[HN Gopher] Doom has been ported to an earbud
___________________________________________________________________
Doom has been ported to an earbud
Author : arin-s
Score : 301 points
Date : 2026-01-25 12:22 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (doombuds.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (doombuds.com)
| arin-s wrote:
| Hi, I ported DOOM to the Pinebuds Pro earbuds. It's accessible
| over the internet, so you can join the queue and play DOOM on my
| earbuds from your PC! More info as well as links to the github
| repos can be found on the site.
| RandomTeaParty wrote:
| What compression ratio does your jpeg encoding achieve?
| arin-s wrote:
| It ranges from 5.8:1 to 4.7:1 depending on scene complexity.
| Keep in mind I calculated these values using the 8-bit
| pallete-based framebuffer that DOOM uses, not a 24-bit one
| that a regular RGB buffer would use.
| jurakis wrote:
| This is awesome! the amount of devices doom has not been run on
| shrinks by the day haha
| branon wrote:
| How are the PineBuds Pro, anyone have them? The Pine64 IRC
| network doesn't have a channel for PineBuds discussion so I
| haven't had an easy opportunity to ask.
| arin-s wrote:
| To be honest, I've never actually used them for their intended
| purpose. No idea what the comfort or audio quality is like.
| There's a Pinebuds channel on the Pine64 discord, you can ask
| questions there :)
| utopiah wrote:
| Was using them just this morning. I've been using them since
| they are out. Great device but battery is quite limited, ~2hrs
| top with ANC on.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| I'm also curious. I used to be a big supporter of Pine64 but
| the e-ink tablet and phone debacles have kinda soured me on
| them.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Mine have been great. Full disclosure, I deliberately don't use
| ANC... in fact, I may have installed firmware that doesn't have
| it. So I can't comment on that. But just as Bluetooth earbuds,
| they do their job.
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| At first I thought you found a way to control/view the game
| acoustically and I was very curious how that worked.
|
| But, this probably makes more sense.
| automatic6131 wrote:
| Do we have Doom on a USB-C plug microcontroller yet?
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Disposable Vape CPU!
| 7777777phil wrote:
| List of Doom ports:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doom_ports
| omoikane wrote:
| Subreddit of Doom ports: https://www.reddit.com/r/itrunsdoom/
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Im waiting for the post "Doom ported to disposable Vape chip" :-D
| DJBunnies wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVsvtEj9iqE
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Good catch! Though it misses my primary condition:
| "disposable" - ha! :-D (this one is a refillable one, and it
| looks like he is streaming the content from his PC?)
|
| But a very cool link, thanks for sharing! :)
| primitivesuave wrote:
| The Puya PY32 series MCUs found in most vapes have 3kb of RAM
| and 24kb of ROM, whereas Doom requires at least 4MB of RAM.
| Assuming Moore's law also applies to the computing power inside
| a disposable vape, we should be seeing that post in around a
| decade :)
| lombasihir wrote:
| can we run doom on water pump?
| nehalem wrote:
| Whenever I see another supposedly menial device including enough
| general purpose hardware to run Doom, I wonder whether I should
| think of that as a triumph of software over hardware or an
| economic failure to build cheaper purpose-built hardware for
| things like sending audio over a radio.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Or a third option - an economic success that economies of scale
| have made massively capable hardware the cheapest option for
| many applications, despite being overkill.
| cyberrock wrote:
| Also see: USB 3+ e-marker chips. I'm still waiting for a Doom
| port on those.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Or the fourth option, an environmental disaster all around
| dubbie99 wrote:
| The materials that go into a chip are nothing. The process
| of making the chip is roughly the same no matter the power
| of it. So having one chip that can satisfy a large range of
| customers needs is so much better than wasting development
| time making a custom just good enough chip for each.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > The materials that go into a chip are nothing.
|
| They really aren't. Every material that goes into every
| chip needs to be sourced from various mines around the
| world, shipped to factories to be assembled, then the end
| goods need to be shipped again around the world to be
| sold or directly dumped.
|
| High power, low power, it all has negative environmental
| impact.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Which materials are they and how would you suggest doing
| it with fewer materials?
| stackghost wrote:
| In theory, graphene based semiconductors would eliminate
| a lot of need for shipping and mining.
| serf wrote:
| ultra pure water production itself is responsible for
| untold amounts of hydroflouric acid and ammonia , and
| most etching processes have an F-Gas involved, and most
| plants that do this work have tremendously high energy
| (power) costs due to stability needs/hvac.
