Leaked PS3 Price? [Archive]

pakpassion

21-Oct-2005, 07:38

Lycan

21-Oct-2005, 07:43

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.gamefront.de/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dgamefront%26hl%3Den%26hs%3D0P%26lr%3D %26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official

Here is some information on Gamefront, reputed german gaming site:

1) PS3 wanted to use a Microsoft Audio Technology but Microsoft might want loyalties for that. war brewing

2) the same information somehow by accident told the price of PS3 would be between 499 Euro and 529 Euro (between 600$ and 650$ US) but none of MS or Sony would confirm that price when asked.

3) It seems MS knows the price of Sony but is not disclosing for NDA purposes.

Too high, but then, I put no faith in those rumours. The same thing was said prior to the famous PSP launch, and analysts all around the world hit the wrong spot. Sony Marketing sure knows the risk associated with coming up much later with a machine that costs double the price of an already well established platefrom. Unless they strongly believe in the solid foundation of their brand...

pakpassion

21-Oct-2005, 07:46

Too high, but then, I put no faith in those rumours. The same thing was said prior to the famous PSP launch, and analysts all around the world hit the wrong spot. Sony Marketing sure knows the risk associated with coming up much later with a machine that costs double the price of an already well established platefrom. Unless they strongly believe in the solid foundation of their brand...

but this time its not the analyst who gave this information:P Gamefront is a very reputable site, ask any german gamer or European game journalist

pakpassion

21-Oct-2005, 07:51

i meant royalties not loyalties in original post

Lycan

21-Oct-2005, 07:59

Yes, I know the source. However, it IS still a rumour... :wink:

pakpassion

21-Oct-2005, 08:01

Yes, I know the source. However, it IS still a rumour... :wink:

we will see about that in a few months ;)

london-boy

21-Oct-2005, 10:05

Didn't you get the memo? All leaks have to go through ME! :twisted:

Titanio

21-Oct-2005, 10:25

we will see about that in a few months ;)

No we won't, unless PS3 is launching in Europe in the first half of next year - which I think we can agree is unlikely.

I doubt the Japanese price has been set yet, let alone the European price.

That said, PS3 @ €500 would be pretty decent value, relatively. From my point of view at least.

hey69

21-Oct-2005, 10:41

after newyear a lot of info will go public . they wont tell anybody anything regarding launchprice or launchdate. now is the time to concentrate on psp /ps2

the same sites claiming the psp launchprice of 399euro etc....
this news is NOT confirmed by L-B so fake indeed ;)

pipo

21-Oct-2005, 11:17

That said, PS3 @ €500 would be pretty decent value, relatively. From my point of view at least.

Sure. But it won't help them if they get relatively good sales because of that value. ;)

Anyways, it doesn't look like we'll know for sure any time soon...

Titanio

21-Oct-2005, 11:24

Sure. But it won't help them if they get relatively good sales because of that value. ;)

True, the absolute figure needs to be a bit lower to set the market alright ;) I think it'd be relatively great value, but they could have a hard time communicating that simply because of the number (500). I think it'd probably still sell well at launch though, regardless, it'd just be beyond that they'd have to manage things carefully ;)

Of course, this is all hypothetical..

MasaC

21-Oct-2005, 11:27

Full text in the news report is translated to:

"Controversy with Microsoft because of audio codec?

20.10.05 - How is to be experienced from firmnear circles from Sony to, there is allegedly a controversy with Microsoft: Therefore codec of Microsoft is to be into the PlayStation3 an audio, why there is to be legal discrepancies between the two companies.

If the disputes should be settled shortly, the console would be delivered allegedly in March 2006 - with optimally running production one considers also world-wide distribution.

The price of the console is to probably lie according to Sony close sources between euro 499 and euro 529. Neither Microsoft nor Sony confirmed this message."

World wide distribution in March 2006? That would be great!

Also when prices are mentioned i Europe the VAT is usually included. €500 is what the PS2 cost at launch in Europe.

