Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"
- Thread starter mckmas8808
- Start date
Haven't been back in a few days, so I figured I'd just address the main reply and clarify a few things on my side.
The don't because they WOULD be attracting a lot more attention, and they WOULD be inciting legal action. (And while they got off light in the monopoly hearings, things could turn around if they're perceived to be pushing their luck whenever/however.) The result may be non-obvious, but it would almost assuredly come about. (And certainly be a public image thorn if nothing else.)
But at any rate, I wasn't saying that their current expenditures matter, and I certainly wasn't saying it could/would/should have any legal implications. That wasn't what I was addressing. Just the standpoint that "nobody should care" and "it shouldn't matter" and sloughing off any concerns people MIGHT have, and I wanted to redirect that there certainly are concerns--and whole damn laws--and that judging the situation is always a matter of degrees.
To some people, losing $4 billion a generation would seem like a poorly-structured business plan, and doing it many gerations in a row would seem less like a "business" in general and more like "buying marketshare"--and there seem to be people who frown at that kind of activity. What does MS's breakdown look like Xbox-wise and what WILL it look like in the future...? <shrugs> No idea. But that's why people are watching.
Sony has had recent dominance, but it displaced Nintendo's previous dominance, who displaced Atari's previous dominance (though that was more like "gave a shot in the arm to consoles after Atari's mismanagement")... so no one is saying that any player is destined to always rule. And even if Sony were even FURTHER ahead, Nintendo still rules in handheld video games, and PC gaming is almost entirely Microsoft's, so... It depends just how narrowly or broadly one is looking at "video games" altogether.
I don't see anyone saying we must remove any players from the field... just people who are examining the numbers and believing that all the players should be playing the same game. When Nintendo surged ahead or Sony, were they bleeding money out their anus, or did they do that "market" trick you mention and release a great product, have a good plan to back it up, and bring in a ton more profit at the same time?
In Microsoft's case in general, I imagine people just get more worried, as they do have an unquestioned monopoly, have been known to flex certain muscles to unquestioned large affect (they're much better at it than Sony, which has used much smaller monopolistic muscles and seem to only end up hurting themselves because of it
), and have a much larger war chest than... well... anyone, really. So the prospect of them growing to dominance in the console field--even as they are merging much more with computerdom--has the tendency to worry.
Personally, I just think the "we shouldn't care" attitude itself is asinine. Why should we ever ignore a large market so much or for so long that we might let an actual monopoly be created... which was only THEN when we were supposed to be worried! At what nebulous point would we be "allowed to pay attention?" And when would we be "allowed to ask questions" or--heaven forbid!--"take action?" Is there a formula?
The more eyes looking, ears listening, and mouths talking the better, IMHO. At all times. If nothing else it actually means the market which we ARE saying should "do the job for us" will actually be awake.
scooby_dooby said:
The don't because they WOULD be attracting a lot more attention, and they WOULD be inciting legal action. (And while they got off light in the monopoly hearings, things could turn around if they're perceived to be pushing their luck whenever/however.) The result may be non-obvious, but it would almost assuredly come about. (And certainly be a public image thorn if nothing else.)
But at any rate, I wasn't saying that their current expenditures matter, and I certainly wasn't saying it could/would/should have any legal implications. That wasn't what I was addressing. Just the standpoint that "nobody should care" and "it shouldn't matter" and sloughing off any concerns people MIGHT have, and I wanted to redirect that there certainly are concerns--and whole damn laws--and that judging the situation is always a matter of degrees.
To some people, losing $4 billion a generation would seem like a poorly-structured business plan, and doing it many gerations in a row would seem less like a "business" in general and more like "buying marketshare"--and there seem to be people who frown at that kind of activity. What does MS's breakdown look like Xbox-wise and what WILL it look like in the future...? <shrugs> No idea. But that's why people are watching.
Sony has had recent dominance, but it displaced Nintendo's previous dominance, who displaced Atari's previous dominance (though that was more like "gave a shot in the arm to consoles after Atari's mismanagement")... so no one is saying that any player is destined to always rule. And even if Sony were even FURTHER ahead, Nintendo still rules in handheld video games, and PC gaming is almost entirely Microsoft's, so... It depends just how narrowly or broadly one is looking at "video games" altogether.
I don't see anyone saying we must remove any players from the field... just people who are examining the numbers and believing that all the players should be playing the same game. When Nintendo surged ahead or Sony, were they bleeding money out their anus, or did they do that "market" trick you mention and release a great product, have a good plan to back it up, and bring in a ton more profit at the same time?
