Japanese developers comment on X360 development [Archive]

scooby_dooby

30-Aug-2005, 19:40

Shifty Geezer

30-Aug-2005, 19:40

Sounds very positive. Lots of good things said. Two points that stuck out for me. "For example, if we had two projects going on, [the Xbox 360's development environment] would allow us to take different program components created from the two teams, and merge them into a single software [application]. That wasn't possible up until now," explained Cavia chief producer Takuya Iwasaki, who is currently studying the console's hardware for an upcoming project. "Also, once we create a game, we can take parts of it and build it into a new game. So if we make a program to display an ocean wave, we can use it again and again. What's more, we can make different arrangements to it, so it won't be just simple recycling." I don't understand why the development environment is needed to facilitate this. I can reuse code. Heck if I want I can pop online, grab other people's code and drop it into mine. I've heard often software developers don't reuse code but I've never understood why, nor why XB360 should facilitate this where current gen doesn't.

The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim. We're not counting in the pre-rendered movies, and we're already in this situation.Already on two DVDs and that's before prerendered movies?! I'd have thought that very uncommon, but this raises early questions as to whether DVD is enough for next gen.

joe75

30-Aug-2005, 20:19

But on the other hand, the transfer rate from DVD-ROM is about 7MB per second at slowest. So if we go by simple calculation at that rate, it'll take 60 seconds to fill up the 512MB [when playing from DVD]."

They also point out the read spead IRL on the DVD drive is as low as 7MB/s. That's about 20-25% of the HDD read speed.

http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/zds_pmoore_x360_assassin_1500k.zip

... Assasin demo for XBOX360,watch the first frame of video /dashboard/ and 452.73 MB exe file loaded up,it takes .. 70 seconds !!!

Inane_Dork

30-Aug-2005, 20:29

It certainly would be nicer to have only 1 disc for the game, but HD-DVD drives are the opposite of the mature, inexpensive and fast DVD drives. The size is nice, but that's quite a bit of cost. A 1x HD-DVD drive would max at 4.5625 MB/s which is a good deal slower than the slowest 12x DVD performance.

The tech is just not mature enough for a late 2005 launch, IMO.

Karma Police

30-Aug-2005, 20:34

If MS put a HD-DVD drive in the X360, why do you think that it would only be a 1x drive? Please explain.

Inane_Dork

30-Aug-2005, 20:38

If MS put a HD-DVD drive in the X360, why do you think that it would only be a 1x drive? Please explain.Because there are no HD-DVD drives out there, so I assume that getting 2-3 million of them made and in X360s by the end of the year would force them to use the simplest version of HD-DVD drives. Besides, even if they got a 2x drive, it would still have half the theoretical bandwidth of a 12x DVD drive.

I'm not too up on HD-DVD news, though. Do we know there will be 4x drives by the end of the year?

scooby_dooby

30-Aug-2005, 20:59

http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/zds_pmoore_x360_assassin_1500k.zip

... Assasin demo for XBOX362,watch the first frame of video /dashboard/ and 452.73 MB exe file loaded up,it takes .. 70 seconds !!!

wow, that's an impressive demo! At first I was like "real time my ass..." then he stops the camrea and starts panning around...NICE!

but ya....brutal load times....

blakjedi

30-Aug-2005, 21:08

--------------------------------------------------------------------
""The Xbox 360 allows data to be read from the hard drive, so there shouldn't be much stress when it's used [compared to playing from DVD]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me a HDD might have negated some of the problems associated with not using a next-gen media storage. At least dev's would have a swap file they could use to uncompress audio/videos to without having to store them in RAM.

BAM! this sums up and validates the whole pro-HDD discussion from the other thread.

Rockster

30-Aug-2005, 21:49

BAM! this sums up and validates the whole pro-HDD discussion from the other thread.

No. There are more factors in play than "streaming".

blakjedi

30-Aug-2005, 21:52

No. There are more factors in play than "streaming".

I would say that the argument for a Gamer Rig with a HDD is the exactly the same as for x360... fast load times being a critical component otherwise gaming rigs would only play games from the CD/DVD too...

Acert93

30-Aug-2005, 21:57

Capcom producer Keiji Inafune, who's making the new zombie action game Dead Rising said the console offers plenty of potential, but how much of that gamers get to see depends on how developers use its multi-core architecture. "I believe that we'll be seeing two kinds of games for a while after the Xbox 360's launch," Inafune said. "Games that feel like something on current generation consoles, and games that feel like they're Xbox 360 titles."

Ain't that the truth! Due to the nature of launches a LOT of titles look like ports ::?:

But even with Microsoft's development tools and strong technical support (another aspect for which the developers had kind words), there are still a number of issues game makers face. Many developers consider the system's graphic capabilities "double-edged." The Xbox 360 can handle much better looking graphics than previous consoles, but it also requires a lot more effort in development.

"We had no intention to make Rumble Roses XX just a usual port. We were hyped, saying to ourselves that we're going to make it a completely new game," says Konami producer Akari Uchida. "But when it came time for the actual development, we realized that the volume of data [for the Xbox 360] would be one digit different [from current consoles]. The number of polygons per character by itself is 10 times larger than current consoles. … It's as though we need to bring the quality graphics from pre-rendered movies into to the actual game."

I guess the good news is the console is powerful (they ain't complaining about power!), and they are speaking, very roughly, of the need to create visuals in the ballpark of pre-rendered movies. 10x increase in poly's is about one would expect in a next gen console (that means the hardware scaled to 2x performance quicker than every 16mo). The bad news: this is expensive and time consuming. I think Epic is the only team not complaining much about price... but then again, they have reason NOT to complain and to spin it as, "Well, it is onlu ~20% more expensive with out tools" :lol:

In terms of programming issues, one of the strengths of the Xbox 360, similar to the current Xbox, is the ease of porting Windows programs to the console. But surprisingly, porting programs isn't completely hassle-free, says Square Enix programmer Yasuhiro Yamamoto of his experience with Final Fantasy XI.

