Yoshida confirms SCE working on new hardware

[Crossbar]

currently not gonna happen.

"Sony has no plans to use 3D technology in future PSP iterations, according to SCE Worldwide Studios vice president Scott Rohde."

and...

That is not an accurate quote, the original article says:

IG: I'm kind of curious, because obviously you guys are the ones pushing 3D, so I'm wondering maybe the next thing for PSP is to also go 3D?

SR: No, no plans for that. But again you mentioned what Sony does when you sat in the press conference, there’s so much. There’s so many different things. We just chose to focus on the big 3D in the home. Again as you pointed out, as a larger corporate initiative, it's important to us to push that out there and be on the bleeding edge of it. That’s the focus for this show.

A "no plans" statement doesn´t mean much from my experience. It could just mean we don´t have any plan to go public yet, just like they say we don´t have any plans for a price cut and cuts the prices next week.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Though true, 'no plans' is indistinct, surely it'd be good business to difuse interest in a new 3D handheld by offering your new, improve 3D handheld if people just hold out? If they are intending to go 3D, saying, "we're exploring all 3D options and a wide feature set for future devices," would be a stronger non-committal message than, "no, there are no plans for PSP to go 3D." in fact his quote isn't just, "there are no plans for that," but, "no, [there are] no plans for that." The first clause in that statement is flat refutal. Parsed differently it'd read. "PSP will not be going 3D. We have no plans for PSP3D."

That said, the question was regards PSP. The response doesn't prohibit a different 3D handheld not under the PSP brand. This article says...

Sony is reportedly developing a new portable device that shares characteristics of handheld game machines, e-book readers and netbook computers, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Something netboook like wouldn't be PSP.

 

[Crossbar]

...
Something netboook like wouldn't be PSP.

That is also true, you could parse it that way as well, but what makes me very curious is wether that i-pad/e-reader thingy will be backward compatible with the PSP. We know from developers there is a next generation PSP in the works with pretty impressive specs. Is the i-pad/e-reader thingy and the rumoured PSP2 the same device?

Either way Sony will likely want to capitalise on their current game library for the i-Pad/e-reader thingy. In that case I wonder how they will arrange the buttons in order to not require to much space and still maximize screen size yet minimize physical size. Also very curious about what physical size they will opt for.

 

[Arwin]

I think it is hard to deny that the business proposition of having an iPhone/iPod setup where the iPod allows cheap gaming and the iPhone adds (smart)phone capabilities must be a logical setup for a company like Sony that makes both gaming handhelds and phones (and almost everything inbetween). So the only reason why they should not 'steal' that idea, is when they are 100% sure they came up with something better. Because even if they simply steal that idea, they still have the power of their 1st party software and hardware development teams, distribution infrastructure and so on behind it which allows them to make it competitive.

As for competing with the 3DS, I'm sure they've been talking to developers and publishers for input on whether they'd have a strong opinion on having the next PSP support 3D or not.

 

[Gubbi]

I might be going against the grain here...but I say screw the developers!!

That's what they did with the PS3. Didn't work. Then went from being a dominant #1 to a lackluster #3 in the console space.

The PS3 is another prime example of how it FORCED developers to look at programing differently and look what has come because of it. GOW, Uncharted 2, KZ2; these games are so impressive because the developers were forced to learn new ways to get power out of the machines and it allowed them to go further then they would have if they designed the machine themselves with the same budget and features.

A more conventional architecture would have allowed developers to hit the ground running. Parity in game quality between the 360 and the PS3 wasn't reached until 2009, - four years into the HD console generation !!

Yeah, multiple cores forces you to think in a different way. In order to tap the potential of any of the HD console you need to exploit parallism.

Cheers

 

[ShadowRunner]

That's what they did with the PS3. Didn't work. Then went from being a dominant #1 to a lackluster #3 in the console space.



A more conventional architecture would have allowed developers to hit the ground running. Parity in game quality between the 360 and the PS3 wasn't reached until 2009, - four years into the HD console generation !!

Yeah, multiple cores forces you to think in a different way. In order to tap the potential of any of the HD console you need to exploit parallism.

