View Full Version : PlayStation III possible details...
alexsok
07-Dec-2002, 13:07
http://www.tech-critic.com/comments.php?id=965&catid=4
Basic specs:
Name: Sony Playstation 3
MPU (Microprocessor Unit): code name "Cell" Chip
Graphics Synthesizer (GS): sub-0.10 micron chip
CPU Clock Frequency: 2Ghz AMD Processor
Transistors: 287.5 million transistors per second
DRAM Memory: 256Mb.of DRAM
Pixels: 1.2 & 2.6 gigapixels per second
Actual Display Capability: 75 million polygons per second
Internal Bus: 2Kb internal bus provides a bandwidth of 48GBps
Embeded Memory: 32Mb
Release Date: TBA (rumored for 2004-2005)
There are also some pics there, so head there to see them...
Any comments on this one guys? :)
BenSkywalker
07-Dec-2002, 13:29
Any comments on this one guys?
287.5 Million transistors per second :roll:
You really don't need to say much beyond that ;)
Thowllly
07-Dec-2002, 13:38
Transistors: 287.5 million transistors per second
DRAM Memory: 256Mb.of DRAM
Pixels: 1.2 & 2.6 gigapixels per second
Actual Display Capability: 75 million polygons per second
Internal Bus: 2Kb internal bus provides a bandwidth of 48GBps
Embeded Memory: 32Mb
Those are simply the specs of the GS-32 or whatever it's called.
I hope they dont forget the FSAA and texture kompression this time. 8)
Magnum PI
07-Dec-2002, 14:08
this is a joke isn't it ?
PML
That is: Pissing Myself Laughing for the uneducated :lol:
Bwhahaha. Lame.
No one will know the final specs till the end of next year at the earliest.... I imagine it'd be a moving target.
2004 is when we'll find out about it I'd hazard. Speculation before then is ridiculous. 2Ghz? Do these people think it's coming out tomorrow?
Geeforcer
07-Dec-2002, 18:59
I've seen many "possible spec lists" for PSX3, and this one is, by far, the most laughable of all.
287.5 Million transistors per second :roll:
I feel dumber having read that. I feel I'm not the only one.
Collective IQ of board dropping....
archie4oz
07-Dec-2002, 20:03
Actual Display Capability:
Somehow I find this funnier than anything else... :lol:
PC-Engine
07-Dec-2002, 20:12
At least it's not using a PPP rating - Polygon Pushing Power :oops:
megadrive0088
07-Dec-2002, 22:12
when i saw this thread, i KNEW it was going to be the fake PS3 info that's going around. :roll:
megadrive0088
07-Dec-2002, 22:16
PS3 specs that would sound more like the real thing:
Emotion Engine 3
1000 cell processors on die
3 Ghz
64 MB on-die eDRAM
6 TFLOPs
over 500 million transistors
Graphics Synthesizer 3
1.5 GHz
256 pixel engines
64 MB on-die VRAM
T&L co-processor
2 TB/sec bandwidth
384,000 Mpixels/sec
75 Billion polygons/sec
Logan Leonhart
07-Dec-2002, 22:28
I´m not a tech freak, and even I find those specs funny. "Transistors: 287.5 million transistors per second " LOL :lol:
Tagrineth
08-Dec-2002, 19:47
2004 is when we'll find out about it I'd hazard. Speculation before then is ridiculous. 2Ghz? Do these people think it's coming out tomorrow?
Even better, a 2GHz AMD processor?
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
crystalcube
09-Dec-2002, 02:18
CPU Clock Frequency: 2Ghz AMD Processor
So it will comply to AMD's Mhz ratings not the standard one ;)
Pixels: 1.2 & 2.6 gigapixels per second
and obviously with all the enhancements and increased embedded memory it will match the pixel fillrate of PS2...quite an achievement :roll:
Tagrineth
09-Dec-2002, 02:28
Pixels: 1.2 & 2.6 gigapixels per second
and obviously with all the enhancements and increased embedded memory it will match the pixel fillrate of PS2...quite an achievement :roll:
PS2's faster than that! :lol:
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
Considering PS2 was 10 times the clock speed of PSone, of course we're going to see 3Ghz and beyond in the next generation.
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 03:26
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
Considering PS2 was 10 times the clock speed of PSone, of course we're going to see 3Ghz and beyond in the next generation.
If they were to use the exact same core then yeah you would use clock speed as a scale, but AFAIK PS3 isn't using the same core as EE.
zidane1strife
09-Dec-2002, 04:03
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
Considering PS2 was 10 times the clock speed of PSone, of course we're going to see 3Ghz and beyond in the next generation.
If they were to use the exact same core then yeah you would use clock speed as a scale, but AFAIK PS3 isn't using the same core as EE.
Yeah, but still... the ps2 doesn't have the same core as the psx(i think...)... i believe they'll try as hard as they can to make it 3Ghz, to keep the tradition...
randycat99
09-Dec-2002, 04:04
I heard elsewhere it could be G3 cores, but that could just be rabid rumor. Does it sound feasible at all to have 16 G3 cores with dual vector units (each core) running at 1 Ghz on a chip considering die processes in 2005+? This place seems like the best place to kick around the idea, I imagine. 1 Ghz sounds like a conservative figure for me, but do you think it could actually be scaled as far as 3 Ghz, by 2005+?
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 04:40
I think the best people to answer that question are Russ Shultz, Mfa, or someone with real microprocessor design experience.
i believe they'll try as hard as they can to make it 3Ghz, to keep the tradition...
IMO tradition isn't really a priority. Cost, heat, feasibility, etc. are more important.
randycat99
09-Dec-2002, 05:24
I have to admit that 3 GHz sounds pretty lofty to me, as well, given how far it has scaled so far. Of course, I'm not thinking in a 2005+ mindset. So maybe it could happen given that future? I have no idea, really.
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
Considering PS2 was 10 times the clock speed of PSone, of course we're going to see 3Ghz and beyond in the next generation.
If they were to use the exact same core then yeah you would use clock speed as a scale, but AFAIK PS3 isn't using the same core as EE.
PS2's core is a heck of a lot more complicated than the PSOne core.
If P4s reached 3Ghz months ago, and the PS3 isn't due out until 2005, then I think estimating 1Ghz for it is underestimating just a little :wink:
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 06:05
You have keep in mind that the P4 was designed scale with higher clocks. Also the P4 doesn't have 16+ cores and eDRAM. The cpu in PS3 supposed contains many cores and a certain amount of eDRAM for each core.
A chip with so many cores running at 3GHz would probably consume a lot of power and get very hot...just my 2 cents and I could very well be wrong as I don't know when PS3 will launch and the CPU configuration.
archie4oz
09-Dec-2002, 06:16
If P4s reached 3Ghz months ago, and the PS3 isn't due out until 2005, then I think estimating 1Ghz for it is underestimating just a little
While that's true, high clock speed in itself really isn't as important as final performance as architechure and physical implimentation can and will play significant roles. Case in point (although I don't like using Spec CPU) a 1GHz Itanium2 scores better at CPU2000FP than a 3.06GHz P4... Of course 3GHz would certainly not be unrealistice either...
A chip with so many cores running at 3GHz would probably consume a lot of power and get very hot...
