Slashdot Mirror
Sega and Sony to Link Game Consoles Via Internet
joestump98 writes: "Yahoo! is running a story about Sony and Sega teaming up to allow their consoles to play nicely with each other over the internet. It also mentions plans with Nintendo and Microsoft." Which should mean more cross-platform games, so perhaps consoles can be bought and sold more on their merits than their stable of games. Update: 06/05 08:11 PM by T : And RimmerExperience writes: "A recent story on Gamespot reports an agreement between Sun Microsystems and Sony to release Java support for Sony's PlayStation 2."
Take a look at the JSR 134 for this: http://jcp.org/jsr/detail/134.jsp In combination with this, there is a bunch of work in the JCP wings for dealing with USB devices (based on a pre-existing OSS Java USB API for Linux no less!)
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
For someone who has neither...
PS One ($99)
Mid-range DVD player ($150)
Switchbox ($20) (waive if lucky enough to have a tv with 2 seperate line-in ports instead of the standard 1)
Total: $270
PS2 ($279) (I've seen it slightly cheaper, and slightly more expensive, but this seems to be a mid-range price right now)
Total: $279
For $10 more, they get everything in one unit, no switchbox required, and the ability to play PSX as well as PS2 games.
It's not a bad deal for someone with neither one.
For someone who already has one or the other...it's less of a deal.
Internet protocol is Internet protocol, no matter what platform is spitting out the bits. Thus, you don't need "cooperation" among the console vendors to achieve compatibility. As long as the publisher hasn't made gratuitous changes to the game's protocol when porting to different platforms, it should all Just Work. It's therefore an issue amongst game publishers, not the console vendors.
The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is if what they're really trying to build is a "portal-based" gaming infrastructure, where you have to log into a Web page before you can launch the game proper (rather like Microsoft's Gaming Zone). This is, of course, nonsense, as has been proved by Quake. While a central catalog of running game servers is nice, you don't need a central server arbitrating gaming sessions; the server in question can handle it all. And, frankly, it's none of Nintendo's/Sega's/Microsoft's damn business which game I'm playing right now, and with whom.
What am I missing here?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I am at JavaOne, and it is true... Sony announced in the keynotes yesterday that there is java support on the PS2
They get no sympathy from me.
I'm all for emulators, if they're free, as they should be.
Bye, bye Bleem !
- sigs are for wimps.
If i wanted JAVA on the PS2 i'd buy a PC. Hell, i have one.
You do that, I for one, can't wait make some cool games for it and play it on my TV while showing off to friends. I'm hoping they port the 1.4 VM which has better J2D support and fullscreen mode.
This is going to be too cool !
- sigs are for wimps.
All of the activity that's been going on in the PS2 camp of late has me sort of wondering... We've seen Linux support released, and read about Real Player, Netscape, Java and AOL coming to PS2.
So the question is this: What market is the PS2 in really? It's expanding well outside of the realm of our classic definition of a game console, deep into the territory of our PC's. But, OTOH, it doesn't suffer the clunky UI problems that our classic PC's face either. Is it a PC without the baggage of backward compatibility? Many people have thought about redesigning the PC's hardware and software from scratch to take full advantage of current technology; is the PS2 the fulfillment of that goal? If... no, when the PS2 is capable of all of the entertainment functions that we currently use our PC's for, what will the average family need a computer for?
Now, consider that this is the reason that MS is throwing in its Xbox...
Hopefully Sega and Sony will spend a hell of a lot of effort debugging this and not rush it out to market.
No. You just have fewer friends;)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Once, Slashdot was a small, not very well known site which was frequented by technically minded people. Back then, you might have said there was a community. I don't even know if there was a "community" back when I signed up, but now it is certainly just the general public. (Don't be fooled by the marketing machine that is Slashdot, there's nothing particularly 7337 in signing up for a free account on a public message board, and karma is a joke that is easily, and often abused.)
Sony is the worst thing to happen to console gaming since Atari got bought by Time Warner and they forced out Nolan Bushnell. Their domination of the console industry is disgusting and blatantly based on shady practices, but as far as I know they have never played nice with the GPL. I mean heck, Sony practically is the DVD CCA and they are a big chunk of the music industry as well.
If Sony ever does come to monopolize the console industry, PC Gamers can rejoice. For on that day, the console industry will start a tailspin ending with a tremendous crash....
