Slashdot Mirror
Nvidia CEO Talks Next-Gen Consoles
kukyfrope writes "Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO of Nvidia recently shared his thoughts with the San Jose Mercury News about next-gen consoles, claiming that developing a chip for the 360 was too expensive and that the inclusion of a Blu-ray player will help the console last for 10 years. Huang also predicts that the 360 cannot afford to be a DVD-only system by Christmas 2007, likening the 360-DVD vs PS3-Blu-ray battle to the Dreamcast-CD vs PS2-DVD battle. 'The first PlayStation had a CD-ROM drive. The PlayStation 2 had DVD. It makes no sense for the PlayStation 3 to use DVDs. To postpone it by a few months so they could include Blu-ray was a master stroke. When that comes out, it's going to look so much more advanced than last-generation game consoles,' Huang said."
Doesn't Nvidia make the graphics chip for the PS3, but not the 360? Isn't that a bit like Firestone saying that Chevies are better than Fords because Fords use Goodyear tires, but the Chevies come with Firestone?
How many consoles have games available ten years after launch?
Just as Sony has talked about the PS2 having a ten-year lifespan, Huang believes that the PS3 will also last ten years
... cause I'm sure it'll be pricey!
So, we're talking about perhaps a 2016 Release Date for PS4? Just making sure, so I can start saving up my $$ now
Yeah because the ps3 was released ten years after the ps2.... What they mean is that the console will be in production for that long. For example, the psone was just bought out of production last year. That's pretty close to ten years if it hasn't passed it.
The ps2 will be a ten year system if they can still sell it for the next 5ish years. Which they probably can due to strong brand name appeal and the expense of the new system. (ps2's still outsell xbox360's week by week now).
Hmmm... Pie...
The actual uses of Blu-Ray versus the initial outpouring of cash are the real concerns.
Dreamcast's failure had little to do with the storage medium as many games released for PS2
were also released for dreamcast. (Not every game USES the full capacity of the medium)
Another thing to think about is that the world hadn't had a *significant* change in home video formats
for more than a decade when DVD first surfaced. The public was ready and willing to buy into DVD.
This time around the *demand* simply doesn't exist. Sony will of course try to *generate* demand
via bruteforce marketing, but ultimately this may prove to be a mistake.
BTW. There does seem to be a slight hint of bitterness in his comments, which is understandable given
that EVERY one of the next-gen consoles are powered by their rival's GPUs. (ATI)
It seems odd for Nvidia to claim that developing a GPU for the 360 was too expensive when ATI managed to
do not only that, but the PS3 and Wii GPUs as well.
Nvidia dropped the ball big time by not developing a new GPU for at least one of the nextgen consoles...
My issue with this article is that it assumes that the winner of the next-gen console war will be largely based on which console comes out on top as the graphics powerhouse between the PS3 and the 360. The fact that the PS3 has Blu-Ray and the 360 has the pedestrian DVD format is not going to swing buyers to Sony's side in and of itself. What will contribute to the success of the respective consoles will be the same thing (and arguably only thing) that has ever mattered when it comes to video games: the games themselves. Graphics will only take a console as far as they are able to make games that people want to play. The only thing that movitates anyone to go out and drop $XXX on a console is the fact that there is at least one game on it that they HAVE to play. I think that dispite all of the clamouring over prices and graphics power, in the buyers mind it will eventually come down to "do I want to play Halo 3 or Metal Gear Solid 4?" (or whatever the must have exclusive games end up being)
He sounds remorseful enough that it indicates he wished Microsoft had picked Nvidia. But then again, he's also a bit glad:
So, here's the president of one of the main suppliers for the PS3 talking about how Microsoft didn't choose him, but even if they did, his company couldn't afford to actually build the GPU for the 360? Excuse me if I don't take his comments with a bucket full of salt.
To top it off, as in any article discussing graphics, we're about ten years away from photorealism, just as we were in 2001 and 1996.
To his credit though, I really liked this exchange which is in the full interview:
His response is, "Screw graphics, let's work on gameplay." I can't knock him for that.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Now there's an ignorant statement if I've ever read one. Since when did storage medium directly affect the talent and output of a development team? That's like saying your daughter will be a better driver if you buy her a Lexus instead of a Honda.
"360-DVD vs PS3-Blu-ray battle to the Dreamcast-CD vs PS2-DVD battle"
Eh, I'm not so sure about this. First of all, the Dreamcast didn't use a CD-ROM. It was a proprietary 'GD-ROM' that was actually a higher capacity disk (at least 1GB, i don't remember the details). The point wasn't that the dreamcast's media wasn't big enough to hold the content the developers were looking to put out, it was just that the machine didn't play DVD movies.
The 360 can play DVD movies just like the PS2 and PS3. It just can't play *BluRay* movies. The catch is, we're yet to find out whether people are even going to even care about that or not (format wars, HDTV requirement, DRM, etc).
Back then, one system had functionality that the other lacked, and that added functionality happened to be something that was important to alot of consumers. That being said, it surely wasn't the lack of DVD video functionality that broke SEGA.
We won't be seeing *games* that push the limits of each system's storage capacity for some time. Not to mention, most buyers buy the system that has the games they want to play. The only exception to that is a parent who doesn't care either way, so they'll more than likely opt for the cheaper (360/wii) or more kid-friendly (wii) of the bunch.
Han shot first.
IMHO, the more advanced the console is, the less capacity it needs on the media. Back in the PS1 days, a large portion of the disk was dedicated to pre-rendered video and audio. The graphics on the new systems are advanced enough to produce the same quality video on-the-fly using an instruction set that is much smaller than the amount of space needed for the pre-rendered stuff.
So if the games don't need the extra space, the compatibility with movies is the only real reason to choose one media type over the other. Since I believe both new DVD formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) will fail, the added cost to the PS3 isn't worth it.
Not to mention it's not like Blu-Ray is the GPU/CPU/RAM/controller -- it's just the media that the game comes on. DVD's already offer hefty storage, I have yet to own a game that takes more than 1 DVD (not counting bonus materials)... so having a Blu-Ray drive in a VIDEO GAME SYSTEM doesn't seem very important to me, or anyone who actually cares about gaming, considering it increases the price by $200 while increasing the level-o-fun by zero.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
The First Prince of Persia was an Apple II release. It later saw PORTS to other platforms, including but not limited to: the Mac, the PC, and the SNES.