While also true, a lot can depend on what consists of a 'core' as well...
I know P4 was designed to scale well. That's not my point - by the time PS3 comes out, we'll be having 10+Ghz P4s.
But AFAIK there aren't any CPUs on the market (or about to be released) that haven't reached 1Ghz yet, and even GPUs are up to 500Mhz now. We're looking at 2 years down the track, minimum, and people think 1Ghz is a reasonable clock speed to expect? Perhaps if they have many, many CPUs on the one core - but Sony should know, games aren't exactly the easiest thing to convert for parallel operation (unless it's using raytracing :D). If Sony comes out with a 1Ghz CPU with 16 cores on it, I can just imagine the groans coming out of development houses the world over...
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 07:11
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
Yeah and that was ther first major foray into advance microprocessor design/manufacturing. It was a gamble and they yields suffered because of it. I highly doubt they would want to take the same risks again.
Guessing that it would be running at 3GHz to keep it inline with tradition isn't a very valid reason IMO especially when:
1. We don't know when it's launching
2. We don't know the processor configuration
3. We don't know the performance target
We know it's not going to launch in 2003 - and very, very unlikely in 2004 - so there's at least 2 years left.
I still stand by my opinion that in 2005 we're unlikely to see any CPUs running at less than 2Ghz.
randycat99
09-Dec-2002, 07:25
More speculation to add to the mix- isn't the CPU industry going through a sort of revisiting where brute clockrate will not be the foremost goal, instead pushing forth with more moderate clocks and advancing throughput via functional units and efficiency tactics? Intel seems to be the sole element to push Mhz to its extremes (and we have seen firsthand what the scale-at-any-cost design approach gets you), and even they have come around to considering a more moderate clock with greater throughput achieved elsewhere. This is not to say that Intel won't continue to push the P4 ever higher and higher. They have a lot invested there, and they have to follow through to make it worth it in the end. The rest of the industry will not necessarily follow suit (to the extreme of beating Intel Mhz, that is), instead opting for Mhz increases that seem to come naturally with die scalings and such. I guess where I was going with all of this, is perhaps we may observe the CPU industry go through a Mhz rise slowdown in the coming years?
megadrive0088
09-Dec-2002, 07:27
the EE3 might have more than just 16 cores, AFAIK. the basic CELL has 16-32 cores. but the EE3 version might be many more, with many Cell Chips together. who knows.
As for clock speed, I would love to see a 3 Ghz Super CELL with 64-128 cores and 6 TFLOPs or more of performance, plus a 1.5 Ghz Graphics Synthesizer 3 with 256 pipelines, each better than DX9 feature-wise but I'm sure that reality will be much more down to earth.
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 07:44
Also I forgot to mention that the design also needs to be locked down early :wink: so mass production can start, otherwise there'll be a shortage.
Ahhh well, better archive this thread and pull it out in 2 years so we can see who was right. :D
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 07:51
Yep yep :D
archie4oz
09-Dec-2002, 17:20
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
Well both the EE and GS were hot on their initial launch rule somewhat due to they're being released at higher clocks than the original design goals. However I don't every remember the EE having any major yeild problems though. The GS on the other hand was quite problematic (in terms of manufacturing).
Yeah and that was ther first major foray into advance microprocessor design/manufacturing. It was a gamble and they yields suffered because of it. I highly doubt they would want to take the same risks again.
Actually the PSX was their major foray into major large-scale VLSI design (being a massive jump in their IC design capabilities). The EE is just a logical evolution from that decision. The real big deal or gamble was the decision to take on the manufacturing themselves rather than outsource.
Also I forgot to mention that the design also needs to be locked down early so mass production can start, otherwise there'll be a shortage.
Actually the design can be completed pretty late and still meet production demands. The real need for a system to be logically complete early is to give developers more time on the system to actually have something at launch.
Fafalada
09-Dec-2002, 17:52
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
It's interesting that even though GS has 4x transistor count, as well as being a new design, while EE is a Mips Core with a few custom units added, people still like to assume EE was most problematic to manufacture.
Anyway, what Archie said - I haven't heard of EE yield problems either (but plenty about those with GS).
Actually, from what I heard .25 micron EE's were already overclockable :p
We know it's not going to launch in 2003 - and very, very unlikely in 2004 - so there's at least 2 years left.
I still stand by my opinion that in 2005 we're unlikely to see any CPUs running at less than 2Ghz.
Since many of you are taking a page out of the How to Lie using Statistsics book, I'll join in:
When the EE launched, it launched at 300MHz. The Intel equivalent was the origional PIII core (starts with a 'k') @ 600Mhz and the newly launched K7 at the same speeds. I think it's fair to say that the EE rips both a new asshole.
So, since your all looking for a 'historical' or 'trend' or 'tradition' - I'd say this is alot better than the trends your using. (Which isn't saying much)
Also, the target year is 2005. Thats basically 3 years away, or 36 months. Moore's Law states that tranistsor densities double every 18 months. Thus, 2 cycles will occur. I'll use Intel's Prescott architecture, which has around 100M tranistsors, as a starting point in 2003. Thus, according to Moore's Law, Intel can only field ~400M transistors in 2005.
Ben's speculation (Whether tongue-in-cheek we shall never know :)) puts 900M on Cell IIRC, My estimates (Which I think is way too optimistic) puts 700M yeilding 1TFLOP.
How you expect a chip to have such densities (almost 2X) and retain the ability to scale to >3Ghz is beyond me. I doubt SOI will be have that big of an impact.
1-1.5GHz is likely IMHO. With the range extending upto 2GHz, but with little chance.
london-boy
09-Dec-2002, 22:11
what i am most worried about is...
how loud will ps3 or any of the next gen consoles be??
i men, FAN-wise...
as recently seen on the geforceFX, :o :lol: engineers will need more and more *cooling power* the more complex the architectures get...
and my PS2 is already loud (to be the *living-room-do-everything-thing* sony wants it to be)....
next thing you know, next gen consoles wars will be fought on *cooling power* rather than *polygon-pushing power* or whatever else :lol:
PC-Engine
09-Dec-2002, 23:12
PS3 will be liquid nitrogen cooled :P
randycat99
09-Dec-2002, 23:34
Yes, I certainly agree that fan noise is becoming an increasingly important issue. I, too, feel the current PS2 is a bit loud for a "well-mannered" living room device. I don't know where things will truly end up since we are baying for these fantastic amounts of processing performance, but we want it to still fit in a little plastic box and be quiet.
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 00:06
How you expect a chip to have such densities (almost 2X) and retain the ability to scale to >3Ghz is beyond me. I doubt SOI will be have that big of an impact.
When many said the ps2 would only be able to sustain 5M polys ingame... the final product surpassed expectations... I think 3Ghz is feasible, I mean if it's 65nm or smaller... doesn't that help?
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 00:19
I just think a G3 running at 3 Ghz sounds otherworldly when Motorola struggled to get them to just 500 Mhz and IBM only recently got them to 700+...but what do I know? It just seems like something would have to be redesigned in the G3 for it to really run that fast. We're talkin' P3 age architecture, right? Does anybody think a 3 Ghz P3 is a bit outlandish, just by beneficial die scaling alone?
