Asher, if you are seriously telling me that the quote Shifty was responding to doesn't reflect "taking offense," (or rather, being offensive?) then I don't know...
Phil Harrison's GDC keynote - Home, LittleBigPlanet & more
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
Asher, if you are seriously telling me that the quote Shifty was responding to doesn't reflect "taking offense," (or rather, being offensive?) then I don't know...
re: Java vs C.
I think Sony should still come up with a lightweight API that can be used by JavaScript or something like Flash to allow ordinary casual developers to embed interactive 3D web content into the world. For example, they could expand the <CANVAS> tag to export a getContext("3d") that returns a safe and simple API for importing and drawing simple 3D objects. Or they could go the VRML/Web3D route, or Flash.
The problem with C is, a malicious or buggy third party HOME extension could compromise your PS3, or atleast compromise the HOME client, and somehow I doubt they're going to wall off every extension in a separate process space.
Coming up with a lightweight, simple, high level API/language for people to author content (like the MUDs and Moos) would go along way to increasing collaborative and diversity in the HOME world.
I think Sony should still come up with a lightweight API that can be used by JavaScript or something like Flash to allow ordinary casual developers to embed interactive 3D web content into the world. For example, they could expand the <CANVAS> tag to export a getContext("3d") that returns a safe and simple API for importing and drawing simple 3D objects. Or they could go the VRML/Web3D route, or Flash.
The problem with C is, a malicious or buggy third party HOME extension could compromise your PS3, or atleast compromise the HOME client, and somehow I doubt they're going to wall off every extension in a separate process space.
Coming up with a lightweight, simple, high level API/language for people to author content (like the MUDs and Moos) would go along way to increasing collaborative and diversity in the HOME world.
This is nice in theory, but:
1) Streaming media sucks in terms of quality
2) This is very expensive for Sony to host to any sizable audience, and they'll do it for free?
3) Why does this require "Home"? I can see the exact same type of system implemented even on the Wii or XBL. The only thing "Home" adds here is the 3D theatre thing, which to be honest is just a waste of screen realestate.
Now imagine Gotham TV...
Again, this isn't something that cannot be done anywhere else. This is not a benefit of nor feature of Home.Now you're just getting really carried away.
I think a lot of people now are extremely hyped up to the point of not thinking as rationally as they probably should be.
Sorry again for being SO out of the loop lately, but did Sony show anything else that's worth me knowing other than Home and that very cool Little Big Planet? Can't find much on the net...
I have a feeling you'll see SpiderMan-3 on XBL. Sony is in the business to make money, and if they deem a large enough audience to distribute it there, they will. You'll note they didn't demand SpiderMan-3 the Game only appear on PS3 in their licensing agreements.
Anyway, if anyone has the advantage in content, it's Sony. MS is the one over a barrel. Sony owns vast libraries of stuff, and if Sony decides not to make it available through MS-streaming technology or HD-DVD, it is a big blow to MS, the massive archive of Columbia and MGM pictures taken off the table. And now that Disney's top shareholder is Steve Jobs, don't expect any exclusives with MS there either.
Anyway, if anyone has the advantage in content, it's Sony. MS is the one over a barrel. Sony owns vast libraries of stuff, and if Sony decides not to make it available through MS-streaming technology or HD-DVD, it is a big blow to MS, the massive archive of Columbia and MGM pictures taken off the table. And now that Disney's top shareholder is Steve Jobs, don't expect any exclusives with MS there either.
Sony appearing on MS platform probably has a lot more to do with Marvel than Sony. If Sony owned Spiderman, I think it would be PS3 exclusive.
They don't own Spiderman but they own the Spiderman movies, or at least i'm pretty sure of it.
I think that:
1) It's not the place to discuss this
2) If Sony made their content exclusive to their own console, they're shooting their film division in the foot, especially given the 360's market penetration
3) You're underestimating the industry's reluctance to be pigeonholed into Sony for both physical and internet distribution
This is nice in theory, but:
1) Streaming media sucks in terms of quality
2) This is very expensive for Sony to host to any sizable audience, and they'll do it for free?
3) Why does this require "Home"? I can see the exact same type of system implemented even on the Wii or XBL. The only thing "Home" adds here is the 3D theatre thing, which to be honest is just a waste of screen realestate.
Now imagine Gotham TV...
Now you're just getting really carried away.
I think a lot of people now are extremely hyped up to the point of not thinking as rationally as they probably should be.
I think there is a balance somewhere between what is concrete and all of the speculation. I don't think a virtual classroom would be impossible or out of the question, but I'm not sure it would explode as an exciting technology.
I totally agree that about the 3D theatre and the virtual environment in general. I think it is a complex interface and not an optimal way to distribute information. I don't understand the excitement of watching a video on a virtual TV on an actual TV or viewing web content on a virtual display on a real display. Is it just me or is there an unnecessary middleman that should be removed from the equation?
Where online service is concerned, it's always going to be a changing picture. What they have revealed so far is the definitive experience. The purpose is to set a course, and kick-start partnerships and business discussions. The rest will evolve as the service runs its course.
The missing/pending pieces in this framework are:
* Initial enthusiasts (The beta users)
* The feedback mechanism they promised (e.g. in the form of blog sites for XMB and PS Home)
* Relevant Sony libraries and feature roadmaps. At this point, the basic architecture and online infrastructure for the entire Playstation Home and online gaming experience should be more or less ready for April beta. I suspect they won't say more until after the beta launch.
* (More) developer participation pending business discussion
* Pricing policies
Perhaps the third and fourth items (or their lack thereof) cause many down-to-earth, utility-oriented people to question the big picture. Over here we have no choice but to wait for more info (perhaps from the promised blog sites).
The fifth item is partially answered (Free to access PS Home with basic amenities, free online gaming) but presumably some want (even) more assurance.
Because of its extensible nature, I don't think Sony knows all the answers. But since it's free to join, we will have a choice whether to spend money in PS Home or elsewhere... especially since the same people also pointed out that PS Home is not new, people have done it before, etc. etc....
I really don't see what the big deal is with Sony's current free statements. What more do people want them to say ?
BTW, are you the same DeathKnight in AVSForum ? (i.e., a developer ?).
So far, we only have some rough ideas on what's coming in firmware 1.6 this month. We also know media download will be available by this fall.
Any tips or insider news ?
Last edited by a moderator:
He's probably the same DeathKnight as the one at Rage3D looking at his past posts.
Marvel owns Spiderman. Any tie-ins to Spiderman in any form will pay them royalties. Sony could not choose to put a Spiderman game on a Microsoft platform without some revenue going to Marvel. I'm sure Marvel pushed Sony to make Spiderman broadly available.
Streaming VC-1 and H.264 content is already superior to NTSC and that's good enough for most people. If the event is announced ahead of time, pre-loading can cache enough of the film before it starts to enable DVD quality VC-1 or H.264. Don't even think that a VC-1 or H.264 stream at 1mbps is anything like CrapTube
There's no reason why Sony has to host all the content, anymore than Google hosts all the media. You know, there's this amazing protocol called TCP which allows multiple streams, and incredibly <gasp> HOME clients could simply be given a pointer as to where to start streaming RTSP from, oh, you know, like how many streaming media players do it today.
Today, there is no widespread ability for people to remotely watch movies together. There is a fundamentally different feel to watching a movie with an audience than by yourself. Some people like going to theaters for precisely this reason, you know, the charge of seeing Star Wars with a huge raving audience of fans and cosplayers.
I don't see why there would be any waste of screen real estate anymore than Windows Media Player or Quicktime "wastes" real estate today with window chrome. It's called "toggle full screen mode"
Now imagine Gotham TV...
Try imagining HLTV. Or Dead or Alive online. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're talking about balkanized, closed, limited systems as opposed to an open scalable system.
It's like comparing America Online or Quantum Link to the World Wide Web.
No, I think people like you are thinking irrationally because of bias, either Sony, or just because you don't personally like the idea. The argument that something is similar to something else done before it completely irrelevent.
Google was not the first search engine, meditate on that.
So after all of this talk of how the PS3 is the "True HD" console, the content is going to be 480p? Given that the downloads on XBL are HDTV? As an owner of a 1080p set, even "DVD quality VC-1 or H.264" is not appealing to me, given the alternatives. Why stream? Queue it up and watch it later in reasonable quality without packetloss.
Please don't patronize me, it doesn't help anyone. I'm critical of the whole streaming SDTV media approach after Sony is so gung-ho about HDTV. Ironically, I think you'd need to have your development license revoked if you used TCP to stream video.
That's because there's no real market for that.
That would certainly explain why DVD sales are up and boxoffice sales are down.
Why bother watching Star Wars in 1080p with uncompressed PCM audio when you can watch near DVD-like quality with teenagers giggling about sex jokes in the "virtual back row"?
Yes, and most people do toggle full screen mode. So again, what's the point of the 3D theatre?
If you think anyone and their dog can set up a massive American Idol-like competition on Home...well, I'll leave it at that. Your comparison is ridiculous.
My argument isn't "it's been done before, therefore it's worthless". It's that this is worthless, it's been done before, and there's reasons why it hasn't taken off.
Comparing Sony's Home to Google's search engine...well, I don't think I even need to say anything about that. Are you on their payroll?
Which is what's scaring me. If Sony's PR is talking about "some" premium content now...it's scary to think what it'll be when they actually launch, given their track record.
Maybe start the avatars nude, requiring $10 in clothes to get started?
I know you're joking, but they've been clear on what you get starting out too
And I'm not sure what track record your talking about. The one where they said PS Store content would be reasonably priced..and it is? That seems the most relevant comparison I can make.
If extra t-shirts and designer couches don't float your boat, there's nothing to stop you ignoring them, and still using the functionality of the system. Some people will buy that stuff, and good for them. You're clearly not interested, but you can clearly ignore that aspect too if you want.
No I truly don’t understand the MS-Universal relationship. They are a very odd couple. The French side of that relationship is far more rational. What sort of sales has Zune had?
Sony would win that exclusive content battle, because in the media sector they do have strong allies that they would not have to pay off (Fox & Disney). Their current CEO is an invaluable asset to them in arranging anything associated with that since his expertise is in the media sector.
If there was a content battle (which there wouldn’t be) Sony stands a greater chance of having a larger selection not just in terms of potential support but active support as well since MS would require NBC-Universal to supply content with the same vigour that Sony Pictures and Sony-BMG would support SCEI. It’s not a contest in this regard.
The Disney point is just another example of the situation that MS sits in. The major shareholder holds an (irrational) vendetta against Redmond so he would try and make sure they don’t support any MS service. So Disney is not on Live, currently Disney is iTunes exclusive.
In the end my point boils down to this:
First, Sony owns their content. Morita’s vision. They have that distinct advantage, so much so that they can leverage that in pricing. Microsoft has to pay for all of their content and some of it will never match the level that Sony could potentially provide since Microsoft would never have Sony Pictures.
Second, movie studios do not want to play exclusive games, they don’t want a dominant standard since it undermines their producer sovereignty. This point is only violated if the studio also has a delivery platform it has vested interests in or its executive branch has a particular strategy.
dobwal said:
The situation is completely different from the PC industry. Microsoft is a monopolist in the OS space, if Sony does not support Windows they can’t sell their VAIO’s, they would be useless. Moreover Microsoft would never restrict Sony from licensing Windows because Microsoft has no competition to worry about and because Microsoft, being a monopolist and therefore under the intense scrutiny of competition regulators worldwide, would be in serious trouble if they attempted it.
Microsoft and Sony have a great working relationship. However they are tough competitors in the gaming arena. Sony has no sort of monopoly and would deny the 360 anything from Sony Pictures since it would aid in diminishing the advantages associated with the PS3 platform. Hell would freeze over before Sony Pictures supported the 360 service…then again it’s Sony we’re talking about here….
FUD. What's so scary about it since we can walk away ?
As for Sony's track record so far for online pricing, Playstation online games can be cheaper or bigger, and they don't charge subscription fee.
You got it the other way round. Should be standard clothings for free and pay for nude.
... and oh nAo, I want a Nariko pillow for trophy !
Wow, if I weren't afraid of being negatively rep'ed, I'd intimate that Asher is a viral marketer...
That aside, there's been a rather impressive amount of quite simply delusional dismissals of Home as a revolutionary platform. If these people want to tell themselves it's no big deal, fine, but it's hard to articulate just how wrong they are. Even if Sony falls flat on their face a Home-like system is going to have a very profound impact on the realm of online interactions.
That aside, there's been a rather impressive amount of quite simply delusional dismissals of Home as a revolutionary platform. If these people want to tell themselves it's no big deal, fine, but it's hard to articulate just how wrong they are. Even if Sony falls flat on their face a Home-like system is going to have a very profound impact on the realm of online interactions.
yes. note the timestamp of the first post in the following thread as being May 27, 2005
http://boardsus.playstation.com/pla...essage.id=14848&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