In Microsoft's case in general, I imagine people just get more worried, as they do have an unquestioned monopoly, have been known to flex certain muscles to unquestioned large affect (they're much better at it than Sony, which has used much smaller monopolistic muscles and seem to only end up hurting themselves because of it
), and have a much larger war chest than... well... anyone, really. So the prospect of them growing to dominance in the console field--even as they are merging much more with computerdom--has the tendency to worry.Personally, I just think the "we shouldn't care" attitude itself is asinine. Why should we ever ignore a large market so much or for so long that we might let an actual monopoly be created... which was only THEN when we were supposed to be worried! At what nebulous point would we be "allowed to pay attention?" And when would we be "allowed to ask questions" or--heaven forbid!--"take action?" Is there a formula?
The more eyes looking, ears listening, and mouths talking the better, IMHO. At all times. If nothing else it actually means the market which we ARE saying should "do the job for us" will actually be awake.
cthellis42 said:Haven't been back in a few days, so I figured I'd just address the main reply and clarify a few things on my side.
The don't because they WOULD be attracting a lot more attention, and they WOULD be inciting legal action. (And while they got off light in the monopoly hearings, things could turn around if they're perceived to be pushing their luck whenever/however.) The result may be non-obvious, but it would almost assuredly come about. (And certainly be a public image thorn if nothing else.)
But at any rate, I wasn't saying that their current expenditures matter, and I certainly wasn't saying it could/would/should have any legal implications. That wasn't what I was addressing. Just the standpoint that "nobody should care" and "it shouldn't matter" and sloughing off any concerns people MIGHT have, and I wanted to redirect that there certainly are concerns--and whole damn laws--and that judging the situation is always a matter of degrees.
To some people, losing $4 billion a generation would seem like a poorly-structured business plan, and doing it many gerations in a row would seem less like a "business" in general and more like "buying marketshare"--and there seem to be people who frown at that kind of activity. What does MS's breakdown look like Xbox-wise and what WILL it look like in the future...? <shrugs> No idea. But that's why people are watching.
Sony has had recent dominance, but it displaced Nintendo's previous dominance, who displaced Atari's previous dominance (though that was more like "gave a shot in the arm to consoles after Atari's mismanagement")... so no one is saying that any player is destined to always rule. And even if Sony were even FURTHER ahead, Nintendo still rules in handheld video games, and PC gaming is almost entirely Microsoft's, so... It depends just how narrowly or broadly one is looking at "video games" altogether.
I don't see anyone saying we must remove any players from the field... just people who are examining the numbers and believing that all the players should be playing the same game. When Nintendo surged ahead or Sony, were they bleeding money out their anus, or did they do that "market" trick you mention and release a great product, have a good plan to back it up, and bring in a ton more profit at the same time?
In Microsoft's case in general, I imagine people just get more worried, as they do have an unquestioned monopoly, have been known to flex certain muscles to unquestioned large affect (they're much better at it than Sony, which has used much smaller monopolistic muscles and seem to only end up hurting themselves because of it
Personally, I just think the "we shouldn't care" attitude itself is asinine. Why should we ever ignore a large market so much or for so long that we might let an actual monopoly be created... which was only THEN when we were supposed to be worried! At what nebulous point would we be "allowed to pay attention?" And when would we be "allowed to ask questions" or--heaven forbid!--"take action?" Is there a formula?
The more eyes looking, ears listening, and mouths talking the better, IMHO. At all times. If nothing else it actually means the market which we ARE saying should "do the job for us" will actually be awake.
Brilliantly delivered...could not have worded the point I was trying to get across better myself
It's good to keep a watchful eye out for these things and to be concerned...but trust me I'm not losing sleep over MS being involved in the console war.
Its even an ironic statement in light of the fact that the graphics processors of at least two next gen consoles so far (and one prior gen) have absolutely been shaped by and for the API that MS have invested so heavily in. If it wasn't for DirectX the graphics companies that we have now (with healthy compeition) wouldn't be in the state they are, nor could both of them have diversified in the directions they have.Sethamin said:
Dave Baumann said:
Right. Even moreso ironic that its because of contracts that bend Nvidia's way, that the sale of each Xbox contributed to the R&D funding that went into development of hardware like the 6800/7800/RSX. As soon MS works out BC on 90+% of its library the old xbox is gone... and rightfully so.
Bigus Dickus said:
No I didnt say that.You assumed I siad that.What I ment is that even if the console brings losses they wouldnt care.They will keep it in the market.Do you know the concept of investment?You invest to get profits.
That is very very debatable if you compare it with Sony's R&D spending although I dont know exact figures.
An indication that prooves my point.Its an undeniable fact that Sony and Nintendo have pushed further.Actually considering the accumulated capital Sony has compared to MS's super profitable company Sony did push more than what MS could but didnt.