|
| it's not 'just sand'.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| How would you suggest doing it with fewer materials?
| cortesoft wrote:
| That doesn't contradict the point, though. The negative
| impact on the environment is not reduced by making a less
| powered chip.
| Aurornis wrote:
| It's the opposite. Using an off the shelf MCU is much more
| efficient than trying to spin your own ASIC.
|
| Doing the work in software allows for updates and bug
| fixes, which are more likely to prevent piles of hardware
| from going into the landfill (in some cases before they
| even reach customers' hands).
| compiler-devel wrote:
| Nobody cares, unless they're commenting for an easy win on
| internet message boards.
| danielbln wrote:
| It's already very cheap to build though. We are able to pack a
| ton of processing into a tiny form factor for little money
| (comparatively, ignoring end-consumer margins etc.).
|
| An earbud that does ANC, supports multiple different audio
| standard including low battery standby, is somewhat resistant
| to interference, can send and receive over many meters. That's
| awesome for the the price. That it has enough processing to run
| a 33 year old game.. well, that's just technological
| progression.
|
| A single modern smartphone has more compute than all global
| conpute of 1980 combined.
| ck2 wrote:
| I need that in lunar-lander exponents
|
| (imagine the lunar lander computer being an earbud ha)
| danielbln wrote:
| Well, current smartphone would be about 10^8 times
| faster/more than the lunar lander.
|
| A single Airpod would be about 10^4 times as powerful as
| the entire lunar lander guidance system.
|
| Or to put another way: a single Airpod would outcompute the
| entire Soviet Union's space program.
| varjag wrote:
| Earbuds often have features like mic beam forming and noise
| cancellation which require a substantial degree of processing
| power. It's hardly unjustified compared to your Teams instance
| making fans spin or Home Assistant bringing down an RPi to its
| knees.
| nehalem wrote:
| No doubt, maybe should I have emphasised the "general" part
| of "general purpose" more. Not a hardware person myself, I
| wonder whether there would be purpose-built hardware that
| could do the same more cheaply - think F(P)GA.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I wonder whether there would be purpose-built hardware
| that could do the same more cheaply - think F(P)GA.
|
| FPGAs are not cost efficient at all for something like
| this.
|
| MCUs are so cheap that you'd never get to a cheaper
| solution by building out a team to iterate on custom
| hardware until it was bug free and ready to scale. You'd
| basically be reinventing the MCU that can be bought for
| $0.10, but with tens of millions of dollars of engineering
| and without economies of scale that the MCU companies have.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > I wonder whether there would be purpose-built hardware
| that could do the same more cheaply
|
| Where are you imagining costy savings coming from? Custom
| anything is almost always vastly more expensive than using
| a standardised product.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| > CPU: Dual-core 300MHz ARM Cortex-M4F
|
| It's absolute bonkers amount of hardware scaling that happened
| since Doom was released. Yes, this is a tremendous overkill
| here, but the crazy part here is that this fits into an
| earpiece.
| Telemakhos wrote:
| I remember playing Doom on a single-core 25MHz 486 laptop. It
| was, at the time, an amazing machine, hundreds of times more
| powerful than the flight computer that ran the Apollo space
| capsule, and now it is outclassed by an earbud.
| iberator wrote:
| Can we finally end this Apollo computer comparison forever?
| It was a real time computer NOT designed for speed but real
| time operations.1
|
| Why don't you compare it to let's say pdp11, vax780/11 or
| Cray 1 supercomputer?
|
| NASA used a lot of supercomputers here on earth pior to
| mission start.
| mlyle wrote:
| > It was a real time computer NOT designed for speed but
| real time operations.
|
| More than anything, it was designed to be small and use
| little power.
|
| But these little ARM Cortex M4F that we're comparing to
| are also designed for embedded, possibly hard-real-time
| operations. And dominant factors in experience on
| playback through earbuds are response time and jitter.
|
| If the AGC could get a capsule to the moon doing hard
| real-time tasks (and spilling low priority tasks as
| necessary), a single STM32F405 with a Cortex M4F could do
| it better.