I don't think they will though, both Nintendo and Microsoft are as ruthless than they are, and both have a lot more potential as game console makers.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
One of the best things about programming a console game is that you can use neat little hacks to push the hardware to its limit. Anyone who's ever programmed an Amiga or a C-64 (or pretty much any uniform system) knows this. That's also the same reason why console games don't have operating systems. I think the new trend of cross-platform, OS-sporting consoles will kill the industry, because what's the difference between that and a computer?
------
There are already issues with people tweaking their computers a bit to gain unfair advantages in games like quake, this could lead to some interesting problems.
Before people think this means Sega is bringing back the Dreamcast, don't.
All this means is that Sega wan't to get as many people playing Phantasy Online 2 as possible, especially since now Sega is running it on a Pay-per-Play basis, not free as it was before.
The Dreamcast is still in its last days, and the although last few games will be good ones, this is indeed the end.
Just before the big crash of the 1980s, a lot of games were produced for multiple systems (Atari, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc). Companies streamlined the process and didn't take advantage of each system's strengths. The result was was generally crappy games.
Check out the history of Kool-Aid Man from Mattel. It describes the battles between marketing and programmers over developing for multiple systems.
if ($see_it) {
believe_it();
}
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Talking between two pieces of hardware is the simplest of problems. Useful communication between applications is *far* more difficult, and will only really happen if the same game exists on both ends.
This is realistically the last summer for the Dreamcast. Not many games at all will come out for it after the Christmas season with MS and Nintendo's game boxes taking up all the attention. I can't imagine PS2 games coming out next year along with a DC "port" just so that a few more people can play online.
So, a few games that are created this summer might play between the PS2 and DC, along with Sega's Phantasy Star Online. Realistically, that's at most 5 games that support this. News, but irrelevant news.
Nathan Mates
News Flash
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
4.5 years ago I bought a Sony VAIO on the cheap. The damn this came with a TV tuner, video capture, home-movie editing , phone answering machine software, etc. They actually thought their ghetto-ass P200 could replace 4 or 5 different appliances. Considering that the VAIO was slow and crash-prone and that the included software was univerally poor, I was not impressed. Call them visionary for trying, I call them dumb.
Sony's vision of a tightly intergrated digital future doesn't include anyone else's technology. All their devices are in one retarded family, linked by their incomprehensible love for Memory Sticks. Even sadder is the fact that Sony introduced the memory sticks (which still haven't caught on) at the same goddamn time Iomega et al were flodding the market with Zip, Jaz, Clik, Super Disk, and others. But I digress.
Sony's claim that the PS2 will become a whole "home entertainment center" is ludicrous. Yes the thing has pretty graphics and plays DVDs, but it doesn't mean its the greatest thing since DiVX ;-). Its support for DVDs and CDs is inferior to dedicated electronic products. But they're targeting the low end with this crap , you say. Have you looked at the price of VAIOs now? 4 years ago? Sony's attempts to provide an all-in-one deal have historically provided sub-standard equipment at premium prices. Therefore I look upon these claims with skeptism. Messages to Sony: Get A Clue.
Systems are going to be so kool in the future that noone will ever leave their homes. My kids will be obese and always playing video games. They'll have no social lives and never go outside. And you know what, I'll be right next to them, fat and jolly eating hot-pockets. hahah Isn't the USA grand.
There are a few reasons why Nintendo, according to all the press releases and annual reports me and my son get, is waiting for Sony and Microsoft to do it first.
The most important reason, and one that has served Nintendo well in the past, is to let the other guys work out the bugs while Nintendo concentrates on getting better games than the other game box makers.
The second reason, and one that also has done well for Nintendo is simple - cost. By waiting for Microsoft, Sony, and their ilk to do all the intro and absorb the development costs, Nintendo can let the dust settle and implement it for a fraction of the cost once workable methods and devices are created. Sure, it misses a quarter or two at intro time, but in return each box makes a profit. And, with proper marketing, e.g. "Pikachu Player-to-Player modules! Buy them now! Trade with your friends!", Nintendo can keep the box price low enough ($200USD) to beat out xBox and the others, and have the players who want the add-on pay a small cost to upgrade; this is only part of the market - cause bad dads like me don't buy stuff that lets their kids play on the Net.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
No, it's "stable" as in the horse stable... a horse stable contains all of your horses, which are there to be ridden and are the whole reason you built the stable in the first place. This software stable is the collection of games which run on your platform, and are the reason that people buy it in the first place.
Which brings me to my second point - there are very few cross platform games for a reason. Unlike the PC/Mac arena, where producing a cross-platform version is purely a function of whether it is worth the time and effort to do so, the console arena is much more competitive. Not only is there all the extra work (and due to fundamentally different and limited hardware, that conversion can be MORE difficult than a Mac/PC issue where graphics card APIs are semi-standardized and differences in cpu performance can be adjusted for by requiring a faster processor), but there are also huge licensing fees which the console maker levys to recoup the loss they take in console sales. Furthermore, the very best of the games are often produced in house, and if not are frequently the subject of exclusive deals.
Hardware specs are great. If Sony/Sega/Nintendo/MS were competing purely on the merits of their hardware it would be a very different world (though probably no less complicated due to differences in design philosophy). But when you get down to business, it's really all about the games. That's why I would never have bought an N64, even though it's graphics were somewhat better than the PS1.
This Dreamcast/PS2 deal is just an exception. It's merely a way for Sega to ease the transition to a software-only company. Sony is agreeing because while hardware Sega was a competitor (whose console/game philosophy was uncomfortably close to sony's), software Sega is a powerful, skilled, and valuable ally and is well worth the small investment.
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
IGN (*shudder*) already ran a story on "Aero Dancing i" would be playable online between Dreamcasts and PC's...(but only in Japan).
The article can be found here (plain-text link for the goat paranoid):
http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/35465.html
Nintendo execs had been in talks with Microsoft's XBox product team to license selections from the back-catalog of Nintendo games for sale as XBox "Arcade Classics" titles, much like Namco, Bally et al. had done for a few Windows entertainment titles.
The first planned release was a Nintendo-branded XBox port of the original NES Super Mario Brothers trilogy.
Apparently, the talks ended when Microsoft insisted on bundling Bowser with the OS.
I saw this article on CNN this morning and was a little confused. Given that Sega had announced Phantasy Star Online for PS2 (and Gamecube) a while back, wasn't it always implied that there would be cross-platform play?
Or was I assuming too much? Was it understood (until today) that each console would have its own servers, with no interaction between the user groups?
Well, great news in any case. My only peeve is that I probably won't be able to transfer my existing PSO chars to the PS2 (Gamecube) version, which will probably probably have nicer graphics. ^_^
It's really nice to see that Sony's going to capitalize on Sega's work and bring good online gaming to the playstation sheep, but where the hell is NINTENDO? gar! Sure the article says Sega is making deals with Nintendo, but look at what Yamauchi is saying! "...online games are only for the hardcore gamer." I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think about that. It's hard not to see it as a middle finger, but maybe I'm overly sensitive :)
Irregardless of this "gesture" from Yamauchi-san, I'm planning on jumping to the Gamecube in the fall (since the life is slowly draining from my beloved Dreamcast) but it's gonna be a real bummer if there's no hope of playing anything online ever... The Xbox is just too expensive (I don't need another DVD player, or that GIGANTIC CONTROLLER... but if Jet Set Radio Future remains an exclusive, I'll probably cave in.
-- neko wa kowai
I think its great that for once some of the gaming companies are finally getting along.. It'll be the day where most games are compatible with most/all systems, and the only reason you'd buy different systems is for the different abilities that the company supplies, such as how powerful the console is or the cost, etc.. that way I won't have to worry about buying one system, but missing out on a third of the new games because the developers all went their seperate ways :) Now the next step.. having all of the boxes run unix variants to make easily portable games.. :) Just a thought..
just a question to the community:
Do you think, as a console maker, it would be more, or less beneficial, to make your system easy to port in and out of? I think it would be good on the side that says that many more developers would consider making their games compatible with your system, but at the same time, since it would easily be a two-way street then (porting usually isn't a one-way street between 2 os's), the same games would be available for other consoles, thus possibly driving some consumers away from your system since the other may be better, etc.. I think this problem would probably have to be solved through testing it, since there's no way to predict what's gonna go on in the minds of people, now is there?
This bit of info was brought to you by the letter Q. Thanks, Q.
Nice to see console developers learning from the PC/Mac world. Gamers will be better off having a larger pool of potential opponents and teammates. I don't see how Sony is involved any more than Microsoft or Apple was involved with Blizzard creating Diablo 2 or Starcraft for PC and Mac.
But unfortunately consoles will still matter a great deal, as the same game may have drastically different presentation depending on which console it's running on.
That the networking uses a common protocol across the Internet is good for online gamers, but it still requires that the game be redeveloped for each (proprietary) console.
Let's see how much that happens with the A-List titles that Sony and Microsoft are trying so hard to secure exclusivity for.