MS FAQ : Xbox Next Vs CELL....

[Guden Oden]

MS is a software company, Sony is primarilly a hardware company.

Except, in the console sector it's Sony who has the advantage (by far) when it comes to software. So, I really don't see what you're getting at here.

It's not like Sony's going to forget what put them where they are, or what's keeping them there either for that matter... (And no, before anyone answers "hype"; that's not it. )

 

[jvd]

Ms can make a big splash if they can line up the console and pc sectors right .

If they can make the r500 (or whatever chip is in the new system ) the defacto pc game dev target then the new system will also be the defacto standard which will make porting very easy to the system .

They need to have a constant flow of good to great games unlike this gen and i believe that is the only way .

As for hardware even if the cell more powerfull in raw terms there are many many things that sony will not be able to touch .

Fsaa , anisotropic filtering hardwire dx 10 effects and many other things that ati has been developing over the years .

 

[Joe DeFuria]

With the PlayStation3 in a position to capitalize on the PS2's success, IMHO we're going to be in a position soon in which the PS3 outsells drastically the XBox2 and is reasonably more powerful - the question then becomes, why will a developer develop for XBox2?

Why do developers develop for X-Box today?

Developers are subservient to the Publishers, who are subservient to the almighty dollar.

Agreed...but you are spekaing like there's only room for one console on the market.

Do you really think a company like EA, which at the end of the day is the kind of company that actually matters, gives a shit about XNA when their PS2 title alone outsells the other versions combined? What's this going to do, what dynamic is this going to change other than further artificially *boost* MS's library up by PC cannibalization?

Allow them to actually develop more titles and put more SKU's on the shelf in the same time frame?

Anyways, the reason this Cell argument doesn't hold water is that Cell would appear, fundamentally, to be an architecture based around the distributed, pervasive, broadband aware world of tomorrow and it primarily is targeted at that.

And what if Sony is "ahead of it's time", and the "distributed, pervasive, broadband aware wold of tomorrow" is actually, "the day after tomorrow?"

 

[Brimstone]

Unless I misunderstand this, Microsoft is in a good position to work with other top tier electronic entertainment companies like SEGA because of the software tools focus. SEGA gets to control their own hardware and if they wish, the option to adopt Microsoft platform standards for arcade development is on the table. If a new Virtua Fighter gets created for the arcade, porting to the PC and X-Box 2 shouldn’t present major hurdles if Microsoft software is used. On the other hand, any future Sony hardware platform based off of CELL could require a lot more work to port. However, if Sony sells a lot of consoles and gains a significant portion of the next generation hardware sales, the work required to do a port just won’t matter.

Microsoft has Peter Moore helping shape their console strategy. He must be painfully aware of how the PS2 thrashed the well designed Dreamcast. It will be interesting to see if he has any good solutions up his sleeves to combat Sony better.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

MS clearly sasys that it would give them an advantage vs Sony.

And I'll bet Sony will and does claim that their hardware gives them an advantage vs. MS, despite not knowing what MS has.

That is what it is like with hardware and software. Software can be easliy obtained and made better, but hardware is fixed.

Being "fixed" can also be a disadvantage. If the hardware makes developing such software that much more difficult, there's not much you can do about it.

While the platform with the better software at the time might have the advantage, the platform with the best hardware has the most potential.

Yes, I'll go along with that. The key being potential, vs. "realized results."

I'm not sayint that Sony has the best hardware or that MS does, I'm just saying that MS has no justification to make such a statement. It's pretty silly if you ask me.

And I'm not saying that MS will ultimately have better dev tools than PS3 either...but to cry fould because MS is touting it at this stage (when Sony has nothing to show), seems silly.

 

[zurich]

It almost sounds like Sony is trying to keep their Cell/PS3 system port-free, while MS is trying to make the PC/Xbox port friendly, thus leveraging their strengths.

So perhaps it isn't PS3 vs XBN so much as PS3 vs XBN & the PC

 

[Magnum PI]

it's already xbox/pc vs PS2

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Sony has come a long way since the PSX days:

Gran Turismo
Jak
R&C
SOCOM II
ICO
Amplitude/Frequency
Eye Toy

But Microsoft has also done pretty well in it's first 2 years on the console scene with:

Halo
Project Gotham Racing
Crimson Skies
Top Spin
Rallisport
MechAssault
Links
Amped

Both publishers have shown that they can produce quality games.

 

[nobie]

I think you guys are missing the point of XNA. It comes down to this:

"XNA dramatically improves the way games are produced, helping contain skyrocketing development costs by reducing the amount of time developers spend writing mundane, repetitive boilerplate code for complex new hardware. The XNA ecosystem integrates new and existing tools and technologies from Microsoft and its partners so that developers can make better games, faster."