Cheers

Wasnt this more an issue with the GPU being underpowered and having less available RAM, rather than any complexity in the CPU design. If PS3 had an equivelent GPU and available RAM parity would have been reached from the get go IMO, with PS3 pulling ahead due to the exotic CPU in the future.

The PS3 being in 3rd place is not evidence for your point. Looking at PS2 you would get the opposite conclusion looking at it that way. Price and release date were the main factors, and while both can be linked to the exotic tech in this case it does not mean it must be the case in any future hardware given the proper planning.

 

[MfA]

currently not gonna happen.

"Sony has no plans to use 3D technology in future PSP iterations, according to SCE Worldwide Studios vice president Scott Rohde."

Well isn't that a boatload of fail ... Sony really has no idea which way the wind blows ...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As for competing with the 3DS, I'm sure they've been talking to developers and publishers for input on whether they'd have a strong opinion on having the next PSP support 3D or not.

Even if so, who's to say the devs and pubs know what the masses want? As far as I'm aware Nintendo didn't involve external parties at all in the design of DS and Wii, instead going with what they wanted regards their own first party experience. I'm sure no developers would have requested 2x GC and an unknown motion control interface for their latest home console!

 

[corduroygt]

No console is an island anymore, not even the Wii. Consoles can't be too powerful or that performance is wasted and they can't be too weak or they risk not recieving as much multi-platform software as they ought to. they also can't be too exotic either and any feature not replicated on other consoles is a feature which risks being under-utilised.

Many multiplatform releases are also on the PC. If the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 the right way, i.e. if it had a more powerful GPU (i.e. G80 with a 256-bit memory interface and more memory) instead of having the cell, you bet you'd see the difference in multiplatforms such as better textures and higher rendering resolutions, because the PC versions already have these features. It wouldn't be wasted.

 

[NRP]

Wasnt this more an issue with the GPU being underpowered and having less available RAM, rather than any complexity in the CPU design.

Sounds like revisionist history to me. Most of the early complaints seemed to focus on the need to completely refactor and re-engineer large sections of existing codebases just to get it to compile, let alone be performant on the cell architecture. The RSX complaints came later, mostly from multiplatform devs who, in addition to having to refactor code, also were burdened with achieving platform parity.

The current state of software on PS3 is more a testament to developer ingenuity than hardware superiority.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Sounds like revisionist history to me. Most of the early complaints seemed to focus on the need to completely refactor and re-engineer large sections of existing codebases just to get it to compile, let alone be performant on the cell architecture. The RSX complaints came later, mostly from multiplatform devs who, in addition to having to refactor code, also were burdened with achieving platform parity.

The current state of software on PS3 is more a testament to developer ingenuity than hardware superiority.

Yes that is true, but devs did this regardless and to an acceptable standard to the consumer. Devs will complain but will still work to get the product out of the door. The devs complaints about getting existing code to compile did not lead to much on the consumer side. The inferior ports effected the consumers perception of the console and the inferior ports were much more down to a weaker GPU and less RAM imo. If the consumer does not see the effect of developers having to re-engineer large sections of existing codebases in any significant way then to say it is the reason for the PS3 being in third place is wrong.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Many multiplatform releases are also on the PC. If the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 the right way, i.e. if it had a more powerful GPU (i.e. G80 with a 256-bit memory interface and more memory) instead of having the cell, you bet you'd see the difference in multiplatforms such as better textures and higher rendering resolutions, because the PC versions already have these features. It wouldn't be wasted.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[patsu]

Well isn't that a boatload of fail ... Sony really has no idea which way the wind blows ...

There is another possibility. Sony's 3D portable is not called PSP. 8^P

EDIT: Yeah, Cell is not the issue. It has flaws, but it does the job (more than adequately). I think memory size, even better bandwith, a stronger GPU would help. A bigger Local Store and a better PPU would be good too -- if they go with a Cell-like design. They should take the cross GPU-CPU communication/exchange mechanism to another level too.

Soliciting partner feedback is a "best practice". But it doesn't mean that Sony has to listen to all of them. It has to be balanced against consumer needs, and Sony's own vision.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Wasnt this more an issue with the GPU being underpowered and having less available RAM, rather than any complexity in the CPU design. If PS3 had an equivelent GPU and available RAM parity would have been reached from the get go IMO, with PS3 pulling ahead due to the exotic CPU in the future.

The PS3 being in 3rd place is not evidence for your point. Looking at PS2 you would get the opposite conclusion looking at it that way. Price and release date were the main factors, and while both can be linked to the exotic tech in this case it does not mean it must be the case in any future hardware given the proper planning.

If the PS3 had shipped with a better GPU, it couldn't have shipped with the Cell processor. Price matters and the PS3 was costing Sony a huge amount of money. The system had incredible price tag at launch. Throwing in even more expensive hardware could have been a death blow. The PS3 was launched as it was for a reason. You could make the same arguments about xbox, having a better CPU, more EDRAM, more RAM. In the end, it just ends up being a console priced like a computer, which is probably something people don't want.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the PS3 had shipped with a better GPU, it couldn't have shipped with the Cell processor...

It wouldn't have had to big a bigger, more expensive GPU, but a more efficient one. Xenos is no more expensive (in terms of die size). A US design with the same transistor count as RSX would have been better. Sony appear to have picked the worse of two options and ATi could ahve furnished them with something more exciting; we've no idea what the third and maybe fourth options would have been like.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It wouldn't have had to big a bigger, more expensive GPU, but a more efficient one. Xenos is no more expensive (in terms of die size). A US design with the same transistor count as RSX would have been better. Sony appear to have picked the worse of two options and ATi could ahve furnished them with something more exciting; we've no idea what the third and maybe fourth options would have been like.

The only people that know what Sony could have done are the people that sat in the meetings with the GPU vendors and negotiated on prices and specs for the contract. Nothing ever comes free, including efficiency.

 

[patsu]

I think during that time, only Kutaragi could make the call. He's most likely overwhelmed by the sheer workload. Cell and Blu-ray already took up major attention and resources. People were b*tching about long turnaround time in the early days when negotiating for exclusivity.

If he had a more open approach, things would have worked out better for Sony. I am sure other talent in Sony are familiar with the more common GPU platform, enough to iron out the details for him.

 

[eastmen]

http://www.develop-online.net/news/35315/Sony-Watch-our-rivals-go-next-gen-first/ target=

Successors to the Wii and Xbox 360 are more likely to arrive before the release of the PlayStation 4, according to a top Sony exec

 

[Scott_Arm]

I think during that time, only Kutaragi could make the call. He's most likely overwhelmed by the sheer workload. Cell and Blu-ray already took up major attention and resources. People were b*tching about long turnaround time in the early days when negotiating for exclusivity.

If he had a more open approach, things would have worked out better for Sony. I am sure other talent in Sony are familiar with the more common GPU platform, enough to iron out the details for him.

Well, he might have had final decision, but did he really sit and negotiate all of the hardware on his own? I would say that it 100% unlikely. The guy must have had some subordinates and technical people to help inform his decisions. Otherwise, brutal and devastating failure on his part. I mean, does Sony not have internal procurement resources? Most high-tech companies have specialized departments for that. He couldn't have possibly taken on procurement and bought a GPU without at least consulting with R&D first. That just isn't how hi-tech companies work. If not, Sony operates under complete insanity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The only people that know what Sony could have done are the people that sat in the meetings with the GPU vendors and negotiated on prices and specs for the contract. Nothing ever comes free, including efficiency.

Excepting where you have competing products, a rival may offer their GPU at the same cost as the alternative only with added efficiency, presenting a better value proposition. In this case it could be ATi offered US which was an unproven tech, and Sony sided with nVidia who were offering a more powerful (on paper) conventional part with guaranteed availibility. Suffice to say, Sony focuessed on a next-gen processor, current-gen GPU, whereas MS went the other way around. The ideal would have been next-gen everything, but without any idea what MS spent to secure Xenos (although ATi's US was being developed anyway, so it's not like ATi had to go out of their way to create MS a part, in fact benefiting from a guaranteed sales first-generation part to test the tech) we can't say for sure what that'd cost.