Is Sony running after Cg and the CgFX run-time ?

[Panajev2001a]

There have been lots of rumours about nVIDIA collaborating with Sony on the PlayStation 3 and everyone assumed that nVIDIA, if the rumours were true, would be designing part of the chip in PlayStation 3...

Well, why ?

Sony, as some have intelligently pointed out, seems to like the programmable approach ( see the VUs in the Emotion Engine and the direction Cell seems to be going ) and what they need the most is on the software side ( languages, libraries and APIs )...

nVIDIA, which they might have gotten in talks with during the Stanford Shading Language program, might be providing them with a custom PlayStation 3 Cell back-end for their Cg compiler and create a PlayStation 3 Cell CgFX run-time environment for their SDKs.

That would help as it would provide developers with a known and friendly development environment and a High Level Shading Language which is very similar to the DX9 HLSL

That should help getting even more 3rd party support

Also, another reason might be cross-licensing of patents... there might be things Sony is doing that collides with nVIDIA-3dfx patents and Sony is licensing them from nVIDIA so that PlayStation 3 can keep following its schedule...

Cg might be part of the deal: Sony gives them money and shares with them some technology ( maybe some deals on their new manufacturing process or something else... ) and gets Cg as part of the deal...

And no nVIDIA would not be double-crossing them as I do not think they would be that unprofessional and I do not think that Sony would allow ultra-bad leaks to happen...

 

[Paul]

It actually makes pretty good sense to do so.

Including CG wouldn't shy away PC developers and it would be good because obviously PS3 will be harder to program than PS2 ever was.

I also think that along with some API Nvidia will be helping Sony on the GS3, but that's just me.

 

[ChryZ]

Excellent! Good idea to create a separate thread for this topic.
Would anyone with CG experience care to comment?

 

[Sonic]

Funny, I was getting ready to lock this thread because it relates to the Sony and Nvidia one so closely.

Panajev you bring up some very good points. This type of speculation always interests me.

Sony would probably be good to adapt some form of Cg in the future for PS3 if Cg proves to be a cost effective solution in the long run. How much does Nvidia license it to these big corporations for? I'd be willing to bet Nvidia would write PS3 specific Cg code early on. Who knows, Nvidia is known for making great tech demoes at times. Maybe it will do some of the PS3 ones.

 

[ChryZ]

The NVIDIA Cg Toolkit is the best way to take advantage of today's GPUs across multiple platforms and APIs. Supporting DirectX 9.0 as well as OpenGL's ARB_vertex_program and ARB_fragment_program extensions, the compiler allows developers to create advanced visual effects for today's programmable GPUs from NVIDIA and other vendors.

Cg also comes with a suite of complementary tools, including plug-ins for artists (Maya 4.5, 3ds max 5, XSI 3.0), DirectX and OpenGL runtimes, comprehensive documentation and hundreds of shader examples.

Toolkit Download:
http://developer.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=cg_toolkit

 

[Panajev2001a]

Funny, I was getting ready to lock this thread because it relates to the Sony and Nvidia one so closely.

I knew it: it is a conspiracy...

FREE the PANAJEV



...

 

[Panajev2001a]

Cg syntax seems not to be far from DX9 HLSL, in a small step Sony would basically steal the thunder of MS which would definately use the ease of coding thanks to their HLSL...

The more I think about it the more I agree this is something Sony would do ( it would be a smart move ): stealing Microsoft's thunder has been fun ( last E3's price drop situation )... this would not hurt Microsoft too bad, but it would help PlayStation 3 quite a bit

Sony would probably be good to adapt some form of Cg in the future for PS3 if Cg proves to be a cost effective solution in the long run. How much does Nvidia license it to these big corporations for? I'd be willing to bet Nvidia would write PS3 specific Cg code early on. Who knows, Nvidia is known for making great tech demoes at times. Maybe it will do some of the PS3 ones.

I agree, Cg could help cut development costs in the long run and would help as it could attract more 3rd parties to PlayStation 3: they would ALSO attract more PC developers and that would increase the number of games available for the system...