In many ways this is surprising. Not the hassle part, but the "Ease" part. Like they note the sound and CPU systems are completely different from a PC. The GPU has its own API and is radically different in some ways (+ new features not on the PC), there is a unified memory system, the HDD is not standard, widescreen is the typical output, and PC's are a sea of compatibility nightmares. I don't see where the word "ease" can really fit ANYWHERE in there without some killer tools.

To me it says a lot about development tools if the word "ease" can be used in this regards is shocking in many ways. I would rather hear about "some hassles" than "complete rewrites and rebuilds of a game from the ground up".

I guess in some ways I had assumed MS was migrating away from porting with the use of the PPC tricore setup. While it will be harder to port than early on in the Xbox life, it sounds like devs are optimistic and that is good. I like my PC titles... that is why I am a PC gamer :D

Despite whatever problems the multi-core architecture brings up, the Japanese developers interviewed in the magazine all seem to agree that the Xbox 360 is developer-friendly, with one of the main reasons being that the development environment is based on Direct X. The developers also spoke highly of the Xbox 360's development kit for its array of tools including Visual C++ programming support, and flexibility in recycling the programs that they've created.

A few notable developers have spoken negatively lately (although some positive as well... but the rule of 1 negative downplays 10 positives stands), so hearing more devs say they like the tools and that it is developer friendly is good.

A semi-related news piece, but not worth a new thread due to limited info in the news is Taiwan developer's feelings.

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/NewsSearch.asp?DocID=7C5EF53CDE5C320C482570690046C B7A&query=XBOX

mckmas8808

30-Aug-2005, 22:33

The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim. We're not counting in the pre-rendered movies, and we're already in this situation.

Can't say that I haven't been saying it for months now.:wink:

Acert93

30-Aug-2005, 22:33

Wow, Enchant Arm is barely fitting on TWO dvd's, NOT counting pre-rendered movies! That's not a good sign for first generation games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
""The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim. We're not counting in the pre-rendered movies, and we're already in this situation. So we've got a bit of a headache. We're trying to come up with various solutions, such as compressing the data. The Xbox 360 allows data to be read from the hard drive, so there shouldn't be much stress when it's used [compared to playing from DVD]. The memory is another point in terms of transfer speed. The Xbox 360 comes with 512MB of main memory, which is very helpful. But on the other hand, the transfer rate from DVD-ROM is about 7MB per second at slowest. So if we go by simple calculation at that rate, it'll take 60 seconds to fill up the 512MB [when playing from DVD]."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not reading that on the site. Where did you get that entire quote? What I see is

From Software producer Masanori Takeuchi, who's been working on Enchant Arm, a role-playing game slated to be an Xbox 360 launch title, said developers will also be running into issues of storage space in the next generation. While the Xbox 360 is a next-generation console, Microsoft decided to equip it with a normal DVD reader, rather than to give it HD-DVD or Blu-ray reading capabilities.

"The volume of data in Enchant Arms won't fit into a single DVD. It's an RPG, so we're thinking it would be inevitable that we release it on two discs," says Takeuchi. "But to be honest, that's even looking grim."

Curious where the other comments are from. Anyhow, the HDD vs. DVD numbers presented are REALLY unfair (kind of like the 130MB speed... of the HDD interface which is not representative of the drive itself):

They also point out the read spead IRL on the DVD drive is as low as 7MB/s. That's about 20-25% of the HDD read speed.

Here is the issue: A 12x DVD has a 17MB/s transfer rate, but that is the outside edge of the media. So I would not doubt the 7MB/s number. Yet on the other hand we are comparing that to *maximum* HDD transfer rate. Hard drives are also CAV (constant angular velocity) devices, so that would need to be taken into consideration.

Without hard numbers on the 20GB 5,400RPM Laptop HDD (which will be slower than a 40GB or other larger drives) or the 12x DVD in the 360 it is hard to compare real world scenarios, but on face value we cannot compare the low end of the DVD to the high end of the HDD.

For those wondering about why a 16x drive was not chosen for the 360, they are louder and are more prone to issues. e.g.

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Current thinking is that DVD drive speeds have topped out at 16x, since disc wobbling and other physical factors become a problem at faster speeds.

Some good information there, also http://www.pcguide.com/ref/cd/constSpindle-c.html

We're trying to come up with various solutions, such as compressing the data.

A dev here noted that even if you had the space you would want the information compressed. Why? It speeds up load times. Whether you have a 10 second load time or a 40 second load time (like many PCs have, even with their large HDDs) compressing the information on the storage medium and decompressing it in the system saves bandwidth across the board.

So with a 2:1 compression setup you could cut your 10 and 40 second load times in about half (about 5 and 20 seconds, respectively) AND save system resources.

And here is the kicker: Most Console developers have been doing this... forever. I know this was a common technique on the N64 and the current gen consoles use it as well. IMO it seems developers who have a HDD, like PC devs, are the ones NOT using such techniques. Why? Because they have a HDD and it makes life easier for development... but that has not improved load times.

scooby_dooby

30-Aug-2005, 22:48

I am not reading that on the site. Where did you get that entire quote?

Wha tthe hell? Well they've changed their article, what I quoted is what was there this morning, I ceryainly didn't write that stuff.

The article used to be about twice as long as it is now, and my quote was the last paragraph on the page.

Maybe MS bitched?

Here is the issue: A 12x DVD has a 17MB/s transfer rate, but that is the outside edge of the media. So I would not doubt the 7MB/s number. Yet on the other hand we are comparing that to *maximum* HDD transfer rate. Hard drives are also CAV (constant angular velocity) devices, so that would need to be taken into consideration.

yup, but since HDD speeds to not fluctuate, and assuming the ~35MB/s sustained throughput you mentioned in the other thread (thx btw) what we can say is that the DVD offers read speeds in the range of 20%-45% of the HDD.

Although it seems to me that seek times, and random access would be almost as iportant to load times as overall throughput, since usually a game loads many files, not just one or 2 big ones. What are the numbers there? A HDD must decimate a DVD-ROM in terms of seek times....no?

So with a 2:1 compression setup you could cut your 10 and 40 second load times in about half (about 5 and 20 seconds, respectively) AND save system resources.

And here is the kicker: Most Console developers have been doing this... forever.

From Software are strictly a console dev are they not?

Shifty Geezer

30-Aug-2005, 22:57

Wha tthe hell? Well they've changed their article, what I quoted is what was there this morning, I ceryainly didn't write that stuff.

The article used to be about twice as long as it is now, and my quote was the last paragraph on the page.I'll vouch for Scooby here. It was definitely longer and it definitely had that quote about the choice of DVD. As my earlier quote shows even the part I quoted was slightly changed by the time Acert quoted it. And there's a lot of wordage gone missing from the original. Which is a shame as it was an interesting read, pretty balanced and generally optimistic.

scooby_dooby

30-Aug-2005, 23:04

Ya, it's wierd.

You can look in this thread, 3rd post they referenced the same 2 paragraphs I did.
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=369692&page=1&pp=15

I wonder if anyone saved the full version....man if only I could read japanese!

TrungGap

30-Aug-2005, 23:09

http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/zds_pmoore_x360_assassin_1500k.zip

... Assasin demo for XBOX360,watch the first frame of video /dashboard/ and 452.73 MB exe file loaded up,it takes .. 70 seconds !!!

Holy cow, Batman! The graphic is amazing! The load time is pretty shitty.Any software in development, tuning usually occurs last, so I expect the load time not to be that bad. However, the plain old DVD drive might cut the life span of the x360 short. However, maybe that's MS plan. They want to shorten the life span of the console, so that Sony can't (wouldn't want to) compete. If I was a betting man, I would wager that MS will release xbox 720 way before Sony will release PS4. By then, the HD war should be over...eh, let's hope so.

PS Edit for typos...

Acert93

30-Aug-2005, 23:15

yup, but since HDD speeds to not fluctuate

HDD are CAV as well. Without an real world performance numbers it is hard to compare, but I do know this: HDD frequently fall short of their maximum potential. Further the size a HDD makes a big difference. e.g. a 74GB Raptor is 40% faster than a 37GB Raptor. Both have the same RPM and Cache, but the platters make a difference.

Hence reading around and seeing that 20GB and 40GB Laptop drives have the same maximum sustained transfer speeds, the question is 1. how does that play out in real life and 2. what is the minimum?

Yet without any solid performance numbers or explicit details on either of the Xbox 360 components I cannot say. I am just noting that it is not an easy apples-to-apples comparison at this point.

Although it seems to me that seek times, and random access would be almost as iportant to load times as overall throughput, since usually a game loads many files, not just one or 2 big ones. What are the numbers there? A HDD must decimate a DVD-ROM in terms of seek times....no?

Yes, a HDD has much better seek/latency performance. On the other hand we are talking about streaming ahead of time. 12ms and 120ms are but a drop in the bucket when you are streaming data that wont be used for another 5 seconds. This is the type of task where latency can be masked.

As for data chunks that can be an issue. But on the other hand this is one reason why a lot of console games take more room--they have blocks of contiguous data. This is not as effecient for space but it speeds up load times.

From Software are strictly a console dev are they not?

I don't see any PC titles on their website. I have never played one of their games, but I wonder how their load times are?

Anyhow, I am not saying a HDD is a bad thing, that it does not have benefits, or that it cannot speed up load times. It can. But if PC development--OR Xbox development!--are any indication, when you compare Xbox titles to the GCN or the PC to the consoles, it is fair to say that a HDD does not magically make load times faster. In general, I think it would be fair to say that load times are very marginally affected by the presence of the HDD because many devs don't optimize. So any theoretical advantage has been frequently been wiped out by reality. Sad, but true.

That said some devs have expressed butting "if" tags that use the HDD for caching is possible and we will be seeing HDD only games it seems.

I know the HDD thing bugs you scoob, but look at it this way: For many reasons the HDD will be a success (I already have posted on this). The lower price point means two things: First is that more people will have Xbox 360s. Larger install base means more developer support, more developer support means more games, more options, and potentially more GOOD games. Second is that it allows MS to be aggresive on the price front which keeps them in the console business. I doubt investors would have approved of another 4B loss... I know they would not. That is why MS has set 2007 as a profitable date. Competition is good for the market, therefore MS cannot continue subsidizing features, like a HDD, that do not have cross platform support.

And in all of that the HDD is still going to be used with Live and games are going to use it. If Xbox1 was any indication of the "benefits" of a HDD, pesonally I would say "GOOD RIDANCE!" But for me I see the potential of expanding the gameplay experience so I am a little dissapointed as well... yet realizing the MOST of the things I want, like online content, is still gonna happen. So the impact is really minimal in many ways.

Some devs are mad, but as this gen showed us you have to ask WHY. The HDD really has not been this savior in terms of improving the end product... it makes their life easier, but it does not improve the product. To that, all I can say is use the HDD if you want, and if that is not good enough convince Sony or Nintendo to get a HDD as standard.

Guden Oden

30-Aug-2005, 23:18

but since HDD speeds to not fluctuate, and assuming the ~35MB/s sustained throughput you mentioned in the other thread (thx btw) what we can say is that the DVD offers read speeds in the range of 20%-45% of the HDD.
HDD data transfer speed does indeed fluctuate A LOT across the disk (it's a CAV device after all, with more sectors on the outer data zones of the disk). 3.5" HDDs can be about 50% slower on the innermost zone compared to the outermost, it's a little less on 2.5" devices since the inner/outer zone diameter ratio is slightly less when considering the center hub on 2.5" drives is smaller compared to 3.5" drives.

A cheap 20GB 2.5" HDD is certainly not going to give 35MB transfers across the entire range of the span, that goes without saying.

Acert93

30-Aug-2005, 23:18

I'll vouch for Scooby here.

Cool, just wondering why you guys had info different than me ;) Usually GS will have a "revision" notice--very bad form for a publishing company to revise content without a notice. Oh wait, they are not a real publishing company! :P

Guden Oden

30-Aug-2005, 23:23

However, the plain old DVD drive might cut the life span of the x360 short. However, maybe that's MS plan. They want to shorten the life span of the console, so that Sony can't (wouldn't want to) compete. If I was a betting man, I would wager that MS will release xbox 720 way before Sony will release PS4.
That tactic is a good way for MS to "Sega" its way out of the market. They also won't be making much money either, which is the real game in the console business after all. It's not, I repeat, NOT, to provide the coolest tech for the gearheads. It's to cost-reduce your hardware as much as possible to maximize profits over the lifetime of your product, and you certainly won't be able to do that if it's killed off early in the product cycle. You'd also have to spend more money on (by now VERY) costly R&D to develop your new box, that you won't then cost-reduce properly, etc.

Customers will also rebel if the hardware is made obsolete too quickly and too often. And with good reason. As happened with Sega.

Acert93

30-Aug-2005, 23:59

I agree Guden.

I think the tendancy of hardcore gamers/early adopters is to focus on certain aspects of a design and what it does, or does not, do for them in relation to their "technological wet dreams". The bottom of the line is offering the best experience for all consumers (NOT just hard core gamers) and to do so in a way that is profitable over the long haul. There are always compromises to be made in that regards because we are talking about a $300 console that needs to be less than $100 to manufacture in 4 years.

----

The Ruby/Assasin video is the best realtime demo I have seen yet for the next gen consoles. Better than Oblivion, Gears of War, and PGR3 in my opinion. It seems to share the best of all the graphical features from each of the best looking titles, rolled up into one clean package.

What really stood out to me was the lighting and the shadowing. :shock: I wish every game looked that good. They are using every trick in the book, yet on the other hand nothing seemed out of whack. I was impressed.

And while the textures were very detailed, the art direction fit the technology demo, and the special effects were spot on, the next most important thing after lighting/shadowing to me was the detail in the models. He said the Ruby was 1M. Whether that was total or per second he did not clarify (he seemed vague to me), but it was really clear to me that she was very detailed. Ditto the cybord lady. Unlike the big monster on GOW that has the chains modeled to the skin, this lady had a LOT of detail and felt "3D" with all the hoses. Maybe they were using a lot of normal maps, but I don't care. It looked really really good with the lighting.

Another thing that stood out was the animation. Very smooth. Some of the clunky MOCAP pre-canned stuff looked "stuff" (like the 360 windmill kick) but that had to do more with how it was captured. Overall everything was smooth and the environment AND the characters seemed VERY alive.

The question is... how long must we wait to see a REAL 360 game begin to approach this graphical fidelity?

TrungGap

31-Aug-2005, 00:19

That tactic is a good way for MS to "Sega" it's way out of the market. They also won't be making much money either, which is the real game in the console business after all. It's not, I repeat, NOT, to provide the coolest tech for the gearheads. It's to cost-reduce your hardware as much as possible to maximize profits over the lifetime of your product, and you certainly won't be able to do that if it's killed off early in the product cycle. You'd also have to spend more money on (by now VERY) costly R&D to develop your new box, that you won't then cost-reduce properly, etc.

Customers will also rebel if the hardware is made obsolete too quickly and too often. And with good reason. As happened with Sega.

Hey, Sega is my sensitive spot. :D Especially, with the bailing out of the Dreamcast...sigh.

Anyway, MS could be using it's strategy in defeating Netscape. The development cost of IE was not cheap and commercialization of it was not bring in any money. However, they stuck with the plan and killed off Netscape.

Xbox was only the first step. It was to build presence. x360 will force Sony to play along with MS timeframe. I don't think Sony would up the release date of PS3 without MS. MS knows that by getting x360 out this year, as oppose to next year, they will have to release *upgrade* or a new console by the time HD standards are set (and consumers embrace it). IMO, MS cut features to control cost, because their strategy is to good a enough product that's more disposable than Sony. They know they'll have to release the next gen console sooner than Sony.

Funny, remember when Nvidia and ATI tried to accelerate the video card market, by shortening their releases? In the end, both companies gotten hurt by that. So they revert by to longer release cycle. So maybe you're right.

Jawed

31-Aug-2005, 00:22

Assassin is the R520 techdemo, Ruby 3 as it were - made in collaboration with the RhinoFX studio. Ported over to XB360.

If you have an X800 graphics card in a PC you can download the first two parts of Ruby:

http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/rx800.html

http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/rx850.html

Otherwise download the movies.

Jawed

scooby_dooby

31-Aug-2005, 00:25

well the wonderful software on this forum ate aother on of my posts, so I'll try and sum it up.

In response to Acerts post RE: HDD

I think MS is taking a huge gamble by ditching the hardcore gamers and going after casuals. Lets face it, anyone who wants tthe coolest game system on the block will probably be looking at the PS3, unless the Xenos can outpower the RSX that would change things....but anyways..

SO theyv've basically lost the hardcore gamers support, X360 will be the lesser of the two consoles, and the hardcore gamer needs to have the best.

So they're gambling on the consumers...is that a good bet? How strong is the PS brandname still? Will they be able to pull the casuals away? Brand recognition is a very powerful thing (how many people still DEMAND intel processors?)

What if PS3 clearly outpowers X360? Hardcores will flock too it. Casuals will flock to it once the price drops simply because it's playstation. Where does that leave x360? 5-10million units sold and losing ground steadily?

The saving grace for X360 will be it's games, build a solid library of exclusives. Casuals go for the games, and it'll probably be 2007 before PS3 has a comparable library. So, like usual, I guess it all comes down to games....jeez what else is new hey!?

Guden Oden

31-Aug-2005, 00:29

Anyway, MS could be using it's strategy in defeating Netscape. The development cost of IE was not cheap and commercialization of it was not bring in any money. However, they stuck with the plan and killed off Netscape.
Your comparison is flawed. MS killed netscape because they

A: Made IE competitive with NS
B: Included IE for free with windows as standard
C: NS directors were a bunch of eejits

A and B were probably the most influential though.

Consoles don't work the same way as the browser wars, for starters, customers pay (a lot) of money for these things. They won't be happy if their $400 purchase is only good for 3 years or so. They expect more. And if price of x360 falls to $150 in 3 years and MS introduces an "x720" or whatever a year later, you'd feel majorly ripped off. We know software support for old hardware drops pretty much like a rock once a new console hits the streets (PS2 may be an exception due to its enormous market and the fact it'll continue to be manufactured and sold even after PS3 debuts). Won't be many xb titles coming out the year after x360 is released, that's for sure.

scooby_dooby

31-Aug-2005, 00:40

It's not totally flawed, this has always been MS's strategy in software battles.

Provide your software for free, just to get in the door, establish dominance...then let the raping begin.

Why couldn't they do the same with hardware? I know it's different, but MS has always had a strategy of taking losses in order to win the overall battle.

Why do you think windows 95/98 was ridiculously easy to pirate? to establish dominance, and now we get raped on $300 versions of MCE.

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 00:44

Let me get this right... MS cut out the standard HDD, so gamers are going to go to a console... without a standard HDD? That does not make much sense! Anyhow...

First, it is about the games. Period. End of story. At the end of the day if you have 1 processor or 5 processors, it don't matter. Whoever has the most quality games that consumers want wins. PS2 was pretty much Xbox1's whipping boy, yet MS could only dream of the revenue Sony made. Sony had more games and more exclusives and more quality games... on a weaker, harder to program platform. Why? Sony was established and aggresive about getting support. Being out a year ahead of time also helped due to the library advantage. More games means more genres to appeal to more gamers. It really is that simple.

In that regards MS has scored a big win. EA is using the 360 as the base platform. Further EA has 25 titles in the pipe and 6 for launch. If the PS3 ships in the fall of 2006 in the US MS may have 100 games out on the market before the PS3 launches.

As for hardcore gamers, they are not all obsessed with stats in the way you are. And even many of those who are serious about stats realize that pure theoretical performance is not the same as real world performance.

Yes, there are some who are obsessed with numbers. For those fans there is Major Nelson and Major Ynos to spread FUD. And it ain't as cut and dry as you make it sound. An example (not to meant to be a low blow) was that you stated a 5,400 RPM Laptop drive should at least transfer 130MB/s. So even those obsessed with features and benchmarks are often looking at the wrong things with the wrong numbers. If you don't gather solid primary data before drawing conclusions then sure, they will be turned off by PR. But that goes both ways... enter Major Nelson and Major Ynos again. People will believe what they want to believe.

You want to believe the lack of the HDD is the end of the world and that somehow a laptop HDD is some super big advantage over a 12x DVD.

In the end you are missing the fact that MS is offering a premium bundle/value to hardcore gamers. They are not neglecting them, they are only opening the doors to non-hardcore gamers. You are too busy crying about this (in every thread!) that you miss more gamers = more games.

In the end, if MS has a $100 price advantage on Sony + a game library advantage early you cannot say MS is going to get creamed. The two systems are technically closer than the Xbox1/PS2 and Xenos, at 257M transistors is pretty close to RSX's 275M (minus video decoding). Add in the advanced features Xenos has (eDRAM, hardware tesselation) and effeciency (ATI claims their GPUs are 50-70% effecient, with Xenos being 95%) and this is not a clear cut win for either side from a technical GPU standpoint. CELL is pretty awesome but has some huge hurdles (a lot more cores to deal with, SPE hurdles, small SPE memory) and MS has been getting praise again for their tools.

In the end I think most consumers--even hardcore gamers--buy consoles for different reasons than you. You are more worried about a piece of hardware or a theoretical spec. Most consumers are interested in what that means for the onscreen product and how that provides them with a lot of quality content they want. The lack of a standard HDD--something they can buy--is not going to turn off hoards of gamers and push them to another platform without a standard HDD.

So MS pissed some fans off. By coming in $100 cheaper than they would have WITH a HDD also means they have replaced you with a lot of value conscious shoppers who would scoff at $400. $299, and not $399, has traditionally been the sweat spot.

I know $400 is too much for me, and I am a hardcore gamer.

TrungGap

31-Aug-2005, 01:16

Your comparison is flawed. MS killed netscape because they

A: Made IE competitive with NS
B: Included IE for free with windows as standard
C: NS directors were a bunch of eejits

A and B were probably the most influential though.

You're correct, however my argument isn't how MS killed of Netscape. I'm just point out that MS was willing to lose a lot of money to do so. Though with game console, MS will have to dig deeper...

Consoles don't work the same way as the browser wars, for starters, customers pay (a lot) of money for these things. They won't be happy if their $400 purchase is only good for 3 years or so. They expect more. And if price of x360 falls to $150 in 3 years and MS introduces an "x720" or whatever a year later, you'd feel majorly ripped off.

Unfortunately, it's going to happen...I can't see DVD lasting too long in the home entertainment. As we already seen, the VCR is dead...a lot of places don't sell 'em. I believe this will be the same for DVD in a couple of years. The margin on these devices aren't there anymore. Manufacturers will want to push newer technology, so they can have a better profit margin.

We know software support for old hardware drops pretty much like a rock once a new console hits the streets (PS2 may be an exception due to its enormous market and the fact it'll continue to be manufactured and sold even after PS3 debuts). Won't be many xb titles coming out the year after x360 is released, that's for sure.

I totally agree with you here. Currently, Dreamcast has one the largest homebrew community, however I can see xb will replace it. Currently, one of strongest reason to get an xb is because XBMC.

In summery, I agree with you that a console's life span is what allows a company to make money. Even though, there're rumors that x360 was scaled down and making money was the project top priority, however, we're dealing with MS here. They have a lot of money to burn...same can't be said for Sony.

Edit: typos

Dave Baumann

31-Aug-2005, 01:18

http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/1UP/zds_pmoore_x360_assassin_1500k.zip

... Assasin demo for XBOX360,watch the first frame of video /dashboard/ and 452.73 MB exe file loaded up,it takes .. 70 seconds !!!

When they ran this demo at E3 it took a reasonably long time to load as the shaders weren't compiled (being that it was ported directly from the PC version), which it why it took such a long time to load - it may be the case that its still having to compile the shaders on this demo, which is something that games obviously won't do.

mckmas8808

31-Aug-2005, 01:19

In the end, if MS has a $100 price advantage on Sony

Well we actually don't know what the PS3 will be priced at so...

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 01:35

Well we actually don't know what the PS3 will be priced at so...

IF. I guess I forget to put enough in I offer up these.

IF, IF, IF, IF.

That said, KK is publical pointing to its expense. And going nose-to-nose with the core 360 it is very easy to assume it will be more expensive

• CELL has 50% more transistors than XeCPU
• BR is leaps and bounds more expensive than a DVD drive
• More expensive memory/configuration (XDR demands a premium over GDDR3, not to mention having two segments of memory will increase cost some, as well may affect price negotiations)
• Xenos has 10% more transistors but is also is in two smaller pieces each with redundant features and is clocked lower (and eDRAM takes up loss die space compared to logic) so it is close, if not a wash
• PS3 has 2 HDMI ports, a slew of media ports, Bluetooth, WiFi, extra ethernet ports, etc. There is also the question of what cables they will offer with the system. If they provide component and composit in every box that could add up too.

It is not as if only one or two pieces of PS3 hardware are more expensive. Almost every part in the machine is more expensive. Knowing Sony's financial position we can safely say they are not in a position to subsidize all these extra features for free to consumers. Based on what KK has said himself, expect to pay for these.

Or in his words, "Expect to work some overtime!" :lol:

one

31-Aug-2005, 01:50

• Xenos has 10% more transistors but is also is in two smaller pieces each with redundant features and is clocked lower (and eDRAM takes up loss die space compared to logic) so it is close, if not a washYou have to ship 2 different cores to the packaging factory... also buying an eDRAM device, which is simply not available in Taiwan, won't be cheap, that's for sure. Then I think there's not much reason to assume the Xenos yield is far better when it's manufactured by the same people who manufacture R520.

scooby_dooby

31-Aug-2005, 02:13

Let me get this right... MS cut out the standard HDD, so gamers are going to go to a console... without a standard HDD? That does not make much sense! Anyhow...

No, they goto the console name playstation. The one ith the best graphics. The same one they've been buying for 10 years. The one with the next-gen media device, the built in wi-if etc. The x360 has nothign going for it except games.

As for hardcore gamers, they are not all obsessed with stats in the way you are. And even many of those who are serious about stats realize that pure theoretical performance is not the same as real world performance.

I'm obsessed with specs? No. I'm just a firm believer that HDD's offer only advantages, and no disadvantages. And that the consumer should no longer be forced to pay for memory cards in this day and age.

You want to believe the lack of the HDD is the end of the world and that somehow a laptop HDD is some super big advantage over a 12x DVD.

why would you even say that?You know taht complete nonsense. I don't believe the lack of HDD is the end of the world, I don't even believe it will have a large impact on the games. I simply defend inclusion off a HDD on principle, and also think it would help X360 compete with a seemingly overpowering PS3.

You are too busy crying about this (in every thread!) that you miss more gamers = more games.

That's garbage and you know it. Personally I am fine, the premium bundle is a steal, at $500 CAD it's teh same price as the original XBOX back when the US dolar was strong, so why do I care? I simply defend the usefulness of the HDD, and I think it was a mistake for MS to relinquish their key advantage.

You are more worried about a piece of hardware or a theoretical spec.

For the 15th time, I don't care PERSONALLY so quite trying to peg me as some specs junkie.

So MS pissed some fans off. By coming in $100 cheaper than they would have WITH a HDD also means they have replaced you with a lot of value conscious shoppers who would scoff at $400. $299, and not $399, has traditionally been the sweat spot.

Ya, as long as those consumers decide to forget the Playstation brandname right?

My point is that MS is BETTING on them pulling away casuals, and that this might be a bad gamble giving the casuals tendency too be EXTREMELY loyal to certain ingrained brand names. (Intel anyone?)