|
| Actually, my team is going to fly a STM32F030 for minimal
| power management tasks-- but still hard real-time-- on a
| small satellite. Cortex-M0. It fits in 25 milliwatts vs
| 55W. We're clocked slow, but still exceed the throughput
| of the AGC by ~200-300x. Funnily enough, the amount of
| RAM is about the same as the AGC :D It's 70 cents in
| quantity, but we have to pay three whole dollars at
| quantity 1.
|
| > NASA used a lot of supercomputers here on earth pior to
| mission start.
|
| Fine, let's compare to the CDC 6600, the fastest computer
| of the late 60's. M4F @ 300MHz is a couple hundred single
| precision megaflops; CDC6600 was like 3 not-quite-double-
| precision megaflops. The hacky "double single precision"
| techniques have comparable precision-- figure that is
| probably about 10x slower on average, so each M4F could
| do about 20 CDC-6600 equivalent megaflops or is roughly
| 5-10x faster. The amount of RAM is about the same on this
| earbud.
|
| His 486-25 -- if a DX model with the FPU -- was probably
| roughly twice as fast as the 6600 and probably had 4x the
| RAM, and used 2 orders of magnitude less power and massed
| 3 orders of magnitude less.
|
| Control flow, integer math, etc, being much faster than
| that.
|
| Just a few more pennies gets you a microcontroller with a
| double precision FPU, like a Cortex-M7F with the
| FPv4-SP-D16, which at 300MHz is good for maybe 60 double
| precision megaflops-- compared to the 6600, 20x faster
| and more precision.
| mlyle wrote:
| I have thought about this a little more, and looked into
| things. Since NASA used the 360/91, and had a _lot_ of
| 360 's and 7900's... all of NASA's 60's computing
| couldn't quite fit into a single 486DX-25. You'd be more
| like 486DX2-100 era to replace _everything_ comfortably,
| and you 'd want a lot of RAM-- like 16MB.
|
| It looks like NASA had 5 360/75's plus a 360/91 by the
| end, plus a few other computers.
|
| The biggest 360/75's (I don't know that NASA had the
| highest spec model for all 5) were probably roughly
| 1/10th of a 486-100 plus 1 megabyte of RAM. The 360/91
| that they had at the end was maybe 1/3rd of a 486-100
| plus up to 6 megabytes of RAM.
|
| Those computers alone would be about 85% of a 486-100.
| Everything else was comparatively small. And, of course,
| you need to include the benefits from getting results on
| individual jobs much faster, even if sustained max
| throughput is about the same. So all of NASA, by the late
| 60's, probably fits into one relatively large 486DX4-100.
|
| Incidentally, one random bit of my family lore; my dad
| was an IBM man and knew a lot about 360's and OS/360. He
| received a call one evening from NASA during Apollo 13
| asking for advice about how they could get a little bit
| more out of their machines. My mom was miffed about
| dinner being interrupted until she understood why :D
| tadfisher wrote:
| And perhaps more fittingly, that PC couldn't decode and
| play an MP3 in real time.
| mlyle wrote:
| This is the "little part" of what fits into an earpiece. Each
| of those cores is maybe 0.04 square millimeters of die on
| e.g. 28nm process. RAM takes some area, but that's dwarfed by
| the analog and power components and packaging. The marginal
| cost of the gates making up the processors is effectively
| zero.
| trhway wrote:
| so 1mm2 peppered by those cores at 300MHz will give you 4
| Tflops. And whole 200mm wafer - 100 Petaflops, like 10
| B200s, and just at less than $3K/wafer. Giving half area to
| memory we'll get 50 PFlops with 300Gb RAM. Power draw is
| like 10-20KW. So, giving these numbers i'd guess Cerebras
| has tremendous margin and is just printing money :)
| mlyle wrote:
| Yes, assuming you don't need to connect anything together
| and that RAM is tinier than it really is, sure. At 28nm,
| 3megabits/square millimeter is what you get of SRAM, so
| an entire wafer only gets you ~12 gigabytes of memory.
|
| And, of course, most of Cerebras' costs are NRE and the
| stuff like getting heat out of that wafer and power in.
| wolvoleo wrote:
| Yes but also Doom is very very old.
|
| I bought a kodak camera in 2000 (640x480 resolution) and even
| that could run Doom on it. Way back when. Actually playable
| with sounds and everything.
|
| Here's an even older one running it:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k-AnvqiKzjY
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| If it can run Doom it can run malware.
| tt24 wrote:
| Incredible to see people try to spin the wild successes of
| market based economies as an economic failure.