Sure you would get also more conversions from PC and not tons more original titles by having more PC developers, but you might end up with games like Morrowind, Battlefield 1942, etc... which would be nice to be able to offer to your userbase in ADDITION to what your normal group of 1st, 2nd and 3rd party developers would bring...

 

[Vince]

Hate to be the centre of contempt against this idea, but I fail to see how this is adventagous to Sony's ends.

Developers will develop where the money is, this is obvious as they (at this point) need brick-and-morter type publishers. These publishers must be able to have a finacially viable scenario where they make profits from taking on a game/developer.

Thus, Sony has the absolute advantage at this point. Game will be ported over - this is a given. What they also want to is create a divide between their platform and the competition that discourages most publishers from allowing cross-platform titles. Having a form of Cg span what I consider the aproaching Great Diaspora of the graphics would help nullify this. Sony will kill off Microsoft by atrophy; they will bleed them dry by a constant and consistent bombardment on the scale (or greater than) the PS2/Xbox fight untill Microsoft is facing an exploding STI team whose pressuring them from the outside and investors are pressuring them from internally to cut loose. The only wildcard is IBM/Linux who could be the red-flag to MS investors that this is the fight - but in the end I doubt they will win out.

If nVidia is involved in PS3/cell, my bet is that they want their IP utilized. nVidia has been widely advocating the places in which 3D will turn up in the late decade - I think it could be very adventageous to license IP to STI for Cell varients. And this would allow them to retain their teams on developing PC based ICs.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Vince,

Also, another reason might be cross-licensing of patents... there might be things Sony is doing that collides with nVIDIA-3dfx patents and Sony is licensing them from nVIDIA so that PlayStation 3 can keep following its schedule...

[...]

If nVidia is involved in PS3/cell, my bet is that they want their IP utilized. nVidia has been widely advocating the places in which 3D will turn up in the late decade - I think it could be very adventageous to license IP to STI for Cell varients. And this would allow them to retain their teams on developing PC based ICs.

This was in my first post

I agree that they have some IPs that Sony, IBM and Toshiba might need in Cell: those technologies might already be there and since it might appear clear that nVIDIA hold patents on those technologies they could license them and license some more to improove a product like PlayStation 3 further...

Why not adding Cg on top of it ? Why not having this nice extra bonus to make of your SDKs something even more useful and attracting for the developers which are investigating PlayStation 3 ?

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sony will kill off Microsoft by atrophy; they will bleed them dry by a constant and consistent bombardment on the scale

I agree on this long term vision ( which involves considerations on the engineering side of things as well as other factors ), but I do not think Sony should make porting titles artificially difficult...

Sony doesn't need to gradually piss developers off year by year just because they have the greatest market share... I think Sony is smarter than that...

Renderware is a VERY widely used tool and is available for all three platforms... I do not see Renderware hurting PlayStation 2's market share and you can look back since the moment it arrived on PlayStation 2...

 

[zurich]

Pana,

Basically what Vince is saying is that since Sony already has huge mommentum going into the next gen, they want to build up "barriers-to-port/dev for other systems", and one way to do this is to make highly exotic, specific hardware that requires a 'special' approach to tackle. By doing this, publishers/developers will spend millions of dollars and years of time building their PS3 tools to overcome this... and at the end of the day, it wouldn't be profitable/worth the time to add another system into their mix.

See-> Konami for more information!

If PS3 used Cg, do you really think Sony would appreciate a simple recompile to port their latest and greatest 3rd party titles over to the Xbox2? Sure, they could time-exclusive it, but that costs $$$. Much easier to just build artificial barriers to entry and keep your publishers close.

 

[Paul]

Yea well, you also don't want to piss alot of developers off and or shy away new game developers that often have new fresh idea's for games.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Do you think that a simple recompile would work ?

