I'm not asking for your personal opinion.Apoc said:CS was a mod not made by valve. Half life 2.... don't get me started on it. All this waiting to get a boring and repetitive game.
Those games are insanely popular.
I'm not asking for your personal opinion.Apoc said:CS was a mod not made by valve. Half life 2.... don't get me started on it. All this waiting to get a boring and repetitive game.
serenity said:I'm not asking for your personal opinion.
Those games are insanely popular.
Vince said:Consoles aren't PCs and PCs are not Consoles, it would seem that the origional XBox sort of changed this paradigm and now that this appearent bridge has been formed people are expecting them to be isometric. It's just unfortunate that now, systems which have been designed with a clear set of goals, like Cell, are demeaned for not compling with the status quo of the PC when in fact they are pretty impressively designed and executed entities in their own right.
Apoc said:CS was a mod not made by valve. Half life 2.... don't get me started on it. All this waiting to get a boring and repetitive game.
DOGMA1138 said:CS was a mod which was made by Valve, its their project.
Apoc said:I always thought the original CS wasn't made by valve, and that they then bought it to use it in HL2.
The Counter-Strike team was formed by Minh Le ("Gooseman") and Jess Cliffe ("Cliffe") in 1999. Counter-Strike Beta 1.0 was released in June that same year, followed by a relatively quick succession of the beta releases (by the end of 1999, beta 5.0 had been released). CS gained in popularity just as rapidly. The Counter-Strike team was acquired by Valve to turn the fan-created mod into an official mod for Half-Life.
doob said:The man spoke some raw truethful decisions made behind hidden doors of the industry's "little" market strategy's in part 2.
Part.1 just shows his perspective about how he will aproach (or has) about steam and other related software(games).
The reason sony decided to go with cell was not just of its performance in multimedia content. As i suspect, what made sony to go with cell despite what programmers would moan, cry out for help, is just based on the nature of code architecture, in what results in a very hard counter mesure against piracy, no more emulators to run on pc, even if such would come out, the performance would be terrible.
Laa-Yosh said:I dunno, but I thought he said something like this... Sony made the PS3 architecture this way so that the game/engine code written to make use of the SPEs is far too hard to port to any other platform. Sony also wants to build the image that they'll have monopoly with this gen again, so that all developers will take the PS3 as their primary platform. This would result in developers with limited budgets to be unable to port their games to other platforms, which is exactly what Sony wants; and it will also strengthen their monopoly as well. At least as I got it...
Titanio said:I think it would be wrong to characterise the design choices as being motivated (or motivated solely) by a desire to limit cross-platform porting, or the success of that. If they really wanted to obfuscate PS3 development relative to other systems, they could have done a lot more to do that. But yeah, it is a natural consequence of the design that ports may be more difficult, and I'm sure Sony are not unhappy about that. And assuming a strong position in the market, they can get away with it.
But you know, it's not like porting has been a walk in the park before. Pentium code doesn't port very readily to a EE I imagine either, or vice versa.
mckmas8808 said:And doesn't Gabe know that IBM and Toshiba had something to do with making the CELL too? Is he telling me that the CELL is only going to be used for the PS3? He doesn't know that STI has already sold it to the Mercury company? It's also going to be in TVs too Gabe!
onetimeposter said:thats exactly what Gabe is saying. That we have a multimedia chip and Sony wants the programmers to program it as a gaming chip which is alot tougher than people think.
liverkick said:What is a "gaming chip" exactly?
BlueTsunami said:That seems to be Sonys use for the CELL, the question is, what will IBM and Toshiba use it for? Also..as mckmas8808 said, its already going to be used for a company named Mercury...which from what i've seen work with advance imaging and things of that nature.
VIDEO-PROCESSING POTENTIAL. Still, some businesses have seen that the chip wasn't just fun and games. In June, Mercury Computer Systems (MRCY ), a Chelmsford (Mass.)-based manufacturer of specialized computers used for medical imaging and military surveillance, says it plans to use the chip in an as-yet-unspecified application it is developing with IBM. The release of the information should encourage other companies to do likewise, King says.
Indeed, the Cell has plenty of potential uses. Already, Sony and Toshiba are making an example of the chip's nongame potential. Sony plans to use it in a line of media servers, set to debut in 2007, that will be capable of transmitting several streams of digital video at once. Toshiba has said it expects to use it in a line of high-definition TV sets. "The sheer processing power of the Cell processor provides some very interesting capabilities for video processing," King says.
Chris Crotty, an analyst with iSuppli, a San Jose (Calif.) market research firm, expects the chip could also be "a good fit" as set-top boxes evolve. Says STI's Maeurer: "This is really about exploring how far we can go with the Cell processor." Far beyond video games, it seems.
Vince said:His comments on Steam-esque updating systems for device drivers is an excellent point and is something which a body like Microsoft, do to their dominant (monopolistic?!?) position in the PC market, have the capacity and ability to address.
BlueTsunami said:Its whatever you want it to be
It is what it is, trying to say that Sony is trying to gear it towards something seems to be the current misconception.
It's a kind of bunk argument though isn't it? For what Cell could make porting from PS3 harder, it makes porting 'to' PS3 10x worse, so it would be more like Sony shooting their own foot if this was their primary intent.Laa-Yosh said:Sony made the PS3 architecture this way so that the game/engine code written to make use of the SPEs is far too hard to port to any other platform.
Which is a great reason it shouldn't have taken MS 10 years to come up with an improved driver model.aaaa0 said:]If anything, making the driver model better and easier for 3D IHVs to write stable and fast drivers will do much more for reducing customer support issues than automatic patching would, IMHO.