this IMSA racing games looks much more similar in graphic quality to the DC than the N64, to my naked eye anyway... Our naked eye can't discern so many details as such things as FPS over 30. Really it's very hard to see much difference in a game with 30 fps as opposed to 60 fps. Both games look very smooth to the human eye. Now resolution, we CAN tell a big difference with that... with our own eyes. Remember, developer skill plays a huge roll in how good a game looks. A brilliant dev could make a better looking game on the M2 than a below average dev could make on the DC... Not EVERYTHING revolves around tech specs!

[Kevincal]

And personally I don't believe the M2 belongs in the generation with the N64, PS etc. It's stuck between the N64 and DC... So I guess it's just a matter of opinion if this racing game looks more like an N64 or DC game.

I also don't understand when you say this:

"Even if many DC games don't show *that* much of a difference over N64 games"

Hmm, the DC's graphics blow the N64's out of the water imo (but not 20 x's better. :) Not even twice as good. Just much more polished and smooth)... Hell if you ask me, the DC's graphics are on par with the PS2, XBOX and GC. And seriously, this IMSA doesn't look that much different than playing Gran Turismo 3 in the 3rd person view. Even GT3 has the cardboard cut-out roadside details (the trees etc.) It's just the physics and movement of IMSA just can't be done one the N64 or less. It looks too realistic, hence I say it's more towards the "modern" generation than the N64 and previous "classic" generation. I smell some more specs coming in response! :P

[j_factor]

You are FAR too caught up on "tech specs"... :) Ok, maybe the DC is "technically" 20 times as powerfull as the N64... But you can't tell me that any DC game(s) look 20 times better than the best looking N64 games... I still stand my ground that this IMSA racing games looks much more similar in graphic quality to the DC than the N64, to my naked eye anyway... Our naked eye can't discern so many details as such things as FPS over 30. Really it's very hard to see much difference in a game with 30 fps as opposed to 60 fps. Both games look very smooth to the human eye.

I disagree that it's hard to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. Perhaps it's impossible with Youtube videos, but when you're actually playing the game, the difference is noticeable. How noticeable, depends on the game.

Keep in mind also that it's not purely a difference of mere CPU power. I don't see any semblance of lighting (except in the intro), and the shadow is just solid. Compare it to this video (http://s.dcmovies.ign.com/media/previews/video/tokyoextremeracing/tokyohighway.mov) of TXR. Notice the dynamic light sourcing, moving shadows, and reflection effects. Less evident in the video but noticeable in the game is that TXR runs at a solid 60 frames per second and has higher-quality textures.

[WindowsKiller]

VGA -> Component then record that...:)

If I don't even have a cheap capture card to record composite video, what makes you think I have the equipment to record component video? :D If quality matters, then S-Video could be used, which the unit outputs as well.


I disagree that it's hard to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.

Don't waste too much time thinking about this. This is something that differs from person to person. Some people can tell the difference, others simply can't.

[Kevincal]

I have heard someone that "Technically", the human eye cannot detect motion higher than a certain number of frames per second... I'm pretty sure it was 30...

[WindowsKiller]

I think it's something like that with more than 14 frames per second, the human eye can no longer recognize individual pictures and sees a fluid motion instead.

[j_factor]

I'm not sure what the framerate is where "individual images" ends and "movement" begins, but I know that movies use the low rate of 24fps because a "frame" of film isn't a perfectly exact, still image (it's slightly motion-blurred). The human eye can actually detect up to 72 fps. However, I believe most TV sets and monitors can only display a maximum of 60 fps. Or maybe with HDTV's and newer monitors that's no longer the case.

I personally can certainly tell the difference between a 30 fps game and a 60 fps game just by looking at it in motion. Most 2D games, going at least back to the 16-bit days, are 60 fps (though few actually have 60 separate frames of animation per second, they simply run at 60 fps). I'm told there are "tricks" in newer games to make 30 fps look smoother, but I couldn't tell you what those tricks are, exactly. Probably some kind of emulating the look of film.

Go pop in Sonic Adventure (DC version) and run around. Then play Sonic Adventure 2. This is the type of game where you can really notice the difference.

