PS3 network + back-compat news
- Thread starter pipo
- Start date
I was gonna post this with some other Sony news, so I'll just dump it in here if that's ok 
According CV&G, the new UK OPM mentions that Monolith has an exclusive PS3 title in the works, but talk from others with the issue suggests that they're just talking about F.E.A.R. - it'll be shown in the next issue along with a PS3 game from Free Radical Design. The issue also mentions a rumour that with Eyetoy, you'll be able to snap yourself and convert it into a rendered representation of your face (that presumably can be manipulated etc.) for use as an avatar for online.
Second, Sony is beginning in this financial year it's most aggressive consumer ad campaign ever, to last right through the year. They already stepped things up a notch last year for HDTV marketing, Bravia etc., but this year will be a record ad spend for them - in the hundreds of millions of dollars - covering four aspects of HD. Included in this will be unspecified PS3 promotional tie-ins.
Finally, Sony's E3 site has been launched. Nothing much there yet, but the intro video is pretty entertaining with good presenters - they'll have video coverage right through the event. Seems they're really making an effort this year. The presenters mention some things they'll cover about PS3 "if they are announced", but some might take those things as hints as to what is to come (personally I'm not sure if they know what's going to come, but still, I thought interesting that they so specifically referred to certain things). They also confirm Lumines 2 for PSP in that video.
That's it!
According CV&G, the new UK OPM mentions that Monolith has an exclusive PS3 title in the works, but talk from others with the issue suggests that they're just talking about F.E.A.R. - it'll be shown in the next issue along with a PS3 game from Free Radical Design. The issue also mentions a rumour that with Eyetoy, you'll be able to snap yourself and convert it into a rendered representation of your face (that presumably can be manipulated etc.) for use as an avatar for online.
Second, Sony is beginning in this financial year it's most aggressive consumer ad campaign ever, to last right through the year. They already stepped things up a notch last year for HDTV marketing, Bravia etc., but this year will be a record ad spend for them - in the hundreds of millions of dollars - covering four aspects of HD. Included in this will be unspecified PS3 promotional tie-ins.
Finally, Sony's E3 site has been launched. Nothing much there yet, but the intro video is pretty entertaining with good presenters - they'll have video coverage right through the event. Seems they're really making an effort this year. The presenters mention some things they'll cover about PS3 "if they are announced", but some might take those things as hints as to what is to come (personally I'm not sure if they know what's going to come, but still, I thought interesting that they so specifically referred to certain things). They also confirm Lumines 2 for PSP in that video.
That's it!
There's a grey area between software and hardware though. Hardware tends to mean incorporating the hardware from the original platform inthe form of a chip or such. If PS3 doesn't incorporate the GS as a chip, it's not a hardware BC solution, but if they have features of RSX to aid emulation, neither is it a software only solution as XB360's seems to be. Hence it looks to be a hardware-aided software solutionTap In said:
Shifty Geezer said:There's a grey area between software and hardware though. Hardware tends to mean incorporating the hardware from the original platform inthe form of a chip or such. If PS3 doesn't incorporate the GS as a chip, it's not a hardware BC solution, but if they have features of RSX to aid emulation, neither is it a software only solution as XB360's seems to be. Hence it looks to be a hardware-aided software solution
ahhh i get it, thanks Shifty
so RSX may have a portion of it dedicated to run BC games, is that the expectation?
that sounds like a solid solution if so
There are no expectations, only speculations. The idea of RSX being 'enhanced' in this way comes mostly from a transitor count being comparable with G70 but knowing some of the transistors from G70 like PureVideo (or whatever it's called) would be wasted in PS3. If those transistors are removed from RSX, what's filling out the rest? Given KK's comments about there being hardware level emulation, and EE should be straightforward to emulate, RSX would be the best place to add hardware level support for some of PS2's enigmatic features.
also, since there will be a (partial) software solution, I'd assume that the files will need to be saved on the HDD? Could that be one reason why they decided to go with it standard? or is that not necessary?
and...
does this refer to PS2 games that met PS2 TRC requirements (which I assume were ALL release games?) or does it refer to PS2 games that must meet PS3 TRC requirements in order to run on the PS3 (suggesting that not all PS2 games may meet that criteria)
and...
