http://www.gcadvanced.com/article.php?artid=1793
Huge interview with journalists and developers! In my opinion it is a very good read!
Huge interview with journalists and developers! In my opinion it is a very good read!
The Future Of Handheld Gaming?!
- Thread starter StefanS
- Start date
Holy hoppin' hanna, is that a big read!
And therefore... eeeeeexcellent.
[Edit: Is it just me, or is Steven Kent a flaming idiot? He says almost nothing, bases half of saying-nothing comments off one statement by Chris Deering without any additional investigation, and has no clue as to the sales volume of the GBA/GBA-SP? Ah well, at least I know to ignore him in the future. ]
And therefore... eeeeeexcellent.
[Edit: Is it just me, or is Steven Kent a flaming idiot? He says almost nothing, bases half of saying-nothing comments off one statement by Chris Deering without any additional investigation, and has no clue as to the sales volume of the GBA/GBA-SP? Ah well, at least I know to ignore him in the future.
]The thing that i don't understand is that the Zodiac is always mentioned, as a rival to Nintendo...
It's just like someone doing an article on Next-gen machines and keep on mentioning the Phantom, sure it's a next-gen console, and it's being fair to name it on the list... But let's try to remain focused on market realities.
Being fair and all is cool, but being serious and realistic might end up being better, if you ask me.
Some of the "red quotes" are kind misleading btw.
And i agree with cthellis42, Steven Kent answers sounds like "BBS posts" from f@nboys, taking rumors for facts, and making up scenarios about thoses rumors.
This guy is comparing Zodiac/Ngage...to PSP and he draws conclusions with thoses "informations" :?
Portable systems are always more expensive than equivalent Home systems.
It not because yesterday/today's handheld (except Ngage/Zodiac) are marketed like toys, that we must draw conclusion that a new way/market couldn't be found.
All the challenge for Sony resides in the penetration of the market that includes young adults, if sony fails they will have to drop their price, or concede defeat on the handheld market.
It's just like someone doing an article on Next-gen machines and keep on mentioning the Phantom, sure it's a next-gen console, and it's being fair to name it on the list... But let's try to remain focused on market realities.
Being fair and all is cool, but being serious and realistic might end up being better, if you ask me.
Some of the "red quotes" are kind misleading btw.
And i agree with cthellis42, Steven Kent answers sounds like "BBS posts" from f@nboys, taking rumors for facts, and making up scenarios about thoses rumors.
Steven Kent said:
This guy is comparing Zodiac/Ngage...to PSP and he draws conclusions with thoses "informations" :?
Portable systems are always more expensive than equivalent Home systems.
It not because yesterday/today's handheld (except Ngage/Zodiac) are marketed like toys, that we must draw conclusion that a new way/market couldn't be found.
All the challenge for Sony resides in the penetration of the market that includes young adults, if sony fails they will have to drop their price, or concede defeat on the handheld market.
zurich said:
I should have added that the journalists' part is rather weak. However, I was just too goddamn lazy.
But the developers answer were really a good read and offered their view on next generation handheld gaming and which systems they're going to consider for developing. I found it very interesting that most of them would rather have a GBA2 than a DS. Also most of them were rather sceptic about how to use the dual screen and what benefits to gain from it.
Programming paradigm...? As far as I can tell, the DS is going to be similar to the GBA in most ways that aren't unique to that machine (i.e. dealing with two simultaneous screens, and new gaming styles they're trying to create with it). One processor will be exactly the same, the other a slightly higher version (and nowhere near "cutting edge"), still cartridge based, I'm pretty sure lackluster 3D capabilities at best... Unless you're expecting GBA2 to not be disk-based, push 3D, or push the more modern chips available, just how is one leading to the other?
Frankly, DS seems more like a step they've already taken, and a few steps sideways to see if they can try something now. GBA2, I rather think, will be advancing in the same directions we already know, just with cooler gear.
Frankly, DS seems more like a step they've already taken, and a few steps sideways to see if they can try something now. GBA2, I rather think, will be advancing in the same directions we already know, just with cooler gear.