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
Well both the EE and GS were hot on their initial launch rule somewhat due to they're being released at higher clocks than the original design goals. However I don't every remember the EE having any major yeild problems though. The GS on the other hand was quite problematic (in terms of manufacturing).
Fair enough, all I remember hearing at the time was that the chips for PS2 were having major yield problems - I assumed they meant both.
Oh yeah, and PC-Engine, the EE ran _extremely_ hot when it came out and Sony had atrocious yields. That's just the name of the game.
It's interesting that even though GS has 4x transistor count, as well as being a new design, while EE is a Mips Core with a few custom units added, people still like to assume EE was most problematic to manufacture.
Anyway, what Archie said - I haven't heard of EE yield problems either (but plenty about those with GS).
Actually, from what I heard .25 micron EE's were already overclockable :p
I wasn't assuming it was the most problematic to manufacture, I mentioned it because we were talking about CPU cores rather than GPUs. And as stated above, I heard about yield problems in general - I figured because the EE was such a GFLOP powerhouse at the time, they had just as many problems manufacturing them.
Vince:
As stated (even in the bit you quoted) - it's purely my opinion. And my opinion is that they'd be crazy to have a core with so many CPUs on it. I think I already said so, if they do have some crazy amount of cores on there, then sure, clock speed is going to be limited. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me something I know already.
randycat99:
There are just some limits to CPU design sometimes, I guess due to the nature of their design limiting clock speed. Whether it's possible to redesign the chip so that it can scale higher is iffy - they managed to do it with the Athlon, but it took a fair amount of effort, but even then it's not scaling that well. I think you have to design from the start for the target clock speeds...
But I'm just speculating. I don't really know enough about this aspect of CPU design.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 01:01
That's the catch- if you design a CPU from the ground up for brute scaling while retaining some semblence of output, you end up with a giant core P4. I think it is pretty certain that 16 P4 cores on a chip is utterly nonsensical in terms of manufacturing and the sheer heat output. If you were to say that perhaps a smaller processor could be created that also scaled similarly, well that would be betting you could outsmart Intel's best, wouldn't it? :wink:
So I maintain (IMO) that the core choice will be based around a simpler, smaller, computationally more efficent CPU architecture, where clock rates are more moderate (and possibly limited ultimately by some ceiling inherent to the architecture). Such a CPU would be relatively "dirt simple", but you wouldn't flinch at all over throwing dozens of them on a single chip to scale the performance.
how many years were there between the psx and the ps2 ?
How many mhz diffrence was it ? a 200mhz diffrence is alot diffrent than a 3 ghz diffrence.
how many years were there between the psx and the ps2 ?
How many mhz diffrence was it ? a 200mhz diffrence is alot diffrent than a 3 ghz diffrence.
:rolleyes:
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 02:11
well that would be betting you could outsmart Intel's best, wouldn't it? heheh.... a...m.#.cough.... will....do...it....
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 02:20
I was going to say, "why don't you edjumacate the guy instead of rolling eyes", but then I see he is a Senior Member. What's up with that? Can he really be serious with that comment? :-?
Ben's speculation (Whether tongue-in-cheek we shall never know ) puts 900M on Cell IIRC, My estimates (Which I think is way too optimistic) puts 700M yeilding 1TFLOP.
How you expect a chip to have such densities (almost 2X) and retain the ability to scale to >3Ghz is beyond me. I doubt SOI will be have that big of an impact.
The magic call eDRAM :)
Technologies Maturing end of 2004 and in 2005:
Toshiba and Sony: .65nm CMOS Technology (CMOS5) with High Density Embedded Memories for Broadband Microprocessor Applications.
http://www.sony.co.jp/SonyInfo/News/Press/200212/02-1203/
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3426
IBM's Strained-Silicon, Shrinking Circuits:
Completed on .65nm dimensions to allowing increased performance and decreased power consumption.
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021204S0041
IBM's Double Gated Transistors: Twice the performance of todays transitors
IBM'sCell Processing:
http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20021121S0046
With all these technologies coming into place they will be able to do more with less GHz power.
Speng
Yes, I certainly agree that fan noise is becoming an increasingly important issue. I, too, feel the current PS2 is a bit loud for a "well-mannered" living room device. I don't know where things will truly end up since we are baying for these fantastic amounts of processing performance, but we want it to still fit in a little plastic box and be quiet.
The Japanese DC used some sort of liquid cooling when it was first released, so I'm sure something similar could be used to keep the future systems cool. Some heat pipe tech like on the Shuttle mini PCs or the GF-FX could also be used.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 04:19
That is not a relevant solution (not saying it didn't work in the DC). It doesn't matter much (as far as fan noise is concerned) if you can move heat from one component to another. You have to dissipate the heat to air in the end, just the same.
[Whoah, dude! When did I become a Senior Member?! Yippee!]
I think you become a senior member at 200 posts.
as recently seen on the geforceFX, :o :lol: engineers will need more and more *cooling power* the more complex the architectures get...
The reason for the NV30's heat related problems that necessitated the fan was nVidia's decision to revert from the planned inclusion of low-k dielectrics - to the more reliable and higher yeilding (aswell as sooner ready) 0.13um Cu process.
If all had gone to plan, it most likely wouldn't have required that. But, TSMC's delays and problems forstalled nvidia and caused physical changes in the design.
As stated (even in the bit you quoted) - it's purely my opinion. And my opinion is that they'd be crazy to have a core with so many CPUs on it. I think I already said so, if they do have some crazy amount of cores on there, then sure, clock speed is going to be limited. I'm not sure why you're trying to tell me something I know already.
I never said you weren't correct, just that there are big holes in what your saying. Especially when you factor in what we already know.
And my opinion is that they'd be crazy to have a core with so many CPUs on it.
Um, may I suggest you do some research into Cellular Computing. It's fasinating stuff, and if you do, you'll see that the ideas behind said computing is very grounded, very sucessful, very effecient, and potentially very powerful.
It's only "crazy" untill society catches up and it's "the way".
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 05:30
I think you become a senior member at 200 posts.
That bar needs to be raised then. :wink: It just doesn't feel right that I could be a senior member here (experience-wise)- let alone at a mere 200 posts.
aaaaa00
10-Dec-2002, 05:38
Um, may I suggest you do some research into Cellular Computing. It's fasinating stuff, and if you do, you'll see that the ideas behind said computing is very grounded, very sucessful, very effecient, and potentially very powerful
You forgot "...for certain application domains."
:D
never said you weren't correct, just that there are big holes in what your saying. Especially when you factor in what we already know.
What exactly are these holes?
We're just speculating on what we believe the clock speed will be.... we may as well make up a dart board with some clock speeds at it and throw darts at it, because none of us know exactly what route Sony's going to take. I'm making some speculation and stating what my assumptions are for that speculation - you can't be any more right than I am, because the thing's not even finished yet.
Um, may I suggest you do some research into Cellular Computing. It's fasinating stuff, and if you do, you'll see that the ideas behind said computing is very grounded, very sucessful, very effecient, and potentially very powerful.
It's only "crazy" untill society catches up and it's "the way".
Every console which has had multiple CPUs to program for has been deemed a "programming nightmare". Saturn, PS2, Jaguar, all these machines were very difficult to program for because of the multiple cores that required managing.
