MS FAQ : Xbox Next Vs CELL....

[Joe DeFuria]

Can you please say boxes instead, like any normal person?

Because simply saying "boxes" does not convey the right meaning. I could say "unique titles", but that's quite a few more letters than SKUs, or even SKU's.

 

[Vince]

Why do developers develop for X-Box today?

I think there's enough of an incentive for developers to pitch a product to publishers in which they develop for the more powerful XBox and then have relatively quick ports to the PC and downgrade to the PS2.

The question going forward is centered around how the dynamic would change if PS3 retains the same incentive to develop for (eg. 70% of the marketplace), takes the preformance edge (marginal or better) and does it by using an architecture which diminishes the benefit of porting. Why the hell would you develop for XBox2? XNA is a step in the right direction but we'l have to see if it's enough... I question.

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

There is only room for one, that's the driving force behind competition after all.

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

This doesn't address what I actually said. Whats this going to do for a company like a, say, EA or SquareEnix or any other large corperation thats already putting teams of 100 people on a product? These are the catalyst for the marketplace, not the small developer. And no, I don't just buy the simplistic "more SKU" on the shelf comment when you ponder the possible scenario talked about earlier.

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?"

Then they still have a custom architecture powering their isolated devices which increases corperate profits and which, concerning the consoles, makes what Microsoft did look like a kids work with a red crayon. This is a really, really weak argument - kind of like a slacker trying to justify the fact that he's a lazy ass because in the slight chance it doesn't materialize, he wouldn't have lost anything.

 

[Vince]

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

Yes, Deadmeat is out there somewhere. IBM's been working on such software for decades which Democoder can attest to and from what I've gathered there's been work done both at TJ Watson and STI-Austin where there are Toshiba and Sony engineer's working. Several of the 'fathers' of the Cell architecture (and well known in the research establishment) have been presenting and calling for papers on related topics since 2001.

 

[Fafalada]

Well can't say I'm too surprised, some of us have predicted this turn of events for the last 4 years.

So in summary, all the PR nonsense aside, this is the first step towards creating a hw abstracted platform, which among other things, is set to eventually end the clear separation between console/PC as well.
I won't be at all surprised if this generation is the last we've seen of closed hardware platform development - at least if MS has their way.

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.

While I can certainly see the good points about it, I'm not all that happy with some of the implications. Although I've understood for some time that they were inevitable (I have no doubt that if MS didn't start this, someone else would have worked in the same direction eventually).

Honestly though, with some of the rumours that floated around I expected something more newsworthy. Like MS bundling a free hooker with every devkit to improve performance of development teams or something 8)
(Ok, so that was actually Archie's idea, but I like it too, sue me )

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The question going forward is centered around how the dynamic would change if PS3 retains the same incentive to develop for (eg. 70% of the marketplace), takes the preformance edge (marginal or better) and does it by using an architecture which diminishes the benefit of porting. Why the hell would you develop for XBox2?

Why is that the question? I mean, I could load the question the other way: the question going forward is how would the dynamic change if the PS3 loses it's "70% of the marketplace" dominance, (console dominance has changed in the past, you know) it continues to lag behind a bit in the performance area, and it's architecture further diminshes the benefit of porting.

Why the hell would you code to PS3?

XNA is a step in the right direction but we'l have to see if it's enough... I question.

Of course, we all question. I just think that you're jumping to some pretty early conclusions that PS3 will immediately have some huge market share advantage compared to XBox next. I think that's way premature.

In other words....I have to question if PS2's current market dominance will be enough to erode the development platform advantage of XNA.

There is only room for one, that's the driving force behind competition after all.

OK.

This doesn't address what I actually said. Whats this going to do for a company like a, say, EA or SquareEnix or any other large corperation thats already putting teams of 100 people on a product?

??

You mean, companies like EA or Square that likely bitch and moan internally every day because they have to have 100 people on a product, instead of half as much?

These companies wouldn't be interested in cutting development resources significantly?

Then they still have a custom architecture powering their isolated devices which increases corperate profits and which, concerning the consoles, makes what Microsoft did look like a kids work with a red crayon. This is a really, really weak argument - kind of like a slacker trying to justify the fact that he's a lazy ass because in the slight chance it doesn't materialize, he wouldn't have lost anything.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I have nothing agaist Sony taking risks with custom architecture, any more than I have any anything against MS building custom tools to cover multiple platforms.

There are different sets of risks involved, is my point.

 

[Vince]

Why is that the question? I mean, I could load the question the other way: the question going forward is how would the dynamic change if the PS3 loses it's "70% of the marketplace" dominance, (console dominance has changed in the past, you know) it continues to lag behind a bit in the performance area, and it's architecture further diminshes the benefit of porting.

Um, precedent? There is a line of logical thinking supported by history, known mechanics, consumer confidence and extrapolation supporting my case. You're is more akin to what happens when J Allard is on the beach shooting up PS2's with 50cal rounds so he feels better and runs across a bottle in the sand...