Dave Baumann

31-Aug-2005, 02:16

You have to ship 2 different cores to the packaging factory... also buying an eDRAM device, which is simply not available in Taiwan, won't be cheap, that's for sure.
Packaging two dies together is more expensive than packaging a single die, but the sharp end of the costs are still going to be the silicon - his point is correct that had this been a single die it would have yielded lower purely due to the average number of defects per wafer hitting more cores (overall).

Then I think there's not much reason to assume the Xenos yield is far better when it's manufactured by the same people who manufacture R520.
Yield is not the issue with R520 (nor is it an issue with Xenos for that matter); there are specific issues that affected R520 that have no bearing on Xenos.

one

31-Aug-2005, 02:22

Packaing two dies together is more expensive than packaging a single die, but the sharp end of the costs are still going to be the silicon - his point is correct that had this been a single die it would have yielded lower purely due to the average number of defects per wafer hitting more cores (overall).

Yield is not the issue with R520 (nor is it an issue with Xenos for that matter).Well I'm not saying it's particularly bad, just assuming it'll be OK yield if not fantastic for the comparison with RSX :wink:

Metalgearih

31-Aug-2005, 02:25

Did anyone else notice the Enchant Arm paragraph edited?

They are missing the DVD read and pre-rendered sentences. Whats with that?

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 02:41

No, they goto the console name playstation. The one ith the best graphics. The same one they've been buying for 10 years. The one with the next-gen media device, the built in wi-if etc. The x360 has nothign going for it except games.

Nonsense. You don't know that.

Sorry, you continue to rant. You continue to push forth false information about the HDD (everything from it being multitudes faster to it having non-variable speed even though the links I posted in the thread you responded to make it clear it does. Now this.

I am not one certainly to downplay how PS3 games may look, but your statement is to the extreme and without any proof... like most of your other points.

I'm obsessed with specs? No. I'm just a firm believer that HDD's offer only advantages, and no disadvantages.

Then you are NOT listening to other posters. There have been many examples given yet you ignore them. The bottom line is it did not help the PC load times and it did not get used well on Xbox1. Your advantages are mostly theoretically and do NOT apply to most casual gamers.

As for no disadvantages... COST. $50 for a component that barely impacts the game quality for most gamers is a huge disadvantage. If you cannot fairly represent the other side of an argument and make all encompassing statements like "no disadvantages" then don't expect kid gloves.

And that the consumer should no longer be forced to pay for memory cards in this day and age.

Wait, and this is one of those reasons people are going to the Sony platform? Wait, they have ALWAYS charged for this service!

You know taht complete nonsense. I don't believe the lack of HDD is the end of the world, I don't even believe it will have a large impact on the games. I simply defend inclusion off a HDD on principle, and also think it would help X360 compete with a seemingly overpowering PS3.

First you admitt it does little to impact games, but then you say it would help the 360 compete. How is something that offers little impact to most users--and those who benefit can get one!--will help compete? Simple answer it wont.

As for overpowering, do you live on the same planet? The designs are different, one more streamlined one more brute force. Different approaches, different designs. Yet those who have a grasp on the hardware tend to agree the gap is much closer this gen than last (and note the PS2 and GCN had games that looked as good as Xbox best games), and from a GPU perspective there is no way to say that the PS3 has a better GPU at this point. Xeno is more effecient and has eDRAM.

That's garbage and you know it.Your actions and comments speak pretty loudly IMO. You quote off the wall SPECS that are outrageously high, you present apples-to-oranges, and make statements about hardware that is not true. And then conclude one is "best". In general best is relative. CELL is not better than an AMD64 or vice versa. They are different and do better in different areas. And yet without seeing final games you are declairing a winner about which is best in graphics or more powerful.

Xbox fan, Nintendo fan, Sony fan, etc... does not matter. It is the wrong approach and really misguided.

I simply defend the usefulness of the HDD, and I think it was a mistake for MS to relinquish their key advantage. And the HDD is there for those who need it.

As for key advantage, I believe you are mistaking advantage for DIFFERENCE. Developer tools, PC porting, powerful/flexible/effecient GPU, high IQ from the eDRAM, simpler/more traditional CPU architecture, unified memory, 6-12mo launch advantage, a ground sweel of early software support, cost, Xbox Live, etc... are all advantages I see from a market and technical perspective as advantages that have priority over the HDD.

The HDD was never the only advantage or key advantage. It was one advantage among among--but an expensive one under used. Because of the nature of the business and crossplatforming it appeared to be on a path of under use.

Nothing in MS's plan has prevented its use for those who need it. Therefore the advantage remains.

Acting as if having HDD on consumer systems who would never use them is an advantage is flawed.

For the 15th time, I don't care PERSONALLY so quite trying to peg me as some specs junkie. Then please stop mentioning inaccurate specs on the same topic ;)

My point is that MS is BETTING on them pulling away casuals, and that this might be a bad gamble giving the casuals tendency too be EXTREMELY loyal to certain ingrained brand names. (Intel anyone?)

1. MS is not forsaking hardcore gamers for the casuals, so what does it matter to you if they expand their scope as long as they give you what you want?

Does it offend you that they are trying to keep the cost down so their platform is bigger? As noted before, this is a good thing to all gamers. As long as they offer the features, like the HDD, to consumers who want it who are they hurting?

At worst they are conforming to the patern of the market. They tried something new with the Xbox1. It failed on the PS2 and it was costly on the Xbox 360. Niether Sony nor Nintendo are going this route. No one in the market lives unto themselves, if the market dictates that a feature is unecessary or too expensive and consumers are not willing to pay for it then so be it. Fact is most gamers could care less about the HDD at this point in time.