Instead of trying to win a point against me with an off-hand remark like "go do some research", why not try and explain why you think multiple CPU setups are going to be the way of the future? I still think there are too many problems with this setup, especially the problem of parallelizing many game tasks - several of which are really quite difficult to parallelize effectively. So how are they going to overcome this problem?
for all those wondering about my post its to point out how stupid this thread is. I guess i should have used :D :) :( :o :-? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :roll: :wink: To get my point across.
IMO the only way to tell how well the cell chip would scale is to figure out the highest the pushed it and on what mircon . The cooling needed , how many cores were on that chip , how many mhz it costs to add more cores (by this i mean how much the clock speed is limited due to power demands and cooling requirements) what process they will be using at that time , how much a 3ghz cell processer would cost and the biggest thing , would it even need a 3ghz processer with 16-32 cores on it to push the graphics and the ai .
Oh and while i may have poor grammer (never was good with that) and I may not be as wise as most members on this board I am not an idiot. I have been viewing this board and others for a long time.
randycat99
10-Dec-2002, 06:01
OK, no offense intended then if you were joking. Honestly, it looked like you were saying that completely straight-faced.
Its not a problem at all. It makes me think i should go and edit the post I did in another section though. they might think I'm fully serious.
What exactly are these holes?
Lithography advance and transistor budget allowances.
You can't be any more right than I am, because the thing's not even finished yet.
Every console which has had multiple CPUs to program for has been deemed a "programming nightmare". Saturn, PS2, Jaguar, all these machines were very difficult to program for because of the multiple cores that required managing.
Um, when you make comparsons such as this, I'm inclined to think that I am *more* right.
Instead of trying to win a point against me with an off-hand remark like "go do some research", why not try and explain
Ok, but this has been covered many a times and I felt that going over it yet again is redundant - which is why having you go do some background reading is logical.
Why you think multiple CPU setups are going to be the way of the future?
Because, unlike historical solutions, which are strictly CMP or SMT, cellular computing has many advantages over the conventional approach.
-They're high effecient in silicon usage. The design is built around a core with the bare minimum instruction set and features, yet yeilds (as shown in IBM studies) upwards of 70% the preformance of a conventional solution (von Neumann) at a fraction of the die space/tranistor count.
-The cores are a SoC design that included a pluratly of embedded memory that allows the core to function and sustain preformance near it's theoretical peak. It could fundimentally change the idea of a cache hierarchy and access speeds.
Basically, it's more effecient in it's silicon/preformance ratio, can achieve much higher preformance threw concurrency, and it the future in the broadband enabled world where processing is secondard to the movement of data.
I still think there are too many problems with this setup, especially the problem of parallelizing many game tasks - several of which are really quite difficult to parallelize effectively. So how are they going to overcome this problem?
Dave Barron once said something that's quite relevent. It basically went, it doesn't matter how the hardware guys get something done aslong as it works right.
I obviously don't have an exact answer, but It appears (big surprise) that your not the only person to think of this:
Knowing this, the three chip partners have so far set a goal of crafting Cell as a system, creating operating system and application software alongside Cell hardware.
Aswell, as a dev here (forgot who) said that SCE's R&D has been working on something along the same lines.
With the advent and widespread adoption in the recent past of HL languages throught the entire pipeline masking all low-level or architectural functions, I think the answer is buried somewhere in there. Just let the hardware guys do their job and look at the upsides of the hardware and start thinking of how it can be done, not the mindset that it's impossible.
You forgot "...for certain application domains.":D
Ha! Good call... need a disclaimer or something :wink:
Vince If you have anymore info on this or a good article can you post a link so i can catch up a little on this ? Thanks in advance
Vince If you have anymore info on this or a good article can you post a link so i can catch up a little on this ? Thanks in advance
I need to start labeling my CD's :) I had one with saved links on it, I'll look for it tomorrow, I need sleepy now...
But, here's a good place to start concerning the fundimentals of cellular computing
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/462/nair.html
NOTE: It's from 2001 and has .10um speced for 2005, but as shown above, IBM currently is aiming at 0.065um with SOI and Strained Si. So, a more do-able comparason is to look at the 2007 and 2011 plans when the lithography is comparable.
According to this projection of densities and clock speeds, and averaging between 0.07 and 0.05um, it would appear I might owe Mech a dearest appology - which if this pans out, then I most certainly will give. But realise, these projections are on a die thats huge.. have to break down the numbers tomorrow, just giving fair warning that i may be wrong.
Oh well, atleast I don't make bets like *other* people.. hehe
What exactly are these holes?
Lithography advance and transistor budget allowances.
Que?
You can't be any more right than I am, because the thing's not even finished yet.
Every console which has had multiple CPUs to program for has been deemed a "programming nightmare". Saturn, PS2, Jaguar, all these machines were very difficult to program for because of the multiple cores that required managing.
Um, when you make comparsons such as this, I'm inclined to think that I am *more* right.
Sorry? What exactly are you "more right" about? And what am I making a comparison to? I made a statement about consoles with multiple CPUs on a single core (such as the PS2).
Instead of trying to win a point against me with an off-hand remark like "go do some research", why not try and explain
Ok, but this has been covered many a times and I felt that going over it yet again is redundant - which is why having you go do some background reading is logical.
Well I'm sorry I haven't read anything about it, but you didn't even provide a starting place to back up your main points. "Go research it" - mmmright.
Why you think multiple CPU setups are going to be the way of the future?
Because, unlike historical solutions, which are strictly CMP or SMT, cellular computing has many advantages over the conventional approach.
-They're high effecient in silicon usage. The design is built around a core with the bare minimum instruction set and features, yet yeilds (as shown in IBM studies) upwards of 70% the preformance of a conventional solution (von Neumann) at a fraction of the die space/tranistor count.
-The cores are a SoC design that included a pluratly of embedded memory that allows the core to function and sustain preformance near it's theoretical peak. It could fundimentally change the idea of a cache hierarchy and access speeds.
Basically, it's more effecient in it's silicon/preformance ratio, can achieve much higher preformance threw concurrency, and it the future in the broadband enabled world where processing is secondard to the movement of data.
That's all well and good for specific embedded applications, but what about issues in allowing the parallelization of game tasks?
I still think there are too many problems with this setup, especially the problem of parallelizing many game tasks - several of which are really quite difficult to parallelize effectively. So how are they going to overcome this problem?
Dave Barron once said something that's quite relevent. It basically went, it doesn't matter how the hardware guys get something done aslong as it works right.
I obviously don't have an exact answer, but It appears (big surprise) that your not the only person to think of this:
Knowing this, the three chip partners have so far set a goal of crafting Cell as a system, creating operating system and application software alongside Cell hardware.
Aswell, as a dev here (forgot who) said that SCE's R&D has been working on something along the same lines.
With the advent and widespread adoption in the recent past of HL languages throught the entire pipeline masking all low-level or architectural functions, I think the answer is buried somewhere in there. Just let the hardware guys do their job and look at the upsides of the hardware and start thinking of how it can be done, not the mindset that it's impossible.