Why the hell would you code to PS3?

In that case you don't, duh! But, lets see such a drastic turn of events happen - especially hard to ponder considering Sony is doing everything right.

Of course, we all question. I just think that you're jumping to some pretty early conclusions that PS3 will immediately have some huge market share advantage compared to XBox next. I think that's way premature.

This sounds oddly familiar... kinda like the last words of the Sega fans in 1999 when pondering PSOne's sucess and the upcomming PS2. Or the Nintendo and XBox supporters and their mantra of, "Just wait untill..."

In other words....I have to question if PS2's current market dominance will be enough to erode the development platform advantage of XNA.

I knew I heard this before...

• Substitute "XNA" for "ease of dev on ( __ ) over the impossible PS2 - Fill in with: (DC), (XBox), (Cube)

HA! This is away message quality.

You mean, companies like EA or Square that likely bitch and moan internally every day because they have to have 100 people on a product, instead of half as much?

These companies wouldn't be interested in cutting development resources significantly?

Not at the cost of profits, it's all about finding equalibrium... Microsoft can do everything it can to reduce the barriers to development on their platform and, yet, depending on what Sony does, it can shift it so far that Microsoft's changes doesn't matter relatively speaking. And I question (not saying definitivly) if XSN is even going to be a factor for any developer whose of suffecient size and stature. You're arguments don't hold up in the corperate culture of the large dev houses I'd think.

Will it help the smaller developers? Hell yes, will that make a difference, not really.

And shouldn't one be more worried about the implications of expanding Live! even more and MS's relationship (or lack there of) with EA?

 

[zidane1strife]

MS : The biggest software developer in the world.

u forgot:

MS : developer of the world's 'buggiest' most 'bloated' piece of software.

Why the hell would you code to PS3?

FF/GT/GTA(we all know the last one's all but guaranteed.) = sony's dev. tri-force...

 

[Brimstone]

Re: ...

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...

I mentioned SEGA just as a possibility and as an example of the potential of Microsofts efforts. I could have just as easily mentioned Namco or Konami. Either one could go out and negotiate with Power VR or any other VPU maker that makes Direct X 10 compatible chips. The really nice bonus is that Microsoft will have the X-Box 2 console being sold as a mainstream consumer item, that should be relativly easy to port to.

Companies that choose to work with Microsofts tools won't be tied to the hip of MS, unlike those that work with Sony. Sony is out to sell you their CELL based chips. With Sony it's going to be you either like our price or walk away. With Microsoft after you decide to go with their software standards, you'll have a hardware market where companies will work very hard to sell their hardware to customers. A free and open hardware market is going to lower costs and should encourage innovation.

 

[PARANOiA]

Q: What does Microsoft XNA offer gamers?
A: Better games, better experiences, faster. Microsoft XNA lays the groundwork for enhanced, more unified experiences, including a common controller that can be shared between the Windows PC and Xbox.

This is interesting! Xbox2 input will be USB compatible, by the looks of things! Does that mean I can plug and play kb/mouse into Xbox2, or is it only Xbox to PC? Maybe, maybe. This is what I've been waiting for

This makes the XBox2 much more interesting, don't you think?

 

[Vince]

Re: ...

Companies that choose to work with Microsofts tools won't be tied to the hip of MS, unlike those that work with Sony. Sony is out to sell you their CELL based chips. With Sony it's going to be you either like our price or walk away. With Microsoft after you decide to go with their software standards, you'll have a hardware market where companies will work very hard to sell their hardware to customers. A free and open hardware market is going to lower costs and should encourage innovation.

This is blatently false. After Sony's initial period of exclusive rights to all Cell production ends (I'm still not sure when, but the intention was for a surge capability) IBM and Toshiba can do as they wish with the architecture.

Also, unlike Microsoft, STI all support opensource entities such as Linux/CELF, Eclipse, Globus/GRID forum. IBM is among the most outspoken and open companies out there, bar-none. They are the Anti-Microsoft.

How you could even leverage such an argument is beyond me.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

After Sony's initial period of exclusive rights to all Cell production ends (I'm still not sure when, but the intention was for a surge capability) IBM and Toshiba can do as they wish with the architecture.

But who wants CELL anyway??? IBM has no use for CELL, Toshiba has no use for CELL(CELL HD-DVD Player? Yea right), no consumer electronic manufacturer wants a piece of CELL. Hell, even Sony Electronics doesn't want CELL(Hence the Sony Electronic's own media processor), it is a strictly a SCEI stuff..

Also, unlike Microsoft, STI all support opensource entities such as Linux/CELF, Eclipse, Globus/GRID forum.

PSX3 supports CELF? News to us.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Um, precedent? There is a line of logical thinking supported by history, known mechanics, consumer confidence and extrapolation supporting my case.

