Slashdot Mirror


Sony Endorsing Open Graphics Format For PS3

News for nerds writes "At the tech talk as part of the forthcoming SIGGRAPH 2004 conference on August 11th, an open graphics file format for the interactive 3D [videogame] industry called COLLADA will be unveiled by Sony Computer Entertainment. COLLADA is supported by major 3D toolchain companies including Alias, Criterion, Discreet, Emdigo, Novodex, Softimage and Vicarious Visions. If you combine this with the recent news that Sony has joined Khronos Group to support OpenGL/ES, OpenMAX, OpenVG and OpenML, it seems evident that Sony is quietly fighting back against the loudly trumpeted Microsoft XNA (/. coverage) with its plan of an open game development platform."

191 comments

  1. My head hurts by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't get it, which link am I supposed to click on to figure out what this story is about? All I see is "blah blah blah" and I have no idea what this is even about.

    1. Re:My head hurts by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh and did I mention that I work for Sony designing PS3 and I still don't understand what this is about.

    2. Re:My head hurts by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      did I mention that I work for Sony designing PS3

      Not in CT you don't.

    3. Re:My head hurts by pHatidic · · Score: 1

      Hey man I was on a role there, why ya gots to be wreckin my game?

    4. Re:My head hurts by FatTux · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Two "Funny"-moderated posts in a row - THIS is an innovative karma-whoring, indeed!...

    5. Re:My head hurts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Funny posts don't give karma though. It counts for nothing. Which means that usually people who post funny things get burned badly when it gets moderated back down, they wind up with net negative karma.

      Serves 'em right for being a smartass, though.

    6. Re:My head hurts by FiloEleven · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Hey man I was on a role there

      This is either a brilliant pun or a spelling error. My guess is the latter.

    7. Re:My head hurts by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You click article links?

      You must be new... *g*

  2. Seems logical by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony has a vested interest in making it easier and cheaper for companies to develop games.

    1. Re:Seems logical by endx7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That way the market can be flooded with low quality games that suck, because anyone can do it.

      Or, it becomes cheaper, but you still have to go through Sony to license your game to publish it on the PS3. That would cut out poor games that could hurt the PS3's image (and because of open standards, like OpenGL (well, it has a published API at least), even if you don't get it on PS3, you can still release it on other platforms, like the PC).

    2. Re:Seems logical by lambent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The original days of video games were full of poor quality games that everyone had the ability to make. Many people now regard this as the great halcyon days of gaming, and look back with fondness and regret.

      Personally, i'd rather pay 5$ a piece for 10 mediocre games, then pay 50$ for the latest must-have-super-franchise-sequel-seen-everything-b efore-but-this-time -it's-new-we-promise deal.

      Openness and well documented specs will benefit everyone. Just because there will be more lower quality games (not disputing this), doesn't mean that you won't still get to blow your wad on Super Mario 8 and Sonic 12 Adventure Battle or whatever it is.

    3. Re:Seems logical by endx7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I understand it, the video game industry once lost consumer confidence because of low quality games. If the PS3 market is flooded with a lot of games, which includes a lot of low quality ones, then the PS3 could get hurt badly.

      I kinda don't want to see the PS3 fail, since I've always liked the playstation a little better than the rest. I wouldn't want it to fall to something like that.

    4. Re:Seems logical by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the only thing that can compete against M$ is open-ness. If M$ weren't around, Sony would stick us with their proprietary crap again.

      So hey, M$ is good for one thing. Getting their competitors to open things up. This is actually good (although sony doesn't seem the to be a likely source of openness... i'll wait and see on this one).

      --
      My other car is first.
    5. Re:Seems logical by lambent · · Score: 1

      True.

      If Sony is hurt in this way, it will stifle their ability to innovate and push new hardware and software concepts.

      Software titles aside, I really like the parallelism and graphics system of the PS2. I can't wait to get my hands on the PS3.

    6. Re:Seems logical by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Premise=faulty. Just because Sony is endorsing open graphics formats doesn't mean that the bar will be set any lower for what games will be sold for their console. It's partially a public relations ploy, basically saying "Microsoft is evil for forcing XNA while we will give you your choice of open toolsets [which you will still have to use to make PS3-compatible games under our licensing agreement]"; and, of course, the other part is addressing developer concerns about the relative difficult of coding for Sony consoles versus Microsoft consoles.

      I certainly don't see any indication here that the PS3 will be able to play unprotected/unlicensed discs out of the box, which would be the only way to TRULY open up the platform...and which I, by the way, would consider a supremely stupid move since the games are where the real money is at for Sony.

    7. Re:Seems logical by miyako · · Score: 1

      That way the market can be flooded with low quality games that suck, because anyone can do it.
      This has always been sony's strenght, and is one of the reasons that Sony beat out Sega and Nintendo during the 32bit console wars (the other reasons being mainly Nintendo and Sega both shooting themselves in their respective feet). If you have the money to make a game an dpay sony's licensing fee, then you can make a PS2 game. Sure this leads to a lot of crappy games, but it also is what leads to really Unique and really fun games. Games that Nintendo especially just wouldn't let get made. It's sort of like the million monkey theory, if you make games easier to make, you get more developers, and you have a higher probability of getting someone to make something really unexpected and really fun.

      --
      Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    8. Re:Seems logical by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PSX and PS2 already have plenty of low-quality games. That was Sony's battle-plan. While Nintendo has had a history of not rubber-stamping things, sending games back to the developers for polishing, Sony focused on "fill the shelves". It worked for them.

      Ie; quantity vs quality. AFAIK, it's much harder to get your game approved for market for Gamecube or Xbox than it is for Sony. Go down to the used game shop and just look at the stacks and stacks of pure crap in the PS2 and PSX bins. "Hooters Racing" comes to mind. Yeah, lets take this horse-turd joke of a racing game, stick in a couple still publicity photo's of Hooters girls, and make some bucks.

      I'm not saying every PS2 game is shit, some are great. I'm just saying that the "bury 'em in titles" philosophy has worked well for them in the past.

      When you walk into Best Buy and the PS2 section is twice the size of the Xbox and GCN sections, that makes a big impact on your average shopper.

      It's also how gameboy buried all of it's competition over the years.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    9. Re:Seems logical by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      Is that why the PS2 is an absolute horror to program for (as seen by the poor-looking games that come out on it)? Having Linux (which the PS2 does) doesn't seem to have made development any easier. Xbox and GC games still look and run far better. The developers that don't have a huge budget can't afford to make PS2 games, they flock to Xbox.

      As far as philosophy goes, I *do* want Sony to have the PS3 development open. But if the PS2 is anything to go by, the developers will spend too much of their time fighting the hardware rather than making me good games. That's definitely something I don't want as a gamer.

    10. Re:Seems logical by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I'm still looking for games in the Sega Genesis section. Crap.

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    11. Re:Seems logical by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Is that why the PS2 is an absolute horror to program for (as seen by the poor-looking games that come out on it)?

      Partially.

      It's a multi-processor machine - It has (only) 7 "cpus".

      You think multi-threading is hard with 2 cpus?! Try keeping the EE (main cpu), VU0, VU1 (the 2 vector units, with 4K and 16K of RAM respectively, used for physics, and transorms, respectively), the GPU, and shuttingling data from the IOP to main ram, and IOP to the SPU, ALL in sync, *without* data stalls. Gee, you think this is trivial? ;-)

      > Having Linux (which the PS2 does) doesn't seem to have made development any easier.
      I'm not aware of any professional game developer using linux on the PS2. It already has it's own propiertary OS - you don't need a more bloated one. Every K counts, when you only got 40 megs total RAM.

      You only have 4 megs of VRAM (video). After reserving memory for the screen (640x480), double-buffered, and a z-buffer, you only have ~ 2 megs left. Guess we'll have upload textures every bloody frame. Shit, how come we're out of main memory?! Fortunately none of the sound data has to even touch main memory.

      > The developers that don't have a huge budget can't afford to make PS2 games, they flock to Xbox.
      Dev kits are expensive whatever route you go.

      One of the factors is that the XBox is way easier to develop fore. Most PC developers can easily get a handle on the 733 Mhz + GeForce 3.

      --
      The evolution & supposed pre-ancient history of man is a crock...
      One of the many proofs that something intelligent existed long BEFORE man supposed came into being:
      Progression of "apparent" history of "man" - Hominidae is 3 millions years old
      Geological Time Frames perspective
      A machined 3D relief map 120-million years old in a 1-ton stone, with inscriptions. WTF?!

    12. Re:Seems logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nintendo has had plenty of low quality games as well. Third parties just abadoned them as their market share has decreased after the SNES.

      The PSX and SNES were pretty much equal in amount of crap to decent games ratio. I have CDs full of SNES games to remind me. :)

    13. Re:Seems logical by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      I doubt that has much to do with approval process, and much more to do with the popularity of the system. Making junk only works when you have a huge number of people to sell to.

    14. Re:Seems logical by syrion · · Score: 1
      Well, somehow--despite the "crapflooding" that everyone seems to pin on PS2/PSX--Sony managed to produce more good games in the PSX generation than Nintendo did in the Nintendo 64 generation; and PS2 has more good games than both GameCube and XBox, even now. The XBox lineup seems particularly weak; there are almost no exclusives, and barring some stand-outs (Ninja Gaiden), the exclusive games that do exist are largely mediocre. Compare the XBox exclusive Blinx to the PS2 exclusive series Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, and Sly Cooper.

      GameCube is doing better, IMHO, in terms of average quality, but the best PS2 and XBox games are easily as good as GameCube's best, and they have a lot more "acceptably good" games than GCN does. I'm looking forward to Metroid Prime 2 and the new Legend of Zelda, though.

    15. Re:Seems logical by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      "Sure this leads to a lot of crappy games, but it also is what leads to really Unique and really fun games. Games that Nintendo especially just wouldn't let get made."

      Can you name some examples ? As over the years I found Nintendo way more focused on getting 'different' games out there.

    16. Re:Seems logical by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Timesplitters for PS2 is an example of a game that was developed on (and ran) Linux. I'm not sure if there were others, but there may have been if there was one.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    17. Re:Seems logical by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      the exclusive games that do exist are largely mediocre
      Most of the exclusive games for PS2 are pretty mediocre, and it has far more of them than Xbox or GC.

      Compare the XBox exclusive Blinx to the PS2 exclusive series Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, and Sly Cooper.

      That's not really fair. Why wouldn't you use a quality example, like Voodoo Vince for Xbox?

      Works both ways, too - what quality exclusive rail-shooters does PS2 have that compare to a masterpiece like Panzer Dragoon Orta?

      All this system measuring is pretty pointless - just pick the system that has the games you want. You need a quality rail-shooter and (of course) already own Rez for DC, get an Xbox. Want more platformers, get a PS2. Etc. etc.

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
  3. Sony Who? by inkdesign · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sony... Open Format... Did the wires get crossed here or what?

    1. Re:Sony Who? by jaaron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is Sony Computer Entertainment not Sony Pictures or Sony Electronics. SCE, which is the Sony division responsible for the Playstation, has quite a different outlook on things than much of the rest of the company. For example, its SCE which provided the Linux on Playstation kit. Also, when SCE was first working on the Playstation, they decided to develop and manufacture their own chips and electronics rather than go threw SEL. Essentially, they didn't want to deal with the rest of Sony. And it has paid off. In fact, due to the Playstation's success, SCE managers are finding their way up the ladder into the upper Sony Corp circles and are hoping to change the way the rest of Sony does business.

      --
      Who said Freedom was Fair?
    2. Re:Sony Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is that why the PSP uses UMD and memory stick? Yet two more proprietary Sony formats.

  4. Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards. Pure pragmatism at its finest - Microsoft is pushing a closed standard, Sony wants to fight Microsoft, and the only effective way to do that is to be the opposite of Microsoft. Hence, make it as easy as possible to port games to the PS3. Of course, Microsoft is making it as easy as possible to port Windows games to Xbox, but that's just more lock-in as we have all come to know and hate it.

    This is great news for everyone, because a giant like sony supporting open standards can only be good for us, so long as they don't pull a microsoft-like embrace and extend. So far though, Sony has been pretty good about that, choosing instead to create their own completely separate competiting formats when they want to try to kill a technology, which is infinitely preferable in my mind.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has little to do with wanting to "fight microsoft". The PSX brand already dominates, and MSFT really isn't a threat.

      This is just Sony listening to developers, who didn't care for the PS2 dev kits and all the wacky proprietary calls.

      The focus inside the industry really isn't on ports, it never has been. Ports, by rule of thumb, sell very poorly. Are you going to buy Doom 3 for Xbox and PC? Given the choice of one or the other, which would you choose? So would I.

      From the developers perspective, it's good to get your game to the widest possible audience. That means, if practical, PS2, PC, XBOX, and GCN.

      But, Sony (and MSFT or Nintendo for that matter) thrive on *excusive* titles. Believe me, Halo sold more Xboxes than probably every other Xbox title combined. Ditto MGS or GTA3 for PS2. Nintendo's stable of exclusive titles is well known.

      Anyhow, Sony picking library A over B has shit all to do with competing with Microsoft, embracing RMS's values, or any of that. It was just a decision they made based on feedback from their first tier developers.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sony has obviously ripped a page out of The Art of War(tm). Your enemy's enemy is your friend's friend. Likewise your friend's enemy is your enemy's friend. Furthermore the enemy of your enemy is the friend of your friend. Please remember though your enemy is not your friend.

    3. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The PSX brand already dominates, and MSFT really isn't a threat.

      I wish I could agree with you but I can't. Microsoft is the 800 lb gorilla. Sony is about 750 lb. Right now they have dominance because they have a better name and more developers, but yor average gamer doesn't care that Microsoft is the ultimate computer industry embodiment of evil, they just care where the games are. As Microsoft continues to flush money down the game console hole, they will build up more and more of a reputation.

      The Xbox has a pretty good reputation, as it currently enjoys a position of technical superiority. It's inexpensive for what you get, the only thing wrong with it whatsoever is the lack of titles. Well, and needing a breakout box for digital audio. Hmm, I take it back, there is one other thing, the fan is way too loud.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has been making console games for over a decade your stupidity is nauseating.

      You don't have a fucking clue.

    5. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by DLWormwood · · Score: 1
      Your enemy's enemy is your friend's friend. Likewise your friend's enemy is your enemy's friend. Furthermore the enemy of your enemy is the friend of your friend. Please remember though your enemy is not your friend.

      Care to expand that to foes, fans and freaks, Mr. Sun Tzu?

      And don't get me started on friends of fans, foes of freaks, Friends And Family, Garfield And Friends, and Fee Fi Foe Fum.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    6. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      As someone who has been buying and playing games for over a decade, I feel that your cowardice is astounding. Leave me alone.

      Incidentally, you made it sound like I was someone who had been making console games for over a decade. Is English your second language by any chance?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck my dick, AC. You don't work in the console industry. I DO.

      -- Samir Gupta

    8. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by rmarll · · Score: 1

      While I agree that this is a good thing. It is a really strange ad for a job opening.

      Consider what they are asking for, how many people in the whole gaming industry possess those skills? Consider Sony's dominance in the console gaming industry and their considerable presence in the computer gaming industry...

      They don't already know who that person is? How do you develop that skill set and not be known industry wide? Even if you are that clueless, look at the top games released in the last few years, review the development teams names. They likely spent more time developing that ad than it would take to generate this list. Even if you can't get someone from that list you can get a referal.

      I'd guess that the position has already been filled but someone is insisting on putting the job up. Or alternatively they don't really want to spend the money to get the tallent they want, but will use this to get as close as they can with the budget they've set asside.

    9. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You discredit the ESL community with your insults, Mr. Espinoza.

    10. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the wacky proprietary calls."

      Which calls are you referring to?

      Please be specific so I can look them in my PS2 hardware books, since I must have missed the wacky section of the API on the last few PS2 games I've shipped.

      Or were you just parroting crap you read 'somewhere on the Net?'

    11. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Damn, I didn't know that BattleCrusier 3000 was coming out on a console! Which one, dr?

    12. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by KageMonkey · · Score: 0

      Actually, Sony, along with many electronics company from Japan, formed a Linux collaboration to do just that, fight against Microsoft. Here. Sony should be applauded on their move, as they are trying to promote Open Source, and more importantly, Linux, as Microsoft is continually trying to take-over all markets they tread into. People should be buying PS2 and PS3 to help Sony in this fight, so we can all have a brighter future without Microsoft's strong-arm business practices and Microsoft's lack of technological innovations.

    13. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt after your original post, even though it was about as insightful as a brick. But clearly your user name is very descriptive.

      As some random fucker on slashdot that joins random threads to judge idiots, I pronounce you a grade-B idiot and inform you that you should shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself even more. But that's not likely, you've been playing games for over a decade which means you're probably some random 15 year old kid. At least you did manage to get through that with pretty good spelling and grammar, so you're not quite a grade-A idiot.

    14. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is they continue to flush money down the game console hole, without any realization of what makes a good game.

      The "key" developers they picked up have, so far, been unable to make the people in charge of XBox development to understand this. As a result you have Halo (eye candy galore, repetitive levels galore) and other half-boiled creations that make some people cream their pants (read: non-gamers and MSFT-fanboy-gamers).

      It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a project if you continue to have half-boiled third-rate developers making all your games.

    15. Re:Truly amazing... Well, kind of amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What i think the other guy meant that is by having open standards it is easier for you to port to any os .. say linux.. instead of being locked into directx xbox/pc/windows only.

  5. Go figure... by MSFanBoi · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Blue lasers, now this... Lets all not forget about ATRAC3. Yet more proof that Sony is indeed afraid of the Xbox and the next gen Xbox.

    1. Re:Go figure... by wankledot · · Score: 1

      ATRAC3 has been around since 2000, and ATRAC since long before that, I don't see what it has to do with the Xbox.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Go figure... by Keltan · · Score: 1

      They aren't afraid. They just aren't stupid. They currently control the market, and aren't going to do anything dumb (like sitting back and not innovating) that will cost them their current throne in console gaming.

  6. Finally... by dan_sdot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I will get to start my development of "Al Michaels: 2005". I will completely obliterate my competition!
    Time to put in my letter of resignation for the current job...

  7. Collada? by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it come with a little paper umbrella?

    1. Re:Collada? by dhakbar · · Score: 0

      Yes it does. Just like the one in your p-p-p-penis collada.

    2. Re:Collada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that at all funny?

    3. Re:Collada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that at all funny?

      It's a reference to a type of foofoo drink, namely the Pina Colada which can come with an umbrella in it.

  8. Good for them... by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.

    The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.

    For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.

    One advantage that consoles have over a PC is that developers for a console platform must constantly "push the envelope" to get the console to do more and more as time goes on - this, in turn, creates better, more efficient coding. On the PC, the expectation is that users simply upgrade hardware to meet the requirements of a new game, no games developers get long enough with a particular, say, graphics chipset to fully understand what they can get it to do and, as a result, we, the end users, end up with sloppily coded games that need constant upgrades to get them to work properly.

    My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times. What would really put games development back into the hands of single programmers or small groups of game designers, is having access to the core engines as well so that the most important aspect of game design, the initial good idea for a game design, can become tangible much easier.

    Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money (which is why money and good games are mutually exclusive in my view) but it would be good to see the games buyers become a lot more discerning when it comes to purchasing games.

    Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

    1. Re:Good for them... by clandestine_nova · · Score: 5, Insightful
      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.
      I don't know about you, but in my programming experience, I tend to want to craft things myself - for the experience of it, plus the fact that I understand my coding more than anyone else's, obviously.

      As to why they are doing it, I haven't got a damn clue. Perhaps something to do with licenses, since there currently isn't any XBox/PS2/GC open source engine, is there?
      --
      Discworld.
    2. Re:Good for them... by cubicledrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Because it is easier to spend $umpty million than it is to green light an original idea.

      Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times.

      Which is then replaced with $umpty million for art work, levels, monster designs, etc. (note no story, characters or anything that might require a WRITER).

      Sure, we all own games that we feel were worth the money and that provide us with good entertainment but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

      Agreed.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    3. Re:Good for them... by k98sven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.

      It's not gonna happen. (Not that you seem to believe it yourself)

      The first movies were made by the Lumiere brothers, who invented the projector.

      The first photograph was unincidentally taken by Niepce who unsurprizingly was the inventor of the first camera.

      It follows naturally that the first computer games were written by computer hobbyists and programmers.

      I believe however, that the day of programmers as the major creative force in computer games is over. Like the cinematograph and the camera, the computer has been accepted as an artists' tool and computer games as a medium. It's part of the entertainment industry now. And with that comes the high-budget, polished productions that cost money and bars the entry of amateurs.

      Sure, now and then a small independent film made on grainy 16mm film unexpectedly breaks through and receives a cult following, and I expect something similar for amateur computer games in the future.

      But the days when a guy sitting in his basement could produce a major computer game hit is simply over.

    4. Re:Good for them... by mikael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Because programmers enjoy the challenge of pushing metal to the limit. And for those people who have the skills and experience to do such work, companies are willing to pay extremely good money. Whenever a team finishes a project, everyone already knows at least ten things they could do better or would like to add to improve the title.
      Plus rewriting an engine from scratch helps keep a clean, while getting rid of any crufty glue code that may have crept in during the previous project. Not forgetting that the hardware is constantly changing. Look at the evolution of the OpenGL extensions: from matrix blending to vertex programs and from register combiners to fragment programs.

      Most of the major titles reuse their development tools (racing titles, sports) and just add new features. Audio, image and compression libraries only need to be written once.

      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games. Sure, games were much smaller then but that's why game development environments like XNA, SDL, etc. exist now in order to cut down the development times.

      "Bedroom programmers" haven't gone away, they're writing open source games. If you have a Linux system, have a look at all the open-source games available (either under kde-toys or at freshmeat.org).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Good for them... by Com2Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      • My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.


      • It's not gonna happen. (Not that you seem to believe it yourself)

        The first movies were made by the Lumiere brothers, who invented the projector.

        The first photograph was unincidentally taken by Niepce who unsurprizingly was the inventor of the first camera.

        It follows naturally that the first computer games were written by computer hobbyists and programmers.

        I believe however, that the day of programmers as the major creative force in computer games is over. Like the cinematograph and the camera, the computer has been accepted as an artists' tool and computer games as a medium. It's part of the entertainment industry now. And with that comes the high-budget, polished productions that cost money and bars the entry of amateurs.

        Sure, now and then a small independent film made on grainy 16mm film unexpectedly breaks through and receives a cult following, and I expect something similar for amateur computer games in the future.

        But the days when a guy sitting in his basement could produce a major computer game hit is simply over.


      Serious Sam. Ok not exactly a small venture, but not Multimillion dollar Hollywood financed either.

      Hell, you checked out shockwave.com lately? Lots of games from small time developers, actually selling! (same games are on games.yahoo.com and every other site).

      Actually, I can't think of a single game genre that DOES demand a huge well funded team. A team sure, but five or six people really is sufficent, given that those five or six people are all very talented. This is no different from days of old, when it just took one or two talented programers to make a game, just scaled up a bit, (more than 4 or 16 colors on the screen at a time. :) )
    6. Re:Good for them... by aardwolf204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If Sony (or any other company) releases free development environments then they should be applauded because at least it gives anyone the opportunity of turning a good idea into a tangible game or piece of software.

      The problem I have is with the game companies themselves because making money from games and having a constant supply of good quality games are mutually exclusive.


      Thats what Sony does. While Nintendo has fewer games their quality meets Nintendo's standards. Sony will let just about anyone create a game for the PSX, and thats what made it wildly popular. Independent labels (ok, not bedroom programmers) were able to get into a market with the big guys and thats where we saw innovation. Then again, among the hundreds of games for the PSX we're going to have a ton of crap. You've got to take the good with the bad.

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released.

      Most PC games license engines. A few years ago there were really only a copule of engines being used for FPS style games at least. I cant count how many games I've played on the Quake3 engine.

      Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result

      id gives the source away to its older games. If it didnt, the amazing port of Quake to Pocket PC would not be possible. I cant wait for the source to quake 3 to be released!

      My point is that we need a return to the good old days of the Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum & Amiga when it was possible for "bedroom programmers" to create good quality games.

      "Bedroom programmers" are still able to make good games, but not by themselves anymore, and they're not really games, they're called mods, or TC's and they're one of the things that will get your foot in the door in the gaming industry. Take a look at the wildly popular Half-Life mod Counter-Strike. I know tons of people who bought HL just for this mod, which started as a hobby project by a VT student (someone correct me if it was another university).

      Incidentally, I don't, for one minute, expect this to happen because there are far too many concerns about making money

      If you want to make games, then by all means do so. Nobody is expecting you to code away an awesome engine, draw fantastic graphics and models, and design interesting levels all by yourself. Get the doom3 SDK when it comes out and spend a week RTFMing and experimenting. Get on a project or start your own, maybe it will get popular, maybe it will be mentioned on slashdot, maybe you'll get picked up by a game company, I dont know, but I do know that complaining on slashdot about how its not like the old days isnt going to get you very far.

      but I guarantee most game players have spent far more money on disappointing games than good ones.

      Thats why theres suprnova and usenet. Its called try before you buy. or just buy the game and if it sucks take it back and say you didnt agree to the EULA. I played Call of Duty, which was awesome. Finished it and wanted more WWII action, so i bought metal of honor, big waste of money, took it back, said i didnt agree, no questions.

      Now dont get me wrong, im not encouraging piracy, just dont waste your hard earned cash on crap, its common sense. support the developers and become one if you so wish. I for one will be buying doom3 the day it comes out. I'm not going to bother with a demo, I'm not going to pirate it, I'm going to *proudly* display my box on top of my monitor. I dont need to try before I buy, its id, its going to rock.

      --
      Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    7. Re:Good for them... by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.


      Two URLs for you:
      http://www.renderware.com/
      http://www.idsof tware.com/business/technology/

      Many games are based on the Renderware engine from Criterion. They were just bought by EA this week.

      Many other games are based on the Doom and Quake engines from id.

      There are other gaming engines besides those offered by Criterion and id - physics engines, particle engines, rendering engines...

      Many game developers don't feel the need to write their own wizzy engine. Grand Theft Auto 3 and its sequels are all based on Renderware, for example. In fact there are several hundred games in development right now that use Renderware.

    8. Re:Good for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't happen to work for Criterion by any chance?

    9. Re:Good for them... by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Hell, you checked out shockwave.com lately? Lots of games from small time developers, actually selling!

      Sure. And there are lots of indie-film producers making small films and actually selling them too. But they do not compete with the big Hollywood blockbusters.

      Actually, I can't think of a single game genre that DOES demand a huge well funded team. A team sure, but five or six people really is sufficent, given that those five or six people are all very talented.

      True. It's not like a film in that respect. However, then you have the marketing, distribution, etc. It's still expensive in relation to the profits.

      The way the market looks, 10% of games rake in 90% of profits. (or something to that extent)
      So you have to finance on average 10 games to get that big hit which pays for the other 9.

      So while creating a big 'blockbuster' game may not take that much money from the viewpoint of the developers, it does take a big investment from the viewpoint of the producers.

    10. Re:Good for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Games like Vega Strike http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/ and chromium http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/apps/Chromium/en/ are examples of games that are made by 1 or 2 people in their basements...
      and they have widespread popularity perhaps just because they are free and come with linux distros...but the nice thing is that anyone can contribute--I know I've contributed some art to Vega and a few lines of code...

    11. Re:Good for them... by Zangief · · Score: 1

      For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.

      Well, simply because every game tries to get the most advantage out of the machine. And for every genre, this "advantage" is diferent. And, as technology advances, new ways of pushing the machine develops.

      And because games (as most software) is developed under tight schedules, which doesn't allow for refactoring. Yes, it would do a lot of sense to reuse the old engine, but the old engine was also developed under pressure, and doesn't allow easily to include this new cool feature management wants in the game, so, you rewrite a lot.

    12. Re:Good for them... by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      Let's don't forget Counter-Strike here?
      It got its popularity while being the game with 3-4 programmers/artists.
      Never say never ;-)

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    13. Re:Good for them... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, I take it you code in Assembly then? Or do you use things like glibc, other C libraries, GTK/Cocoa/Win32 API, high-level languages, etc?

      Coding your own graphics engine in your college "vector calculus for programmers" class is one thing; coding one for a commercial video game is quite another. Building off of others' work is the only way we (as an industry, or indeed as a species) get anything useful done!

      "If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Good for them... by veritron · · Score: 1

      Most modern PC games use engines bought from another company - for example:

      Lineage 2
      Unreal 2
      Postal 2
      Deus Ex 2
      Thief 3
      and probably a whole bunch of others all just used modified versions of the Unreal Warfare Engine.

      The companies that make 3d engines from scratch usually are either the people selling the other game-makers those particular 3d engines, or companies that have the necessary expertise to make a game engine and don't want to have to pay an ungodly sum of money to licence someone else's engine. Companies reuse all the code they can - their old game code usually a. works, and b. has already been debugged, so it's predictable.

      As for open sourcing game engines, games are pretty much the worst case scenario for open-source development - to begin with, even assuming that your complex real-time 3d engine's code is written in perfect coding style and is commented profusely and the developers have meticulously documented every single feature, it still requires an extremely uncommon amount of expertise to modify usefully - it's too easy to attempt an optimization and have it suddenly break every other system you're trying to run the damn game on but the one you're making the changes on. It's difficult enough to get the damn thing to run faster even if it's your goddamn full time job.

      Plus, open sourcing a game engine by definition means it's impossible to sell - and the makers of the various Unreal engines have made untold amounts of money selling Unreal engines to people. Again, there are open-source game-kits out there, but I don't know of any commercial games that have been released using open source game-kits.

      PC games aren't optimized any less than console games are - the problem is that there are an almost infinite number of PC hardware combinations, whereas all versions of a specific console are usually completely compatible with each other. You need to get your game to play nice with all the various ATI and NVIDIA cards, you need to see whether optimizing the game for a p4 screws up compatibility with other processors - fun fact, the Unreal Engine has a known bug with the Pentium-M. The Pentium-M has this speed-step feature where when the processor isn't under load, the processor slows down to 600 mhz, but when the processor is under load, it speeds up to 1.x ghz. Well, Unreal adjusts its timing based on the CURRENT speed of the processor, not the actual speed, and so if you play Splinter Cell or Deus Ex on a Centrino laptop, the game will run overclocked, meaning the games will play up to 3.3% as fast as the game designers intended.

      This also leads into why "bedroom programming" has fallen by the wayside. Sure, there are some good freeware games, but computer systems simply have gotten a lot more complicated. 3d games are a lot harder to make than 2d games if you start from scratch. Sure, 3d games became popular because companies realized making a game in 3d could be a lot cheaper because you didn't have to pay an artist to draw every frame by hand. Don't get me wrong - you can still make a fun, arcade-style 2d shooter or whatever and have it be awesome and release it to the world as shareware, but still, consider that the odds of you being the one person who can code, draw, write music, make sound effects, and be competent at designing the whole package is very, very slim. The commodore 64 and such were all extremely low res (comparatively) in terms of graphics and sound, so you could get away with inexpert production then - but hell, from today's perpective most of those games look like crap.

      The best way to get good games is not to simply walk into the store and pick whatever's cover looks best - just go to gamerankings or metacritic or whatever and get a general feel for how the game reviewers have received the game, and make your decision based upon that. So many good games have come out in the past few years that it's practically impossible to play them all.

      As for open source, I'd be inclined to think open s

    15. Re:Good for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad choice of quotes. Mr. Newton was saying this to make it clear that he had not used anything from a rival of his, who happened to be rather short. It was not a gesture of humility in the least.

    16. Re:Good for them... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I know, but it's useful to take it out of context here. They're good words, so why make up my own when they are already available? : )

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Good for them... by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>But the days when a guy sitting in his basement could produce a major computer game hit is simply over.
      .
      Every few years, the industry seems to consolidate, and people begin to believe that only the "professionals" can write good games. Then a couple geeks working in spare time come out with something that pushes the whole industry up to a new level. ID Software is probably the best known example of this. They rewrote the entire industry in just a few years, simply because they were sick of the games all being the same, so they wrote a new kind of engine.
      .
      I've seen that "professionals only" argument rise and fall several times. In fact, about the time most people believe it, you might want to start looking around the shareware/freeware arena, because chances are good that somebody's already producing something that will prove you wrong. (I'd love to give an example, but I'm not a gamer.)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    18. Re:Good for them... by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

      No, I don't work for Criterion. :-)

    19. Re:Good for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then a couple geeks working in spare time come out with something that pushes the whole industry up to a new level. ID Software is probably the best known example of this. They rewrote the entire industry in just a few years, simply because they were sick of the games all being the same, so they wrote a new kind of engine.

      Learn your history. ID Software was not a couple of geeks working in spare time. At least not if what you are referring to is Wolfenstein 3D. By then they were already professionals after their first hit with "Commander Keen".
      (which was not very original)

      Besides which, this was all back in 1992 which is still 'the early days' in the view I presented.

    20. Re:Good for them... by clandestine_nova · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point of my post. Libraries are fine and dandy, but they won't make you an entire game physics engine - that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual application, not just the references that it has. In my eyes, using a library is a great idea - but I'm not going to make my game from just libraries.

      I don't have anything against building off of others' work - far from it, I'd advocate that. I just think that I tend to prefer creating the glue or framework of an application myself. Obviously a commercial video game is a completely different setting, but I think that certain comparisons could be made. Again, I'm not saying the way they are currently doing it is the best way, I'm just saying why I think they might be doing it, per-programmer.

      I should also note that I'm nothing like a professional programmer, so my thoughts on the matter don't necessarily pertain. Fifteen years-old and only a couple of them with any programming at all.

      --
      Discworld.
  9. So, where does this actually fit in? by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this something along the lines of a graphics metafile format for 3d, or does it go beyond that?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:So, where does this actually fit in? by AndyCampbell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's a file format aimed at intermediate resources in the content development pipeline. You make your level in 3dsmax or maya or wings3d or whatever, export it to MyLevel.COLLADA, then use a bunch of processing tools on that, and eventually compile it into a binary format that you can ship on a CD and load very quickly at runtime; the game itself never sees the intermediate file format. The inline tools will include: lightmap generation (including fancy new kinds of lightmaps like precomputed radiance transfer), normal-map generation, mesh simplification, BSP compilation, auto-portalization, flow field calculation, AI waypoint placement, and the list goes on as people dream up new things to play with. Along the content pipeline, these tools suck in the file, inject their particular contribution, and spit the modified file back out.

      You can't do much (aka any) of that in file formats such as .3DS, and the more "flexible" formats such as MS's .X and Softimage's .XSI (essentially the same thing) have crappy predefined templates that all the known exporters conform to. Creating a custom, extensible file format specifically for holding tons of intermediate assets is pretty much a requisite unless you plan to write a 3dsmax plugin for each task. Having a custom, extensible file format that all the known content-creation tools conform to means you can use pretty much anything to make your game content without worrying about data being lost in the conversion process - everything is retained.

      At least, that's what my intermediate file format does. This "collada" one might just be a new .3DS replacement.

  10. Speedier game releases, lower development costs? by scowling · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the major issues (or so I've read) about developing games for the PS1 and PS@ has been that they're difficult and expensive to develop for. Hopefully this will decrease development times with some form of cooperative graphics system, and thereby reduce costs and speed production.

    The additional upside to this is that decreased development costs is good for the bottom line, which would decrease the likelihood that any given game publisher will go out of business, seeing as how they seem to die off with alarming regularity. And the upshot of this is that longer-lived publishers tend to increase the quality of their products over time thanks to experience.

    Or maybe they'll just blow the money on ale and whores.

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
  11. More open standards on the way.... by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just wanted to point out that the w3C recently published their intention to have a finger in this pie. With this, they hope to be able to support graphic formats that are representable in XML - notably SVG.

    --

    There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    1. Re:More open standards on the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      <bitmap version="3.334">
      <pixel x="0" y="0">
      <r>45</r>
      <g>23</g>
      <b>200</b>
      </pixel>
      <pixel x="1" y="0">
      <r>43</r>
      <g>200</g>
      <b>128</b>
      </pixel>
      ...
      <pixel x="1024" y="1024">
      <r>256</r>
      <g>0</g>
      <b>96</b>
      </pixel>
      </bitmap>
      Seriously, images...xml, wtf?
    2. Re:More open standards on the way.... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I believe if you at least glance at the referred article (which is all I did) you'll see that it references an alternate serialization scheme. Maybe something like

      <image width="1280" height="1024>[binary image info]</image>

      Where the entire frame is rendered in a single binary element. Just guessing though.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:More open standards on the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what they say, when you need a buzz word use XML.

    4. Re:More open standards on the way.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAaaaaaaah please no!

      The W3C kills _anything_ they get their grubby fingers into. XML + Decent Idea = Bloated Idea; for most things, it's _COMPLETELY USELESS_ to add into an idea.

  12. It'll never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any technology with "Ada" in its name is doomed.

    -- TTK

    1. Re:It'll never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ada is doing pretty well compared to a lot of other languages its age.

      Say: PL/1, APL, Algol

      There is still demand for Ada programmers today, it's mostly used in defense systems, since the DoD created Ada and pretty much mandated that their software should be written in it.

    2. Re:It'll never fly by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And quickly unmandated it when it was realized it was a pile of shit.

      The goal was noble: "One language to rule them all", but in practice what happened was every hacky construct and wonky bit of syntax wound up in Ada. It managed to, for the most part, encompass the worst of all worlds.

      It was designed in an age where interoperability sucked. Contractor A's libraries were in C, and Contractor B's were in FORTRAN. There was no way to get them to play nice.

      A "one language" mandate seemed the only solution. In hindsight, it was a poor one. Some applications require raw speed, real-time embedded components. Some require sophistated IO, fancy graphics..

      Today, with the various binary object formats (from com and .net/mono and CORBA), it's irrelevant. Contractors A and B can code in whatever the hell they want (to a degree).

      But, you're right. It's still around. I live in the DC area (so pretty much all coding work here is DoD related somehow) and there's a good bit of demand for Ada knowledge, but the projects usually involve porting some Ada app to something else.

      Ada: The "esperanto" of computer languages.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:It'll never fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And quickly unmandated it when it was realized it was a pile of shit.
      The goal was noble: "One language to rule them all", but in practice what happened was every hacky construct and wonky bit of syntax wound up in Ada. It managed to, for the most part, encompass the worst of all worlds.


      What's hacky and wonky about the syntax of Ada? The syntax is very clean, it's the obtuse libraries that are the problem and before the recent java craze, verbosity in the names of classes and functions has been found in bad taste for some reason, strcmp is better than stringcompare. It's not terribly different from Pascal as far as syntax goes; I'm not sure what the current vogue is for that, if it's "bad" or "good."


      A "one language" mandate seemed the only solution. In hindsight, it was a poor one. Some applications require raw speed, real-time embedded components. Some require sophistated IO, fancy graphics..


      Today, with the various binary object formats (from com and .net/mono and CORBA), it's irrelevant. Contractors A and B can code in whatever the hell they want (to a degree).


      Surely you don't think that .net/mono or CORBA is a solution for an embedded missle guidance system or flight controller. I don't know of anything in java, .net or mono that has any real-time consideration. I also am not aware of a real-time ORB. Is there such a thing? Then how do you verify and qualify the code from your contractors? Like Eiffel, Ada is really well designed for doing things by contract. You have to do more design work to write good Ada; of course it has a fabled history of successes and quality.


      Two things. Ada solves problems that a lot of developers don't have to solve that frequently. It solves them very well. It's just that real-time issues aren't that big for most developers anymore. Ada solves a lot of other problems well too, some of which are very important but it's had this stigma. Likewise, there are problems that OCaml is awesome for and Java is awesome for. I probably wouldn't build a dynamic webserving application in Ada. It's not because Ada is particularly shitty or anything though. Even C and C++ seem to have a place but it's genereally the same place as Ada..


      Secondly, everyone beats up on Ada, says bad stuff aobut it without any support. I think that is purely a financial thing. Kind of like IBM mainframes used to just take a beating in the computer media and by a lot of engineers, they were expensive, not many had access to them, but they did what they did remarkably well, that bad press was because they cost a lot. If ACT and the NYU compiler were around 20 years ago, and there was a high quality Ada compiler that was free or low cost, I bet Linux would be in Ada as well as just about everything else. The thing was, Ada compilers used to cost a ton, they still do aside from GNAT. They were qualified. You got an Ada compiler, not like with Visual C++ that does things that aren't C++ or C. An Ada compiler compiled Ada and it had a little certificate from the DoD or a santioned body that said as much and unfortuantely that made them end up costing thousands and thousands of dollars when the industry was being pushed by guys working out of the garages and students at universities.

  13. Ok by cubicledrone · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, the average cost of developing a console video game today reached $50 million, not counting the all new renderfarm. Developers complained that 18 months was still too long to spend setting up their "next generation workflow paradigms." A completely new graphics engine was then moved into development, prompting a long, drooling yawn from the gaming press. Management refused to comment and moved on to the salad course.

    Redemption XII: Soaked in Money: The Curse: $Random Noun: The Sequel was delayed indefinitely to make use of the new graphics format. Management was unavailable for comment as they were busy opening another package of croutons.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:Ok by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1

      Managers have people to open their croutons but they are still busy.

  14. Been done before (1995!) by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It has al been done before... in 1995!

    It was called
    keystone back then.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    1. Re:Been done before (1995!) by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember reading the announcement back then. It's a shame it never seemed to take off (OK, Alias and Wavefront did merge, but that was due more to Microsoft buying out Softimage, who have since been sold to Avid).
      Back then, SGI Indy workstations still didn't support OpenGL with hardware texture mapping, and console systems didn't have the memory to support high detail/resolution models. It didn't help that SGI workstations where so expensive, which allowed Micrsoft to muscle Windows NT in with the claim that "UNIX is dying" .Maybe now with vertex and fragment programs that allow RenderMan shaders to be translated straight from the art package to the hardware, this might work out. Development tools were Sony's weak point with the PS.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Been done before (1995!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I called Carl, but he wouldn't pick up the phone...

    3. Re:Been done before (1995!) by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

      I called Carl, but he wouldn't pick up the phone...

      I take it you called Carl 10 yrs ago?

      --
      Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
  15. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by Klar · · Score: 5, Informative

    My school has an upper year course for designing PS2 games, and currently it is very hard to get into. They have to keep a small number of people in the class due to the large costs involved in purchasing an SDK and console. Also, from what I have heard, the programming for PS2 is difficult because it uses assembly with multiple processors/gpu's. Hopefully this new open source side will lead to easier access to the development side, increasing programers and allow for more people to get in the industry.

  16. A small grain of salt by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    Will it be a truly "open" format, or just an alternative - open only to members of their club?

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  17. It takes a shove by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

    It takes the presence of a 800lb gorilla to get big players like Sony to do open standards. This is more of a reaction than a strategic decision.

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    1. Re:It takes a shove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.

    2. Re:It takes a shove by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      With that kind of brilliant commentay, you should go into politics. You'll fit right in.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    3. Re:It takes a shove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks, I'll just keep making console games.

      And flaming the clueless morons on Slashdot like you.

    4. Re:It takes a shove by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      So you really think Sony is doing this beacuse they just love open standards? That doesn't sound like the sony I know.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  18. Copy and paste comment by megan_of_wutai · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of this.

  19. nes by CzarMike · · Score: 4, Funny

    meanwhile, nintendo has recently discovered full-size cds

  20. All very well but... by barcodez · · Score: 1

    Sony still make kit that requires special sony only connections/plugs/adaptors. They still have their one memory cards format and sony only works well with other sony products. They still use plenty of DRM - I still don't like sony...

    --

    ----
  21. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

    The PS1 wasn't difficult to develop for.

    The Sega Saturn, now that was a beast. Processors everywhere and no inherent capabilities for sound and movie compression.

  22. That's not a troll, it's funny because it's true! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony practically invented "not invented here"... in Japan.

  23. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PS2 "devkit" shipped without C libraries... good times were had by all.

  24. Pity Us Poor Mac Users... by DLWormwood · · Score: 5, Funny
    Here were are now... On the one hand, Sony's backing the various "Open??" media standards that's been used as a key part of the Mac OS. And on the other, Microsoft is rumored to being using POWER (that is, IBM PowerPC) derived CPUs and ATI hardware for the next XBox.

    And yet we Mac users, who've had both for ages now, are out in the cold in the gaming market.

    Tanj. (There Ain't No Justice.)

    --
    Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  25. Japanese a plus by known+hero · · Score: 1, Troll

    What's with the "Japanese a plus", for the qualifications? I hope that they are talking about the language and not the ethnicity, because I know if you put Caucasian a plus you would have a shit storm from the equal rights groups.

    1. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's obviously equivalent to "English a plus", which I don't think is a problem in a job specification. "English a plus" doesn't mean only people from the southern part of Great Britain need apply.

    2. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people with race on the brain are racists, true victims of racism, and oversensitive non-victims.

      Which are you, whiteboy?

    3. Re:Japanese a plus by keyne9 · · Score: 1

      If that were teh case, they would have said "Asian a plus." I assume they mean Japanese as a language, rather than a people.

    4. Re:Japanese a plus by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      I know it's been well trained into us Americans to be hyper-sensitive to anything such as this, but from the context it's pretty obvious that they are referring to language skills and not ancestry.

      Probably the Japanese skills are required to communicate with Sony's big wigs and core PlayStation development teams, which are probably almost entirely composed of Japanese people. Perhaps in this context, being Japanese would be helpful as the language skills would be well established. ^_^

    5. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When Japanese discriminate, I assure you that it's in favor of Japanese, not Asians in general. If anything they're more biased against other Asians than they are against Americans or Europeans.

      That said, you're entirely correct -- of course the reference was to Japanese language skills.

    6. Re:Japanese a plus by known+hero · · Score: 1

      My point is that that statement could be misconstrued, as it is known that the Japanese have had a protectionist mentality in the past about retaining jobs for Japanese. The wording, in my opinion, is ill worded and would better read "Japanese speaker a plus". No one is being hyper-sensitive about it, as I was merely representing that I took the statement to mean something different at first glance and then came to the conclusion that it most likely meant that they where looking for a Japanese speaker, but pointing out that it would most likely go unnoticed even if they where looking for a Japanese only individual, but if you changed that statement to read Caucasian you would have Jessie Jackson on you door step by noon.

    7. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy, it's called "sarcasm." It's also called "baiting."

      And boy did it work, since you answered my question in classic ironic style. Note that no implication was made at all about what kind of race-minded individual you were, simply that you must represent one of the three. And son, you're clearly a member of the latter group.

      Thanks! This case study has been fascinating.

    8. Re:Japanese a plus by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      How do you know he's white?

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
    9. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people with race on the brain are racists, true victims of racism, and oversensitive non-victims.

      and lawyers.

    10. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't. I was merely baiting him. Of this art, I'm quite the master.

      Any reply he'd give would have provided ample entertainment and insight, both of which were my [accomplished] goals.

    11. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Only a fucking idiot would misconstrue that statement.

    12. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a nigger

    13. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are a master-baiter and you admit it. sad, sad truly sad.

    14. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he is a member of any group except the one Gang-Banging your mom. I hate people that bait as AC's.

    15. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attempting to use joke as a weapon against jokester: Penalty, -5 points.

      But at least you get to wear the "King of the Obvious" crown today. The sceptre, well, you'll have to turn around and pull your pants down to find out where we put it.

    16. Re:Japanese a plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but if you changed that statement to read Caucasian you would have Jessie Jackson on you door step by noon


      Except that you wouldn't change it to Caucasian unless you were a racist, since nobody speaks "Caucasian".
  26. Forget graphics, what about sound? by Ghostgate · · Score: 1, Troll

    I mean, will it support Ogg Vorbis???

  27. Mod Parent DOWN!! Plagarized Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He cut and paste it from this article by pandrijeczko. The only difference is replacing MS with Sony for this comment!

    1. Re:Mod Parent DOWN!! Plagarized Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but it sure makes for an easy +5, don't it, bitch?

    2. Re:Mod Parent DOWN!! Plagarized Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come now Fux, are you really planning on building up your Karma by whoring from other people's past comments? Then what, lose it all again in binge-trolling?

    3. Re:Mod Parent DOWN!! Plagarized Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool tip. I'll keep an eye on your journal for progress!

  28. What about other infrastructure pieces? by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DirectX (and XNA) detail more than just graphics.

    You also have sound, storage management, process control, peripheral access (joysticks, etc.), and communications (broadband, dialup, etc).

    To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.

    And of course, once the above are agreed upon, deploying those same games on Linux becomes possible, without any added significant development costs.

    (I specifically did not mention content protection)

    1. Re:What about other infrastructure pieces? by jared_hanson · · Score: 1

      To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.

      An open standard doesn't mean a standard with a lot of features, it means one that an industry collaboratively agrees on and adopts. Many open standards with smaller scope could combine to give all the benefits of XNA. Indeed, OpenGL is for graphics, OpenML is for media authoring and storage, etc.

      XNA, just because it has a bunch of stuff in it, is not an open standard. Microsoft is solely responsible for its development.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    2. Re:What about other infrastructure pieces? by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 1

      I never stated XNA was an open standard. I stated that if we want a Open gaming standard to counter Microsofts XNA/DirectX, then graphics alone will not address the issue.

      OpenGL, OpenML, and the other specs listed only cover graphical parts of what XNA/DirectX addresse. Other open standards that game developers would use for a cross platform development environment need to exist, and cover what I mentioned.

      Yes, other smaller standard exists, but many duplicate each others functions. What I am stating is that just as Collada, OpenGL, etc are not independently derived entities from a single author or company, then the same interetested groups need to define a spec that will address all of the issues required by a game driven platform. Ultimately, if Sony adheres to such a spec, then there would be a strong confidence in such a open specifications platform to deploy those products on systems other than just Sony's, as long they adhere to that same open spec.

  29. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by startled · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this will decrease development times with some form of cooperative graphics system, and thereby reduce costs and speed production.

    Unfortunately, the increase in resource requirements for a next-gen title (Xbox2, PS3) is huge. This may be Sony's attempts to get a handle on that, but they're slowing the trend down-- not reversing it. Next-gen titles will require larger teams (and larger budgets) than the current generation.

    Which, of course, will make publishers even more risk-averse than they are now. Get ready for the real Attack of the Clones.

  30. Uhmm by akintayo · · Score: 1

    I take it you never played ET, or any of the less famous but nonetheless horrible Atari titles. Not every title was a Defender or a Centipede there was a lot of crap. And I think children would find it easier to convince their parents to drop $40 on a good game rather than buy them 10 games.

    --
    Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    1. Re:Uhmm by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone rag on E.T. so much? I thought it was an amusing game. I mean, if you want to point to a high-profile POS game for the 2600, may I humbly suggest you look in Pac-Man's general direction?

  31. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 1

    There's a big difference between open APIs and open source.

    OpenGL is an open API, meaning that the API spec is published openly and anyone can implement code that follows that spec, whether it's an application or a driver. The drivers though that follow this API don't have to be open source, and usually aren't. The same applies to applications that use it.

    I believe the same applies to the other APIs that are being talked about here.

    Sony will, I am sure, have their own proprietary implementations of these open APIs. Sure, some code may be opened to help porting the API to other platforms, but the very low level stuff that talks to hardware is likely to remain proprietary. I also say "opened" here, but in many cases that openness will be restricted to companies within "the club".

  32. Simple.... by Elmdor · · Score: 4, Informative

    --Sony is trying to leverage existing open standards (OpenGL/ES) for engine development, and create a standard for middleware & engine communication. This allows Sony to spend less $$$ on internal development costs, eases 2nd & 3rd party development costs, thus allowing for easier porting of games. --This also could help development houses wary of the new EA/Criterion merger, and make new middleware products like RenderWare to be more easily accepted. --Open standards should mean more $$$ spent on better game-play, and could mean more innovation too. --This does NOT mean ps3 dev. kits will be opensouce, or even cheap... With opensouce or cheap kits, Sony would loose $$$, and their stock holders do not like that. --This does NOT mean that idie game companies can now make ps3 games... although it helps if they ever want to port from pc (opengl/es :) --This does NOT mean a lot of things, but is a step forward, in a common interest of Microsoft rivals/haters/many /.ers

  33. Sony on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony is so huge. I'm in SEL not SCE but I wonder how much of Sony's bandwidth is used up in employees reading /. The SEL IT group in Mexico has a /. link on their website last time I looked.

    ~posting anonymously for obvious reasons. :)

  34. Standard is Good for Developers by magic · · Score: 2

    Microsoft was right to use DirectX as the API for Xbox because it allowed PC developers to move content and code to Xbox. The PS2 API instead required a complete rewrite of graphics code-- not an easy way to start your console game project.

    I hope that PS3 will be OpenGL-like and support open formats because it reduces the cost to developers and increases portability between platforms (Xbox -> Xbox 2 will be a much easier engine port than PS2 -> PS3).

    -m

  35. Sony and Microsoft by AztecL0B0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For anyone who has posted ideas about how Sony is doing this in order to fight Microsoft, I'd like to suggest to reconsider. Microsoft is NOT the 800 lb. gorilla in the cosole market. NOT even close. It holds 2nd place in the US ONLY and is 3rd world wide. The ONLY reason it has fared this well it is because it sells a PC for $150. If you have kept up with the specifications for the Xbox2, you know that it will not be as powerful as the first Xbox was at its time; therefore, it will lose some of its mass appeal. I own all 3 consoles and Halo, but one or 5 good titles do NOT make a console. Look at Dreamcast, granted, Sega had other problems as well, but their original lineup was impressive. Xbox2 must have a superb lineup in order to stay a close 3rd in world wide sales. Sony is trying to appeal to developers and correct its mistakes with the PS2 (difficulty in programming). I prefer Nintendo over the other 2 consoles, but I am realistic. I know it won't beat out PS3 and I am sure Microsoft won't be a real contender. Microsoft will not keep on throwing money after 9 years. By that time they will have lost 4 billion dollars, with a B.

    --
    Susanna: NO! A si NO. Octavio: Pos...entonces como?
    1. Re:Sony and Microsoft by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      3 cores running at 3.5 GHz is going to be pretty impressive even at the end of next year.

  36. What does this mean for a CA student? by StingRayGun · · Score: 1

    So, how does this 3D (for games) affect students. Is there something about these open source formats that I can go learn, NOW before they are implemented?

  37. What the hell are you talking about? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards.

    Sony the freaking GAME MAKER is not all proprietary. Take a look at what they did provide on the PS2:

    Linux port
    Standard DVD player (if they had done what the gamecube did piracy would have been harder)
    Bog-standard USB ports
    Standard Firewire port.

    Seems like they were doing pretty good to me! Yeah I would have liked to see them use CF cards for game saves (or even thier own memory sticks - how many memory formats does the world need)? But they did better than any other console maker at supporting standards already, this is just another step in that direction. I don't think it's fair to label Sony the company as a whole with the brush of proprietary formats.

    And as a sidenote all the sony vidcams use standard firewire and standard tapes. Even the laest Sony camera uses CF cards (and memory sticks)! Sony is waking up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What the hell are you talking about? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, PS2 memory cards are memory sticks, but they're in a different package, a necessity brought about by the use of a totally different format in the memory cards for the PS1.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:What the hell are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big whoop. One Sony camera uses CF. What about every Sony camera released since the 828? That's right, MEMORY STICK. PSP? Memory stick and UMD. New PS2's might not even have Firewire ports?

    3. Re:What the hell are you talking about? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Big whoop. One Sony camera uses CF. What about every Sony camera released since the 828? That's right, MEMORY STICK. PSP? Memory stick and UMD. New PS2's might not even have Firewire ports?

      Take it a little easy on them, imagine the poor guys pushing to put that CF card in there! It should spread downward, though I agree it is slow...

      I would feel sad about new PS2s not having firewire ports but they didn't ever make use of them! I can't believe not even the EyeToy is firewire. Just because they didn't make use of them though doesn't mean they do not deserve some credit for including them. And publishers have at least made pretty good use of USB ports, some games supporting keyboard/mics, some supporting USB ethernet adaptors before the network adaptor, and of course USB headsets and the EyeToy (which has apprently been a runaway hit, I had no idea so many people were buying them!).

      They are slow to change, but at least they are changing at all - and the game area in particular seems to have been the most open to standards, certainly more than the consumer electronics or other divisions.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  38. More like luke-warm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say we are totally out in the cold - we did get UT 2004, we get a number of top games about a year later (like KOTOR), and Doom3 should be out for the Mac about the same time as other versions.

    Of course, then I read about Half Life 2 and I feel the need for a sweater.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  39. BSD Mandatory by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

    ODE is a BSD licensed physics engine that is starting to gain acceptance in the propreitary game world. Open standards are no doubt important but I think LGPL and BSD licensed middleware is going to have an even bigger impact on the future of gaming, console or otherwise.

    I'm working on an open source driving simulator and we're using ODE to dramatically cut the development time, looks like Techland figured it out with Xpand Rally. It's refreshing to see rampant innovation due to the reuse of code.

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  40. Glue? by lowmagnet · · Score: 1

    'Colada' is Portugese for 'Glue'... Co-incidence?

    --
    Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
  41. An open graphics format is cool... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    But an open PS3 console, for which anyone could write games, would be cooler!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  42. Atari by KB1GHC · · Score: 1



    didn't atari do something like this? and didn't they end up buring thousands of copies of ET in th desert?? I'm not sure, this article confused me

  43. Thinking about the X-Box... by solios · · Score: 1
    Just to play devil's advocate:

    I'm a Mac owner, with a dual g4 450. :| My options for doom3 consist of the following:


    1. Proc upgrade, video card upgrade. The proc up to dual 1.24ghz is ~600$. Gamer-friendly mac video cards are goddamned joke- that's another 300$ for something that would cost 125$ tops on the pc. My current video card meets Minimum Requirements for video, though. So, 600$ + Game. 660$ (Mac games are almost never the same price as the PC equivalent.). Oh, and add waiting for the mac port.

    2. Buy a PC. If I'm going to do that, then I'd be springing for a Good video card. Recent figures from my coworker puts a useable box at about 900$. Plus the game. 950$.

    3. Xbox + Doom3 for Xbox = 200$.


    So realistically speaking, the XBox version of doom is actually the cheapest solution available to me. :P
    1. Re:Thinking about the X-Box... by timeOday · · Score: 1
      2. Buy a PC. If I'm going to do that, then I'd be springing for a Good video card. Recent figures from my coworker puts a useable box at about 900$. Plus the game. 950$.

      3. Xbox + Doom3 for Xbox = 200$.

      Well you certainly won't need a $900 PC to play the game at 640x480, which is what the XBox will give you.
    2. Re:Thinking about the X-Box... by solios · · Score: 1

      I can get 640x480 with my existing video card, according to the benchmarks and reviews. What I have is still expensive on the mac and considered "dated" in the PC world.

      A bottom-of-the-line PC that will barely handle Doom3 (again, at 640x480) was specced by my coworker at ~480$, which is still 280$ more than X-box + Doom.

  44. Re:Speedier game releases, lower development costs by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > Also, from what I have heard, the programming for PS2 is difficult because it uses assembly with multiple processors/gpu's.

    Yeah, technically 7.

    The VU0 has only 4K of RAM. (usually used for Physics calcs)
    The VU1 has 16K of RAM. (Usually used for T&L)

    It only has 1 GPU.

    You need a good mesh stripper to get maximum performance out of the beast.

    --
    Original, Fun Palm games by the Lead Designer of Majesty!
    http://www.arcanejourneys.com/

  45. MicroSoftImage by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Microsoft owns part of Softimage, so this "open" Sony standard, endorsed by SoftImage, is hardly a decisive blow to Microsoft.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:MicroSoftImage by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Microsoft owns only 9% of Softimage.

      The *used* to own all of Softimage, but since 1998, they just invest in them.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:MicroSoftImage by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, as I pointed out in my post. 9% of a company as big as SoftImage is not just profitable when SI participates in a winning spec. It's big enough to tell SI what spec to support. "Investment" means *ownership*, and 9% of a big corporation brings a lot of control, especially when coordinated with the rest of the "synergy" Microsoft brings to the boardroom.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  46. No More Waiting! by maggeth · · Score: 1

    Build your own Duke Nukem Forever for the PS3!

  47. Knoppix PS3 by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    As long as Sony makes and freely releases a Linux Knoppix-like DVD, complete with office tools and a whole pile of other goodies on the PS3..... the newer Xbox doesn't stand a chance.

    More open standards is just icing on the cake for all the developers.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  48. Microsoft ownz OpenGL by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Remember, Microsoft owns the patents covering OpenGL, which they bought from SGI.

    So, how long before this initiative is buried under a mountain of patent litigation, or the licensing fees are jacked up to make XNA cheaper?

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Microsoft ownz OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenGL/ES or OpenMAX has nothing with OpenGL. Quote the exact patent MS is holding on OpenGL before writing random shit like that.

    2. Re:Microsoft ownz OpenGL by metamatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OpenGL/ES has nothing to do with OpenGL? What kind of retard are you? It says right on the OpenGL/ES page on Khronos's web site that it's a set of subset profiles of OpenGL that are accelerated in hardware.

      As for the patents, do try to pay attention:
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/01/1 6/sgi_transf ers_3d_graphics_patents/

      It was covered on Slashdot at the time also.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    3. Re:Microsoft ownz OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, your random shit amasses up again.

      SGI patent portfolio != OpenGL as open API

      http://www.khronos.org/opengles/

      Developer Advantages

      * Industry Standard and Royalty Free
      Anyone can download the OpenGL ES specification and implement and ship products based on OpenGL ES. With broad industry support, OpenGL ES is the only truly open, vendor-neutral, multi-platform embedded graphics standard. The standardized higher level of abstraction that it offers means developers can concentrate more on content and less on the minor code and platform details.

    4. Re:Microsoft ownz OpenGL by metamatic · · Score: 1

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/10/microsoft_ stakes_ip_claims/

      And remember, Microsoft can change its licensing terms any time it feels like it.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  49. Surprised there has never been an adaptor then by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If they are really just memory sticks inside, I wonder hy no-one has ever come out with an adaptor that lets you use normal memory sticks? Given the price of PS2 memoy it would be a welcome thing, that and being able to back-up games to a PC (which I have a very small PS2 USB drive that copies from the memory cards and also mounts as a USB drive on a PC or mac).

    Is that whole "MagicGate" thing part of memory sticks as well? I had thought that was PS2 memory only.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Surprised there has never been an adaptor then by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are memory sticks with and without magicgate, or at least there used to be. Probably all the new ones are magicgate only. The "magic" of the gate is that it has DRM, whee. I presume that the memory cards on the PS2 have a different ID or something so an adaptor wouldn't do the job, although that might not be the case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  50. Sounds like fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If more of the calls had been "wacky," maybe I'd still be programming.

  51. Ports as games you play. by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    "The focus inside the industry really isn't on ports, it never has been. Ports, by rule of thumb, sell very poorly. Are you going to buy Doom 3 for Xbox and PC? Given the choice of one or the other, which would you choose? So would I."

    Yea, me too. After not having to deal with Windows or any random other problems when I played SW: KOTOR on there, I'm really looking forward to not having to buy any fancy new video cards for playing Doom 3. Plus I get to enjoy co-op play with my friend via XBL, so I'm getting the total Doom experience. I'm glad you've realized that console gaming, especially when the game is treated as well as Doom 3 on the Xbox has been by vicarious visions, is less hassle, more fun :)

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  52. Crossed wires by superultra · · Score: 1

    Sony, known for pushing proprietary interfaces, is backing open standards.

    So, let me get this straight. When they're in charge of the market, in this case the console market, Sony plays with open standards. But when they're in a market that they have little share over, say mp3 players and online music distribution, they go with about as closed a standard as one can muster.

    Sounds like a couple of people accidently switched briefcases in the lobby of Sony to me.

    1. Re:Crossed wires by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think (but don't really know) that the logic went like this: They're gods of the console market and want to stay that way, in order to do this they must attract developers. The PS2 was hard to develop for even though they used a linux development system with gcc, because it's hard to really utilize the system and keep the vector units (where the majority of the PS2's power is) busy at all times. This was the same reason that the Saturn got its ass kicked, it was too hard to write games for. You could do anything you can do on the PSOne on the Saturn but utilizing two processors is not easy. Sony already has support of developers but they want to give them compelling reasons to stick around and making game development easier is a sure-fire way to accomplish that.

      Meanwhile, sony is NOT a driving name in the portable digital music market, outside of audio CD. Everyone knows about minidisc but the high price and low utility (until recently) have kept it from gaining popularity. As bad as minidisc is, memory stick is even worse - smaller capacity, higher cost, and still DRM'd. The price has recently dropped considerably, minidiscs hold a lot more data now, and so on, so they now have a chance to proliferate. Minidisc is Sony's Xbox - they've flushed so much money down the tubes supporting it that it's started to look like a serious contender, and of course now it actually does have something going for it, completing the simile.

      In other words, I think they were planning to dominate the market with their format, they probably felt that it was entirely about marketing and not about consumer choice - convince the consumers that it's the "coolest" thing since sliced bread (why that's the metric I'll never know) and they'll buy it whether or not it actually best suits their needs. I certainly have been hearing about more "normal people" (which is to say people who are not computer geeks or audio geeks) buying minidisc devices. Before you jump on me for saying that audio geeks want them, they make lossless audio recording devices which record to minidisc, which is much more reliable and convienent than DAT.

      So it makes a certain sick kind of sense if you understand that Sony believes they can do no wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Crossed wires by superultra · · Score: 1

      It hadn't occured to me until I read your post, but it's also possible that the music tech side of Sony has its hands tied by the music music ownership of Sony, record execs that are card carrying members of the RIAA. Apple has no such restrictions, except a fleeting loyalty to the record companies because of itunes.

      As far as the whole minidisc thing, I'm not so sure. I know one guy who has a minidisc player, and he wants an iPod. I'm sure such a market exists, especially in the concert recording crew, but I think far more people find mp3 players far more convenient. With Minidisc, I think Sony felt like they could replicate the Walkmen popularity. It feels like they're doing the same thing with this new mp3 player lineup. Could be wrong though.