|
| Hardware is cheap and small enough that we can run doom on an
| earbud, and I'm supposed to think this is a bad thing?
| hashmap wrote:
| I can sort of see one angle for it, and the parent story kind
| of supports it. Bad software is a forcing function for good
| hardware - the worse that software has gotten in the past few
| decades the better hardware has had to get to support it.
| Such that if you actually tried like OP did, you can do some
| pretty crazy things on tiny hardware these days. Imagine what
| we could do on computers if they weren't so bottlenecked
| doing things they don't need to do.
| tt24 wrote:
| That wasn't the GP's claim. Their implication was that it's
| an economic failure that we don't produce less powerful
| hardware.
| gpm wrote:
| Neither - it's a triumph of our ability to do increasing
| complex things in both software and hardware. An earbud should
| be able to make good use of the extra computing capacity,
| whether it is to run more sophisticated compression saving
| bandwidth, or for features like more sophisticated noise
| cancelling/microphone isolation algorithms. There are really
| very few devices that shouldn't be able to be better given more
| (free) compute.
|
| It's also a triumph of the previous generation of programmers
| to be able to make interesting games that took so little
| compute.
| echelon wrote:
| There are enough atoms in that earbud to replace all of the
| world's computers.
|
| We've got a long way to go.
| buildbot wrote:
| Plus there's actually less waste, I would imagine, by using a
| generic, very efficiently mass produced, but way overkill
| part. vs. a one off or very specific, rare but perfectly
| matched part.
| mlyle wrote:
| Marginal cost of a small microprocessor in an ASIC is
| _nothing_.
|
| The RAM costs a little bit, but if you want to firmware update
| in a friendly way, etc, you need some RAM to stage the updates.
| notarobot123 wrote:
| It's intuitive to think of wasted compute capacity as
| correlating with a waste of material resources. Is this really
| the case though?
| mathgeek wrote:
| Waste is subjective or, at best, hard to define. It's the
| classic "get rid of all the humans and nothing would be
| wasted" aphorism.
| daft_pink wrote:
| If you look at the bottom of the page, it's an advertisement
| for someone looking for a job to show off his technical skill.
| ornornor wrote:
| Okay? Is that good or bad or what?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I imagine it's far more economical to have one foundry that can
| make a general purpose chip that's overpowered for 95% of uses
| than to try to make a ton of different chips. It speaks to how
| a lot of the actual cost is the manufacturing and R&D.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| The only real problem I could see is if the general purpose
| microcontroller is significantly more power-hungry than a
| specialized chip, impacting the battery life of the earbuds.
|
| On every other axis, though, it's likely a very clear win:
| reusable chips means cheaper units, which often translates
| into real resource savings (in the extreme case, it may save
| an entire additional factory for the custom chips, saving
| untold energy and effort.)
| tobinc wrote:
| I think it's just indicative of the fact that general purpose
| hardware has more applications, and can thus be mass produced
| for cheaper at a greater scale and used for more applications.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Whenever I see another supposedly menial device including
| enough general purpose hardware
|
| The PineBuds are designed and sold as an open firmware platform
| to allow software experimentation, so there's nothing bad nor
| any economic failures going on here. Having a powerful general
| purpose microcontroller to experiment with is a design goal of
| the product.
|
| That said, ANC Bluetooth earbuds are not menial products. Doing
| ANC properly is very complicated. It's much harder than taking
| the input from a microphone, inverting the signal, and feeding
| it into the output. There's a lot of computation that needs to
| be done continuously.
|
| Using a powerful microcontroller isn't a failure, it's a
| benefit of having advanced semiconductor processes. Basically
| anything small and power efficient on a modern process will
| have no problem running at tens of MHz speeds. You want modern
| processes for the battery efficiency and you get speed as a
| bonus.
|
| The speed isn't wasted, either. Higher clock speeds means lower
| latency. In a battery powered device having an MCU running at
| 48MHz may seem excessive until you realize that the faster it
| finishes every unit of work the sooner it can go to sleep. It's
| not always about raw power.
|
| Modern earbuds are complicated. Having a general purpose MCU to
| allow software updates is much better than trying to get the
| entire wireless stack, noise cancellation, and everything else
| completely perfect before spinning out a custom ASIC.