[parallaxscroll]

You are FAR too caught up on "tech specs"... :) Ok, maybe the DC is "technically" 20 times as powerfull as the N64... But you can't tell me that any DC game(s) look 20 times better than the best looking N64 games... I still stand my ground that this IMSA racing games looks much more similar in graphic quality to the DC than the N64, to my naked eye anyway... Our naked eye can't discern so many details as such things as FPS over 30. Really it's very hard to see much difference in a game with 30 fps as opposed to 60 fps.

About framerate in general:
Wow, I have to totally, totally disagree with you about that. I can easily tell the difference between games that are 30fps and games that are 60fps. Most 3D arcade games of the 1990s ran at 60fps rather than 30fps because it made a big difference for gameplay/reaction time and visual smoothness. All fighting games are generally 60fps because 30fps would be completely unacceptable. Virtua Fighter and Tekken games would not work well at 30fps. Even a game such as Mario Galaxy on Wii would not look as nice if it ran at 30fps, it looks absolutely amazing because of its artwork and the fact that its 60fps. Most racing games need to be 60fps also. Gran Turismo 3, 4 on PS2, GTHD and GT5 on PS3 are all 60fps. As is Forza 2 on X360. Slower games like RPGs and advanture games can get away with 30fps. but fighting, racing, sports, FPS need to be 60fps and many examples of those games (not all) are. Alot of people can easly tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps, although not everyone. Our eyes work differently.

About DC vs M2:
Like I said, not every Dreamcast game looks 20 times better than IMSA racing. Image quality (resolution, smooth texture filtering, anti-alasing) is but one aspect of graphics, seperate from complexity/detail (amount of geometry). While it is true Dreamcast has many of the image quality enhancing features that M2 already had (640x480 res, trilinear filtering for textures), the fact remains that Dreamcast is only more powerful than M2, but an order of magnitude more powerful. An order of magnitude is at least 10 times. So I am going to agree with Widowskiller here, because he has been following M2 since its inception, knows where it stands as far as capabilities and power. He is right when he says M2 is nowhere near Dreamcast. M2 is 1993-1995 hardware, Dreamcast is 1997 hardware.



Both games look very smooth to the human eye. Now resolution, we CAN tell a big difference with that... with our own eyes. Remember, developer skill plays a huge roll in how good a game looks. A brilliant dev could make a better looking game on the M2 than a below average dev could make on the DC... Not EVERYTHING revolves around tech specs!

About tech-specs:
While I agree that not everything revolves around every single little aspect of tech-specs, i.e. PS1 was technically inferior to the N64, yet often had more impressive games because what developers did with what they had on PS1. With that said, because there is such a big difference between the PS1/N64/M2 generation of consoles and the Dreamcast/PS2/GameCube/Xbox generation of consoles, to say that M2 was anywhere near Dreamcast is plain ridiculous. IMSA Racing looks good for its generation but compare it to top-end Dreamcast racing games such as F355 Challenge


In performance/power I'd look at it something like this:

..........last-last-gen............................................... ...last-gen

Saturn..PS1..N64........M2........................ .......DC....PS2..GCN..Xbox

Yes M2 is between N64 and DC, but farther away from DC than N64. I know you're probably not going to agree with that, but that's the reality of M2, It's just not comparable to DC in performance. I suppose in the area of image quality, which is a seperate aspect of visuals to performance/framerate and detail, M2 and DC would be closer.

[Scawt]

:o You need some glasses if you think PS racing games look anywhere near as good as this M2 game... And I'm a big PS fan... I'm also a big N64 fan and my favorite genre is racing games... This M2 game is easily better looking than any racing game on the N64 that I've seen, and that's many. It's smoother, more realistic looking, and has a higher resolution than anything I've seen on the N64. Like I said, this looks more like a DC game than anything if you ask me...


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QKecnBwwZF8&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jizOVOwGSRw&feature=related


Doesn't look much better than that to me. Maybe a tad better textures, but not much more.

[Leo_A]

Go back and rewatch that link in the first post, while selecting high quality this time.

They don't even compare. GT2 is a blurry, muddy mess with very low resolution textures and lots of pop in. Doesn't compare to that IMSA video at all, which was very sharp, had detailed textures, and had no pop in at all.

This IMSA footage blows away even PC racing games of the time. I can't think of any PC racing titles that compare graphically to this, at least among those that lean toward the realism side of things, until Grand Prix Legends in 1998. Its light years away from top console racers of the time like Gran Turismo 2 and World Driver Championship, which were both still several years away from release at the time.