does this refer to PS2 games that met PS2 TRC requirements (which I assume were ALL release games?) or does it refer to PS2 games that must meet PS3 TRC requirements in order to run on the PS3 (suggesting that not all PS2 games may meet that criteria)
I'm not sure I see the distinction here. You think that all the graphics rendering of XBOX titles is done without the aid if the graphics processor? For one, we know this not to be the case as they have 4x AA applied (a hardware function) and second, both NV2A and Xenos are fundamentally DirectX devices, with Xenos being few generations on - one of the primary issue areas is with the shadowing mechanism of NV2A which isn't directly mappable to non-NVIDIA hardware and needs alternative coding to manage.Shifty Geezer said:If PS3 doesn't incorporate the GS as a chip, it's not a hardware BC solution, but if they have features of RSX to aid emulation, neither is it a software only solution as XB360's seems to be. Hence it looks to be a hardware-aided software solution
Titanio said:
but would that not include all PS2 games? or were some PS2 games released that did not meet TRC? If not, why even mention it?
that's where that interpretation becomes cloudy (to me anyway
) and could suggest that there will be a BC criteria for PS2 games to meet to run on PS3.Tap In said:
Every game has to. But not all games do. Some slip through the net, known or unknown to Sony. I remember Kutaragi talking before about some games doing things with the hardware they never expected - which was probably one polite reference to games not sticking to the TRCs. It's probably only once they try to do something like BC - or a slim PS2 - that they realise certain games weren't adhering to them.
ok, (I was thinking maybe it was referring to a PS3 Backward compatible TRC)Titanio said:
your clarification was the other guess, but did not know how that worked. I'm surprised that games would slip through like that but I suppose it happens. thanks
oh and T, what's your take on my HDD question? do you think the emulation files will be loaded on it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Tap In said:
It's probably not that surprising that some slip by. Software is very complicated, there's only so much coverage that is possible when testing against something like TRCs, particularly when you've lots of games to go through every month. Exhaustive testing of every single one probably is not possible..there's an element of trust at play here, they need publisher's cooperation.
As for save files, if there's no memory card slots in PS3, you'll need to be able to save somewhere. The HDD makes as much sense as anything else. I guess we might find out at E3.
Titanio said:
There are no PS2 memory card slots, but compact flash, secure digital, and memory stick slots, but of course there has to be some kind of handler in the emulator that allows saving to a different source. It will be interesting to see how they deal with that.
I like that video at Sony's E3 site. Quite funny.
That's pretty much the point by example. The API is the same, and the basic function is the same, so in theory everything should transition perfectly (ignoring the problems with compatibility present across different DX GPUs in the PC space!). But in a closed system devs tend to code to the hardware directly, using peculiarities of the hardware on the lowest level, such as particular registers. I don't what low level access would be used on GPUs or the XB having only ever used the higher levels APIs and abstractions myself, but the fact MS have been having so much trouble with BC shows it's not straightforward. They themselves said it was a matter of different 'levels' and games written on the highest 'levels', which I take to mean going through the official APIs only, have BC out of the box, whereas other titles need to be worked on.Dave Baumann said:
The difference between that and what might be appearing on PS3 is if the hardware is accessible on the same low level so if a program accesses something on the hardware level without going through an API, it still works correctly. If the previous-gen program is being translated bytewise and mapped onto a different hardware without any direct access to the hardware, that's pure software emulation. I don't know to what degree that is or is not happening on XB360, but I understand the API is key to MS's programming model (it was the DirectX Box afterall!) and would expect compatibilty to be focussed on the API rather than hardware-level compatibility.
I have to say I disagree that they don't know which games didn't pass TRC. Its more about the reasons why they didn't pass TRC, some probably trivial, others maybe not so.Titanio said:
I think ERP responded to Faf, about TRCs in another thread. I will try and find it later...
EDIT:
ERP said:
I bolded the most significant part so no one takes it out of context.
Last edited by a moderator:
thatdude90210
Regular
Why isn't "Purevideo" needed again? Does the PS3 have a dedicated chip that does video, or are they supposed to use the Cell chip to do that?
Because if it's the last one, then I would ask why take something out of one chip (work), just to have to write software (more work) to use another chip to do something you already had.
Because if it's the last one, then I would ask why take something out of one chip (work), just to have to write software (more work) to use another chip to do something you already had.
