Developers Discontent With PS3 Development Tools

[scooby_dooby]

Hardknock the truth is we have no idea what happened after those talks between them began. They couldhave begun development right then and there. Just like I don't have anything proving to you that they did, you don't have anything proving to me that they were pursuing a Cell-based solution through until December of 2004. Regardless, if nothing else it shows that Sony was considering this since 2003, and likely making provisions for it's inclusion, just in case. So - I might be willing to believe that the solution is 'off-the-shelf' to one extent or another, but I refuse to believe that on Sony's part the decision ended up being rushed or desperate.

I think the obvious answer lies in what they HAVEN'T said.

If they have been designing it since 2003 they would just come out and say it. The fact that they don't just come out and say it, and use ambigous terms like "collaborating" speaks volumes.

 

[Carl B]

I think the obvious answer lies in what they HAVEN'T said.

If they have been designing it since 2003 they would just come out and say it. The fact that they don't just come out and say it, and use ambigous terms like "collaborating" speaks volumes.

I don't agree. Sony is just straight secretive like that; and for that matter, NVidia is to an extent as well. If I were Sony in 2003, I definitely would have gone 'silent-running' if I teamed up with NVidia. Knowing NVidia was their partner just would have made predicting possible moves of theirs all the more easy. As it stood before December 2004, their GPU plans were more or less a total mystery. I've got the thread-trails to prove that one, I can assure you. Even the Cell-GPU thing is a commonly accepted educated guess; there are patents supporting the notion, but they never announced they were working on one, if announcements are what we're basing it off of.

Again i'm not saying they have been working together since 2003, but at the very least, they have probably remained in talks throughout that time.

 

[Phil]

I think people are being a little fool-hearty to believe the PS3 will be more than 30% powerful than a dev kit that has a 2.4GHz Cell and two 6800s in SLi/7800GTX. Keep in mind RSX is based on the 7800 and only has a 10% clock increase. But whatever floats your boat people

Didn't you just claim a few posts further up that you never make up stuff, that you don't bullshit? At this point, we still don't know what exactly RSX is and here you are throwing around claims of definite performance numbers in x percentages... Way to go!

You still haven't posted any evidence to your claims, so pardon me if I don't take the above seriously either.

 

[dukmahsik]

we need to know all about rsx asap!

 

[Mmmkay]

There would be 76% less arguing.

 

[DigitalSoul]

If there are any PS3 tools I'm discontent with, it's the ones who are posting in this thread.

Hehehehaha

You made me laugh, you get a 6 pack of beer.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well we'll agree to disagree then!

I think it's plainly obvious from their 'language' and lack of direct confirmation that they are trying to give the impression that they've been working on it for 2 years, but the fact they won't come out and say it speaks for itself.

Sony's not being secretive at all, they've made numerous comments and so had NVidia, to try and give the impression that development was not rushed, and was ongoing for 2 years prior to the Dec 2004 announcement. But at the same time, they fail to explicitly say when development began. Why?

To me this is just like the Killzone CGI, they tried to give the 'impression' that the CGI was in-game, however would not directly say that it was in-game. Again, it's what they did not say that was the most telling.

I find that Sony is truly the master of giving the impression of something, without actually being caught in a lie.

 

[Carl B]

Well, I'll stand by my argument but I see where you're coming from on yours. We likely won't know who's right until someone does some sort of reflective/retrospective interview with a higher-up NVidia or Sony exec a couple of years down the line.

Magazine X: "So when did you begin the RSX development...?"

Kutaragi: "Ah yes, it was December 6th, 2004..."

(exaggerated for effect!)

Until then though, we can at least get the answers to how similar the RSX is to the GTX. Hopefully tomorrow...?

 

[Nesh]

How is this even being debated?

You have PS3 alpha kits with a 7800GTX, and a 2.4Ghx CELL. That's pretty damn close to final specs, they have an extremely similar GPU, with more bandwidth, and they have the final CPU at around 70% of the speed. It doesn't have the FlexIO and some other stuff, but it's pretty close.

Compare that to X360 alpha-kits where they had a much weaker GPU, the X800, they had a COMPLETELY different CPU, dual core OOO Apple G5's.