[tomaitheous]

I have heard someone that "Technically", the human eye cannot detect motion higher than a certain number of frames per second... I'm pretty sure it was 30...

Maybe your eyes. I and many others can see the difference between 30 and 60fps. It's a fairly noticeable difference. I'm sure it varies from person to person and the amount of one's exposure to 60fps material overtime. The brain adapts. It's the same with color and luminance levels. Some people have a hard time seeing slight differences while others do not. And it's usually related to trade/profession/hobby etc.

FWIW, youtube doesn't show 60fps. Any 60fps video uploaded is frame decimated down to 30fps. They don't frame blend for the downwards conversion :smash:


It's funny. Someone linked some N64 games as being superior? N64 has the crappiest resolution textures of that generation. Their only saving grace was the fact that they have bilinear filtering - which often created a very blurry mess. And the polygon 'count' never looked much better than PS1.

That said, the M2 looks a hell of a lot better than anything I've seen on N64. Even with youtubes blurry conversion and the footage being shot on a camera, you can still see the textures are much higher than an N64 game.

Being a release demo/game, the system could have really shined.

Lol @ the person who thinks DC games didn't look at least twice as good as n64 games. Ignorance is bliss, eh?


This IMSA footage blows away even PC racing games of the time. I can't think of any PC racing titles that compare graphically to this, at least among those that lean toward the realism side of things, until Grand Prix Legends in 1998.

MotoRacer for PC (voodoo 1) looked pretty damn good back in '97

[parallaxscroll]

There's no question M2 and 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics (Voodoo1) were very close. Maybe M2 had a slightly edge, but regardless, M2 and 3Dfx Voodoo were the hottest pieces of consumer 3D tech in 1996-1997.

Things could've easily been reversed, in that, it could've ended up that M2 came out, capturing marketshare and mindshare with lots of games that surpassed other console and 3Dfx Voodoo could've been alot of hype and been noticably better compared to other 3D cards, but the one to get canceled. Think about that.


Alot of the systems we have come to know and love were at one point, rumors, and on the verge of getting canceled. It's truly a miracle that Dreamcast came out, had the life it did have, and the games made for it that were. Dreamcast could so very easily have been a bunch of hot air, been demo'ed, a few games in development, and then the plug pulled on the whole console side of it, like what happened with M2.

Nintendo almost used an upgraded version of MX / M3 for the GameCube's guts, and then the Wii would've been an upgrade of that, or perhaps even M4.


Here's an interesting usenet post I found about the tragedy of M2's death:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.3do/msg/e44a0abde83a5f60?hl=en&dmode=source



BTW, the M2 didn't launch because it was too expensive. It was
very competitive price wise (the thing was made up of three chips plus RAM
plus glue so it wasn't expensive at all) but Panasonic got cold feet. They
believed Nintendo was going to dominate the market and they thought
bringing out a unit that was twice as powerful as the N64 (and a lot easier
to develop for) wasn't good enough. They didn't anticipate that cartridges
were going to really stunt the N64's growth. In hindsight, I can safely
say the M2 would have buried the N64 if Panasonic actually launched it.
The reasons are pretty simple. The dev system was dirt cheap and easy to
use (Sony released the Net Yarouze because it got some early info on the
M2's dev system which was essentially an M2 unit with an extra ROM and a
parallel port cable for the PC). A developer familiar with an API like
Glide would be right at home so ports of 3DFX games would be easy. The OS
made streaming a dream. Today I have trouble getting Windoze with a
PII-450 and a TNT card to do what I could on an M2 four years ago. Every
developer that used the final M2 system preferred it to any other console
for ease of development. Unfortunately, everything in the universe (or so
it seemed) conspired to keep the unit off the shelf. The main causes were:

1. Panasonic was overly worried about Nintendo. They couldn't see that
cartridges were going to doom that system to being a (relative) niche
market.
2. Trip Hawkins had a mid-life crisis and wanted to get out of the console
hardware business. He wanted to go back to what he believes he knows best-
games. Of course looking at some of the stinkers coming out of Studio (New
World and Cyclone excluded) you have to wonder. He basically told
Panasonic they would have to pay for any help with M2 (in addition to the
$100 million). Trip wouldn't be evangelizing the system anymore and 3DO
could theoretically nickel-and-dime Panasonic to death. After all, the
braintrust for the M2 was still at 3DO (before being amputated into
Cagent). Panasonic would have to put their faith in something they didn't
invent nor knew all that much about. For all they knew, there could have
been a fatal flaw in the system that wouldn't reveal itself until after
they spent a billion dollars on a launch.
3. The guy who was head of the Interactive Media division of Panasonic
(actually MEI) was retiring shortly after the time M2 was originally to
have launched. Only he could authorize the money (500 million to a billion
dollars) needed to launch the unit. He didn't want to commit his company
to such an expensive venture and then leave. So he didn't do it. His
successor inherited M2 and was reluctant to commit to it since it wasn't
"his baby". He was interested in MX but apparently he couldn't work out a
deal with Cagent (the M2 hardware group) for it. This was probably due to
an arrogant individual at Cagent who shall remain nameless who said "I
don't like MEI's table manners, so I don't want to deal with them." I
swear to God that I'm not making the last sentence up!

These are, I feel, the main reasons we never saw the M2. Scary isn't it?
It wasn't technology or costs or the market. It was key individuals that
deprived the world of a great game console. We often hear how an
individual can have a profound impact for good on the rest of the world (or
at least a large chunk of it). If it weren't for John Carmack, game
developers be doomed to using an inferior version of Direct3D for game
development instead of having a choice (Thanks, John!). Unfortunately, an
individual can bring an equally negative effect on the world. An
individual can undo the work of thousands of man-years with the stroke of
pen. Remember that when you work on a project. Don't let a few
individuals (if you can) undo what you and your fellow workers have slaved
months and years for.

Don't even get me started on how the M2/Sega deal fell through.


Here's that Next Generation Online article from 1998 that I mentioned about Nintendo trying to get a chipset together for the successor to N64:




April 27, 1998


Nintendo is in the unenviable position of having to come up with a new
console while its current offering flounders in Japan and Europe.


Although experts acknowledge that the video games business is surprisingly incestuous by even Jerry Springer's standards, recent developments taking place within two of Seattle's biggest corporations have made that fact clear for the whole world to see. Next Generation Online exclusively reports on how Nintendo and Microsoft wound up eyeing the same company's chipset for the year 2000's biggest game console.


Few in the video game industry are aware of a rift that formed between Nintendo and partner Silicon Graphics, Inc. just as their jointly-developed 64-bit game console rolled off production lines. Already beginning to feel financial strains due to changing market conditions for their high-end graphics
workstations, Silicon Graphics found itself arguing over component profits with
notoriously tight-fisted Nintendo as the system's American launch MSRP was lowered at the last minute before release. Although the companies maintained their working relationship, the decidedly traditional and hard-lined management at Nintendo had taken offense, and no longer considered SGI a lock for development of Nintendo's post-N64 game console.



Then several important events took place during 1997 inside of Nintendo, SGI and one of their former competitors. Weak Japanese sales of the N64 and its software lowered the company's confidence in the N64 platform, and American
sales were projected to fall off as key internal software titles were continuing to miss release targets by entire seasons. Demonstrably strong sales of PlayStation games in the inexpensive CD format had weakened the appeal of Nintendo's third-party development contracts, and Nintendo started to believe that it was in the company's immediate interest to prepare a new console for release as soon as Fall of 1999. At the same time, a number of Silicon Graphics key Nintendo 64 engineers left the company to form the new firm ArtX, with the express intention to win a development contract for Nintendo's next hardware by offering Nintendo the same talent pool sans SGI's manufacturing and management teams.

As it turns out, most of the industry's top 3D chip experts have been lured away from smaller firms by accelerator developers NVidia, 3Dfx and NEC, so Nintendo's pool of potential partners was already shrinking when it began to shop around for a new console design team. Enter CagEnt, a division of consumer electronics manufacturer Samsung, and here's where the confusion
begins: CagEnt was formerly owned by 3DO, where it operated under the name 3DO Systems and developed the M2 technology that was sold to Panasonic for $100 Million some time ago. When 3DO decided to exit the hardware business, it sold off the 3DO Systems division to Samsung, which named it CagEnt and gave it roughly two years to turn a profit. CagEnt owned three key technologies: a DVD playback system, a realtime MPEG
encoding system called MPEG Xpress, and a completed game console (M2) with a brand new set of console-ready chip designs called the MX. Adrian
Sfarti, who had formerly developed the graphics architecture design for SGI's Indy workstation, was the head of the MX project.