LunchBox

21-Oct-2005, 12:52

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
seems like there's a lot of "winking going on here...
just wanted to add a few more winks for good measure...

it has already been established that the PS3 is going to be pricey...
500 Euros is an adequate price...
anything more would be overkill IMO..
it would be nicer if it's
around 400 Euros though...

but on the American side...
a good lot are expecting it to be $399...
so if it comes out at $500...
I would see a good lot might have a change of heart...

but then again it's only a rumour...
quite similar when the PS2 and PSP launched...
that's when different sources were seen
quoting 500-800.

london-boy

21-Oct-2005, 12:55

They'll be fine. PS2 was expected to be this super expensive thing just because of DVD (some people were already chanting the Doom on Sony thinking they were releawsing PS2 at $1000!! I mean come on!!) and it came out at the standard $299 at launch. PSP was expected to be this super expensive little gadget and it actually came out at a very good price (everything considered). PS3 will launch at a decent price. Might be more expensive than other consoles at launch (surely expect it to be more expensive than X360 at launch) but it will be decent.

Carl B

21-Oct-2005, 13:44

I almost can't believe all of this hang-up over an audio-codec dispute with MS. But if true, I'd love to know which codec exactly and what the sticking point is. Always nice to have a window to the behind-the-scenes business drama in the tech world!

sonny

21-Oct-2005, 14:04

Maybe this audio codec trouble is the reason Sony didn't show playable PS3 consoles at Tokyo Game Show. :?:

drpepper

21-Oct-2005, 15:08

Why wouldn't Sony use an industry standard codec instead of MS? Is MS charging less on royalties?

Are the codecs they're talking about like mp3 and WAV?

cam

21-Oct-2005, 15:14

I cant really think why Sony would need an audio codec from MS, dont Sony make there own sound chips? if not im sure Toshiba, IBM or even Nvidia could sort one out. Unless it has something to do with the Lunix port?

Magnum PI

21-Oct-2005, 15:38

3) It seems MS knows the price of Sony but is not disclosing for NDA purposes.

MS under NDA with Sony about PS3 price ?

This idea is plain ridiculous.

london-boy

21-Oct-2005, 15:44

MS under NDA with Sony about PS3 price ?

This idea is plain ridiculous.

Seconded.

Alpha_Spartan

21-Oct-2005, 15:44

Didn't you get the memo? All leaks have to go through ME! :twisted:
Well at $600 at least we know that the PS3 would have a top-notch BR drive with super backwards compatibility.

london-boy

21-Oct-2005, 15:51

Well at $600 at least we know that the PS3 would have a top-notch BR drive with super backwards compatibility.

Mmmm i'll have to confirm that after the weekend!! :lol:

Jon Brittan

21-Oct-2005, 16:10

MS under NDA with Sony about PS3 price ?

This idea is plain ridiculous.

Not entirely actually, assuming that Sony have approached MS about access to an audio codec. What you really have to decide is whether or not Sony wanting to use an MS audio codec is ridiculous.

If Sony have actually approached MS about the use of an audio codec and bearing in mind that MS has a lot of divisions, so they wouldn't have been speaking to the XBox division anyway, it is entirely possible that there would be NDAs active on parts of the discussion and if they were discussing the cost of licencing the codec the intended launch price of the console could well have come into the conversation.
Another if; If Sony have approached MS about the use of a codec then there is no way they would have done so without NDAs in place before the discussion even happened.

So, really, the question is, is it possible to believe that Sony would want to use an MS audio codec in PS3?

Alpha_Spartan

21-Oct-2005, 16:18

Point well taken. For example, Toshiba and Sony are strong allies when it comes to Cell, but with the HD-DVD vs. BD format wars, it's like they are bitter enemies. So it's not a stretch to believe that Sony and MS could be working together on one aspect of the PS3. These are huge companies we're talking about here. They have companies within the companies.

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 16:24

Why would wanting an audio codec from MS require divulging PS3's launch price to them?

Alpha_Spartan

21-Oct-2005, 16:36

Why would wanting an audio codec from MS require divulging PS3's launch price to them?
Well, I think it also mentioned MS getting royalties. To discuss royalties, I guess MS needs to know the price of the hardware to set a percentage or what not.