2. History has shown the market to be VERY fickle. There is no such thing as loyalty. I remember when video gaming was called "Nintendo" "Sega" and now "Sony".

mckmas8808

31-Aug-2005, 02:41

Nobody knows why they did that. They don't usually do that.

Off-topic: Something new for Blu-ray coming up too.

Blu-ray Disc at IFA 2005
August 25, 2005

Come and visit the Blu-ray Disc Association at IFA 2005! We welcome you to have an hands-on experience with the latest Blu-ray Disc products from over a dozen manufacturers at our Blu-ray Disc Association booth, located in the HDTV theme hall 26B, booth 201.

IFA Berlin, Germany
September 2-7, 2005
Blu-ray Disc Association: Hall 26B, booth 201.

The Blu-ray Disc Association will organize a press conference, for press only!
Thursday September 1st, 5:00 - 6:00pm. The conference will be held in Hall 7, Room Berlin 1+2.

Furthermore, Blu-ray Disc will be prominently featured during the IFA Opening Event, on Thursday September 1st at 6.30pm. This event, called A Deep Blu Night, is an invitation-only dinner event.

On-topic: Is it me or does it seem like the Japanese devs don't know how to handle shaders?

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 02:48

Well I'm not saying it's particularly bad, just assuming it'll be OK yield if not fantastic for the comparison with RSX :wink:

I don't think it will be fantastic, but I think with ATI's approach they will be closer in cost than they would have been with a single chip design (which is only 10% bigger to begin with). I admit the GPU on the 360n will probably be more expensive, although the advantages in yields with two smaller redundant part is interesting.

ATI noted that both the Core and the Daughter Core had redundancy. So 2 smaller cores with redundancy should get better yields than 1 larger core (even if it has redundancy as well). Per wafer you should get more chips with the 2 die design (but additional costs as well). Of course any gains in die production will be offset (and then some) by packaging, shipping, etc. I just wanted to note that the GPU size differences may not be as significnant at first glance.

As for ATI, not all the next gen chips have had problems. It was noted that a couple were fine on the first spin, including Xenos. Xenos was the chip that made them confident for going 90nm in one shot... so if Xenos had issues then that makes little sense.

The other issue is Xenos is 500MHz, while R520 is predicted to be in the 700MHz range. The flip side is RSX is aiming at 550MHz, when the current G70 is at 430MHz. Now some of the extreme edition cards are all the way up to 490MHz, so it seems 550MHz should be attainable at 90nm. But higher clocks usually mean less yields as well. So it would seem the 500MHz Xenos is a pretty conservative design compared to the R520!

randycat99

31-Aug-2005, 02:57

I don't believe the lack of HDD is the end of the world, I don't even believe it will have a large impact on the games. I simply defend inclusion off a HDD on principle, and also think it would help X360 compete with a seemingly overpowering PS3.

This is getting a bit silly, isn't it? You are defending the inclusion of HDD on principle alone? What's the point? Either the component justifies itself based on the size of its impact or it doesn't. You just cited in your own words that you believe the impact on games will not be large. We also have you on record with 2 points demonstrating an apalling lack of understanding about harddrive specs (interface speed does not equal media speed and data throughput is not constant). This is not a bash on you, but just a kindly reminder that maybe it isn't such a good idea to set out to defend something which you don't even understand that well how it works. Others who do have a better understanding of harddrives have already expressed that the potential performance benefits are not as profound as you expect, given the effective specs. They may also notice that in that light, it really doesn't warrant such vigorous defense. That should give you some cause for reconsideration, imo.

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 03:12

Thanks Randy... you said it better than I :oops:

Anyhow, there are a dozen threads on the HDD. Lets get back to the Japanese developer comments :D

Inane_Dork

31-Aug-2005, 03:36

On-topic: Is it me or does it seem like the Japanese devs don't know how to handle shaders?I've noticed for some time that they are generally averse to such things. Why, exactly, I don't know. What they lack in surface detail they seem to make up for in modelling and animation detail, though.

One possible reason is that most of them have been PS2 exclusive for so long that they're not used to thinking in terms of shaders.

Sis

31-Aug-2005, 03:40

Thanks Randy... you said it better than I :oops:
Shush, Acert--I'm totally digging your posts, long winded they might be :). You have a greater patience than I for re-iterating the basics of the argument and making reasonable claims.

But mckmas!

On-topic: Is it me or does it seem like the Japanese devs don't know how to handle shaders?

What on earth does this mean? Did I miss something?

.Sis

Acert93

31-Aug-2005, 03:49

I've noticed for some time that they are generally averse to such things. Why, exactly, I don't know. What they lack in surface detail they seem to make up for in modelling and animation detail, though.

One possible reason is that most of them have been PS2 exclusive for so long that they're not used to thinking in terms of shaders.

This is one advantage of having a development group within a company working on PC titles. With the close PC-Console ties pretty much established now it makes sense.

PC devs have had access to SM3.0 since last year and have been working with SM2.0 shaders since ~2001. Before that they had PS1.4. A dev house that has put out a title or two with SM2.0 shaders would have a bit more experience and, in the least, some usable techniques and libraries to soften the transition blow. Of course Console-only developers focus MUCH more on maximizing a platform and learning the ins and outs, whereas PC-Console developers are frequently worried about portability.

I also wonder if the shift in the market, and where the hardware is being designed (and with who in mind) has an effect. Traditionally consoles were built by Japanese companies typically with chips designed inhouse or by other Japanese companies. Obviuosly consoles are borrowing more from the PC side, which tends to be more American/European centric and caters to the way US developers design software. I could be wrong, but I would not be surprised if many factors like this impact the market.

That said Japanese dev houses made some of the best looking games on the Xbox and GCN last gen. Any issues are more due to familiarity than anything else.