The MX chipset was a dramatically enhanced version of the M2 chipset sold to Panasonic and Matsushita, now capable of a 100 million pixel per second fillrate and utilizing two PowerPC 602 chips at its core. (CagEnt's executives
also boasted of a four million triangle per second peak draw rate, though the
quality of those tiny triangles would of course have been limited). Nintendo
executives Howard Lincoln and Genyo Takeda were among a group of visiting dignitaries to tour CagEnt's facilities, culminating in late 1997 or early 1998 with a formal offer from Nintendo to acquire CagEnt outright. At this point, Nintendo had terminated its development contract with SGI (see SGI/MIPS Loses Nintendo Business).

As purchase negotiations continued, Nintendo worked with CagEnt engineers on preliminary plans to redesign the MX architecture around a MIPS CPU, as Nintendo's manufacturing partner NEC has a MIPS development license but none to produce the PowerPC 602. Nintendo and CagEnt flip-flopped on whether the finished machine would include a built-in CD-ROM or DVD-ROM as its primary storage medium, with Nintendo apparently continuing to insist that ROM cartridges would remain at the core of its new game system. Yet as DVD and MPEG technologies would have been part of the CagEnt acquisition, Nintendo would probably have found some reasonable use for those patents eventually. The MX-based machine was to be ready for sale in Japan in fall 1999 -- in other words, development of games for the new console would begin within literally months, starting with the shipment of dev kits to key teams at Rare and Nintendo's Japanese headquarters.

Although the asking price for CagEnt was extremely low by industry standards, talks unexpectedly broke off in early 1998 when Samsung and
Nintendo apparently disagreed on final terms of CagEnt's ownership, leaving Samsung's management desperate for a suitor to buy the company. CagEnt aggressively shopped itself around to other major industry players. SGI's MIPS division, reeling from the loss of its N64 engineers to ArtX, allegedly considered acquiring CagEnt as a means to offer Nintendo the technology it had already decided it liked. Sega, 3Dfx and other companies toured CagEnt's facilities and finally CagEnt found a suitor.


In early April, Microsoft's WebTV division ultimately acquired all of the assets of CagEnt and hired on most of its key personnel. WebTV and Microsoft apparently intend to use the MX technology at the core of their next WebTV device, which as might be guessed from the graphics technology, will no longer be limited to simple web browsing and E-mailing functionality. The next generation WebTV box will be Microsoft's low-cost entry into the world of game consoles, melding the functionality of a low-end computer with a television set-top box and game-playing abilities. Having worked with Sega behind the scenes since 1993 or 1994, Microsoft has been quietly gathering the knowledge it needs to market and develop games for such a device, and now it has the hardware that even Nintendo would once have wanted for itself.

As for Nintendo, all signs point to a very unpleasant near future for the Japanese giant. Lacking internal hardware engineers with the necessary expertise to develop the next high-end chipset, Nintendo is now all but forced to either partner with ArtX, or one of the 3D accelerator makers who have been sucking the industry dry of all its most talented people, or perhaps join with one of its other major rivals. The latest word has it that ArtX and Nintendo are in talks to work together, perhaps under circumstances similar to those under which Nintendo would have acquired CagEnt. Unlike CagEnt, however, ArtX does not have a finished console or even half-completed chip designs to sell Nintendo, and it would be unlikely that Nintendo would be able to scrape together a reasonable system by Christmas 2000 with ArtX's present limitations. Additionally, SGI's recent series of strategic lawsuits against Nvidia and ArtX seem to be intended to serve as garlic and crosses to stave off any Nintendo alliance with its tastiest potential allies: Nintendo might well fear developing a new console only to find out that its core technologies or employees are depending upon infringed patents, regardless of the merits of those patents or the lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the company continues to harbor tremendous concerns for the future of the Nintendo64 platform, which appears to be sinking deeper and deeper in Japan by the day. Nintendo's negotiations with CagEnt shed light upon the tremendous dependence the Japanese company now has upon Rare, which has been responsible for a number of the Nintendo 64's best-looking games and at least two of the machine's most popular-Diddy Kong Racing and Goldeneye 007. As Nintendo's Japanese development teams have never been known for their ability to stick to release schedules, the company's third-party rosters have remained bare and its management has remained dogmatically fixated upon silicon chips as its sole means of profit, Nintendo's problems have set the stage for a truly interesting set of negotiations come this E3.