If MS knows the PS3 price and as bad as MS is when it comes to leaks, this wouldn't surprise me. Like 95% of Xbox related rumors turned out to be true. So if MS knows about the PS3 then there's a huge change that there have already been leaks or that leaks are inevitable.

london-boy

21-Oct-2005, 16:40

Well, I think it also mentioned MS getting royalties. To discuss royalties, I guess MS needs to know the price of the hardware to set a percentage or what not.

If MS knows the PS3 price and as bad as MS is when it comes to leaks, this wouldn't surprise me. Like 95% of Xbox related rumors turned out to be true. So if MS knows about the PS3 then there's a huge change that there have already been leaks or that leaks are inevitable.

Besides, if MS came out saying "PS3 will be $500!!!", (1) who would believe them?, (2) who wouldn't laugh at the complete unprofessionalism? (3) who would care?

Same thing, if there is a "leak", look how long "leaks" are believed for... All this talk of leaks lately have had an effect on my diuretic system. :oops:

wco81

21-Oct-2005, 16:41

Sony has a rough history with audio codecs.

ATRAC anyone?

They've only supported MP3 in the past year.

At least they're supporting AAC fairly early.

Now, I've heard MS is virtually giving away its codecs. That might explain the ubiquity of WMA.

Supposedly WMV/VC-1 is cheaper than MPEG2 or H.264.

Xenus

21-Oct-2005, 16:59

It would be funny if this was true and they made more money off oh licensing an audio codec then they made off the Xbox360. Though that is about as probable as a hell freezing over.

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 17:00

Well, I think it also mentioned MS getting royalties. To discuss royalties, I guess MS needs to know the price of the hardware to set a percentage or what not. I don't think so. A software codec license isn't going to be n% of total earnings or anything of the like. It'll be a flat fee per console/game/disc in all likelihood. And it's a software soltion presumably sot he hardware is irrelevant. The license will cover whatever the software the codec is included with. MS would be stupid to take $1 per PS3 sold if they can take 50 cents per disc sold!

c0_re

21-Oct-2005, 17:03

This is BS it would be suicide to launch at that price, Sony isn't stupid.

sonny

21-Oct-2005, 17:08

[url]3) It seems MS knows the price of Sony but is not disclosing for NDA purposes.

Translation error. The source didn't say that.

scooby_dooby

21-Oct-2005, 17:48

there's no way Sony would be dumb enough to do that. $600? No way. lol, that would be like $750 in Canada, those babies would not be selling at that price, no way no how...

Edge

21-Oct-2005, 18:08

I always thought Europe paid more for consumer electronics, and is not the VAT included in the price?

It would not be $600 US, and doubt it would be anything near that. It would be at most $400 US, and not a penny more. They can't charge more than the competition unless the perceived value of getting a Blu-ray player was worth the additional cost.

Mefisutoferesu

21-Oct-2005, 18:21

mckmas8808

21-Oct-2005, 18:52

there's no way Sony would be dumb enough to do that. $600? No way. lol, that would be like $750 in Canada, those babies would not be selling at that price, no way no how...

QFT.

valioso

21-Oct-2005, 18:54

there's no way Sony would be dumb enough to do that. $600? No way. lol, that would be like $750 in Canada, those babies would not be selling at that price, no way no how...

I dont think so either.. but Mr. Kutaragi has brought up plenty of times how the PS3 is going to be more expensive..

scooby_dooby

21-Oct-2005, 19:01

Just Sony hype, hey ALWAYS do this, probably did it to fuck with MS's head too...anyways you slice it they gotta hit $400USD.

valioso

21-Oct-2005, 19:03

Just Sony hype, hey ALWAYS do this, probably did it to fuck with MS's head too...anyways you slice it they gotta hit $400USD. I would think so, would that be the core.. or the hard drive version..

avaya

21-Oct-2005, 19:06

I dont think so either.. but Mr. Kutaragi has brought up plenty of times how the PS3 is going to be more expensive..

Most of the direct quotes were a "lost in translation", pulled from the PS Meeting in Tokyo where he was joking with press.

US price will likely be $400, the European price could well be around 500 Euros.