This goes right in the no-brainer column, of course the PS3 devkits are much closer to the final machine than the X360 devkits were. Just look at the hardware.

Well you ve got a point.

But there is great lack of information regarding the RSX specs.There are many opinions and scarce information interpreted in different ways running here and there about it but there is no official detailed unvailing of full specs AFAIK.If there is I d like to see since I might have missed it.

We dont know how exactly the other things that are missing will affect overall performance, and there was this thing mentioned about Cell and RSX working together(I am no tech geek so dont kill me ) that I still believe we dont know much about.

Now regarding the difference between 360 alpha kit architecture and final kit architecture see what has been discussed with Shifty Geezer.

I am not blaming you for responding on my post.It was my fault.Its true I was a bit clueless but my actual point is that we cant jump to conclusions yet.

 

[Powderkeg]

I don't agree. Sony is just straight secretive like that; and for that matter, NVidia is to an extent as well. If I were Sony in 2003, I definitely would have gone 'silent-running' if I teamed up with NVidia. Knowing NVidia was their partner just would have made predicting possible moves of theirs all the more easy. As it stood before December 2004, their GPU plans were more or less a total mystery. I've got the thread-trails to prove that one, I can assure you. Even the Cell-GPU thing is a commonly accepted educated guess; there are patents supporting the notion, but they never announced they were working on one, if announcements are what we're basing it off of.

Again i'm not saying they have been working together since 2003, but at the very least, they have probably remained in talks throughout that time.

Being secretive works fine for the general public, but you cannot be secretive with your investors if you've been working on a very lucrative contract that has major influence on company finances for the past 2 years.

If nvidia and Sony were working on RSX for 2 years, something in their investors information would indicate that money had exchanged hands, unless you want to suggest Nvidia did the work for free with no contractual obligation from Sony.

 

[Carl B]

Being secretive works fine for the general public, but you cannot be secretive with your investors if you've been working on a very lucrative contract that has major influence on company finances for the past 2 years.

If nvidia and Sony were working on RSX for 2 years, something in their investors information would indicate that money had exchanged hands, unless you want to suggest Nvidia did the work for free with no contractual obligation from Sony.

All I can say is that, indeed, you can be secretive with your investors. They need not be made aware of all potential clients or NDA'd subjects. Also business can be conducted under a letter of intent, not just a contract.

 

[archie4oz]

If there are any PS3 tools I'm discontent with, it's the ones who are posting in this thread.

Rock on! I post, therefore I am a tool!

 

[mckmas8808]

Being secretive works fine for the general public, but you cannot be secretive with your investors if you've been working on a very lucrative contract that has major influence on company finances for the past 2 years.

If nvidia and Sony were working on RSX for 2 years, something in their investors information would indicate that money had exchanged hands, unless you want to suggest Nvidia did the work for free with no contractual obligation from Sony.

You guys are funny. You now what you, scooby, the other guy Hardknock are all right NVidia started to work on the RSX the week before E3. I mean that's what you want to hear right? Yep it was a 11 hour and 59th mintue job.

Let's just forget anything Ken Kutargi said. But you guys are right. Glad to see we have people hear more knowledgeable about the PS3 project than Ken.

 

[croc hunter2]

I have gathered that the RSX is based on the 7800 but aren't there a bunch of transistors on a 7800 that would be completely irrelevant in the PS3.

IIRC the RSX and 7800 have about the same transistor count so what is going into that space?? Any ideas?

Am i high?

 

[Powderkeg]

All I can say is that, indeed, you can be secretive with your investors. They need not be made aware of all potential clients or NDA'd subjects. Also business can be conducted under a letter of intent, not just a contract.

They don't need to give out client names, but they do need to explain how much money they've made and where it came from. (ie. Investment, exchange rate, sales, etc...)

A large increase in income with no explaination whatsoever would not only not be quite noticable, but it would also attract a lot of attention from SEC investigators. Trying to hide the income would likely mean prison time.

So, go back through their investors information and find the quarter where their income dramatically increased but their income from sales did not, and that's when money exchanged hands and real work on RSX started.