To sum up, readers need to understand that decisions and relationships made early in the design process of a new console can dictate a company's standing in the industry for the following five years. Ripple effects from these decisions can be felt in a company's bottom line can be felt for even longer. Nintendo has found itself in the unenviable position of being without an established partner and with the clock ticking down. If Nintendo should choose to go with ArtX (assuming it's able to fight off SGI's lawsuit), it will need to complete a chip design is an extremely short period of time. If it doesn't go with ArtX, Nintendo will have to find a technology that is already suited to the console market or one that can readily be changed to suit a similar purpose. Either way, at this point the chances of Nintendo hitting its desired 2000 release with a new system are extremely slim."


Indeed, the decision Nintendo made to go with the ArtX-designed graphic arctecture in 1997-1998 has absolutely effected what Wii is capable of graphically today. Wii's Hollywood GPU is, unquestionably, merely a faster Flipper with a few tweaks. There's less difference between GCN's Flipper and Wii's Hollywood than there is between Nvidia's NV10/GeForce and NV15/GeForce 2 GTS. Hollywood is really a speed-bump of Flipper, and so Wii's graphic architecture dates back to 1998-1999 when Flipper was designed.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/099/099520p1.html



IGNcube: You say you began talking to Nintendo® in 1998. So from white paper designs and initial design to final mass production silicon how long was the development process?

Greg Buchner: Well, there was a period of time where we were in the brainstorm period, figuring out what to build, what's the right thing to create. We spent a reasonable amount of time on that, a really big chunk of 1998 was spend doing that, figuring out just what [Flipper] was going to be. In 1999 we pretty much cranked out the gates, cranked out the silicon and produced the first part. In 2000 we got it ready for production, so what you saw at Space World last year was basically what became final silicon.

We've probably tweaked it a bunch since then and even [after the September 14 Japan launch] other versions are being tweaked. It will forever be in a cost production mode, so to say there is final silicon is something that doesn't really happen because these products live for so long. All the tweaking is for costs, everything for the last six months or even more than that has been related to getting the cost down. So over time, you know it's debuting at $199 obviously that's not the end game. We want to keep pushing the price lower and lower. So we'll continue to help NEC and their cost production efforts.


Hollywood's architecture pre-dates GeForce 3 and the NV2A GPU in original Xbox, even though the specific Hollywood GPU taped out in 2005 ahead of Wii's launch.



1998 - report of Microsoft working on game console
(before there was even a rumor specifically about Xbox)

http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/17783/microsoft-reportedly-working-on-game-console.html



Microsoft Corporation reportedly intends to allow its next-generation WebTV device to compete with the Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation game consoles. The story is rather complicated, but it goes something like this: A few years ago, a company called 3DO was working its own next-generation game console, which was dubbed the M2. The M2 contained three key technologies which were pretty impressive for their day: DVD playback, MPEG3 decoding, and a new chipset called MX. When it became clear that 3DO was going to have to exit the hardware market for financial reasons, it sold the M2 technology to Samsung, which created a division called CagEnt that had two years to make money with it.

CagEnt's MX chipset from the M2 technology utilized two PowerPC 602 microprocessors at the time: the same CPU that powers Apple Macintosh computers. In late 1997, Nintendo visited CagEnt in search of a new 3D chipset since its relationship with Silicon Graphics had fallen apart and sales of the Nintendo 64 were slower than expected. In early 1998, Nintendo officially terminated its relationship with ailing Silicon Graphics and offered to buy CagEnt outright.

While details of the sale continued, Nintendo worked with CagEnt to wrap its MX chipset around a MiPS processor, as the company's consoles use NEC MiPS CPUs, not PowerPC. The plan was for the new MX-based machine, complete with hardware 3D, DVD-ROM, and cartridge capabilities to be ready in time for Christmas 1999. Unfortunately for Nintendo, talks with Samsung broke down within a few months.

That's where Microsoft stepped in.