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 19:08

What about the vorbis libraries? Flac, Ogg, ad such? They should be free to support and they're a heck of a lot better than wma, IMO. I would imagine the fact that Sony's going the Linux route would add to the appeal.I know OGG is larger on averge than MP3 for better quality. I don't know how well WMA handles higher compression versus OGG, and if it's better then where memory-footprint is important the highest compression-ratio:Audio-quality is important. But I can't see .wma having a huge advantage if any there. Normally isn't most in game audio just uncompressed 16 bit samples anyway? Considering the other routes taken by Sony, OpenGL (at least, that's what the official press releases say even if nAo knows nothing about this :???: ) and Linux, a free open codec sounds more in keeping with Sony's current solutions.

Unless it's to support content over the 'net?

SirTendeth

21-Oct-2005, 20:13

With the 360 being the first out of the gate, and unlike the dreamcast, Sony knows it will actually have a decent amount of market penetration.

So having access to a codec allows 360 titles to be brought over to the PS3 more readily. This has even more significance now that Microsoft has used 3-6 month limited exclusives so heavily last gen.

The benefit to Sony could would be a good codec at a decent price. With a significant advantage in recieving ports from the 360.

Cobra101

21-Oct-2005, 20:51

I will pay 500 bucks in a heart beat for a PS3.

But I am probably in the minority.

Mefisutoferesu

21-Oct-2005, 21:44

I know OGG is larger on averge than MP3 for better quality. I don't know how well WMA handles higher compression versus OGG, and if it's better then where memory-footprint is important the highest compression-ratio:Audio-quality is important. But I can't see .wma having a huge advantage if any there. Normally isn't most in game audio just uncompressed 16 bit samples anyway? Considering the other routes taken by Sony, OpenGL (at least, that's what the official press releases say even if nAo knows nothing about this :???: ) and Linux, a free open codec sounds more in keeping with Sony's current solutions.

Unless it's to support content over the 'net?

I've been under the impression that OGG has the better compression and fidelity. 128kbps OGG is comparable to 192kbps MP3. That's what I've read, and there's definately a dicernable difference in quality (favoring OGG) by my ears. Not saying you're wrong, Shifty, it's just that's how it seems to me, obviously I'm no audio expert though.

Alpha_Spartan

21-Oct-2005, 21:55

I will pay 500 bucks in a heart beat for a PS3.

But I am probably in the minority.
Most definately. Everyone knew the Neo Geo was the shit back in the day, but SNES and Genesis still sold like gangbusters.

Johnny_Physics

21-Oct-2005, 22:12

there's no way Sony would be dumb enough to do that. $600? No way. lol, that would be like $750 in Canada, those babies would not be selling at that price, no way no how...

That price seems reasonable enough... for us in Sweden :(
Perhaps the rumour/leak talks about the price at the european launch? If it cost $600 it would actually cost less than the PS2 when it launched over here.

SirTendeth

21-Oct-2005, 22:28

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 22:38

I've been under the impression that OGG has the better compression and fidelity. 128kbps OGG is comparable to 192kbps MP3. That's what I've read, and there's definately a dicernable difference in quality (favoring OGG) by my ears. Not saying you're wrong, Shifty, it's just that's how it seems to me, obviously I'm no audio expert though.I've read on audio forums that Ogg is better fideilty but slightly larger. I know on my experiments a 128kbps MP3 was smaller than the Ogg. But for me the sound quality is much better. It may be a case that for smaller files MP3 goes smaller, but in higher quality Ogg is better?

MrWibble

21-Oct-2005, 22:51

Normally isn't most in game audio just uncompressed 16 bit samples anyway?

Just a quick comment on this point...

No, it wouldn't generally be the done thing to use uncompressed audio, certainly on console. Most hardware can do better than that.

For example on PS2, ADPCM is the norm. In fact the hardware prefers this over uncompressed data for performing quite a lot of fairly standard operations.

With games including increasingly vast sound tracks, hours of spoken audio and hi quality multi-channel sfx it all adds up to a lot of disk space and a lot of memory, so compression is pretty important.

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 22:54

SirTendeth

21-Oct-2005, 23:09

Shifty the licensing of the codec may come down to a simpler reason. The PS3 will likely use multiple standards for developer flexibility. And from a media hub standpoint Sony has already shown their desire to work with Microsoft.
See here- http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/6216

And I don’t think they would want to exclude a lot of PC users from utilizing the PS3 as a media end point control, by not utilizing key MS codec’s.