Sethamin said:
And how many console owners go online?Half of the things you mentioned are hardly anything new or anything remarkable.Although I have to admit that MS did a great job.No.Actually a superb job at bringing a good online service for consoles for the first time.Too bad you have to PAY for it.Network-port, wireless controllers-built in.Thats hardly an evolution.Its mostly a gimmik.
I playied an XBOX.And I loved it.Actually if I had the money I would have bought it too.
Oh and just the fact that you said I have Ms-hate blinders shows that you are the kind of people that are obsessed with a product.Blindly obsessed.Reminds me of the f**boy word.
You probably missed their statement that they will remain in the market even if they lose from the console market.
The console market is a safe long term bet for them.When I say long term it may even take decades.Someday they will recover since giants fall(like Sont) and they will take over easily.Its just a matter of time.They wait.No.Endangared not at all.Not even close to what Sony and Nintendo are facing.
Oh you know MS.You work at MS too I guess?
They only plan for the long term possible thread that may or may not exist.Nothing more.They act with the big IFs in mind.Someone else posted some of the reasons why they entered.Do a search in this thread.You ll get your answers.Otherwise they wouldnt invest even if they get losses.
Nintendo and Sony are facing the risks and dangers more commonly and at the near present.
No I dont mind that at all.Its great to have more competitors.As long as the competitors are competitive companies or at least competitive monopoly companies I dont mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, not Nintendo, at this point in time I think there is a reasonable chance that their processor will be the least influenced by DirectX. Curiously MS graphics on the XBOX 360 probably comes second, but at this point in time I would say that the next gen graphics processor that is the best embodyment of DirectX, in terms of sticking to the specification, and Shader Model 3.0 would be RSX.Nesh said:Which two next gen consoles is he refering two?Rev and 360?
What choices do you think does Nintendo have, and what choice would MS make?
I'm not sure that Xenos "misses" any SM3.0 requirements (it might, but I'm not aware of it - it meets or exceeds in the elements we went over in the article). Xenos has very good dynamic branching performance, and its structure also allows for better vertex texturing, which are both SM3.0 introductions, but its unified architecture gives the full capabilities of the pixel shader to the vertex shader and vice versa, which is very SM4.0 like; however it doesn't have things like unlimited shader lengths, a fast integer path (not sure if thats still required) or Geometry Shader capabilties, so it falls well short of SM4.0. Elements such as MEMEXPORT are not defined in SM3.0 and may not even be in SM4.0.
Sure, there are elements to NVIDIA's Shader 3.0 parts that are beyond the specification - IIRC they used to list NV4x as having unlimited shader instruction lengths, but were limited by the API (however, I believe they may still have limitations in the GL extensions), however because of where NV were between from NV30 to NV40, NV40 always appeared to me to be "get the SM3.0 specification in as efficiently as possible while giving great performance on current apps". Xenos's design is a little less rooted in any current DX given that it comes out of ATI's research group who are not being influenced by the desktop design anywhere near as much.
Sure, there are elements to NVIDIA's Shader 3.0 parts that are beyond the specification - IIRC they used to list NV4x as having unlimited shader instruction lengths, but were limited by the API (however, I believe they may still have limitations in the GL extensions), however because of where NV were between from NV30 to NV40, NV40 always appeared to me to be "get the SM3.0 specification in as efficiently as possible while giving great performance on current apps". Xenos's design is a little less rooted in any current DX given that it comes out of ATI's research group who are not being influenced by the desktop design anywhere near as much.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
But Dave, RSX is some combination of some next-gen best nVidia technology combined with cell-like SPUs and....
/runs....
/runs....
Dave Baumann said:
Ok Thanks for a pretty good answer. I have a final question... one which is probabaly stupid but anyway...
Your statement would imply that RSX is as rumored - a DX compliant architecture most likely based on 7800 or greater design.
But I thought Sony was using OGL 2.0 as their API in PS3, which would have different requirements as compared to DX SM3.0. I dont know the facts of the differences in terms of the APIs themselves but it just seems that DX requirements or adherence would be meaningless on that platform. Is this correct?
Damnit, you're right Joe, that farm of SPE's in there is certainly not DX like!Joe DeFuria said:
IIRC weren't the comments about OpenGL ES 2.0?blakjedi said:
Anyway, IIRC NV4x is full OpenGL2.0 compliant - it already support all the extensions.
An hardware architecture is not exclusively bound to any API.blakjedi said:
If the hardware function exist, the API choose by Sony will take advantge of it.
The PS3 API is based on OpengL ES, BTW.
Sega, Dreamcast.Nesh said:
And, some may argue about the Famicom as being the first online capable Console.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I thought Xenos goes well beyond SM3.0 and a good ways toward SM4.0 even if it's not at SM4.0 and even if it does not implement one or two obscure SM3.0 features (not saying Xenos doesn't have every SM3.0 feature, just saying if).
Last edited by a moderator:
