Slashdot Mirror


More On PS3 and Xbox 2

News for nerds writes "The BBC has news about the next-generation game consoles, with comments from various third parties. According to Rory Armes, studio general manager of EA in Europe, they have already received the development kits from Microsoft, but not yet from Sony and Nintendo. He assumes Sony's PlayStation 3 will have a little more under the hood and be more cost-efficient than Microsoft's Xbox 2. Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe, remarks 'PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.' Spider-Man 2 or Toy Story 2, that's the problem."

35 of 541 comments (clear)

  1. iGame by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

    The article mentioned that "Microsoft is obviously a software company first and foremost, while Sony has more experience in hardware", so what then, can a software/hardware company like Apple do?

    1. Re:iGame by wankledot · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Apple can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like MS did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Sony has.) So speculating about an Apple gaming comsole is a complete waste of time.

      Next question.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:iGame by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Would it be too much to speculate that Apple can easily come out with a iGame console similarly sized like a Mac Mini?

      Sure, they COULD. But I don't think they will, because Apple has thus far shown less then zero interest in moving into the entertainment market. They are still strictly a home computer and portable music company.

      The fact that they've had mixed success in getting third parties to produce even desktop software for their machines does not bode well for their ability to attract game developers to the platform, either.

    3. Re:iGame by thre5her · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From ca. 1994: Sony can do absolutely nothing. They don't have a platform to build a system around with an existing game base (like Nintendo did) and they don't have a network of developers that will create games for a brand new platform (like Nintendo has.) So speculating about an Sony gaming comsole is a complete waste of time. Next question.

    4. Re:iGame by wankledot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market is 1994 is nothing like it is today. Apple would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 don't already?

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    5. Re:iGame by skeptic1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Apple has thus far shown less then zero interest in moving into the entertainment market"

      Really?
      What do you think this is, then?

    6. Re:iGame by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The market of 1994 is nothing like it is today. Microsoft would be fighting an uphill battle against 3 companies, and what could Apple provide that one of the other big 3 (Sony, Nintendo or Sega) dont already. All of us can go at this all day. If you want to learn about why your statment is moronic pick up "The Ultimate History of Video Games" by Steven Kent... You will fine that your statement has been repeated time and again and proven false more often than true.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    7. Re:iGame by toriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Sony fought against established names (Nintendo and SEGA) too. Plus Microsoft when it introduced X-Box was up against Sony and Nintendo (SEGA having halted the Dreamcast).

      The big problem would be to find a market segment: The other three have the market divided between them (Nintendo for children and adults, Sony for teens (and some adults) and Microsoft for people who like to watch tits in DOA XXX Beach Volleyball). Not many more niches left.

    8. Re:iGame by Col+Bat+Guano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *Except* that the MacMini doesn't have optical out/5.1 surround sound. It's the one thing that missing from making it a good home theatre PC/DVD player/games machine.

  2. i remember... by fresh27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when Nvidia said their GeForce FX series could render 6 Jurassic Park quality dinosaurs in real time. Long story short, this is bullshit and it'll be a while before we get such great quality.

    --
    http://ipod.fresh27.net/
    1. Re:i remember... by Marvelicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My question is: would it really be a problem. I'd hate to see Hollywood have to use actors instead of computers and all, but c'mon. Lets face it, the largest use of graphics in movies is kids movies, and that market won't really be hurt. As for the rest of it: if you can do it in real time on a game system, maybe its time to step up and improve movie graphics again. ...After all, it still doesn't look real to me!

      --
      Send whiskey and fresh horses!
    2. Re:i remember... by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its actually less bullshit than one might think at first. The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.

      In a movie you have a fixed set of camera angles and actions to be performed, if you could throw all your polygons, artists and CPU power to render those, you would get results close enough to the movie. However in a game you end up having neither a fixed camera angle, nor fixed actions, most stuff is up to the player. You just don't have enough artists to tweak each and every situation. One time the player might have a bazooker, next time a MG and next time he might want to crash into the dino with his jeep. So since you can't prescript all actions you have to let a physic engine and AI handle it, which in turn burns down valueable CPU, which you no longer can use for pushing polys around, in addition to that you no longer have an artists involved who can fine tune the stuff that happens on screen, so you might run into clipping errors or silly looking situations.

      Overall it is simply impossible to get an interactive situation look as good as a movie, even if you have all the CPU power you need at hand you still lack the artists for the fine tuning and often have zero control over the camera angle.

      Beside from that we already are in a situation where yesterdays cutscenes are tomorrows gameplay scenes, yet, most gameplay looks for more borring then the cutscenes we saw before.

    3. Re:i remember... by Caraig · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The biggest difference between Jurassic Park and a game with dinosaures is not the polygon count, but that the game is interactive, while the movie is not.
      Not true. The big difference is not in the interactivity, but rather in the realtime rendering.

      A movie such as Jurrasic Park is made by putting the scene into a 'render farm,' a series of dozens if not hundreds of computers. Each computer not only works on a single frame, but more often than not works on a single element in each frame: color, specularity, shadows, alpha/transparency, Z/depth. In addition, very often, the individual characters and layers of static scenery within a frame are also rendered independantly, each with separate specularity, shadows, color, alpha, Z, etc., layers. This is why the average frame in Final Fantasy is said to be made up of 60 layers.

      Typically, rendering time for a single frame, assuming all layers and elements and components being rendered in parallel, could take between an hour and several hours, depending on the polycount and the texture size. This is done mainly because it grants the production team unprecidented control over the final product without having to render out entire frames after a single change to, say, a slug's specularity needs to be done.

      You simply cannot do this sort of thing in realtime, which is what gaming requires. It isn't a matter of scripting or interactivity or camera angles. The rendering engine usually doesn't care what camera angle it's at, it will still have to calculate polygons and textures and bumpmaps and all that other good stuff. It comes down to one thing only: pure computing power. If you can get a machine which will render a mad amount of polygons and several hih-resolution texture-, bump-, shadow-, and specular-maps (and maybe even normal maps, as well)

      There's also a slightly more subtle reason why a game will never look like a movie: framerate. Cinema framerates are almost universally 24.11 fps. Your typical twitch gamer would turn up his nose at such a framerate. ^^ It's the same reason videotape looks different from film: video is typically 30fps or so.
      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  3. Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We have no idea what the two will look like, but that doesn't keep us from making Wild-ass guesses and then providing 'analysis' on them!"

    1. Re:Quick Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what ACTUAL INFORMATION do you have on the 'cell' chip? Aside from the hype about how a single cell will 'outperform a billion-jillion Opterons!'... have you seen one? Have you gotten any benchmarks? Is it another emotion-engine type hype where its theoretical numbers are impressive, but real-world output sucks because it's bottlenecked and compilers can't seem to squeeze more than a quarter of theoretical?

      'cause if you have, lemme know.

  4. Movie animation by truesaer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like hype to me...how can you render on the fly as well as movies which use huge render-farms to come up with a static video? If he just meant cutscenes....well guess what, thats just the work of any DVD player.

  5. But still nothing on Nintendo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom for the country. I think Nintendo's system is definitely the one I'm most interested in seeing.

    And anybody else upset that Microsoft wants to rush the next next generation? I still don't think this generation has been tapped out yet in terms of graphics and gameplay potential (maybe I'm just a bit bitter cuz I bought an Xbox last week :P)

    1. Re:But still nothing on Nintendo... by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...it seems Nintendo is all but ignored by the MSM, unless it's an article predicting doom and gloom..."

      In that respect, it's a lot like Apple. Actually...

      Both companies do very well with their portable products, even above and beyond their non-mobile ones. Both companies enjoy zealous followings, and suffer some zealous detractors. Both companies are often featured in articles with the word "beleaguered" or synonyms thereof.

      Is Shigeru Miyamoto Steve Jobs in disguise? We've never seen them both at the same time...

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  6. Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by Crusher[DV] · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love this comment.

    "Graphics on PC games such as Half Life 2 will be capable on the new consoles"

    In another 6 months, PC's will have moved on yet again to the next generation GPU's, leaving these things behind once more.

    1. Re:Finally, on the same level as the PC, for now. by DeathFlame · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So apparently my less than sign didn't show up... so.. But with the price of one console less than the price of one high end video card...

  7. Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. by teiresias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm getting old and all but I find with better graphics I end up forgetting about the game and just watching the game. For Halo I'd walk around for awhile just admiring different things while getting shot at by Convenant ships.

    Well not really. But I'd feel like I missed something whipping around on the warthog.

    This can only be more true with movie like games.

    Blurring the lines between cut scenes and gaming. Can't wait! Although I'll probably be too distracted to actually finish my objective ;)

    --
    -Teiresias
  8. Every system says that by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a new Playstation comes out Sony marketing types talk about how it will deliver movie-quality graphics to the masses in realtime. The truth is that it tends to perform exactly how you would expect it to perform, about the same as a high-end PC graphics card at the time it is released. Given how PC graphics cards aren't very close to rendering movies in realitime yet, I think it is safe to assume that any such statements made by Sony marketing are bullshit.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  9. Lalah! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth. The new consoles can't do much new because no one is risking it, they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over. That's just how the market is these days.

    Tell me when we're seeing Virtual reality, because untill then "inovation" is a word Microsoft like to throw infront of their patents.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Lalah! by Raunch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We'll see Halo 3, Metal gear 4, Mario sunshine 2 and so on and so forth they just want better graphics and the same thing over and over.

      I think that's a little unfair to Nintendo. Mario sunshine was a very different game from all previous marios, not different to the level of others but a signifigant difference. Metroid went from platformer to first person and Zelda was cell shaded and set at sea. I mean, a Zelda that involves a ton of sailing? Then there's Pikmin. I mean, if that is more of the same to you, then you need a new interface, not a different game.

      Maybe xbox, maybe PS3. But I'll eagerly await anything that comes out of Nintendo.

      --
      George II -- Spreading Freedom and American values, one bomb at a time.
  10. Yep, this comment sums it up... by Gruneun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We can thrown more polygons around and have better AI but if it doesn't make for a better game then that's not very useful."

  11. Realism? by techstar25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like everyone's goal is graphics realism and immersion. Isn't anybody trying innovate anymore? Thank God for Nintendo. You want immersion? You want to run...they gave you the power pad. You want to punch...they gave you the power glove. You want to shoot...they gave you the light gun. You want to play music...they gave you the Konga bongos. While Sony and Micsrosoft are trying to improve their graphics, Nintendo is actually immersing players in the game by innovating hardware...the only area left for innovation.

  12. Re:Physics? by MaineCoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By "more realistic physics" it means collisions, physical chain reactions, complex shapes, more correct aerodynamic reactions, water simulation.

    Think Half Life 2, but with objects being more realistic in reaction (all those crates acted like they were hollow and made of balsa wood... which, if you break them open, you discover they are!).

    Consider a complex problem of an urban combat situation ala Black Hawk Down, but lets even make it more complex: a helicopter taking a hit to the tail, going into a destabilized spin, slamming at an angle against a building and sliding along, tearing things up as it goes.

    These days, the results would be: the helicopter takes the hit, which blows it up, and the dead husk falls to the ground, maybe with some forward velocity retained. The building would likely be unharmed.

    Ragdoll these days tend to look like dolls made of rubber. GOOD calculations are very CPU expensive, and multiple iterations are as well, so as few iterations of very fast low resolution calculations are used in physics these days to leave CPU time for other things, such as AI logic.

    --
    Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  13. Arent they just becoming PC's? by GatesGhost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Both MS and PS want to have an "entertainment center", basically a machine that plays games, movies, music. pc's already do this, but they are much more upgrade friendly.

  14. Lots of console hype... by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm positive the next generation of consoles will be very nice to behold, but I also remember all of the hype surrounding the PS2 launch and how the PS2 was such a super computer that they had to ban exports to Iraq, and how it was "movie quality" and such... And then it came out, and it was a clear step up, but not nearly the giant leap the hype suggested.

    I suspect we'll see the same thing here.

    The other thing to worry about is that the increasing reliance of highly detailed art means games are going to take much longer to produce, cost a lot more to make, and those costs will certainly be transfered to the consumer. Not to mention that when you're making games that require 100s of artists and with artists being a limited resource, you'll be seeing less projects spread among less game developer/publishers, with less competition and thus less gameplay innovation...

    So things aren't *all* rosy...

    Still, I'm sure I'll buy the Xbox2 on release day... I'm a sucker for new things.

  15. Re:And in between? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's see. Nintendo also made rumble paks, analog sticks, 4 controller ports, hard drive in a console (64DD), and the touchscreen in the DS. There are other things, but they haven't ended up being so popular, like the e-reader.

    Hell Sony has been leaning on Nintendo's old SNES controller design for a decade now, only adding rumble and analog sticks after Nintendo introduces them.

    Say what you want about Nintendo, but without their constant effort, console gaming would not be anything close to what it is today.

    Maybe, just maybe, the poster was picking out three simple examples, and not attempting to be exhaustive. An illustrative sample if you will.

  16. Detail vs. Gameplay by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that all this technology just increases the effort necessary to produce a given quantity of satisfying gameplay.

    Once you add physics into the mix, every object needs to be broken down into more parts, represented in more ways, its possible impact on the game logic dealt with. (No point putting in a maze puzzle if you can bash through walls.)

    So now you need hyper-detailed models with hyper-detailed textures and somewhat-detailed physics representations to produce something that looks as good as a second-tier film from ten years ago.

    And the state of the art is, say, Half Life 2, a game which provides gorgeous graphics but runs you around on rails -- because providing that level of detail in a more open-ended game is simply prohibitively expensive. Indeed, by all accounts, Half Life 2's game play is unusually restrictive, even by the standards of First Person Shooters.

    The key to me is choosing a level of design detail that suits the game you plan to make and then hiring an art director who can make the game look fabulous at that level of detail -- rather than maxing out the level of detail for the hardware currently available, and then producing the best game you can given the budget constraints you're stuck with.

    The way things are trending we'll have games where you only get to visit one room because it costs millions of dollars to texture the pillows, insects, cracks in the wall, navel fluff, etc.

  17. WHat about innovation on the PS2? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know if you can exactly credit Sony for this, but what about the EyeToy, and headsets with non-traditional uses (i.e. Karioke Revolution instead of just voice chat in multiplayer games).

    I would say these are far better examples of innovation, becuase they hve both been wildly successful (something like over 10 million EyeToys sold now!) unlike the examples you provided.

    Microsoft has not done much, but even there one comapny had a very cool full custom control for a mech game (that really was more the game maker than Microsoft at work).

    Also, the PS2 has had some really original titles like Rez or Katamari Damacy. Nintendo has had some different stuff out, but nothing quite that edgy. Not even aything as wierd as Seaman on the Dreamcast!

    I am a big fan of Nintendo, the hardware and games they create. But I do think Sony deserves a lot of credit for a really diverse library.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. Re:What I wnat to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here: http://www.ps3portal.com/?view=article&article=68& PHPSESSID=b5f69f43a688ce7ff097b7ac91e96f40

  19. Re:Marketing... by Metapsyborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    PS3 will provide graphics indistinguishable from movies.

    So, what's left for the PS4 then?

    Quote from the PS4 press release: "PS4 will provide graphics indistinguishable from reality."

    What about the PS9? Come on, you saw those commercials that aired when the PS2 was release. Best. Commercial. Evar.

    --
    (\(\
    (^.^) INFECTED
    (")")
  20. Did anyone see this part...? by Sarcastic+Assassin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Was I the only one who caught this little blurb:
    [Gerhard Florin, head of EA in Europe,] said the distribution method for games would also change radically in the next round of consoles.

    "A gamer could buy a starter disc for 10 euros. When he goes home he goes online and he could buy AI and levels as you go.
    Most of the other posts (at least the ones modded +5) seem to focus on the hardware/marketing BS. Yeah, yeah, that's all well and good, marketing BS is as it always has been: BS. But if something actually similiar to this "starter disc" system were to be released with the next generation of consoles, it would be Very Bad. Think Infinium's Phantom: a system where you download the game, and you never really have a physical copy of the game. I don't know about you, but I despise the idea of some gaming-on-demand system. All the obvious problems people pointed out with the Phantom immediately resurface in my mind: what if you pay for the game, and the server goes down? What if you want to play the game, and the content provider decides to go under maintainence? We've already seen this in thousands upon thousands of disgruntled WoW gamers (though I know that Blizzard is committed to fixing the problems, and that wasn't meant to be an insult of Blizzard at all). For the sake of sane people everywhere, I sincerely hope this newfangled "content delivery system" isn't put into place.

    Also, am I the only one who just wants his consoles to play games? Granted, if I had the cash, I'd build a media center PC in a second, but that'd be dedicated to media. I'm really not feeling good about this whole convergence thing. The convergence thing, along with Bill Gates' push for "trusted computing" really make me trust my computer less.