|
| We're very fortunate to have all of this at our disposal. The
| groveling about putting powerful microcontrollers into small
| things ignores the reality of how hard it is to make a bug-free
| custom ASIC and break even on it relative to spending $0.10 per
| unit on a proven microcontroller manufacturer at scale.
| ashtakeaway wrote:
| Thanks ChatGPT
| awesome_dude wrote:
| These accusations of someone using ChatGPT are cheap
| mindless attacks based on nothing more than the fact that
| someone has put together a good argument and used good
| formatting.
|
| If that's all your evidence is, don't you dare go near any
| scientific papers.
| the_fall wrote:
| > economic failure to build cheaper purpose-built hardware for
| things like sending audio over a radio.
|
| You're literally just wasting sand. We've perfected the process
| to the point where it's inexpensive to produce tiny and cheap
| chips that pack more power than a 386 computer. It makes little
| difference if it's 1,000 transistors or 1,000,000. It gets more
| complicated on the cutting edge, but this ain't it. These chips
| are probably 90 nm or 40 nm, a technology that's two decades
| old, and it's basically the off-ramp for older-generation chip
| fabs that can no longer crank out cutting-edge CPUs or GPUs.
|
| Building specialized hardware for stuff like that costs a lot
| more than writing software that uses just the portions you
| need. It requires deeper expertise, testing is more expensive
| and slower, etc.
| pibaker wrote:
| You should see it as the triumph of chip manufacturing --
| advanced, powerful MCUs have became so cheap thanks to
| manufacturing capabilities and economies of scale means it is
| now cheaper to use a mass manufactured general purpose device
| that may take more material to manufacture than a simpler
| bespoke device that will be produced at low volumes.
|
| You might be wondering "how on earth a more advanced chip can
| end up being cheaper." Well, it may surprise you but not all
| cost in manufacturing is material cost. If you have to design a
| bespoke chip for your earbuds, you need to now hire chip
| designers, you need to go through the whole design and testing
| process, you need to get someone to make your bespoke chip in
| smaller quantities which may easily end up more expensive than
| the more powerful mass manufactured chips, you will need to
| teach your programmers how to program on your new chip, and so
| on. The material savings (which are questionable -- are you
| sure you can make your bespoke chip more efficiently than the
| mass manufactured ones?) are easily outweighed by business
| costs in other parts of the manufacturing process.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I will never understand people who treat MHz like a rationed
| resource.
| arin-s wrote:
| The standalone viewer (connected directly to the earbuds) also
| works on mobile: https://files.catbox.moe/pdvphj.mp4
|
| No touch controls though, it just plays the intro loop
| npsomaratna wrote:
| On a tangent: I remember reading John Carmak saying that as game
| engines became more complex, he had to relinquish the idea of
| writing all the (engine) code himself, and start to rely on other
| folks contributions as well (this was in an interview after the
| release of Doom 3).
|
| I wonder what his feelings are in this age of AI.
| Insanity wrote:
| John is now on a mission to make AGI a reality. I'd say given
| his own investment there, he's probably positive about it.
|
| Just speculation on my part of course.
|
| Also, "masters of doom" is such a good book. Recommend it for
| anyone who wants to peek behind the scenes of how Carmack,
| Romero, and iD software built Doom (and Wolf3D etc).
| lgvld wrote:
| Yes such a fantastic book. I thought about it recently while
| reading this article about the three teenagers who created
| the Mirai botnet, same vibes, you would probably like it:
| https://www.wired.com/story/mirai-untold-story-three-
| young-h...
| nortlov wrote:
| Carmak made extensive use of AI during Doom development:
| Approximate Interpolation.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Relevant SMBC, "Computer scientist vs computer engineer":
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-17
| shevy-java wrote:
| I am a bit said that it is always Doom.
|
| Now ... I played the game when I was young. It was addictive. I
| don't think it was a good game but it was addictive. And somewhat
| simple.
|
| So what is the problem then? Well ... games have gotten a lot
| bigger, often more complicated. Trying to port that to small
| platforms is close to impossible. This makes me sad. I think the
| industry, excluding indie tech/startups, totally lost the focus
| here. The games that are now en vogue, do not interest me at all.
| Sometimes they have interesting ideas - I liked little nightmares
| here - but they are huge and very different from the older games.
| And often much more boring too.
|
| One of my favourite DOS games was master of orion 1 for instance.
| I could, despite its numerous flaws, play that again and again
| and again. Master of Orion 2 was not bad either, but it was
| nowhere near as addictive and the gameplay was also more
| convoluted and slower.
|
| (Sometimes semi-new games are also ok such as Warcraft 3. I am
| not saying ALL new games are bad, but it seems as if games were
| kind of dumbed down to be more like a video to watch, with semi-
| few interactive elements as you watch it. That's IMO not really a
| game. And just XP grinding for the big bad wolf to scale to the
| next level, deal out more damage, as your HP grows ... that's not
| really playing either. That's just wasting your time.)