This is like Microsoft demonstrating PSP and IPOD connectivity. It makes sense from wear they are trying to position their console in the future.

Just as a side note, I am only making justification for how it could be more than a rumor.
I don’t think it more or less real than any other unverified rumor.

MrWibble

21-Oct-2005, 23:40

On disc compression makes sense not least for faster transfer rates, but I thought audio in mem was uncompressed. Or rather, not heavily compressed with lossy formats because the decompression would each too heavily into processor cycles.

On current gen consoles it's probably partially true that CPU load would increase for a lossy compression along the lines of mp3 (etc). On next-gen platforms I doubt you'd notice much of a hit for decompressing a fair bit of audio.

Speaking as a graphics programmer, if the audio guys could reduce their memory footprint by 10:1 and didn't, I'd probably have to shout at them. Of course I'd also shout at them for eating CPU cycles decompressing stuff so they really can't win :)

If the hardware takes a native compressed format (like PS2) then that's probably the sweet spot, as with PS2.

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 23:45

SirTendeth

22-Oct-2005, 00:11

I'd like to know the answer to whether or not audio will be making any major changes this gen as well.

But even if there isn’t a need for the codec in game, I still think that from a media hub standpoint, it would benefit Sony greatly to have access to Microsoft’s audio codecs.

Mefisutoferesu

22-Oct-2005, 00:49

Would it really benefit Sony? Not trying to be annoying, but do people really use WMAs that much? I know, you want to support as many codecs as possible for a media hub, but there are real world limitations. MP3, AC3, AAC, OGG, APE, FLAC, WAV, DTS, DD5.1, yada yada I can see, because I know they're well used. Things like WMA and MPC (though I use it... yeah, I don't know why either) aren't really popular, well as far as I'm aware, so is it that necessary? Or am I greatly underestimating these formats?

Johnny_Physics

22-Oct-2005, 00:52

How does the price compare to the 360, in each config, and in each region?

I am curious at what price difference you would get a 360 instead? Because it's possible that by the time it's released in Europe, the 360 may have been out over a year and have seen a price drop.

I realize that for some you that the PS3 is the only thing you want, and that’s cool.

The Xbox 360 Deluxe is "cheap" in a way, it costs 1000 kronas less than what the PS2 and Xbox cost when they were released. Anyway, the Xbox 360 deluxe costs almost 4000 kronas, compared to 4995kr for the Xbox 1 when it was released and ~5195kr for the PS2 - just to give a little perspective.

The price for the 360 translates to ~506 USD at the moment, that price also includes the VAT.

Not that the price seems to be a real problem, you couldn't find a PS2 anywhere the day it was released. It was really hard to find a PS2 for a month or two because the demand for the machine was so high. But I don't know how many machines they shipped over here during those months, I don't think it could have been more than 10-20k.
It took more than a year before it dropped in price if I remember correctly, and it didn't drop much either, but it still continued to dominate the market. Microsoft forced a pricedrop a couple of weeks after the release of the Xbox, I think they cut the price with 2000 kronas or something like that.
From 4995 to 2995 in a couple of weeks, that's a large drop. But the early adopters were compensated with games/stuff to make up for the sudden drop.

SirTendeth

22-Oct-2005, 00:53

See the link I posted and imagine how the average non-geek user of said system would use it in conjunction with a PS3.

reposted- http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/6216-

SirTendeth

22-Oct-2005, 00:58

Thanks Johnny_Physics.
Any other takes from over seas?

And Johnny if the 360 with HDD was around $399 USD including Vat,
would that apeal to you over a PS3/HDD-NoHdd?

Johnny_Physics

22-Oct-2005, 01:29

Thanks Johnny_Physics.
Any other takes from over seas?

And Johnny if the 360 with HDD was around $399 USD including Vat,
would that apeal to you over a PS3/HDD-NoHdd?

It doesn't matter to me, actually. There's a large gap between the release of the 360 and the PS3 so there's no reason to choose one when there's enough time inbetween to buy the 360 and lick my financial wounds and then buy the PS3. I have no preference or bias when it comes to hardware.
If they were released on the same day, or very close to each other, then I would have to make a choice on which console to pick up first. Shelling out 1300+ USD in one day to pick up both systems and a couple of games is not something my wallet would like right now, so I would have to choose one of them.

I played Xbox 360 recently and I was a bit underwhelmed, the games looked nice but that was it. They were nice, not awesome, not even PGR3. So perhaps I would go for the PS3 even if it cost a couple of hundreds more, depending on what games it had to offer at the time. But we don't really have a solid grasp on what games we will see when it launches, so it's hard to say.
The choice depends on software, so if in this hypothetical situation the PS3 has a crap lineup I would wait a month to purchase it and go for the 360 instead, price is really not a concern for me or anyone I know.

SirTendeth

22-Oct-2005, 01:37

Thanks, that was what I was looking for.

I think most gamers that can afford it, and have time for there hobby, will choose to get both.

I know I would, as long as they both had titles that delivered on their promises.

My problem is the Time thing. I just don't have enough time to spend gamming, that would justify owing multiple consoles.

Even though I work on a computer extensively, I rarely have time to post- today being a nice exception ;)

Now if only the PS4, or Xbox720 could have the ability to give me more time in a day. :)

Johnny_Physics

22-Oct-2005, 02:11

Yeah, time is certainly a problem.
I have so many unopened games that I've actually started to give them away as birthday presents or surprise gifts to people I know, and I have stacks of games that I've played for 10-20 minutes and thought "yeah this seems fun, I'll play it some more when I have some more time".

I even have a constantly growing list of games that I want to complete that stretches back to the eighties, and I constantly promise myself things like "next christmas I'm really going to sit down and finish Ninja Gaiden II!".
I prefer short and intensive games that I can finish in one or two sittings, I really don't want 30 hours of mindless powerleveling or random encounters anymore.

Recently I started to download speedruns of games that I'm interested in but don't have the time/patience to play, I just want to see how the game plays and how the story pans out, so a speedrun is actually a pretty good substitute for actually playing some games.
Before that I had a friend that was more than happy to play my games for me and I popped in and watched some segments from time to time so that he could fill me in on what had happened so far and what was good/crap, it worked pretty well. Absurd but effective.

Dot50Cal

22-Oct-2005, 02:13

Seconded.

A motion is on the floor and has been seconded. All those in favor, say I...

I.

SirTendeth

22-Oct-2005, 02:27

I hear you Johnny. I hear ya.

Personally I've started trading my games for babysitting services, so that my wife and I can get away.

It takes a lot of used Xbox games to get someone to watch 5 kids.
Maybe I should have gotten a PS2...I wonder how many hours of sitting I would get from ICO or MGS3. :)

MrWibble

22-Oct-2005, 10:29

IS there any real liklihood audio requirements (footprint) will increase next-gen? Perhaps a litle more variety in sounds but overall games can cover the audio nicely now, with DVD audio track and a few spot samples+sound effects. I can't see much scope for taking up multi-megabytes of audio. But I'm not working with game audio so what do I know?!

I think the majority of improvements will be with the quality and variety of processing (and the number of channels being played) rather than the amount of audio available.

However increasing production values in general will probably mean more audio content is required just as with other types of content.

I think the bulk of game audio (in terms of space) is probably with the soundtracks right now, and I guess that they're more or less going to stay the same (unless there's some compelling reason to move them to multi-channel). However FX have a lot of scope for improvements.

I also think that at some point - and I don't know if it'll be in this coming generation or not, though I'd expect to see at least a little progress - we'll move towards physically simulated sounds rather than just plain samples.

None of which has anything to do with codecs ;)

(edited for appalling grammar)

Shifty Geezer

22-Oct-2005, 11:17

I also think that at some point - and I don't know if it'll be in this coming generation or not, though I'd expect to see at least a little progress - we'll move towards physically simulated sounds rather than just plain samples.Eventually, but I don't believe this'll happen for a LONG while. Existing physical modelling softsynths gobble up processing power. And that's I imagine for simpler modelling than'll be needed for extensive soundFX. It's an area I'm very intersted and hope to see softsynths making good effect of Cell, but doubt it'll reach mainstream in games for yonks.

pc999

22-Oct-2005, 11:37

That price (if true) is to high, they (all the industry) needs to lower the prices (consoles + games) to get true mainstream thus a lot more of revenue for them and lower prices + less problems like those of the dev X in the other thread for us.With the rising prices of devolpment I think this will be the better way to keep gaming in a good tide.

