Slashdot Mirror
Sony Says PS3 Will Be Developer Friendly
The next Playstation console has been designed with ease of development in mind, according to a story on GamesIndustry.biz. The PS3 an its relationship to the development community was discussed in depth at a GDC session earlier this week. From the article: "The PlayStation Portable's comprehensive set of tools and APIs has largely been well-received by developers, but for PlayStation 3, the company plans to go even further - adopting a number of familiar industry standard systems that will give game creators a running start on the platform."
What I've heard about the cell is pretty revolutionary, and promises incredible performance, but also looks like a nightmare to code for.
No out of order execution, 2 different kinds of SIMD, with 8 independent vector processing cores to keep running, programer controlled memories instead of caches in the conventional sense? Yikes.
Unless they're *WAY* ahead of the rest of the world on complier design and technologies, it is going to be very hard to get the most out of the Cell.
Sony says the Xbox2 will be a bitch to program.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
.. Sony Said PS2 Will Be Able To Render ToyStory In RealTime. . .
I think they HAVE to say these kinds of things to keep developers from fleeing. Lip Service. With how different the cell is looking and how stodgy Sony has been with providing development support, is anyone shocked developers are worried? Costs of development are going up. Nintendo's Gamecube was very easy to develop for. Revolution will be equally friendly. Microsoft's unified development environment is looking very good for dev teams everywhere. Sony better make life VERY easy or developers won't wait around.
What!? lol.... "like Sega at the top of their power were able to do with the Saturn"... The Saturn's difficulty for developers is the number one reason it failed so miserably... The PS1 was very dev friendly, and that's why it shot to the top, b/c it was easier than both the Saturn and N64.... the only reason PS2 had any developer support was because they had such a strangle hold on the industry from PS1's success.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
OK, in all seriousness, this sounds good. The PS2 had a hard time at the start of it's life cycle because it was tought to develop for since there were little in the way of libraries for it.
That said, I hope Sony pushes things like OpenGL (I guess they couldn't do Direct3D), SDL, OpenAL, and other such things. Truely open standards.
The number and (seeming) quality of PSP games seems to show that Sony learned its lesson, so it should be interesting to see how well they do (from a developer standpoint) with the PS3. I wonder if they went as far as to develop some basic game engines (a 3D platformer, a racer, a FPS, etc) that (when modified quite a bit) would produce good games but give developers a good launching pad. I doubt it, but that would probably be very good (especially for the little guys who, unlike EA, can't afford to put 100 guys and 12 months into just the engine).
On a side note, I think it would be very cool if they exposed the functionality to hackers more. Make it so you can load games into system memory and execute them so the homebrew people have something to play with, just cut them off from mass storage (no HD no CD/DVD) so you wouldn't be able to pirate things. Give people C++, a few libraries, and OpenGL and they could get some cool stuff (I know I'd love to try it). Basically a Net Yahorzee/PS2 Linux without having to buy special hardware (yeah, I bet I spelled that wrong). Plus if you give that to the tinkerer community, they have less of a reason to go figure out a way to force it to do that since it's provided (if they provide a functional version).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
But notice that after Sega came out with their developer friendly console, they were soon on the way to destrcution.
What you say?
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
That Sony is going toward a (albeit stripped down) version of OpenGL as their graphics library is interesting.
We already know that Linux runs on several Sony platforms. We know that Sony isn't really all that comfortable with the idea of doing business with Microsoft, especially now that MS is a competitor with them in the gaming front.
Sony also has pretty good manufacturing and distribution capacity.
So, consider the following scenario:
Sony releases a PCI-Express version of their latest graphics chipset for their games, along with Windows drivers, and releases full programming specs to X.org to enable writing a Free Driver.
Sony releases video boards based upon said chip.
Sony says to developers, "OK, you can develop for Direct-X, and run on Windows and X-Box. Or you can develop for OpenGL and SDL, and run on Windows, Mac, Linux, and Playstation. Your choice."
Discuss.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Well considering the reports that Sony has signed Nvidia to develop the graphics engine for the PS3, I'd say OpenGL is a strong possibility.
From what I've read, it seems that Microsoft signed ATI for Xbox Next because Nvidia kept trying to push OpenGL (something they are very good at).
--kinadian
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/03/09/news_61201 23.html
- Reading this article makes it seem like a decent possibility. First, IBM already has linux running on cell in their labs, and there are rumours that sony does too. Then there was a previous article that hinted that the compiler toolchain used for ps3 is open source, GCC maybe? Then, the article above talks about opengl and nvidia's CG, both excel in linux. And it also says that it uses an operating system to help manage the cell. I think it's alteast very good odds that the ps3 will have a custom linux backend.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
From what I've read, it seems that Microsoft signed ATI for Xbox Next because Nvidia kept trying to push OpenGL
Call me cynical but it might also have something to do with the screwing Nvidia gave to MS over the XBox.
MS made the mistake of buying chips from Nvidia who didn't see it MS way when MS decided they needed them to be cheaper when they were trying to lower the construction cost of the XBox. Nvidia was the only one really making money on each XBox sold. I expected them to go with a different company all along after that.
At least MS learned their lesson. For XBox2 they licensed ATI technologies not the actual chips.
The unintended consequence in all this is that Nvidia made noises that if XBox2 was XBox game compatible Nvidia might sue because they would allow ATI to emulate Nvidia proprietary technologies. Whether the XBox2 is backwards compatible and whether Nvidia actually cares enough to go after MS if it is may be a very different story.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
This is the kind of place where companies should be competeing. Instead of FUD slinging make superior technology. If one platform is easier than another to code for, programmers will adopt it. If the games are more plentiful and of higher quailty then gamers will come. This idea is good business. Hopefully it's true.
"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato