Slashdot Mirror
Playstation 3 Already Won the Next Gen Battle?
damyan writes "The BBC are running an article that claims that the Playstation 3 has already won the next-gen battle, since 'The Informa Media Group predicts that Sony will sell more than 30 million PlayStation 3s in Europe by 2010. It puts Microsoft in second place with 10 million sales and Nintendo trailing in third with five million.' If only everyone could see that well into the future."
Actually not as stupid a question as it sounds - the PS2 has an official linux site, and the dev. environment is pretty similar (well, once you use the SPS2 stuff, anyway :-).
:-)
:-))
Given the advances in NUMA architectures in the Linux kernel, and the Cell processor being designed for parallel processing, it actually begins to sound reasonable... I'm sure there'll be developers who hit the metal, but given how fast the thing is supposed to run, I think it's a viable option
Then of course, it'll *really* be a war - closed MS Xbox-2 versus PS3 running Linux
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Is it just me, or is this kind of hokey?
According to the report, the PS3 is expected to sell 32 million units in Europe by 2010, more than the combined sales of the Microsoft and Nintendo machines.
I mean, seriously, what are these so-called analysts basing that on? The article doesn't say.
Probably, the PS3 will do well, but it seems beyond premature to make up numbers like these without supporting them in any meaningful way.
Or between development and release. Granted, Sony may have the clout, but don't forget there are plenty of ways to mess up when it comes to releasing a new console. The Playstation 2's line up, for example, was pretty weak when released, and if someone makes the rash decision to drop PS1+2 support from the PS3, sales will plummet (though it looks MS may already have made that mistake with X-Box 3 if rumours are to believed.)The Dreamcast, on the other hand, had a very strong line-up, great hardware, but Sega's lack of decent advertising did the console no good. I think this is rather jumping the gun.
That's the one thing that Sony really has going for it... it's the one reason that I think a lot of people want it. There are a lot of very good games out for the PSX or PS2 that many people don't want to stop playing... I still play PSX games on my PS2, because they're fun, not because they're pretty or anything. If the XBox2 doesn't have this, they're going to lose a lot of customers. People want to upgrade, not have tons of different systems from the same company in their house.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
The reason is actually simple: if you make a game that isn't overly dark, you have to focus much more on generating good graphics. More light makes it easier to spot the lack of polygons, and the use of bland or fuzzy textures.
The XBox has the greatest visual capabilities, no doubt about it, and the PS2 has the largest market share. Nintendo's Gamecube has something else: the best game development kit. If you want to create good graphics on the PS2, you have to spend an enormous amount of time compared to the Gamecube. XBox is much better, but you STILL have a much easier ride with the Cube.
Since you can code something up faster for the Cube, you can also spend more time optimizing the code and can therefore offer brighter, more colourful graphics.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
The xbox does have more processing power than the gamecube, but what is it worth? Would you rather have "game quality and innovation," or a few more polys and effects? What's the good of looking at slightly better graphics if the game isn't fun?
At any rate, regardless of technical details and opinions about the current generation of console hardware, I think we can all agree that it's pretty stupid to try and call a winner in the next generation of consoles. Predicting 2010? Give me a break.
[javac] 100 errors
Im still a hardcore nintendo fan, Nintendo does the best games, Zelda, Mario, etc.
And now, after the Squaresoft Enix merge Nintendo will hopefully get the Final Fantasy games where they belong; on a Nintendo Machine.
Lets all hope that Nintendo kicks some serius ass this time.
Only reason i bought an X-box was that is was able play DVDs and you could install Linux on it,
I never once purchased a game for that box.
And I never really liked the PS2 hardware, or any of the games.
Go Nintendo!
And unlike Xbox, which seems intent on turning the console gaming market into the PC gaming market by porting just about every game they make to the PC, Nintendo actually gives people a reason to buy their system.
This is simply untrue. Tell me how many games MS has ported from PC to the Xbox currently. It's not a large number. If you're thinking games like Counter Strike and Rainbow Six, those weren't made by MS. I know Halo was on Xbox first and its sequel is easily one of the most anticipated games ever.
If somebody can point out a large list of ports by Microsoft from PC to Xbox I will concede.
what?
The platform the the PS2 is now releasing their online games on (it escapes me now) is pretty damn good... and like Xbox live it doesn't require companies to have their own huge server farms for their online games which was the huge problem that caused the PS2's lack of multiple good online titles. I think the PS2 is catching up quickly, and if the PS3 takes more cues from Xbox Live they could outpace it quickly... oh, and online gaming is free with the PS, which doesn't hurt things either.
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
One thing I noticed when living in Europe for a while is that people generally didn't give X-box too much of a chance, and Gamecube was very much behind that. Sony must have done a really really good job with the Playstation, because their name recognition was far beyond anyone elses. If one so much as mentioned a gaming console, people would assume it's a Playstation. It's kind of surprising when one considers that Nintendo still has dominance over the handheld market there, yet is very far behind with the GC.
This really isn't that far out a prediction, given that the current console battle was won by Playstation 2 despite that fact that it was (IMHO) the weakest of the three.
Basically I see Microsoft as being the one with something to lose. Nintendo is by all accounts quite happy to sell fewer than the rest of them but turn a tidy profit doing so, while putting out the high quality first-party games they've always done. Of course, the fact that they're still killing in the handheld market probably helps the bottom line...
CD/DVD production costs are an order of magnitude less than tooling a line to print ROM boards, ad printing them.
... hi bingo
Programmer: "Hey, I just managed to save a couple thousand cycles per frame with some clever inlining, loop unrolling and judicious use of PowerPC assembler."
Artist: "Great! I'll bump up the saturation on the 'graphics' by 7%"
Having spent 6 years now in the games industry, I can assure you it doesn't quite work this way.
Oh, and all the other stuff you said too is quite debatable.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
A cartridge may be more expensive than a CD, but console with a cartridge port is cheaper than console with an optical drive. Especially back in the N64 development days. So it all depends if they wanted to minimise the up front cost of the console or the cost of the games. It's another of those razors and blades issues. Sell the razor cheap enough to get lock in and then people put up with expensive blades. Of course it didn't work out for N64, so it may not have been too good a plan.
It's impossible to tell what's gonig to happen for the next generation, because I'm guessing that the next gen console's are going to be more concept-type devices than the predecessors.
It's looking more and more like Sony is going to do the all-in-one type box. Will they be able to maintain their current market share? What about backwards compatibility? (PS2 compatibility is expected). With the launch titles give enough bang for the buck to get a quick launch? (I actually say no. They're going to stall coming out of the gate).
Microsoft looks to be playing it safe, moving from the HD based system to a more unhackable flash-memory type system. What will this do to sales? As well, MS faces the same problem. What about launch games. They had Halo for the X-Box (Without Halo, the X-Box may have been another N-Gage...)
As for Nintendo..well..they're the wild card..arn't they? What the hell are they planning..everything to speak is in riddles and doublespeak.
My best guess, is that the DS technology is some sort of affordable touch-pad. And they'll use that in their next system, in the controllers.
At worst, you'd be able to see additional information, maps without switching screens. As well, doing basic inventory management, things such as that.
At best? If their next system had the horsepower to feed out a 3d signal to the controller. Imagine being able to look down at your controller, playing Zelda for example, and seeing an overhead view of all the action around you? Or checking out what is behind you in a FPS.
Something like that would be revolutionary if it caught on. Personally, I think that if it's affordable, it's a great idea.
BTW, same problem for Nintendo. They had a bad launch for the GC and that hurt them. They need to launch with some big games right out.
PSOne backwards compatibility wasn't exactly easy; they had to put nearly all the parts an entire seperate PSOne into the PS2 (except the sound chip, as you mention). The 1337est game programmers even use the PSOne system for PS2 games... So what, will they put a PS2 and a PS into the PS3?
Lalala
I think you are missing the point. The parent poster is pointing out that the production cost reduction has been no benefit to the consumer. The prices stay the same and, in his opinion, we are getting an inferior product.
But, adjusting for inflation, the prices have dropped significantly lower than the change in media cost. Additionally, the production cost of games has increased significantly in that timeframe. Usually if a price (with no adjustments for inflation or anything else) doesn't change for 20 years, it's seen as a good thing unless there have been significant advances that should have driven that cost down. Games are not music. Every cost associated with producing music has been driven down in the last 20 years, while every cost associated with producing games, except for the media on which it is distributed, has been driven up in the last 20 years. Music CD prices have gone up slower than inflation (with every cost decreasing) while game prices have remained the same despite inflation (with every cost increasing).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Actually the I/O Processor in the PS2 is based on the PS1's CPU - this chip is the one that takes over when you boot the PS2 with a PSOne game. Sony killed two birds with one stone with this "Playstation-in-a-chip": they got an I/O processor and a way to get almost flawless PS1 emulation... the keyword being almost flawless, since there are PS1 games that are incompatible. This wouldn't be the case if Sony had decided to just stick a PS1 inside a PS2.
Anyway, I can see Sony working right now in a "PS2 in a chip" for the PS3 - they have been revising the hardware for the PS2 to reduce the number of components with every new model, just as they did with the PS1, and I expect they eventually will get around to having most of the functionality of the Emotion Engine in a single, cheap chip. We can also expect a smaller, cuter and cheaper PSTwo after the PS3 is launched.
But now that I think about it... Since they are separate chips, will the PS3 be compatible with the PS1? I'd think so, but they would have to use two different chips into the PS3. I/O processor and matemathical co-processor? Or will they integrate the "PS1-in-a-chip" in the new mini-Emotion Engine?
If you buy the PS/2 Dev kit, you can turn your console into a linux workstation and start writing easily in a familiar environment. We make this available to everyone, and lots of cool stuff with just appear as people get to try out their own ideas. At least that's the theory.
In practice, the barrier to development is HIGH. There are no high level libraries, and the amount you have to learn about the box to do anything with it is far to high to get anything useful done on a nights and weekends basis.
You buy the kit, it's neat to have RedHat 5.x, it can really run X Windows and Emacs and everything (though kinda slow).
But when you try to build anything you just hit a wall. The documenation is poor (probably better in Japanese) and confusing. The build process is complex, since there are custom languages for the two vector units (which are NOT identical and interchangable), and the main processor is not fast enough to do much real time work by itself.
The video and audio outputs are custom and can't be accessed though any standard mechanism (like OpenGL).
After spending about a month of spare time, digging through docs, reading things online and generally fiddling with pieces until they seem to work, you manage to add 1 and 1 on a vector processor, then get the result back and display it on the console. And you're proud. If you do keep goingand build a real game you can only distribute it to other people that have bought development kits, unless you get a real licensing deal with Sony. That means big money, big business, small/simple games need not apply and don't even consider trying to distribute for free.
What this high barrier to entry means is that the strengths of open source aren't really there, because very few programmers can really use the environment, and few others can even read the code that first set wrote. There isn't much sharing, and not much that's fun to play comes out of it.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Sure, that's possible theoretically. But not if the goal of removing the hard disk to is reduce the cost of the system.
As others have pointed out, that probably isn't the goal, MS is probably trying to reduce the hackability of the console.
Your right that 4 gig of flash would be expensive right now, but look at how the price of flash has dropped over the last few years. Replacing a hard drive with flash may not be as wildly expensive as everyone thinks (think of the bulk deals that MS could get).