Making games today is incredibly more expensive and time consuming than it was ten years ago, and next-generation hardware will only continue that trend. Spending ten years and hundreds and millions of dollars making a game isn't a viable option. That's why you have middleware like HLSL and XNA.

MS has a point about software vs. hardware. In the previous generation Playstation was not the most powerful hardware, and in this generation Playstation 2 is not the most powerful hardware. But those platforms have a better software library than the competition, so they are dominant. In the same way the Wintel platform is not really the greatest thing out there, but that's where the software is so that's what everyone uses.

 

[marconelly!]

Sony is talking about a fixed world of hardware that requires everyone to buy everything Sony.

As opposed to OUR solution where we bring you fixed world of software that requires everyone to buy everything Microsoft!

Man, you gotta love those in-your-face double standards.

 

[zidane1strife]

And I'll bet Sony will and does claim that their hardware gives them an advantage vs. MS, despite not knowing what MS has.

Well, they should. Shouldn't they be able to simply go multi-chip or scale-up dramatically, thanks to the cell arch., should Ms exceed their original specification, or if they want to show-off?

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Blim

Unless I misunderstand this, Microsoft is in a good position to work with other top tier electronic entertainment companies like SEGA because of the software tools focus.

The "other electronics companies" MS is talking about are Windows licensees and PDA manufacturers. You know, the ones who cannot build their own systems software.

SEGA gets to control their own hardware and if they wish, the option to adopt Microsoft platform standards for arcade development is on the table.

Sega already announced its intention to stay with Dreamcast architecture in the arcade market with next generation PVRDC... Afterall, Dreamcast architecture is still alive and dominating(Naomi1/2 and Atomiswave) and all the tools and library development costs are already paid for, so why switch...

Guden

Except, in the console sector it's Sony who has the advantage (by far) when it comes to software. So, I really don't see what you're getting at here.

The software we are talking about are tools and libraries, not game titles. MS can supply a complete suit of those, SCEI can't.....

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Well, they should. Shouldn't they be able to simply go multi-chip or scale-up dramatically, thanks to the cell arch.

And how do you code for it???

 

[Tsmit42]

The software we are talking about are tools and libraries, not game titles. MS can supply a complete suit of those, SCEI can't.....

Why can't SCEI do it?

 

[jvd]

Re: ...

Well, they should. Shouldn't they be able to simply go multi-chip or scale-up dramatically, thanks to the cell arch.

And how do you code for it???

Not how do you code for it .

How much can they scale up the design and still keep it cost effective.

I'm sure that both ms and sony can play the scale , multi-chip game if they need too. But at some point they will be faced with extremly expensive chips (which the cell and r500 will already be) that they could end up eating 500-600$ off a system.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Why can't SCEI do it?

MS : The biggest software developer in the world.
SCEI : ....

 

[Guden Oden]

Allow them to actually develop more titles and put more SKU's on the shelf in the same time frame?

Can you please say boxes instead, like any normal person? It's just one more letter to type(*) and it doesn't look nearly as dorky as that useless TLA you used...

Thank you.

Edit:
* = My mistake: actually it's one less, since you could lose the apostrophe... D'oh!

And to save myself the extra work of making a separate post about it...

Deadmeat:
Care to explain why Sony would be unable to supply devtools for PS3? Bet you can't...

 

[Tsmit42]

Re: ...

Why can't SCEI do it?

MS : The biggest software developer in the world.
SCEI : ....

You act like Sony didn't sell around 170 million consoles in the last 9-10 years. If they think that anything is threatening their marketshare they will take all steps neccessary. Just because MS is the biggest software developer(for the pc) means nothing in the console world, beacause the only reason MS is the biggest software developer for the pc is because they have a monopoly, and it's pratically the opposite in the console realm. I'm sure that their are many software companies that could form and make a better product than windows, just look at linux, but it won't get them far so they don't try. You don't have to be the biggest to make a better quality product.

 

[nobie]

Isn't IBM the one making the software tools for Cell? It's right up their alley.

 

[ERP]

MS is a software company, Sony is primarilly a hardware company.

Except, in the console sector it's Sony who has the advantage (by far) when it comes to software. So, I really don't see what you're getting at here.

It's not like Sony's going to forget what put them where they are, or what's keeping them there either for that matter... (And no, before anyone answers "hype"; that's not it. )

I wasn't really talking about game software, I was talking about development tools. Comparing the tools MS provides for Xbox development to the tools Sony provides for PS2 development is like comparing a BMW to a Ford Pinto.

Sony provides just enough to get you there, MS try and provide tools to make the job easier.

Sony just hasn't done a great job on software in the past, I'd even go as far as to argue that the PS2 tools and it's OS are a step backwards from where they were with Playstation.

FWIW I'm not sure a lot of what MS is pushing with this new initiative is putting the effort in the right direction, but they are at least starting to realise where their advantage is.