Slightly Mad Studios, the London-based studio behind Project CARS, apparently wants to be a direct competitor in the home console market. After teasing about the Mad Box on Twitter, the company's founder and CEO, Ian Bell, gave more information about this upcoming console, touting it as "the most powerful console ever built".

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/bell_sms/status/1080468977019584512​

In an exclusive interview with Variety, Bell further detailed that “it will support most major VR headsets and those upcoming and the specs will be equivalent to a ‘very fast PC 2 years from now’. We’re in early talks with manufacturers of components so we can’t say much more right now other than we have the designs specced out in detail.”

“We plan to allow games from all developers, old and new. The ’new’ possibly being many of those that benefit from our completely free development engine,” Bell said. “It will be a stand alone console.”

“We think the industry is a little too much of a monopoly or a micro oligopoly,” he further added. “We think competition is healthy and we have the required hardware contacts to be able to bring something epic to fruition based on our designs.”

According to the Variety interview, Slightly Mad Studios will release images of early design builds in four to six weeks time and the console will ship in around three years time.

So what do you think? Is there a space for a fourth competitor in the home console market? Will you consider getting the Mad Box? Or will you wait for what Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have in store for their next console before deciding?

SOURCE

 

[Delerious]

*sigh* If these people even want a future still developing games, then they really ought to just back off the console market. This is an all too risky business move to make. These days, the only way you even have a chance of success entering the console market is if you're already a big tech company with a history of hardware development and the capacity to make business deals with big-name publishers and chip makers.

 

[Bladexdsl]

and it will end up being another android box with VR

 

[Xabring]

there are a slighly mad ammount of puns in this thread

 

[retrofan_k]

We don't need another competitor and it will most likely be a "MAD" flop too.

 

[pedro702]

it will be just another flop, specially if its just a pc like steam boxes were.

 

[Hells Malice]

Soulja Boy better watch the fuck out these boys be lookin' to take him head on.

 

[molcos]

The most powerful “non existent” console ever “not” currently built.

 

[Silent_Gunner]

Is it just me, or does it feel like everyone is hoping to one day challenge the foothold Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and arguably Valve has on the market right now? Everything from that Intellivision console, whatever rap song Soulja Boy's console was, and the many compilation consoles trying to outdo anything a Raspberry Pi's capable of these days, let alone newer, more powerful SBCs like the upcoming UDOO Bolt, the ODroid XU4 and whatever that new one was that can play GC games (Wii as well? Hey, it'd be an upgrade that's worth it if it could do that. I think it's the ODroid H2 if I remember right). I know nostalgia has been the in thing for this past decade, but people need more than nostalgia, gimmicks, and features here. You need to set up online services, have games that I can't get anywhere else without emulation, and plenty of other things to make your system stand out as opposed to being another piece of hardware to possibly end up in a landfill in Alamogordo, New Mexico, along with whatever remnants there are of Atari's stuff at this point.

 

[Taleweaver]

This thing is getting old. OF COURSE people are going to remember the studio name. OF COURSE everyone and their dog's grannie are throwing punches at the name. That in itself is just the easiest kind of marketing one can buy for zero bucks. Which will be in contrast with the end product...

"the most powerful console ever built".

Okay...I honestly don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing. The good thing is that it certainly won't be a next OUYA. The bad thing is that it'll be a niche product for the same reason. That large "monopoly" consisting of at least 3 companies (seriously...someone needs to get a 'economy 101' course) manages to dominate the market because of scale. The research and production costs are kept low because they have a large established market. Meaning: because millions will buy the product, the actual costs are split over so many customers that the price can be kept low. Coming from nowhere either means a ridiculous gamble that it'll sell millions (NOT likely), or that it'll cost an arm and a leg to get (IS likely).

...it will support most major VR headsets...

Erm...did I miss a plethora of VR headsets being announced here? There's the vive and the oculus rift. Okay, and the PS4 one, but I think it's safe to assume that one won't be supported.

But really: this little snippet might just be the saving grace for the thing. In a way, nintendo has survived as a nice compliment to one of the competition. It is different enough to warrant two purchases rather than get everything on one (you can get ninty's lineup or that mobility with this device, but not the powerful graphics of the other device). VR is a niche that only PS4 somewhat lurks on, but is more of an attachment gizmo than anything else. And on PC, it has the disadvantage of only catering to the hardcore gamer market (who still really upgrades his PC these days?). What IMHO these Slightly Mad guys should do (well...what they probably WILL do) is gamble big on VR. Attract as many (preferably ALL) games available as fast as possible. Either have it include the headset from the start (meaning: it'll cost TWO arms and legs to buy ) or at least make sure that VR is as plug-n-play as they can make it.

...then again: you can't make things mainstream by making it expensive (just ask Elon Musk). They don't have the brand name (project cars? really? I just gave project cars 2 away for FREE! ) and kickstarter only goes so far, so...I have serious doubts on this. Perhaps less than others who declare it dead on arrival, but still...serious doubts.

 

[VitaType]

And personally, I prefer to wait until seeing what Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have to offer for the next generation, too, but chances are that I'll still stick with Nintendo.

For Nintendo it's easy. They already released there nextGen console (9th gen) it's called the Switch. I know, I know for hardware enthusiasts its a big disappointment and they want to force the lie that Nintendo had two consoles in 8th gen, but it just isn't true. The 9th gen already begun and that with underpowered hardware. Live with it. No one said WiiU is 7th gen or Wii would be 6th gen... Switch is a 9th gen console.

 

[FAST6191]

I feel like this is the third or fourth time in the past 2 years some one has come up with this idea, all of which didn't wind up having anything significant happen.

Am I wrong?

I usually remember silliness but I don't recall anything other than a few android "consoles" (including Amazon's effort) and the steambox thing. That said if it was not reported on here I might well have missed it.

Those game console wannabe company never understand: Nobody give a fuck how powerful your console is if you can't show us even one game developer back you up. You think it easy to be on the list of triple AAA multi-platform game? Even the most powerful gaming PC mean shit when no one make game on it. Most likely they will just run game from Steam and Android which raise the question "why not just buy phone and PC instead?" and we will be back to the dead end again.

There is no competition in console war because no small company have enough connection to get famous gaming developer to work on their console.

Time was you could showcase some ultra powerful hardware, way beyond your competition, possibly get it into an arcade machine (those can cost a lot) and then turn around and get it on a console. I am not seeing the option today (3d is not quite a solved problem but it is very good and I am not expecting any real leaps that render everything else obsolete, and 2d is not the draw it once was but is a solved problem, or at least something you can do just about anything you want in software for) but I do have to note that historically it was a thing. Typically this took the form of scrolling.

On a different matter I assume this is not going to be a streaming game service but "this time done right" else they would have mentioned that out of the gate.

For Nintendo it's easy. They already released there nextGen console (9th gen) it's called the Switch. I know, I know for hardware enthusiasts its a big disappointment and they want to force the lie that Nintendo had two consoles in 8th gen, but it just isn't true. The 9th gen already begun and that with underpowered hardware. Live with it. No one said WiiU is 7th gen or Wii would be 6th gen... Switch is a 9th gen console.

In that case generation, which was already a marketing term, looks to have been completely broken, or Nintendo has abandoned the paradigm.

 

[Steena]

We dont need another console competitor. This is gonna fail hardcore

You know the industry is fucked up when consumers advocate for less competition.
One could say that's a signal that you most need competitors when the userbase rejects it as a standard stance.

Man the internet having evolved in an oligarchy sure is sad.

Idk. Nintendo is doing a fanstastic job with portables. Not just with fantastic first party support, but also with managing the 3rd party releases. Look e.g. at the library from GB, GBA and NDS (3DS also became good, but overall it was one of the less exciting game libraries). GB and NDS have some of the most diverse libraries of all consoles including home consoles and the quality of the wide range of fantastic titles also is, measured at limitations of there respective systems, high (the bad titles also get really worse, but that's not the point).
I wonder what you hope for. More portables would segment the market. I doub that the prices for handhelds would drop from such a competition since Nintendo always seems intressted in having good prices and I think performance-wise the NX is good not perfect but good.
If Sony would launch another handheld some of there studios could get creative thanks to handheld games in general beeing smaller projects, I would love to see what crazy and creative new ideas e.g. SIE Japan Studio would come-up with, but is that really worth the fragmentation? If you want to play Nintendo handheld games you would be forced to either buy two handhelds or get the worse version of many original handheld games and handheld adaptions due to the fact that Sony surely would go for more horse-power. M-Rated games already found there way back to handhelds on the NX so no win there.
I'm a fan from companies competing because it's good for us who buy from the companies, but in this case? Splitting the install base in a time where game developers have to decide if they want to make real games for real handhelds or for the much larger smartphone market? (lets face it most smartphone games just aren't that great games. Not many smartphone gamers are ready to pay 40 bucks on a single game unlike classic handheld gamers).

It's the second post i see where you directly advocate against competitors. Are you a console manufacturer investor or a consumer?
Also, your little fragmentation fairy tale doesn't hold up - nowadays we have less exclusives than ever and that's specifically because the PC market grew back up and the xbox, so it is less profitable to build a game for one system, as a result architectures get more standardized and they will be even more standardized for next gens.
More products means more software will run on everything and you actually get to buy the best product that fits you, not the one who is better at holding exclusives hostage via contracts that give you zero benefits (infact, they are most of the times negative trade-offs). A concept that's completely alien to the console industry, buying hardware depending on quality, and no wonder you're defending maximum stagnation being used to it.

If PC were still dead, and microsoft wasn't into the console game, you'd have each console with 30 exclusives per year, with console OSes being even worse because less multiplatforms prevalence=less need of a worry to appeal to developers. see how well that would run by your wallet. It's because you aren't thinking about it anymore that the competition aspect isn't as much a problem. Back then if you wanted to be a quality-based enthusiast, playing across the board, you'd have had to spend much more on hardware than software. Most ports back then were so bad they stripped out entire mechanics or content, because, who cares? It wasn't gonna influence system sales anyways, it's more convenient to make a quick buck. Today, we consider it a travesty if one version gets 3 fps less with everything else identical. The fragmentation sure is bad.

 

[Kioku]

You know the industry is fucked up when consumers advocate for less competition.
One could say that's a signal that you most need competitors when the userbase rejects it as a standard stance.

Man the internet having evolved in an oligarchy sure is sad.

It's the second post i see where you directly advocate against competitors. Are you a console manufacturer investor or a consumer?
Also, your little fragmentation fairy tale doesn't hold up - nowadays we have less exclusives than ever and that's specifically because the PC market grew back up and the xbox, so it is less profitable to build a game for one system, as a result architectures get more standardized and they will be even more standardized for next gens.
More products means more software will run on everything and you actually get to buy the best product that fits you, not the one who is better at holding exclusives hostage via contracts that give you zero benefits (infact, they are most of the times negative trade-offs). A concept that's completely alien to the console industry, buying hardware depending on quality, and no wonder you're defending maximum stagnation being used to it.

If PC were still dead, and microsoft wasn't into the console game, you'd have each console with 30 exclusives per year, with console OSes being even worse because less multiplatforms prevalence=less need of a worry to appeal to developers. see how well that would run by your wallet. It's because you aren't thinking about it anymore that the competition aspect isn't as much a problem. Back then if you wanted to be a quality-based enthusiast, playing across the board, you'd have had to spend much more on hardware than software. Most ports back then were so bad they stripped out entire mechanics or content, because, who cares? It wasn't gonna influence system sales anyways, it's more convenient to make a quick buck. Today, we consider it a travesty if one version gets 3 fps less with everything else identical. The fragmentation sure is bad.

It's more likely to be yet another attempt at reviving the Steam Box (a PC).... Instead of a direct competitor in the console market. So, it'll just be a lost cause. I could very well be wrong, but I have little hope for a new entrant so far late in this game. If it's another Android box then we know what will happen.

 

[BORTZ]

But we already have the most powerful console ever built... right eXbawks1"s"?

 

[FAST6191]

You know the industry is fucked up when consumers advocate for less competition.
One could say that's a signal that you most need competitors when the userbase rejects it as a standard stance.

Man the internet having evolved in an oligarchy sure is sad.

It's the second post i see where you directly advocate against competitors. Are you a console manufacturer investor or a consumer?
Also, your little fragmentation fairy tale doesn't hold up - nowadays we have less exclusives than ever and that's specifically because the PC market grew back up and the xbox, so it is less profitable to build a game for one system, as a result architectures get more standardized and they will be even more standardized for next gens.
More products means more software will run on everything and you actually get to buy the best product that fits you, not the one who is better at holding exclusives hostage via contracts that give you zero benefits (infact, they are most of the times negative trade-offs). A concept that's completely alien to the console industry, buying hardware depending on quality, and no wonder you're defending maximum stagnation being used to it.

If PC were still dead, and microsoft wasn't into the console game, you'd have each console with 30 exclusives per year, with console OSes being even worse because less multiplatforms prevalence=less need of a worry to appeal to developers. see how well that would run by your wallet. It's because you aren't thinking about it anymore that the competition aspect isn't as much a problem. Back then if you wanted to be a quality-based enthusiast, playing across the board, you'd have had to spend much more on hardware than software. Most ports back then were so bad they stripped out entire mechanics or content, because, who cares? It wasn't gonna influence system sales anyways, it's more convenient to make a quick buck. Today, we consider it a travesty if one version gets 3 fps less with everything else identical. The fragmentation sure is bad.

Did the PC ever actually die? I remember sitting there back when all those articles were coming out and thinking that I am playing all these sweet games, and often the best versions of things that appeared on the consoles.

Anyway I don't think people are so much anti competition as much as most attempts at it are weak and practically doomed to failure. That then scuppers things for most people when hearing about future endeavours and all but forces cynicism when things are announced.

 

[Grmmish]

Sounds like a dreamer's design. Not a business man.
... meaning this will probably fail and they will lose too much money.
"It will be faster than a computer 2 years from now, support most VR Headsets are perfect speed, 4K, this that, super this, super that, etc."
HUGE companies like Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are PROFESSIONALS in these fields and there is a REASON why they do the things they do. They certainly do have the money to build their engines to be "Super duper" and, as a big company, get more than they paid to make it back, but they don't do these things. And to top it off, who are these people anyway? A video game company? Perhaps they should stay that way since going from designing video games to pulling off video game console production to compete with Nintendo and etc. is a huge stretch. I never heard of these guys so they obviously can't even compete in the video game field.

COULD it work and become a huge breakthrough for them? Of course it could.
Would it work? Probably not. Such a device will cost a lot to make, (Not saying they don't have the money to make them, just won't be getting the money back.) and by judging the fact their are many computers exactly like this that exist and they don't compete with Nintendo, they will probably not sell as many of these devices as they expect in terms of how many they will be making.

But who knows. Maybe CAPCOM will release their new Resident Evil 8 exclusive for their system or something as part of a huge marketing deal and they blow up and so many developers go to develop for their system. Who knows. I just think all of this looks a bit fishy/a stretch. One does not simply wake up one morning to say "I'm going to take Nintendo out of business tomorrow! "

 

[FAST6191]

HUGE companies like Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony are PROFESSIONALS in these fields and there is a REASON why they do the things they do.

Is that why the PS4 and xbone are basically PCs and the Switch is a failed android tablet (which followed on from a series of designs they tried to wring every last drop out of, with increasingly poor returns)?

 

[Grmmish]

Is that why the PS4 and xbone are basically PCs and the Switch is a failed android tablet (which followed on from a series of designs they tried to wring every last drop out of, with increasingly poor returns)?

My point is, Nintendo could make a super-powered handheld device but they decided not to.
Also, who the hell said Switch sold poorly? XD Maybe it did not sell as well as they wanted, but OBVIOUSLY it sold well, just like the Wii U even though people said it flunked, because they are still making Switches and if the Wii U failed we'd have no Switch.... Where does the "Fail" come in?
As for PS4/XBOX ONE, they are not computers. And high--end computer will still always be better than consoles. LOL Consoles are like Youtube hack videos: Outdated the second they are introduced. In this case; as far as hardware goes. LOL Either way, even the PS4/XBOX ONE was not "Years ahead in the future" when it came out. Yeah it is high end, but that's only because why WOULDN'T they make it high end? Nintedo didn't for the sake of design innovation like they usually do.
My point is, even though PS4/XBOX ONE were high end, it still was capped for obvious reasons. Even the PS4 Pro could have had PS VR graphics in 4K but, again, for obvious reasons they did not.
And, yes. They are big names. They will sell well. They know what they are doing.

 

[JavaScribe]

While i agree with you 100%...when it comes to some companies...its just a flat out "NO!"

Google created the custom Chrome OS and we saw how badly that went. Like could Google create an any worse OS? Some companies just aren't meant to create custom OSs.

Yes, but Chrome OS wasn't meant for people who care.
The kind of person who would buy a console that's supposed to live up to this kind of description isn't someone who doesn't care.
Also it better support something that's already out there, or else they're gonna need a massive library to sell anything.

Which begs the question: What's going to identify this as a console, rather than an overglorified PC? You can use controllers on a PC, you can run VR on a PC. Making it proprietary-only is just a glorified... <insert unfavorable OS here, maybe Mac? worse yet, ChromeOS with no android/linux support?>
I'm curious to see what the answer to this will be.

What's wrong with Chrome OS? It runs anything that's built for the Android platform

Haha maybe yours is among the ones that do. A ton of them don't.
I have a Chromebook. it doesn't run Android apps. It "will soon," since late 2016.

My point is, Nintendo could make a super-powered handheld device but they decided not to.

I want to see this some day. I'm serious.

just like the Wii U even though people said it flunked, because they are still making Switches and if the Wii U failed we'd have no Switch.... Where does the "Fail" come in?

The Wii U failed. They were losing money on the comparatively few units they sold and hoping to gain it back on software sales. It sold horribly.
The Switch? Not so much.

 

[SS4]

ROFL, VR at 60 FPS. Motion sickness garanteed for most ppl, event those that don't believe that over 60 FPS is needed for fluidity