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!
I wonder if this is a bunch related to the people who somehow predicted, and convinced, the old head of Nintendo that optical media in video games was 'just a fad' back during the N64 design phase.
Until the battle occurs.
I can predict anything. Doesn't make it true.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
never fumble and release a crappy update to an existing game system
Atari 5200 anyone? excellent graphics (for early 80s), awful controllers.
That the BBC can do what no other human has been able to accomplish. Do you think next they'll be giving out lotto numbers?
...Duke Nukem: Forever has already won game of the year*.
*year to be determined.
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.
Playstation Fights Falling Sales. Granted, it's from July 2003, but still....
PlayStation is dying! No, no, wait. PlayStation will dominate!
No, no, wait....
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.
Nintendo's big problem is a series of bad business decisions they made back in the N64 generation, which caused a number of third party developers to jump to Playstation.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
And in other predictions I have determined with a similiar level of scientific accuracy using the same method of bovinefecalius that we'll see:
The Minnesota Vikings will almost win the Superbowl in 2010, but get nuked by a terrorist right before they clench the game.
Manchester United will become a has been team that leases space to danceline competitions to pay for stadium lights.
The New York Yankees won't actually have to play the World Series to win after their payroll exceeds 1 billion dollars to save on wasteful travel costs.
The NHL will fold to be replaced by the CHL and the AHL with the Stanley cup auctioned on Ebay.
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.
"Meanwhile, Nintendo seems set to play to its strengths and emphasise game quality and innovation over processor horsepower."
It's interesting they should say that...the Gamecube's games look consistently better than PS2 games in no small part due to the additional power the Gamecube has over the PS2, and the relative ease of developing games on the Gamecube. Then, the article goes on to say Nintendo emphasizes game quality over power, which they already have plenty of! If this isn't a ringing endorsement for Nintendo, I don't know what is.
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.
That 70% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.
That's right, because everyone here will buy a copy to play with the grandkids when they come over. Right?
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
I'm curious: what are you basing that statement on? You're claiming that MS doesn't focus on the game developer, I'd like to know why you say that.
Granted, MSFT keeps the XDK under tight wraps, but it's no big secret that it's a very close relative of DirectX 7. And there's libraries of information on programming DX7 out there.
These are video games we're talking about not demo reels. Why is everyone so hung up on how games look and not how they play?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
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
Why is the hard drive thing still an issue? It shouldn't be an issue at all yet since no specs have been released on the system.
Would an internal 4 Gig flash drive make everyone happy? Because that's not outside the realm of possibility yet.
Also, who predicts something as unpredictable as video game sales? This is a stupid thing to do. Maybe after we see some specs on the consoles in question. But, gamers are getting smarter and more tuned in to what makes a system good and for all we know Nintendo could release a system that simply blows the other 2 away 3-6 months after the other two are released.
All in all, I can't believe somebody like the BBC would run an article like this.
what?
It occurs to me that if I ever managed to sell 10, 5 or even 1 million of anything, I'd consider myself pretty damn successful.
Interesting times, I guess...
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!
Last time I checked it was the best platform for online console games. With everything moving to broadband, I think the established network will be a giant foothold into the market that Sony will have to work hard to match. Microsoft and Sony have almpost the same hardware, the battle will be won with exclusive titles and features.
Most of us are assuming that the PS3 will be backwards compatible with the PS2, if not still the PS1.
I'm hoping that Nintendo makes the Gamecube 2 compatible with the Gamecube, but there's been no comment on that.
But the Xbox 2 is looking more and more like it will not be backwards compatible with the Xbox 1, and I'm thinking that might be a huge mistake on Microsoft's part.
It usually takes about 12 months for A list titles to appear on any new console. MS was at least smart enough to put Halo on its release titles, which was a good move, but after that it still took some time for another major "must have" exclusive title.
So if the Xbox 2 isn't backwards compatible, I have the feeling that it will be a harder sell. I have all three systems, and some Xbox games I haven't gotten around to yet (Ninja Gaiden is certain a hard-as-nails blast, though). But if I can't play those games on a new Xbox 2, I'll probably just wait 12 months or so until the price dies down.
If the other two systems (GC2 and PS3) are backwards, then it will be a simple pickup. Old system gets sold on eBay, and new system plays maybe 1 new game for it, and all my old games are still valid.
I don't mind have 3 consoles - but I think 4 is just too many, espeically when 2 of them are by the same manufacturer.
I know - "But in the past we didn't care - look at the SNES to N64, or N64 to Gamecube!". Yes, that's true - but we had only 2 consoles really on the market at a time. Now we have 3, and that actually makes a hell of a difference. And now that Sony has pretty much got us used to backwards compatibility, I think that most buyers (especially their parents who don't want to see $200 in old games unplayed by their children because they 'don't work on the new system") now expect that backwards compatibility.
I could be wrong - it's been known to happen. But that's my opinion.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Dewey defeats Truman!
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
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?
I think the issue of backwards compatibility is going to give Sony a huge advantage. In the case of the PS2, the compatibility with PS1 cames gave it a big headstart in terms of supported titles. Given that Microsoft is going to find it hard to maintain compatibility with the Xbox 1, (see article) , Sony should press that advantage for all its worth. It makes the consumer feel like they're getting the most bang for the buck when their shiny new toy works with old games as well as new games.
Hates new XBox. Hates it!
Gollum, I didn't know they had XBoxes in Middle Earth?
Never mind, probaly worth -2 for poor joke.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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...
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.
You're arguing the opposite point, and supporting what he said by using Halo as an example.
It's actually easier to prove that MS is not porting games from the XBox to the PC than to prove that games are not coming from the PC to the XBox (note in the latter I didn't state MS). MS has, in fact, released very few of their XBox titles on the PC, especially if you look at recent titles like Crimson Skies High Road to Revenge, the Project Gotham Racing titles, and the XSN Sports line.
On the other hand, I'd have to say that every console is suffering from the cross-platform development that is now common, in part because of the development costs for a game, and in part because of the number of platforms out there. Each platform has it's must-have games, but the cross-platform games each suffer unique problems because they are rarely optimized for any platform.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Nintendo's big problem is a series of bad business decisions they made back in the N64 generation
While Nintendo has made many bad decisions, it was in no means restricted to the N64 generation.
Before PlayStation, Nintendo (in North America) was king, and they told developers what they could and couldn't do. You want religious references? Not in America! Gory, bloody games? Tone it down, or you want have access to our machine! You say you would like Nintendo to have an optical drive? Come on, you can do it better with a cartridge!
Granted, they had good reasons for many of these decisions, but you can see from a Developers perspective how this can get tiring, when you can do almost whatever you want on this new PlayStation-thingy! The customer followed the developers, because we all know its the games that make the system.
How about another example? On the release of the GameCube, there was only one official Memory Card, with 59 'blocks' of memory. So these sports games (read: easy money) games come along with their stats and seasons modes, requiring upwards of 100 blocks! So what now, you have to buy a 3rd-party one? Or wait a year after the console's release to buy the 251-block card for only 25% more money? Someone from NOA mentioned that the memory card situation was a major factor driving people away from the GameCube.
However, not everyone (Nintendo included) sees this all as bad decisions. Nintendo now has quite a reputation built up as being easy to use, friendly enough so that anyone in the family can play, and with a high quality level, as well as a low price. Bring this up in an electronics showcase, and this seems like a bad business decision. But any toymaker would kill for the reputation and brand loyalty Nintendo still has.
However, things could change again just as easily for Nintendo, for the better or for the worse.
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"
Actually, IBM is the winner of the nextgen video game consoles. IBM designs the Cell chip together with Sony. A 64 Bit powerpc will power the XBOX 2. And last but not least, IBM will produce the CPU for the gamecube successor.
But the PS3 is supposed to be backwards compatible with PS and PS2 games while the XBox won't?
That sells me
*DrugCheese rants*
This is how I hear it from my nephew, the hardcore gamer anyway.
And we all know hardcore gamers wouldn't be fanboys for their platform. <rolleyes>
I don't have a console, but I was thinking about getting one a few months ago. I couldn't decide between XBox or PS2; each has its merits. I was going to decide based on who I would most likely share games with, but my peers are split XBox/PS2. I wound up deciding not to spend the money. But it's really hard to find objective opinions among the diehard brand fans.
The XBox has the greatest visual capabilities, no doubt about it...
I doubt it, at least. So far, from what I've seen, the XBox has lousy graphics. Knights of the Old Republic has terrible frame rates, and the visuals aren't all the great. Halo isn't bad, but other games haven't really surpassed Halo for quality. Compare that to Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando, which gets a solid 60fps on even the most detailed scenes.
The problem is the dev kit, and the design. Sony designed the PS2 for graphics, not for ease-of-development. The XBox is essentially a cheap PC, and is programmed like a cheap PC; the PS2 is a high-end graphics card (not PC-like, more SGI-like) with a rather wimpy general processor. The way you code for something like that is completely different than for a cheap PC.
Take a look at the success of the Sony method; as time went on, games for the Playstation got better and better as developers learned to use the power of the machine. Although the Dreamcast had better hardware, the Playstation kept up fairly well.
Nintendo seems to be the only one to get it completely right, with an easy-to-use dev kit coupled to a decent game platform, with a nice balance of CPU power and graphics capability. But, more importantly, their games are well-designed. Metroid, the various Mario Bros titles, Zelda, etc, all *play* well. The XBox suffers from too few good games, and the PS2 suffers from too many crappy games. (There are some really good ones there, but the market seems glutted with bad ones, and it's hard to tell the good from the bad on the shelf.)
Of course, most of that is my opinion. I could very well be wrong.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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.
Ok, this is simply wrong. I will do my best not to let it propagate.
My current work is leading the XBox port of a PS2 engine for a major upcoming title. The Game Cube port was canceled half way through our development.
The Game Cube does not, _by far_, have the best development kit. Its not as bad as for the PS2, but there is no productivity boost there at all. Quite the opposite. The Cube lacks memory and DVD space; has fewer controller buttons, big endian vs. little endian. Fitting the same game as for PS2 on the Cube is twice the work. The graphics chip and memory cache is quite capable, but thats about it. It is so lacking in installed based and hardware compared to XBox and PS2 that often it does not make financial sense to support it, unless you're Nintendo or an exclusive developer.
The PS2, I've heard from collegues, is like writing a graphics card driver from scratch. You have fine-grained low level control, but you pay for it in complexity and arcane assembly coding. Support and docs are poor.
The XBox has _the best_ development kit, support and documentation. Its better than D3D SDK on a PC. Using an NVidia GPU it can do the most complex texture blending operations. XBox signature look is shiny bump-mapped environment maps and (simple) stencil shadocws. However the PS2 has far more fill rate/bandwidth which clever artists can use to great effet with particle systems, multi-layer polys etc.
Most developers care about the installed base of a platform first, and the PS2 wins hands down.
It seems interesting that so many of these issues (OSs, vendors, and so on) are setup as win/lose, especially when some of the "losers" end up doing pretty well. For example, Apple is not the most widely used personal computer, but they continue to survive, innovate, and even turn a profit. Likewise, it seems odd to call Nintendo a "loser" because they sell "only 5 million" units.
Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
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
LOL ... even if they did, it'd still be smaller than the X-Box.
CT
It's actually a 487Mhz PPC. The real keys are that clock-for-clock the PPC is better than the EE (MIPS R5900 as you mention), the CPU cache is much bigger (256k) on the PPC than the EE (8k), the system bus bandwidth is lower - EE is 128bit but only 150Mhz and RDRAM has a long setup time vs the 1T-SRAM used with the PPC - and core floating point performence is much better on the PPC than the EE (eg. physics, AI).
Most PS2 games are EE-limited. The VUs are great for medium (eg. skinning) and low (eg. transform, clipping, lighting) level vertex processing but that's only a relatively small piece of the total work done by a modern game. They have so little integer and flow control support that you can't do much higher level work on them even if you wanted to deal with writing such things in dual-issue microcode.
Graham
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).