2 ARM processors...3...4...5...6....multicore...parallel processing...GBA2
http://www.arm.com/news/3852.html
http://www.arm.com/news/3852.html
I think the programming methods are going to be different for other design reasons that that... After all, we're steadily moving toward an age of dual-core chips, SoC, and more. CELL, the assumptions of Xbox 2 thus far, AMD and Intel themselves, PowerPC for sure... It's not like that in and of itself would be causing a revolution of some sort.
Software is trying to make multi-core more transparent anyway, and what DS is (or certainly seems like it will be) is having their ARMs aimed in different directions and producing different results, rather than working together more towards a desired, uniform result. It has two screens to operate, and what's ON those screens are not necessarily going to be irrevocably linked, so it's creating a divergence in game design, certainly, and a different set of thinking from a programming standpoint as well. Certainly not the same as going "dual-core" or more. DS doesn't appear to really be "parallel"--at least it's certainly not the focus (though no doubt it can be used that way)--not in the way we think. The DS seems more like it'll be training people for a "programming paradigm" aimed squarely at the DS, and anything else Nintendo aims toward that directive. (3rd column, if you will.)
Software is trying to make multi-core more transparent anyway, and what DS is (or certainly seems like it will be) is having their ARMs aimed in different directions and producing different results, rather than working together more towards a desired, uniform result. It has two screens to operate, and what's ON those screens are not necessarily going to be irrevocably linked, so it's creating a divergence in game design, certainly, and a different set of thinking from a programming standpoint as well. Certainly not the same as going "dual-core" or more. DS doesn't appear to really be "parallel"--at least it's certainly not the focus (though no doubt it can be used that way)--not in the way we think. The DS seems more like it'll be training people for a "programming paradigm" aimed squarely at the DS, and anything else Nintendo aims toward that directive. (3rd column, if you will.)
Having two processors on the DS will allow developers to get familiar with programming multichip software engines. Whether they choose to use them in parallel or not is irrelevent. The point is that they'll be forced to exploit the multiprocessor architecture. By the time GBA 2 arrives they'll already have the experience to take immediate advantage of additional processors in a multiprocessor architecture. Also one of the obvious uses for the second screen on the DS is for a second viewing perspective from the same gaming mode so basically the two processors will be running in parallel in those cases. Even in today's games like baseball with PIP type cameras they're still using single processors to render 2nd and 3rd views. Are you telling me this single processor is actually multiple virtual processors operating 3 independent engines to drive one screen plus two virtual screens?
It says the developer thinks we'll see PSOne ports on PSP, its his opinion, not a fact.
No doubt, there'll be at least some PSOne ports (as they are cheap to make), but I think there'll be more original titles than either PSOne or PS2 ports. I don't think direct ports will sell well on PSP, as I believe the majority that buys a PSP, has already owned a PSOne and/or PS2, and is not too wiling to play the same games again on a portable.
No doubt, there'll be at least some PSOne ports (as they are cheap to make), but I think there'll be more original titles than either PSOne or PS2 ports. I don't think direct ports will sell well on PSP, as I believe the majority that buys a PSP, has already owned a PSOne and/or PS2, and is not too wiling to play the same games again on a portable.
I think we'll ultimately see a lot of both. Probably not in the beginning, though, as it seems like at least for launch Sony is pushing (and developers seem OK with) for more original content. Similar genres and styles, surely, but not so much with the direct porting.wazoo said:
Should it become popular enough, though, and be around for a while... Well, the lure of porting to a portable is undenyable.
No, but with the current architecture it seems easier to dedicate. There will obviously be plenty of info-passing, but depending on how the games are constructed, we're apt to see a clean resource split. (And in that, we have to wait and see just what the inital games are looking like.)PC-Engine said:Are you telling me this single processor is actually multiple virtual processors operating 3 independent engines to drive one screen plus two virtual screens?
Programming for "multiple chips" has been done for ages in one form or another, so it's not like developers are un-used to that, portable or otherwise. If you're talking about multiple CPU's... well, we know it's coming (PC-dom has been pushing through it for a while, and it's coming to mainstream consoles in a big way) and it would seem that how the CPU's are directed are quite important in determining what the software does, not just that there are more than one of them.