I hope they (the 3) realise that market (or a lot of them) can not suport*, at least so well as it can with the time of PS2, a 500 euro console + a game + a memory card (~600) and if you want a XB360 too even less, it seems that Rev will go a better way but it still to much thinghs unknow.

*I dont mean the tech guys, I mean the big public which is the one who give them money/revenue.

MrWibble

22-Oct-2005, 12:46

Eventually, but I don't believe this'll happen for a LONG while. Existing physical modelling softsynths gobble up processing power. And that's I imagine for simpler modelling than'll be needed for extensive soundFX. It's an area I'm very intersted and hope to see softsynths making good effect of Cell, but doubt it'll reach mainstream in games for yonks.

I dont think we'll see entirely physical sound effects in games for a long time either, but in specific cases there might be attempts.

For example I could imagine racing games spending a reasonable CPU budget to simulate engine noise to give a bit more variety and realistic response. Probably not going to the lengths of simulating the whole actual engine and analysing the vibration but beyond just samples and pitch shifts.

What I also hope will happen, are more realistic ways of modelling how sounds change with regard to environment. Currently there's not much more than a bit of filtering and/or reverb associated with driving into a tunnel during a driving game. But if you already have a decent low-res collision mesh for an environment, and positional information for the sound sources, you really ought to be able to do better simulations of sound bouncing around in that space before arriving at the listener.

It's the next stage beyond basic surround and the first step towards physical simulation of the sounds themselves.

Playing an FPS it wouldn't just be a case of sound coming from the direction of an enemy, but being able to hear them echoing down a corridor and around a corner.

Or playing the next GTA and having all the sirens rushing towards or away from you undergo doppler effects. And all the noises of the city be seperate sources so that the sound changes when you're running down an alley way or standing on a roof - or even when you're in a car and the window gets shot out...

Audio has a long way to go beyond just playing back samples, and with the next-generation of machines I hope we'll start to see (er, I mean HEAR) it happen.

Shifty Geezer

22-Oct-2005, 13:42

God points. Sounds like raytracing for audio, and that could work quite well tracing a sound and the surfaces it interacts with. Though of course like GI we'll need hacks for a good long while.

MrWibble

22-Oct-2005, 14:55

God points. Sounds like raytracing for audio, and that could work quite well tracing a sound and the surfaces it interacts with. Though of course like GI we'll need hacks for a good long while.

It shares a lot in common with ray-tracing, GI and/or radiosity operations. Also, most of the required maths is also required (or at least useful) for stuff like AI and physics (collision detection, ray-casting for line of sight, etc.).

It ought not to be as expensive as a graphical raytrace because you probably don't need to trace as many rays as there are pixels on screen - a few rays per surface back-tracing to the available sound sources should do for a pretty good effect. With simplified collision geometry I would hope it'd be pretty low cost on a next-gen processor.

Brad Grenz

24-Oct-2005, 02:57

Doesn't Sony operate an online music store using WMA with DRM? I imagined they'd want interoperability with the PS3 for their files.

Mefisutoferesu

24-Oct-2005, 03:04

I thought Sony used their own audio format, ATRAC3, or whatever for their online & DRM stuff? It's possible that they support WMA as well, though.

aaaaa00

24-Oct-2005, 03:59

The 360 has the WMA codec in hardware, so I'd expect all in-game sounds to be stored in memory as WMA, and only decompressed for the mixing and effects buffers. So there should be nearly zero hit to the CPU for it.

hongcho

25-Oct-2005, 00:39

I think ATRAC is (unofficially) dead. I've read that some of the newer Sony products don't even support ATRAC anymore.

The 360 has the WMA codec in hardware, so I'd expect all in-game sounds to be stored in memory as WMA, and only decompressed for the mixing and effects buffers. So there should be nearly zero hit to the CPU for it.

AFAIK, all audio work on Xbox360 is done in software (one hardware thread dedicated). They don't have a dedicated decoding chip or anything.

Hong.