Yeah...that history really supported Sega and Nintendo...

Why is everything always so one-sided with you?

In that case you don't, duh! But, lets see such a drastic turn of events happen - especially hard to ponder considering Sony is doing everything right.

Not too long ago it was "hard to ponder" such a change of events with Sega and Nintendo.

I just don't see why it seems so far fetched to you that PS3 can lose Sony's console dominance to MS.

Not at the cost of profits, it's all about finding equalibrium...

Exactly.

Microsoft can do everything it can to reduce the barriers to development on their platform and, yet, depending on what Sony does, it can shift it so far that Microsoft's changes doesn't matter relatively speaking.

No argument, and it goes both ways.

And I question (not saying definitivly) if XSN is even going to be a factor for any developer whose of suffecient size and stature. You're arguments don't hold up in the corperate culture of the large dev houses I'd think.

I think cost considerations hold up in the corporate culture in any dev house, particularly when looking at the efforts involved in producing titles today.

And shouldn't one be more worried about the implications of expanding Live! even more and MS's relationship (or lack there of) with EA?

No...particularly since Live is a pretty strong point of the current X-Box.

 

[Geeforcer]

Oh, and what will be Sony's niche if MS has both superior hardware and development tools, other than it's brand? (Granted, that's a significant factor...)

This generation MS had both the superior hardware AND development environment, while Sony had its brand. PS2 towered over Xbox. IF clear technological superiority did not lead to parity with Sony, how would a technological inferiority help them?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

This generation MS had both the superior hardware AND development environment, while Sony had its brand.

And MS had zero brand, and was starting from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general.

This is not the case with next-gen.

 

[Vince]

Yeah...that history really supported Sega and Nintendo...

Why is everything always so one-sided with you?

And what is Microsoft doing that's analogous to Sony's rise? What's Sony doing so wrong? So far, from what we know to be true we can't make the case either way (unless your Deadmeat). But, we see trends and that Sony is innovating at a level which far surpasses Microsoft - be it from Cell to eYeToy to the PSX, to the CE realm with BD-ROM and beyond...

And it's onesided because I just don't agree with Microsoft's intentions and exectution. It's the same with, say, you and Natoma's alternative lifestyle and mentality which I'll never truely understand either.

Not too long ago it was "hard to ponder" such a change of events with Sega and Nintendo.

Blah, Blah... hollow words Joe. This has been stated before PSOne's launch, PS2's launch, it is now with PSP and will be for PS3...

 

[Brimstone]

Re: ...

Companies that choose to work with Microsofts tools won't be tied to the hip of MS, unlike those that work with Sony. Sony is out to sell you their CELL based chips. With Sony it's going to be you either like our price or walk away. With Microsoft after you decide to go with their software standards, you'll have a hardware market where companies will work very hard to sell their hardware to customers. A free and open hardware market is going to lower costs and should encourage innovation.

This is blatently false. After Sony's initial period of exclusive rights to all Cell production ends (I'm still not sure when, but the intention was for a surge capability) IBM and Toshiba can do as they wish with the architecture.

Also, unlike Microsoft, STI all support opensource entities such as Linux/CELF, Eclipse, Globus/GRID forum. IBM is among the most outspoken and open companies out there, bar-none. They are the Anti-Microsoft.

How you could even leverage such an argument is beyond me.

Becuase Microsoft is more hardware agnostic. Sony and Toshiba have invested heavily into chip manufacturing, while Microsoft is avoiding it. MS is trying to set up an enviroment where lots of hardware companies (Pure IP like Power VR, Pure Semiconductor like TSMC, and sometimes IP and Semiconductor combined like IBM) will compete for customers.

You think Sony wants to compete with the TSMC's and UMC's of the world by letting them sell CELL?

 

[Vince]

Re: ...

You think Sony wants to compete with the TSMC's and UMC's of the world by letting them sell CELL?

It's not just Sony already! Wow. It's IBM and Toshiba too and who knows that market model they'll evolve into... If STI can liecense it out, become the defacto-standard, and make money, why the hell not? What you're saying is not only unsupported, it's unfounded considering the companies involved and their recent heavy move into open market models.

 

[marconelly!]

And MS had zero brand, and was starting from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general.

This is not the case with next-gen.

Last gen Sony had zero brand with their Playstation, started from scratch, and had zero experience in the console industry in general. How did the last gen ended again?

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Sony wants a monopoly on electronics and Microsoft wants a monopoly on game software. To suggest otherwise is naive. They merely want monopoly power in the area of their own expertise. It's nothing surprising really. It's easy for MS to preach hardware open standards because they're not a hardware company. It's easy for Sony to preach open software standards because they're not a software company. Neither company is "good" or "evil". Let's show some maturity here.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Sony wants a monopoly on electronics

There is no such thing as a monopoly on consumer electronics.