Again, this all very vague and mysterious. "Let the hardware guys handle it" - what if they can't? What if there is in fact no simple way around this? Maybe that's why this method hasn't been used much in the past?
At any rate, we'll see what happens when it comes out hey? Obviously we have differing opinions on the effectiveness of parallel computing, but this is hardly something to get snooty about - we are allowed to have our own opinions.
london-boy
10-Dec-2002, 13:41
what i think he was trying to say is that the main problem with both Saturn and Jaguar wasn't really the fact of having multiple cpu's...
it was because of BADLY IMPLEMENTED multiple cpu's.........
like when ps2 first came out, everyone was saying how it would have failed just because of the high parallelism needed to get some good performance out if it... and how it would have been abandoned by devs who wanted an easier work environment... :roll:
of course the best on both gc and xbox are visibly better than the best on ps2, but i think some cool effects used in some ps2 games makes u wonder what nintendo and microsoft have spent their time on, when designing their consoles apart from more textures and more *conventional-typical* advances... after all they are almost 2 years more advanced technologically :lol:
i must be the only one who thinks that Sony's approach to graphics technology and technology as a whole is the only interesting thing about this console war, and the next one(s)...
gc and xbox are more of a pc-graphics-card type of update on features, resolution and (imo) minor aspects instead of focusing on new and radical approaches....
oh well...
zidane1strife
10-Dec-2002, 17:13
well that would be betting you could outsmart Intel's best, wouldn't it?
Not too tough.... http://www.eet.com/pressreleases/bizwire/20289
As for leaks....
Sony/toshiba edram oxide tech allows for 50X reduction in leaks... the 3gate intel stuff is between 10-100X leak reduction...
london-boy: PS2 is still a major pain in the arse to program for. People are just getting used to it now.
If anything, you hear devs praising the development environment of the Gamecube and Xbox, but you never hear someone praise the simplicity of programming the PS2. The thing's a pig to use well - the power's there, but hard to get at.
JavaJones
11-Dec-2002, 02:16
Though it is of course entirely speculation, and will never be proveable to any significant degree, I am of the strong opinion that the PS2's developer support is almost entirely due to its brand and percieved future market support. That this perception and resulting developer support resulted in a more or less self fulfilling prophecy as far as the success of the PS2 is concerned is another issue (more below).
The point is, just because developers work with the PS2 doesn't mean they prefer its architectural approach. The likely reasons are financially motivated, as are most business decisions. While the techies may or may not enjoy working with the platform, the pencil pushers generally call the shots with most publishers, and the PS2 was and is seen as the market leader (rightfully so, by now). Marketing, sales and management generally work with brand strength and value, not technological approaches, and this is how the PS2 was (IMO) largely evaluated for development focus.
Most of the previous examples of poorly supported multi-processor platforms in the console space were either not produced by market leaders, or had other significant negative factors in their lack of adoption. So I don't believe any conclusion can be drawn from the lack of support for previous multi-processor consoles vs. the PS2's large support base. Imagine for a moment if the PS2's exact hardware architecture was used by Sega, and the Dreamcast architecture (or an updated version, comparable with the technology of the time of the PS2's release) was used by Sony, which do you think would have been more popular and succeeded? I'd bet heavily on Sony's product, regardless of the architecture. Branding *is* that strong, unfortunately.
As far as the issues with the Jaguar and Saturn, poor hardware implementation or not, they could have been made better development platforms with good middleware and better tools, just as the PS2 could have at introduction. Only in the last year to year and a half have good tools been widely available for PS2 development. But good development environments not withstanding, the point I made about brand strength still stands, and neither the Jaguar nor the Saturn would likely have been significantly more successful with better development environments. Well, maybe the Saturn, although there were other negative factors that severely hampered its success.
Which brings us to the sad reality that developers will basically eat a bowl of excrement at work just so they can afford to eat a bowl of food when they get home. In other words they are most concerned about their percieved bottom line which, while it makes theoretical sense from a business perspective, often does not tell the whole story. And when the developer won't, their publisher will usually make the decision for them, again based on the same often irrelevant or incomplete factors.
In my opinion the DC, GC, or XB could all have been leaders with enough developer support; any one one of them could have trampled the PS2 if the developers simply refused to deal with the headaches Sony imposed with their lack of tools and support (which was the primary problem with the PS2, not the architecture per se, which *is* innovative and powerful). The developers/publishers ultimately choose the success of a platform, but since they don't make decisions with that power taken into consideration, and since they can't exercise power as any kind of unified group with cooperative decision making ability, all their power is essentially worthless in practice. Developers should realize the power they have and start leveraging it to encourage development systems, platforms and environments that they favor, rather than simply bowing to the arbitrary and caprecious whims of the uninformed masses. Ultimately the consumers will go where the games are, so if the developers can get the same or better results for cheaper or in less time on one platform vs. another, both sides are better off in the end.
Given the above then (assuming you accept my assertions) and the current success of the PS2, it seems likely that, no matter what direction Sony goes with the PS3, they will succeed. An extremely parallel architecture may be quite difficult for developers to target and take advantage of, especially if Sony isn't there with good tools as before, but developers/publishers will still choose the platform and thus guarantee its success simply because of its brand strength. Seems a stupid way to decide on a development platform to me, in the long run, at least given the fact that, as I said before, developers ultimately seal the fate of any platform with their support or lack of it. But that's the way it is. God bless the bottom line.
- JavaJones
In my opinion the DC, GC, or XB could all have been leaders with enough developer support
Hehe that's wrong, consumers are the ones that decide the leader. There are just too many game developers now days, their support is not a force that dictates the market anymore.
Developers are easily replaceable, consumers on the other hand are harder and more expensive to replace.
PC-Engine
11-Dec-2002, 02:44
I think JavaJones summed it up very nicely :wink:
JavaJones
11-Dec-2002, 03:14
How do you justify that V3? The developers are the major provider of actual value in the equation. Without them, there is no content. It would be like a TV network without TV shows. You have your TV, you have your Cable connection, but no programming.
Sure you could easily argue that each element in the equation is vital to the whole: platform, developers and customers. One without the other doesn't work, plain and simple. The questions that must then be asked, as a result of that consideration, are which area has more options available to it and is more maleable? Where will the bottom line be hurt the least by focusing efforts? Which of the 3 areas of this equation in consideration - hardware manufacturers, software developers and consumers - can exercise the most power over the others, and in what ways? Where is success ultimately decided, or if not in any one area (as is most likely), then where is the power of decision most focused? I contend it is in the hands of the software developers, the middle of the console market chain.
I find your assertion that consumers decide the fate of a platform to be poorly defended and focused too far down the value chain. The consumer market and opinion is maleable enough that changing something further up the chain is more justified for its effects on later parts of it than simply bowing to the pressures of the *end* of the value chain, in an area in which they (the consumers) have no particular expertise or real knowledge to wield. In other words, you're looking at it bass-ackwards IMO.
The consumers will never make rational, informed decisions that will benefit the industry. It is up to the industry to do this for themselves, and "the industry" in general refers (IMO) to the software developers, for they are the largest and most diverse and financially strained element in the equation. All of the hardware producers basically have money to spare and are generally rolling in capital, whether they make a profit on that division or not. The consumers will buy whatever appeals to their taste, or ultimately whatever is available (consumers are easily fooled, manipulated, etc. just look at Furby, Beanie Babies, the Star Wars franchise, etc.). Certainly there are limits to this, but I'm not suggesting software developers stop producing quality titles by any means. Rather the opposite.
The developers are the only ones who really have solid and defensible needs from a financial and functional perspective, and they're the only ones who are in financial and structural danger as a result of pressures from the two other ends of the game development value system - hardware producers and software buyers. They are in between and ultimately have the most leverage, if only they work together to take advantage of it. Otherwise they are at the mercy of the consumers and hardware manufacturers, both - for all intents and purposes here - essentially large, simplistic factors to consider.
A union consolidates the power of its working members to leverage power to negotiate advantages for its worforce by the manipulating the commodity those workers provide to industry: work energy. It is even simpler for game developers. Without games, no platform will succeed, no matter how strong the brand. No one will buy a Playstation 3 without GTA5, or Tekken 6, or what have you. It's all about brand power, and the developers ultimately control the key brands, and due to their ability -because of the nature of software - to switch platforms if they desire (as Square did with FF, to great effect), their position is functionally most able to make choices that shape the industry.
The reason the Playstation brand is so powerful is because it is synonymous with good games. If, in the next generation, that were rapidly proved to not be the case, I am quite certain the Playstation brand would suffer a swift and dramatic reduction in value. The early PS2's lack of real quality games not withstanding, as there was not a strong and well supported alternative at the time. Sony essentially had what ammounted to a near monopoly for that period. History shows this to be the case in the electronics industry in any case, so I don't need to rely on my own predictions or assumptions. Though technology has changed significantly, the power of branding has changed much less so, so from that perspective, brands that have failed in the past where they were formerly successful because they stopped providing significant enough value, provide a perfect model for the current hypothetical situations.
Surely you can't deny that if, somehow, MS made an exclusive deal with *every* major game developer tomorrow, and halted all production on games currently unreleased for any other platform but the XBox, that people would begin to buy XBox's in record numbers, and PS2 and GC sales would drop off dramatically, especially within a year, where I would predict sales of the two others would be almost nil. That says to me quite clearly that the true value in the industry is the product of the developers, the games themselves. And since the developers *do* have a choice, free will to decide what platform to develop for, regardless of brand, and since they will take the primary value factor with them in that decision (game brands), it stands to reason that responsibility lies with them to encourage positive practices on both ends of the value chain that they lie between.
Ultimately console software developers control their destiny, at least in so far as what platform they will develop for and how successful that platform will be. Obviously this does not extend to being able to control the fate of individual products. As I've said, they simply need to cooperate to some degree in order to actually leverage the power they have. Without some consensus, as much power as they have, it is almost totally useless.
- JavaJones
JavaJones - I agree . That and the amount of tittles a system has out . Look at it this way. Say the xbox has a 1000 games out and 900 games suck and the ps2 has 300 games out but only a 100 games suck. A parent goes into best buy and see the ton of games for the x box and the few games for ps2 what do you think the parents will buy.
The main reason why the psx did so well is the amount of money sony threw at it . Fom advertising to buying exclusives. They were able to kill off the dreamcast (which imo is the better system game wise) with hype , money and a metal gear clip which didn't look better than games on the dreamcast. For all microsoft is worth they have a few years of pushing to catch up on and unlike sony , microsoft doesn't have a system meant to win the 32bit 2d wars (saturn) and a what 2 year late n64. I figure the next round microsoft and sony will be split in market share or very close to it. Nintendo well as long as they make a console it will do okay and they have the gameboy to fall back on which will be years to destory
JavaJones
11-Dec-2002, 03:29
Or, to sum up the admittedly rather lengthy and rambling post above:
Consumers are easily led. They also provide no input other than money into the equation, and money is platform and product independant. So, with point 1 in mind, the money can be put where it needs to go by putting the product in the hands of the consumer, regardless of how it is delivered. Ultimately the consumer cares about the product most of all.
Meanwhile, developers invest the majority of the work into a plaform. If a hardware design team invests 10 man years into designing a processor for a console, the software development industry as a whole meanwhile invests hundreds or thousands of man years over the life of a console. Their time can be spent better or worse depending on their development environment, which is my whole point here. They can choose the development environment because, with point 1 and 2 above in mind, the consumers will basically follow their choice in distribution path (development hardware) for their value commodity, because that is essentially the sole compelling reason the consumer participates in this value equation.
- JavaJones
thank you... I'm told i ramble to much.. esp during finals :-(
JavaJones
11-Dec-2002, 03:39
lol. That's one place you definitely *don't* want to ramble, too. Especially if it's some kind of in class essay.
From looking at my post history here (and on other forums), you'll see conciseness is not one of my strengths. My ability to summarize and make my points quickly is directly proportional to the amount of time I have to edit though. Were I to spend more time going over these posts before sending them, they'd definitely be shorter. And I know that, at this length, they risk not being read by many, which I feel is a shame as I think I do have some interesting perspectives to impart, whether I'm right or not. It's something I'm always working on...
Anyways, I'll shut up before I ramble even more. :wink:
- JavaJones
PC-Engine
11-Dec-2002, 03:56
Heh, and some people still believe that the reason why developers flocked to the PS2 platform was because of the underlying technology which provided developers an attractive challenge :lol:
How do you justify that V3? The developers are the major provider of actual value in the equation. Without them, there is no content. It would be like a TV network without TV shows. You have your TV, you have your Cable connection, but no programming.
There are alot of game developers now days.
I think you got me wrong. It would be like TV networks, with too many shows, consumer is the one that will choose.
If there are fews than it would be harder for consumer to choose. Then these few shows has more bargaining power, on which TV networks they stay on. Not the case, when there are too many good shows available over several TV networks. Than consumers will have the bargaining power.
I find your assertion that consumers decide the fate of a platform to be poorly defended and focused too far down the value chain.
Well in today market, they do, consumers decide the fate of a platform.
The consumers will never make rational, informed decisions that will benefit the industry.
But consumer decision is the decider.
No one will buy a Playstation 3 without GTA5, or Tekken 6, or what have you. It's all about brand power, and the developers ultimately control the key brands, and due to their ability -because of the nature of software - to switch platforms if they desire (as Square did with FF, to great effect)
I am talking about now. This is a different market to the past. The future might be different yet.
Say developer of GTA or FF12, jump the gun, from PS2 to GC exclusive. Consumers won't easily jump the gun. There are alot of inertia. This is more so, since there are alot of other developers that are willing to fill in.
So what I am saying, if GTA jump the gun, there will be other franchises that consumer can choose to be the next popular thing. GTA doesn't even need to jump the gun and consumer can choose the next popular thing.
Consumer decides, its no longer developers.
Without games, no platform will succeed, no matter how strong the brand.
See, this is not the case anymore. Previously developers are scarce, not now. There won't be shortage of games today. We are at different stages of the market already.
To sum it up, Currently, developers are competing for consumers, it is NOT consumers competing for developers.
JavaJones
11-Dec-2002, 05:01
There are alot of game developers now days.
I think you got me wrong. It would be like TV networks, with too many shows, consumer is the one that will choose.
If there are fews than it would be harder for consumer to choose. Then these few shows has more bargaining power, on which TV networks they stay on. Not the case, when there are too many good shows available over several TV networks. Than consumers will have the bargaining power.
This is extending the TV metaphor too far though. With TV there is essentially one major platform these days, and in any case it only takes a business deal to get a given channel/programming onto another station. A program can be "multi-platform" quite easily. This is not so with the platform choice of developers and consoles. Bringing syndication and a variety of other factors into the equation, and the analogy breaks down.
But from your point, basically I would say, yes the consumer has power in choosing amongst many developer's products, but they don't choose it based on the platform *itself* or its virtues, generally speaking. Rather they choose based on what a given platform will offer them in terms of software, which *again* is in the hands of *developers* to decide.
Well in today market, they do, consumers decide the fate of a platform.
Only in so far as they choose what is already available to them on the platforms available. By the time it gets into the consumer's hands, the platform choice has been made. The developer still chooses, before any interraction with the consumer, what platform a game will go on. And based on that choice, if the product carries a strong brand, they can most definitely affect the brand strength and reputation of a given platform. This is even more true when developers cooperate in platform decisions of this kind, and this is the factor you're missing from my argument.
JavaJones:
The consumers will never make rational, informed decisions that will benefit the industry.
But consumer decision is the decider.
Not in so far as the platform for a given title is concerned. That decision is made based on *effects* that the consumer creates, but it is far from a conscious decision on the part of consumers, *and* it is an effect which can only take place once a platform is released and many support decisions have already been made. If software weren't available at a product's launch (which already means many companies have made the choice to support it based on predicted success, and this with *no* input on the *current* platform from the consumer), then the platform would fail, at least if support continued to be lacking. No matter how many consumers bought the hardware, with nothing to play and therefore no cuts from software sales going back to the hardware manufacturer, they would be forced to discontinue the product. And that is assuming customers will buy hardware with no software.
I am talking about now. This is a different market to the past. The future might be different yet.
Say developer of GTA or FF12, jump the gun, from PS2 to GC exclusive. Consumers won't easily jump the gun. There are alot of inertia. This is more so, since there are alot of other developers that are willing to fill in.
Sure, this is in the middle of a platform's lifecycle though, right? I'm not suggesting that it would be trivial to shift the balance of power right now in the industry. I'm suggesting that, when a platform is debuting and the publisher/developer is faced with the choice of whether to support it, their decision should be much more heavily based on the quality of the development environment and support than it is now. These factors can weigh heavily in development time and budget. Currently developers seem to make the decision largely on percieved future market, but my point is they as creators of the content for all platforms have the abilty to at least partially decide the fate of a platform. Like consumers, they can "vote with their wallets", though in this case of course they're "voting" with development support.
So what I am saying, if GTA jump the gun, there will be other franchises that consumer can choose to be the next popular thing. GTA doesn't even need to jump the gun and consumer can choose the next popular thing.
Consumer decides, its no longer developers.
That's why I suggest developers *cooperate*, act in concert. Apparently you missed that whole part of my argument. The union example, etc. I would agree, a single developer is somewhat at the mercy of a strong platform, depending at least in part also on their budget and target market (with a small enough budget and a quality enough game, any decent platform will turn you a profit, it's the unrealistic focus on million sellers that makes so many games seem like a failure, because too many are budgeted for that level).
JavaJones:
Without games, no platform will succeed, no matter how strong the brand.
See, this is not the case anymore. Previously developers are scarce, not now. There won't be shortage of games today. We are at different stages of the market already.
To sum it up, Currently, developers are competing for consumers, it is NOT consumers competing for developers.
I don't recall a time when developers were ever particularly scarce. I don't think much has actually changed in that regard. Certainly the market has grown, but in terms of known, quality developers with strong brands and franchises, no I don't think it's changed that much.
This entire argument, the key to why I'm even talking about this, is that I feel the focus on the PS2 platform in the last generation was potentially detrimental to some developers and perhaps the industry as a whole (could be argued, but don't get me wrong, I don't hate the PS2 by any means, I'm talking from a more abstract perspective here). So, with a new generation of consoles coming in 2-4 years ("Xbox2" may launch early, Nintendo is talking about stretching GC lifespan out), it would once again be up to developers to choose the platform to succeed. It *begins* with developers having the choice, *not* consumers.
In the middle of a product's lifecycle, after initial support and development decisions have been made and a product has gained some momentum and consumer loyalty, yes I agree it is the consumers choosing products from the developers for their own reasons. The important part, as I have been saying, is the *beginning* of a console's lifecycle, and with a new one coming up, I think considering these issues and how support should be decided is a very important issue.
Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the key to developers succeeding in making these kinds of moves in the industry is *cooperating* with other developers, at least to a limited degree. This is a key point in my argument you didn't address, and while I admit it may be an unrealistic expectation for developers to cooperate, perhaps you'll agree that if they did, they would certainly wield the greatest power for deciding future succesful platforms.
Sorry for the screwed up quotes btw, not sure how to nest quotes. :P
- JavaJones
archie4oz
11-Dec-2002, 08:26
I've heard this all before...
Developers should realize the power they have and start leveraging it to encourage development systems, platforms and environments that they favor, rather than simply bowing to the arbitrary and caprecious whims of the uninformed masses. [quote]
In the end though the consumer is still going to make the decision. The DC had excellent developer support, yet in the end the support dwindled because consumers wouln't buy the system (the sales performance in the US simply prolonged the inevitable).
[quote] The early PS2's lack of real quality games not withstanding, as there was not a strong and well supported alternative at the time. Sony essentially had what ammounted to a near monopoly for that period.
I disagree... The DC easily offered not only a more cost effective alternative, but an arguably better software lineup, yet the consumers spoke with their wallet...
Surely you can't deny that if, somehow, MS made an exclusive deal with *every* major game developer tomorrow, and halted all production on games currently unreleased for any other platform but the XBox, that people would begin to buy XBox's in record numbers, and PS2 and GC sales would drop off dramatically, especially within a year, where I would predict sales of the two others would be almost nil.
Again I disagree, especially in the case of the GCN, simply because the pre-existing library along with in-house support could likely keep them alive and well. Hell, Nintendo is living proof of customer loyalty even in the face of limited software support...
The main reason why the psx did so well is the amount of money sony threw at it
No. Money-wise, they simply got more mileage per yen then Sega or Nintendo did.
Fom advertising to buying exclusives.
Actually they didn't have to try hard to secure the two most influential exclusives (in Japan that is), although no argument about the influence of their advertising campaigns. Of course the inability to effectively market the Saturn or the N64 is obviously not the fault of Sony...
They were able to kill off the dreamcast (which imo is the better system game wise) with hype , money and a metal gear clip which didn't look better than games on the dreamcast.
Actually consumer hype and interest did considerably more damage than any actions by Sony. The TGS announcement was about as bad as it got, and practically every platform vender so far has tried to steal another systems thunder in it's launch, some just survive better than others. You'da thought Xbox would've been the king of E3 2001 after the GDC 2000 excitement, however the GCN ended up stealing the show... And you really can't blame Sony for something that Konami engineered.