 

[Powderkeg]

You guys are funny. You now what you, scooby, the other guy Hardknock are all right NVidia started to work on the RSX the week before E3. I mean that's what you want to hear right? Yep it was a 11 hour and 59th mintue job.

Let's just forget anything Ken Kutargi said. But you guys are right. Glad to see we have people hear more knowledgeable about the PS3 project than Ken.

I'm not trying to say when the work started. It may very well have been 2 years ago, I don't know.

All I'm doing is telling you how to find out. Like I said, unless Nvidia worked on RSX for free, their investor information will show the timeframe for when work began. You'll have increased income with no sales, and also an increased expense in R&D. It's required by law that Nvidia give their investors that information, it's not something they could hide.

 

[Carl B]

I'm not trying to say when the work started. It may very well have been 2 years ago, I don't know.

All I'm doing is telling you how to find out. Like I said, unless Nvidia worked on RSX for free, their investor information will show the timeframe for when work began. You'll have increased income with no sales, and also an increased expense in R&D. It's required by law that Nvidia give their investors that information, it's not something they could hide.

Yes but you wouldn't know what those costs/gains were necessarily associated with. NVidia doesn't have to make it public knowledge exactly what their business initiatives are or even what their pricing structure is for existing products (or we'd know more about what the price of fabbing GPU's is) - so gains and losses could come from anywhere.

This would be a totally acceptable statement from NVidia:

A gain in revenue of 23% over the year-ago period was recorded, the gain in large part associated with increased revenue from the video game console sub-set of the graphics business. Increased R&D spending of 45% over the year-ago period, pursuant to seeking a possible expanded role for this aspect of operations, has also been recorded.

And what the hell would that mean to anyone reading it? Could mean anything. Could be XBox related, could be Sony related, could be Phantom related.

 

[Powderkeg]

Yes but you wouldn't know what those costs/gains were necessarily associated with. NVidia doesn't have to make it public knowledge exactly what their business initiatives are or even what their pricing structure is for existing products (or we'd know more about what the price of fabbing GPU's is) - so gains and losses could come from anywhere.

This would be a totally acceptable statement from NVidia:

And what the hell would that mean to anyone reading it? Could mean anything. Could be XBox related, could be Sony related, could be Phantom related.

You've never read a proxy statement before, have you?

I think you'll find finances are much more detailed in shareholder proxy information than they are in press releases.

For instance, here is a random quarterly report from Nvidia.

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/116466/reports/q204_10q.pdf



That's a bit ore detailed than your little made up quote, isn't it?

 

[Carl B]

Well, I in fact have read proxy's before and it really doesn't change my statement at all - I maintain that a deal with Sony could have flown under the radar. Granted I was emulating a quarterly report rather than a full proxy with my made-up quote.

I will tell you what though, why not look up the proxy for the quarter inclusive of December 7th and see how the Sony matter is dealt with in there? The wording and phrasing surrounding the deal may give indication as to prior work done. IMO if we really wanted to get 'investigative' on this, this is what we would do. We could also look at the proxy inclusive of September 2003 and see if there is any mention of efforts to court Sony in there.

I mean I'm happy to leave it where we are now (agreeing to disagree) since doing research (above and beyond what I have to anyway) was not my plan for the day, but I mean we would be fooling ourselves to think we couldn't get a little more clarity on the situation if we really wanted to.

I still think they could have concealed it - but I'm not going to say you might not be right. If a deal had been struct with Sony, certainly anyone could make the argument that that is 'material' and should be explicitly reported.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You've never read a proxy statement before, have you?

I think you'll find finances are much more detailed in shareholder proxy information than they are in press releases.

For instance, here is a random quarterly report from Nvidia.

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/116466/reports/q204_10q.pdf



That's a bit ore detailed than your little made up quote, isn't it?

I can't see in there, in a brief look and not detailed read, any reference to customers and specific activities. eg. In the legal 'we are facing several patent infrigment procedures' they don't mention what patents and with what companies. In breakdown of of received payments we surely still wouldn't know who the payment came from and for what.