Simply recompiling the C source of a program with GCC 3.2 instead of using the latest Intel Compiler ( which to an extent summarizes the difference that using completely different Cg back-end and CgFx Run-Time environment bring to the table ) will lead ( especially on a Pentium IV, but also on an Athlon XP ) to quite a big drop in performance, plus how would you convert the low level optimizations and all the other libraries used ?

Shaders are NOT everything... Cg will not help you deisgn Physics and A.I. engines, Sony's own libraries and middleware will...

 

[Psychogenics]

Middleware is Key to the PS3 as Sony will provide developers with their own middleware...Do you guys think that Nvidia is helping out with the Middleware too?

 

[Panajev2001a]

they might: one of the points behind this thread... even better, their help might come in the form of the official PlayStation 3 SDK Sony gives to the licensed PlayStation 3 developers...

 

[Vince]

I do not think Sony should make porting titles artificially difficult... Sony doesn't need to gradually piss developers off year by year just because they have the greatest market share...

So your advocating making it easy for a developer to take the title that was developed for a Sony console (due to developer pressure) and then allowing then the simple port utilizing Cg to a Microsoft console that 98% of the publishers will force them to do since the cost is so insignificant?

That's insane. It's begging developers to pitch multiplatform projects to publishers that they'll accept - it's defying logic. You want to kill your opponent, not nurture them. This is buisness, you utilize your standing as the console, the status-quo, the one one anyone gives a shit about and make it so that developers are producing projects for you and you only.

What your advocating is if the United States as the sole Superpower adopting a Russian/Chinese specification (say 7.62) and then allowing thir massive military-industrial complex to design bleeding-edge munitions that the enemies of the US can use to turn around and kill Americans with. It's insane.

Sony doesn't need to gradually piss developers off year by year just because they have the greatest market share...

Developers aren't pissed, what BS is this? Developers make games, they want to get payed. Some are inheriently crazy and like challenges. This is their job - can you tell me someone elses job you'd state this about?

This is like circa 2001 horseshit circulating in XBox and Cube circles about PS2 and how they're going to rape Sony because it's so hard to program for. The fact is, developers need publishers, publishers want to maximize money. If you make it so simple (as you advocate) to do cross-platform, then they will all do it. Force them into a choice and the bean-counters will pick Sony.

Renderware is a VERY widely used tool and is available for all three platforms... I do not see Renderware hurting PlayStation 2's market share and you can look back since the moment it arrived on PlayStation 2..

Irrelevent. Cg is a HLSL type thing that's a tool, not a game engine. You code in Cg and it spits out the code for whatever backend you select. Just a bit different than Renderware. You need to license Renderware to use the renderer, you'd use Cg in every engine.

 

[Vince]

Simply recompiling the C source of a program with GCC 3.2 instead of using the latest Intel Compiler ( which to an extent summarizes the difference that using completely different Cg back-end and CgFx Run-Time environment bring to the table ) will lead ( especially on a Pentium IV, but also on an Athlon XP ) to quite a big drop in performance, plus how would you convert the low level optimizations and all the other libraries used ?

Your going to port PlayStation3 titles from 2005 to a Pentium4 or Athlon (which is basically phased out in 2H2003) and wonder why preformance is going to suck?

I'd have to assume that with well coded backends by nVidia/Sony - you'd be able to very easily shift code from PS3 onto nV45 or Nv50 based platforms if PS3 takes form as you predict.

I on the otherhand don't believe this.

 

[chaphack]

Sony would suck if they forced the developers to hardcode their games only for PS3. Say bye bye to yeah port money. This will not go down well with the dozens of devteams around.

Ahhh...the power of a near monopoly.

 

[Vince]

Sony would suck if they forced the developers to hardcode their games only for PS3. Say bye bye to yeah port money. This will not go down well with the dozens of devteams around.

Ahhh...the power of a near monopoly.

Grow up.. seriously.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I'd have to assume that with well coded backends by nVidia/Sony - you'd be able to very easily shift code from PS3 onto nV45 or Nv50 based platforms

This is where I still disagree with you...