In the middle of a product's lifecycle, after initial support and development decisions have been made and a product has gained some momentum and consumer loyalty, yes I agree it is the consumers choosing products from the developers for their own reasons. The important part, as I have been saying, is the *beginning* of a console's lifecycle, and with a new one coming up, I think considering these issues and how support should be decided is a very important issue.
The problem with that assertion is that what are you supposed to base the decision on? Before I left we already had preliminary plans for PS3 titles and there's certainly nothing resembling a final SDK at this stage. SDK's themselves constantly evolve and finalized hardware is rarely complete (and often isn't release at it's initial specs) early enough in the decision process. As the platform progresses you eventually tie yourself into it to some degree regardless of what a bunch of other developers are doing. Assuming you don't have significant production infrastructure dedicated to said platform, you could certainly switch to another (or add it), however by then it's quite possible the consumer has already spoken thus influencing your decisions...
Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the key to developers succeeding in making these kinds of moves in the industry is *cooperating* with other developers, at least to a limited degree. This is a key point in my argument you didn't address, and while I admit it may be an unrealistic expectation for developers to cooperate, perhaps you'll agree that if they did, they would certainly wield the greatest power for deciding future succesful platforms.
While admirable, not all developers have the same interests in mind, needs, nor the same relationships with various platform providers. Plus in many cases the decision isn't necessarily up to the developer, rather it's the publisher that makes the decisions. Also with software developers already influencing hardware design via input committees, I'd really hate it if platform vendors ceased to explore certain technologies and concepts simply because a bunch of them got together decided that a particular platform is going to die because they don't like certain aspects of it.
PC-Engine
11-Dec-2002, 21:08
Most people opted to wait for PS2 while they enjoyed their PSXs. DCs hardware superiority over PSX didn't make any difference.
megadrive0088
11-Dec-2002, 21:34
even though DC was 10-20x superior to PSX
Tagrineth
12-Dec-2002, 00:11
even though DC was 10-20x superior to PSX
Understatement of the century.
PC-Engine
12-Dec-2002, 00:35
Like JavaJones has already said, If the DC was a SONY product instead, it would've suceeded...
JavaJones
12-Dec-2002, 02:13
Yes, basically what I'm saying is:
Brand is powerful, too powerful IMO.
Developers can influence strength of brand, but they must do so early in brand's lifecycle, and they must do so cooperatively.
I do not believe developers necessarily can or will do so, in fact I doubt they will, but none the less I believe it would be beneficial to them and the industry, which is why I suggest it.
So, I'm not really disagreeing with you Archie, just idly wishing things would be different. :p
As far as the DC goes, I think that falls under my previously exempted "consoles with other significant negative factors". Sega's money problems hurt its promotion/marketing significantly, and that combined with its poor consumer reputation after the Saturn, Sega CD, pretty much everything following Genesis, well I don't think it's fair to say developers are unable to influence brand strength simply with that example.
My ultimate point is, given 2 or more competitors, neither with a negative reputation - but one potentially with a more positive one (eg. Sony coming up with the PS2 after the PSX success) - developers can influence the success of a console and its brand strength and reputation by their decisions regarding support from their major gaming franchises and brands. Given the possibility of levels of cooperation in leveraging this kind of power, they could indeed strongly influence the success of a platform.
As for what they are supposed to base the decision on, from my (admittedly limited) experience working at a publisher/developer, there *are* indications before the platform is finalized and released. Things like early developer relations, the sharing of early hardware details and ideas, handling (acceptance) of developer input into hardware design decisions, early documentation, etc. Granted it is not so easy in those months and perhaps years (for some developers in some cases) to make these kinds of judgements on platform viability (from a technical standpoint) as we now do, hindsight being 20/20 and all. But that does not mean there are *no* indicators and no ways to reasonably accurately determine who would be a good partner going forward.
Developers did it with the N64 and it was hurt significantly by it, and while Sony was not nearly so heavy handed with developers on the PS2, from what I knew pre-PS2 release even as a non-developer (though being employed at a publisher/developer none the less), there seemed to be plenty of indicators that Sony would not be treating developers nearly as well nor have nearly as pleasant a platform to work on in the PS2 as compared to the PSX. Time and again what I heard from within my own company as well as from a few people I knew in other companies was that they were targetting the PS2 as a primary platform out of necessity, because they felt it would have the largest market share, not because they thought it had the best hardware or was their first development choice.
Now, given that the DC was a marketing failure from Sega's own problems monetarily and from their reputation, and that the XB and GC were still over a year in coming, I can't blame devs for how they handled the PS2. But in the coming generation I think they have a chance to be more prepared and to make these decisions more wisely and less out of necessity and more out of desire to work specifically on a certain platform.
Sony has been open about some details, and at least the direction they seem to be going in seems fairly evident even to the general public (Vince seems to think he's an expert :p), and I can only imagine developers are even more in the loop on Sony's plans. MS's plans should seem fairly obvious. The only real wildcard here is Nintendo, we haven't heard anything on their next platform, and their history doesn't necessarily have enough strong indicators on hardware design to be sure of the future, but considering their focus on ease of development, "system balance" and low cost this generation, I think it's reasonably safe to assume they'll aim in the same directions next time. With those factors in mind, some preliminary conclusions can be drawn even by the general public, let alone by developers who surely have more info than I and the rest of the general public do.
- JavaJones
Currently developers seem to make the decision largely on percieved future market, but my point is they as creators of the content for all platforms have the abilty to at least partially decide the fate of a platform.
This can only be the case, if they are not replaceable. But they are replaceable, so its no time for developers to be cocky and try to decide the faith of the platform.
See an oppurtunity, seize it.
I'm suggesting that, when a platform is debuting and the publisher/developer is faced with the choice of whether to support it, their decision should be much more heavily based on the quality of the development environment and support than it is now. These factors can weigh heavily in development time and budget.
Like I said, if they are not going to support it, someone else will. Its like Sega VF4 for example, it could have been a launch title for Xbox if they work hard enough, but they just move to slow and takes different decision. Result DOA3 takes all the green stuff :)
It *begins* with developers having the choice, *not* consumers.
No.
Developers do have choice which new platforms they are going to support, but like I said, if they miss the oppurtunity, somebody else going to take it and make money.
Platform leader is not decided in the beginning is it ? Consumers always decide the platform leader. Developer can persuade them, but consumer decide.
why do you guys believe it would be faster than 2ghz (I'm not saying any of this is real) But a 3ghz chip would imo be to expensive. MS used a 700 mhz celeron .
Yes, I'll go with the next generation EE, if based on Cell (duh!) running at 1GHz or there about.
Considering PS2 was 10 times the clock speed of PSone, of course we're going to see 3Ghz and beyond in the next generation.
I still stand by my opinion that in 2005 we're unlikely to see any CPUs running at less than 2Ghz.
BAM ;)
Picked the consoles well, but I was a bit off with this prediction:
by the time PS3 comes out, we'll be having 10+Ghz P4s.
whoops :oops: Even Intel didn't see that one coming though :D
I was wondering when somebody was going to drag up a two year old thread and start going "told you so!!!". I can appreciate people wanting to vindicate their long held stances but serious folks, there's just too many threads appearing right now for this to be sensible - let the dust lie and then do it please.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.