In Early April, the company bought CagEnt through its WebTV division, acquiring all of the assets of CagEnt and its key personnel. Microsoft's plan is to use the MX technology as the core of its next WebTV device, which will clearly be used for more than Email and Web browsing. In fact, Microsoft has quietly been gaining the knowledge it needs to compete in the game console market through its parternship with Sega and it's likely that a Microsoft-backed, Windows CE-based WebTV device could even be co-created with that company.

All this puts Nintendo in a bind, of course, and the company will be unable to create a new console in time for Christmas 1999 now. Its current plan is for the next device to reach stores in late 2000 instead, though its unclear who they will be able to partner with to make such a goal.


So, we almost had 3DO/CagEnt designed MX/M3 based consoles from first Nintendo, then Microsoft. Both were killed in favor of GameCube and Xbox!

Even though Microsoft owned the MX/M3 tech in 1998, they had no reason to launch a console based on it, because Dreamcast met all of Microsoft's goals with regard to graphics, a console they were a partner in with Sega.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-103341.html?legacy=zdnn



Microsoft's X-Box: Fight for the future?

By Robert Lemos
ZDNet News
September 26, 1999, 5:00 PM PT



This month's reports that Microsoft is working on a game console to rival Sony's PlayStation 2 came as little surprise to at least one industry executive.

"I guarantee you that if there's a group that knows how to build a video game machine, it's the one inside (Microsoft subsidiary) WebTV," said Hugh Martin, former CEO of 3DO Systems Inc., which challenged the established video game industry more than five years ago.

Martin, now CEO at Optical Networks Inc., should know. You see, those WebTV engineers used to work for him at 3DO.

If WebTV does produce the rumored console, it will mark the end of a long trek for those engineers.

Long journey
When Martin was at 3DO, it was a hot startup, bringing a 32-bit game console to market almost two years before Sony produced the PlayStation. But in 1996, 3DO faced the truth: It had lost the war, selling only a million units. It scrapped its plans for a 64-bit next-generation device, known as the M2, and sold its hardware division to Samsung, a Korean consumer electronics manufacturer.


Samsung had its new company, now called CagEnt, poised to excel in the PC graphics market, scoring deals with arcade machine maker Konami and semiconductor manufacturer Cirrus Logic. By spring 1997, however, both deals had crumbled and an ailing Samsung was looking to sell CagEnt.

After a near-miss with Nintendo, Samsung sold the group to WebTV, which was by then a Microsoft subsidiary. The engineers, and almost all of the advanced graphics technology -- moved with the company. "Those guys are still there," said Martin. "They are inside WebTV in Palo Alto (Calif.)."

WebTV is open about why they bought CagEnt.

"(CagEnt) had both the intellectual property and people that we were interested in," said Alan Yates, director of marketing at WebTV Networks. While he would not confirm the existence of the X-Box project, Yates admitted, "You will see future versions of WebTV that will use the video capabilities that we acquired, as well as the 3-D capabilities."


Yates added that, while the technology was there to make an X-Box device, "our strategy right now is very, very clear: to provide additional functionality for TV."

That may change, and quickly, analysts said. With Sony using the PlayStation 2 as a "Trojan horse" to become the center of home entertainment, Microsoft should be looking at games as well.

"For Microsoft to get plugged into (the gaming console market) would not be a big stretch for them," said Jae Kim, analyst with entertainment technology watcher Paul Kagan Associates. "At the very least, it would provide another gateway into the living room."

Game developers think so, too.

"Can you see 200 million connections to the Internet and Microsoft not being a part of it?" asked one gaming industry source on condition of anonymity.

What about Dreamcast?
Still, some analysts doubted the reports, questioning why Microsoft would pursue a new game machine when its partner, Sega, has created a successful one already.

"Dreamcast meets all the goals they would set for such a device," said Peter Glaskowsky, graphics guru at chip technology researcher MicroDesign Resources Inc.

And Sega stresses that the working relationship with Microsoft could not be better. "Microsoft has been extremely supportive," said Charles Bellfield, director of marketing for Sega of America Inc.

Bellfield could not confirm the rumors of the mysterious game device. "I am sure that Microsoft is developing a whole range of products that will never see the light of day."

It wasn't until Nvidia had technology that was superior to Dreamcast that Microsoft finally decided to do a console.