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Im with you. I want to play Freespace 2 on earbuds.
| RadiozRadioz wrote:
| It's Doom in part because it's a significantly popular game,
| that was open sourced, with low resource requirements (but not
| too low to be trivial), with an innovative custom engine that
| people find interesting, originally created by a person who
| many respect or admired growing up, and the game itself is
| cool. And now there is enough inertia to keep choosing it.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| I wish there were more ports of Duke Nukem 3D :(
| Guvante wrote:
| Most people don't realize that games were small back then
| because they had to be.
|
| The value of being small for most users almost doesn't exist.
| If you have bandwidth limits then yeah download size is
| important but most don't.
|
| So the only meaningful change optimizations make is "will it
| run well enough" and "does it fit on my disk".
|
| Put more plainly "if it works at all it doesn't matter" is how
| most consumers (probably correctly) treat performance
| optimizations/installation size.
|
| The sacrifices you talk about were made at explicit request of
| consumers. Games have to be "long enough" and the difference
| between enough game loop and grinding is a taste thing. Games
| have to be "pretty" and for better or worse stylized takes
| effort and is a taste thing (see Wind Waker) while fancy high
| res lighting engines are generally recognized as good.
|
| I will say though while being made by indies means they are
| optimized terribly the number of stylized short games is
| phenomenally high it can just be hard to find them.
|
| Especially since it is difficult for an hour or two game to be
| as impactful as a similar length movie so they tend to not be
| brought up as frequently.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| Storage space is at a premium. The PS5 has about 650gb of
| usable space. At ~100gb/game which is not uncommon you can
| store 6 games on the console without needing to free up hard
| drive space.
|
| Filesize matters, especially to people with limited bandwidth
| and data caps. The increasing cost of SSDs only makes this
| situation more hardware constrained.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| > Earbuds don't have displays, so the only way to transfer data
| to/from them is either via bluetooth, or the UART contact pads.
| Bluetooth is pretty slow, you'd be lucky to get a consistent
| 1mbps connection, UART is easily the better option.
|
| Does this means you can run a doom instance on each bud? Is it
| viable to make a distributed app to use the computing power of
| both buds at once?
| arin-s wrote:
| This was a stretch goal, multiplayer. One earbuds versus the
| other. It's not that hard to implement but I've got a few other
| things to clear away first.
|
| Using them for distributed computation though? interesting use
| of free will xD
| RandomTeaParty wrote:
| Compute one half of the screen on each
|
| Left ear for the right eye and vice versa
| jentulman wrote:
| Single player, but stereoscopic? One display from each bud.
|
| "VR Doom has been ported to an earbud(s)" ;)
| moktonar wrote:
| We should definitely send a playable copy of doom to aliens on a
| golden record on the next Voyager mission
| listeria wrote:
| and risk having them interpret it as a declaration of war?
| epenn wrote:
| In light of this I propose "Doom's Law" as the ultimate
| expression of late stage capitalism:
|
| - Society continues to produce more and more powerful devices.
|
| - More and more of these devices begin running Doom.
|
| - When this reaches the saturation point, society _becomes_ Doom.
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| A few more years and some more ram on these earbuds and we'll be
| able to run some nice local earbud kubernetes clusters
| anthk wrote:
| It's possible to run Zork I-III Frotz under a pen, some FPGA and
| even interpreting a PostScript file. Even the Game Boy, the C64,
| MSX... So, Doom is not the most ported game ever.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| As an aside, I really like the style of the page. I wish it was
| available as a classless css dropin stylesheet.
| j1elo wrote:
| Next up idea: ThunderDoom
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750419
| mikeayles wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1ihufa0/doom_running...
| frizlab wrote:
| > wow this front end code is atrocious, state management is
| everywhe-
|
| > shhhh don't look don't look it's ok just join the queue
|
| love it
| wolvoleo wrote:
| But can it run crysis?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-25 23:00 UTC)